Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPP 87-02 APARTMENTS/SHADOW MOUNT DRIVE 1987 PRE_'Cl'SE FLAN TENTATIVE TRACT ;BONE CHANGE PARCEL MAP- VAFlIANCE REFER TO:. APPLICANT: LOCATION : REQUEc;r:_ EXISTING ZONE: PREPARATION PROGRESS DATE BY COMMENTS APPLICATION RECEIVED _LEGAL PUBLICATION SENT _NOTICES SENT FIELD INVESTIGATION DEPTS. NOTIFIED BUILDING ENGINEERING' FIRE POLICE RECREATION & PARKS SCHOOL DISTRICT �DIVI;:ION OF HIGHWAYS FLOOD CONTROL •' o- PRELIMINARY MEETING �,TAFF REPORT w FINAL PLAN APPROVAL - PRECISE PLAN (6) _-LAN[3SCAPING PLAN (5) �PL.AN. DIRECTOR MOD. (6) HEARINGS & ACTIONS DATE ACTION VOTE REVIEW BOARD HEARING P.C. HEARING PUBLISHED PC. PUBLIC HEARING APPLICANT NOTIFIED GG PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE NO. RESOLUTION NO. EFFECTIVE DATE RECORDED FOR DATA- BANK ZONING MAP CORRECTED U 2y .IRR .73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 _' ^" - I II�r� IIN a Ir ARMAND L.FONTAINE Aj IMMOTIRIO" 73517 HAYSTACK RD. INSVWENT ADDM -- I PALM DESERT, 92260lik / NOSUCHNUMBER 627-273- 013, 014 ^/ YACUS REFUSED - O✓J EXPI D RNARD ` Frio INITIALS C NOTICE OF DETERMINATION ' Negative Declaration TO: (X) Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ( ) Secretary for Resources County of Riverside 1416 Ninth St. , Rm 1311 4080 Lemon Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Riverside, CA 92502 FROM: CITY OF PALM DESERT 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. ' Project Title/Common Name: Stendell 13 apartment units (PP 87-2) Date of Project Approval : May 14, 1987 State Clearinghouse Number ( if submitted) :. N/A Contact Person: Steve Smith Project Location: North side Larrea, west of Portola. Project Description: 13 apartment units. This is to advise that the City of Palm Desert has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1 . The project , ( ) will , (X) will not, have a significant effect on the environment. 2. An Environmental Impart Report was prepared in connection with this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. X A Negative Declaration was prepared for this Project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. A copy of the Negative Declaration may be examined at the above city hall address. 3. Mitigation measures (X) were, ( ) were not, made a condition of the approval of the project. 4. A statement of Overriding Considerations ( ) was, (X) was not, adopted for thi projec . ignatu e Title BOARD OF SUPERVISORS i� n a IE D Date Received for Filing J U N q 1 S Please return date-stamped copy in the enclnsed envelope. ! Ghif BOARD A.MALONEYOFSUP CLERK d tAa BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County of Riverside,SYde of California BY R the QAI�MAXaf'Assistant 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 April 13, 1987 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. PP 87-2 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by HSM PROPERTIES for approval of a precise plan of design and negative declaration of environmental Impact for a 13 unit apartment project on property zoned R-3 (multifamily residential ) located between Shadow Mountain Drive and Larrea Street, 450 feet west of Portola Avenue, more particularly described as: ` APN 627-273-006 & 016 =EK-I - �LJ 0_I R3 4) N 1 ��1 y R-� (�ll) R 3(9) P•7 (4)- R 3 (4) R_3 l o C�J- . c c-I,',s.R , c-(� siR• I C-1 S.P. Y I S.Py; C-I , •P. _ G-1; S.F? ! � III IC+ 1 C•),S.P. S.P C-I C _ - r C— SUBJECT PROPERTY ARDEI ' R-3 20,000( 1RREA (4) < z a k E a `T R-I R-3 Q © - . i s 0. .. :R-13(4) �` C I P SO AnE ` JRI 'Jc G-ADOW NCJ4->'V �k'VT 00 (3) R=3 13,000 (3) A.4 D E WOO D 00 ' R-i 12,000 R-I P - _ R-3 (3) SIRE P T RA_ w _.KE < R-11 12 00 R-1 i C 0 R Y GTRE E T < ~ _J < P.R.-7 Q . Vi R-F- T R E E T (C.U.P.03-73 - � - ` PAROSEL.A 5T R-1 � p R-1 20,000 •1 a iPEPPERGRA55 _ 5 T R E E 7 '�'• \ R— I " z —1 < = a. R-` p / f A R. - ....i F A,I R W 4 'I S. . 4Tq R.3 (4)1 t -" E E•� SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, May 14, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert City Hall . 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert. California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the city council (or planning commission) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk May 1 , 1987 City of Palm Desert, California 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 April 13, 1987 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. PP 87-3 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the. Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by HSM PROPERTIES for approval of a precise plan of design and negative declaration of environmental impact for a 13 unit apartment project to be constructed in the R-3 (multifamily residential ) zone on the north side of Shadow Mountain Drive, 440 feet east of San Luis. Rey, more particularly described as: APN 627-273-013 8 014 aU� R-3 (4) N-3 (#I) P R-3(s) 3 a) I I Ia C'1j S..P. C— IV, S..P' � I� I I , I a IC-I, IS.P. , Ii i ' IIII C-;I� ISl . i a a ® a �w A' V 9 9 = C-I ,S.P. ➢a IC-I , S.P _lL Ll-.1; IS. +� -1 + Y r� R 41 C I, S.P s C-1 C-I - E ft C-1 z o r a: Y `� R\320• RR EA <_r �aRREA : R-3(41 ' © C I O: ..II w M C $ a D O w CUN al v ]R I V E 2- 3 13 000 ('AI - ;13,Q00 ' (3) CA, _ t-1 12,000 SUBJECT PROPERTY R-I '(z,00o R-I p iR.3 r Ra„ w _'AKE iUA TREE SIRE E T R-I 12 00 R_1 ; CRI C0 R , t-i 20,000 R-1 16,000- P.R .-7 a " a� y P E R S T R E E T (C,U.P.03 73 P P.C.) trl 20,000 R-120,000 s J 1 I Q r 2 \ = I N • 0 N S T R E E T R_ 1—( aI t-t-•20o-,000 : 20,oOU Rat - F0. g SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, May 14, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert City Hall , 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert. California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the city council (or planning commission) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk May 1 , 1987 City of Palm Desert, California � �US.PGSiAi:h- G- APR z 4'66 73.610 FRED WAKING DRIVE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 �+A Ll(� • (n1 ,-, LQ 69615SL -�. a ,ems i a W o R IBERT W. & JEANETTE STEWART O a 24 WINDWARD DR. � � od LAAA NIGUEL, CA. 92677, y o� -273-017 ' 627 STET: 8:l L52735C]. f�lU l'1:ME=E:XPn . -- STEEwART wsr-UR AV "•�W 601. LACORONA nL:l_NAI: CA9;b25-231.9 FZE'1'L1FZN TO SENDER '-�f:Q�Tr off leDainni =XN=( I2o'(b 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 April 13, 1987 33 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE a I CASE NO. PP 87-2 j NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by HSM PROPERTIES for approval of a precise plan of design and negative declaration of environmental impact for a 13 unit apartment project on property zoned R-3 (multifamily residential ) located between Shadow Mountain Drive and Larrea Street, 450 feet west of Portola Avenue, more particularly described as: APN 627-273-006 8 016 �U L:3L3 i4a R-3(9) P-3T4Y 'i R-3 (4) ,< R-3 . I`, S. P' c-) e U I i , �s.a , � i c-1J S1R• I C-I 'S.P. a 0 ® a .WTU 9 9 4 W I N R _ W �� i� ~f ` 1 1 � •S.� ! i i l ly�r ✓ .i —� —E A S E o' �_ C t,S.P. S.PI = C-1 ' -1 J IJ JL � 4RuEN-I / Rg20 ooa C-t SUBJECT PROPERTY 6. (�/ © RREA 2 RREA ST R-3 I � R-1 C-1 +3(3} 0' :R-:i(:4) 2 ; p sO A A 7 V ;R'VE 3 00 (3) R=3 13,000 (3) �'A\\ CA,N DL E W G G p Od R-1 12,000 R-I .,� p ' - W _ {ut R-3 (3) SIRE E r ra__w __+E R-1 _- --� R 200 KIC0R . SrREE16,000 _ w P.R .-7 ;3 T R E E T (C.U.P03-73p PAAOSEL�A STPL.) R-1 209000 t N < zPE-PERGRASS S T R E E T '! /- \ R- 1 o 1• GV,VfiV R, .. _ +.i 46 R 'NAI J F t -STREET S + R'3 (4) SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, May 14, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert City Hall , 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the city council (or planning commission) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk May 1 . 1987 City of Palm Desert, California 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 April 13, 1987 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. PP 87-3 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the . Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by HSM PROPERTIES for approval of .a precise plan of design and negative declaration of environmental impact for a 13 unit apartment project to be constructed in the R-3 (multifamily residential ) zone on the north side of Shadow Mountain Drive, 440 feet east of San Luis Rey, more particularly described as: APN 627-273-013 & 014 R•3 (4) —7 Q A-3 1411 R 3f9) r-3 (4) rtC-1+ s.e I c1 s.a. C— I , S. P: l I c-1,I P. '!I c-'.Ij Ise a U ® a .W A 'f, :._ 9 a4 C E 4 I C-I,S.P-T IC-L, P -14�G-1;- •S.fl ; Ili III 'J� � 4S E 0 ['Tc -E C— ,—C- I, S.P C-1 CI C—I -I W © R-3 20,000( 1 1. n ¢ �T L A P R E A R-3(4T ; �aRREA C I 0° . I 16 s P k 3(3) 72) - R-3(4) 3 ,060 7- 7MCu '+ " A .y OR I w Cu N ]IN JP-vE 2- 3 13,000 :13,000 ' (3) CAN OCEw F 12 000 SUBJECT PROPERTY R 1 '12,000 R-1 p R_3 a MA„ 'x LAKE 4UA TREE srRE E r R-1 12 00 �R-1 z - d CHIC ORr u 2-i 20,000 R-1 16,000- P.R . � y P E R S T R E E T (C.U.P.03 73 w P tic PC.) Z-I 209000 R-t 20,000 a l -T R E E T R- I .I S ; ry Y 0 N � 4 � t-+-eo;000.. ... -1 2a,ooQ NR*1 . __ - , _ F SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, May 14, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Pa 1 m Desert City Hall , 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those Issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the city council (or planning commission) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk May 1 , 1987 City of Palm Desert, California I Gfl4ljT oiP 5 n 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 P 'URpFO TO SENDER ALLAN FAL IUSUFFICIE"AboRESS No WILLIAM . SETZLER I♦ kUi�l&ER 73950 M UNTAIN VIEW AVE. REFUSED--� - PALM D SERT, CA. 92260 627-3 1-028 E I PP ARD _ -y 1 v'a-- ,� 4} RIVERSIDE COUNTY of CAL 1,, / FIRE DEPARTMENT ; \` �-L{ „ -; IN COOPERATION WITH THE -� 9 COUNTY N."t - CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY RIVERSIDE RAY HEBRARD MFNr of 5°~may FIRE CHIEF .210 WESTSANIACIN11O AVENUE Wc- fl 7,1117 PERRIS,CALIFORNIA 92370 TELEPHONE:(714)657.3183 Ramon Diaz Planning and Community Development Director " � � w ij; 73510 Fred Waring Palm Desert, CA 92260 NIAR 0 9 1987 Reference: PP 17-2 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPAff1BRVlicant: H•%^•S, ARCWrIQS CITY OF PALM DESERT Dear Mr. Ramon Diaz The following fire protection requirements are in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code and Life Safety Code standards. 1 . Install a water system capable of delivering3000 GPM fire flow from any fire hydrant for a 3 hour.duration in addition to domestic 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 building is -" more than2M feet from a fire hydrant measured along approved vehicular travel ways . a. exterior surface of hydrant barrels and heads shall be painted chrome yellow, and the tops and nozzle caps shall be painted green. b. curbs shall be painted red 15 feet in either direction from each hydrant. c. hydrants shall not be located closer than 2.$_ feet to any building. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original and three 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 witb the following certification: "Ilcertify that the design of the water system in PP 7- 3 is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Fire Marshal ." 5. Prior to delivery of combustible materials to the building site, the required water system shall be installed, operating and delivering the required flow. 6. Additional fire protection requirements may be necessary when the applicant submits specific plans for consideration and approval . 7. All buildings over S000 square feet require an approved fire sprinkler system. 8. Install fire extinguisher within 75' travel distance of all portions of all appartments. Very truly yours, RAY HEBRARD Fire Chief MIKE MCCONNELL Fire Marshal 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 July 28, 1988 ARCEIITECiURAL REVIEW OJ4-ffSSICN ACTION CASE NO: PP 87-2 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): HSM PROPERTIES, P.O. Box 3352, Palm Desert, Ca 92261. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Reconsider the requirement to add wood facia to the carports. LOCATION: 73-820 Shadow Mountain. ZONE. R-3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Upon reviewing the submitted plans and presentations by staff and by the applicant, the architectural commission denied request be applicant (see attached minutes). Date of Action: July 26, 1988 Vote: Carried 4-0 (An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ STAFF O0PP=S: Please read the attached minutes. Upon receiving final approval it is your responsibility to submit the plans approved by the architectural convassion to the department of building and safety. CONTINUED CASES: In order to be placed on the next meetings agenda, new or revised plans must be submitted no later than 9:00 a.m. the Monday prior to the next meeting. mINtTrES ARcHITECIMAL CO+T'IISSI(N £ `� SUBJECT TO JULY 26, 2988 , REVISION 2. CASE NO: PP 87-23 AMENu4ENT APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): WILLIAM OTEEFE, 18002 Skypark Circle, Irvine, CA 92714. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT:. Approval of a two-story office project. LOCATION: Southeast of Cook and 'Hovley Lane. ZONE: S.I. Condition of approval was that a preliminary landscape plan be submitted showing refinements. (Ccaynissioner Sullivan opposed). 3. CASE NO: CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): STEVEN LAWSON, .78-401 Highway 111, Suite C, La Quinta, CA 92253. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Certificate of Compliance for 16 units. LOCATION: Northwest of Driftwood and Deep Canyon. ZONE: R-3 (3) III. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: PP 87-2 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): HSM PROPERTIES, P.O. Box 3352, Palm Desert, Ca 92261. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOL1au: Reconsider the requirement to add wood facia to the carports. LOCATION: 73-820 Shadow Mountain. ZONE: R-3 The caaaission felt that the wood fascia should be installed on the carports because it gives them a more refined look. 2 MINUTES SUBJECT TO K--Ia IFT ARQIITE�1vRAL azTffsslCN REVISION JULY 26, 2988 UIA' It was roved by Commissioner Drury, seconded by Cannissioner Sullivan to deny the applicants request to delete the requirement rement to install the wood fascia on the carports. .Carried 4-0. 2. CASE NO: PP 85-5 APPLICANT (AMID ADDRESS): CHARTER OCNMUNITIES, 3160 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 100, San Diego, CA 92108. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGH: Approval of .roof tile color and addition to landscape plan. LOCATICN: East side of Monterey, north of San Gorgonio ZONE: R-1, S.O. The applicant submitted two pictures, each showing a different style roof top, to the commission so that they could obtain a better idea Of what was being proposed. One picture showed a building with a two colored concrete tile roof and the other showed a three colored tiled roof. The applicant is proposing. a three colored, painted concrete tile roof. The applicant also submitted landscape plans for approval. It was moved by Ccxmdssioner Drury, seconded by Commissioner Gregory to approve the three colored painted concrete tile roof. Carried 3-0-1 (Chairman Gregory abstained). It was moved by Commissioner Sullivan, seconded by Commissioner Drury to approve the landscape plans as submitted. Carried 3-0-1 (Chairman Gregory abstained). B. Preliminary Plans: NONE. IV. MISCELLANEOUS: V. ORAL COM- ICATICNS: Mr. Smith asked the commission if they wish to consider cancelling one meeting in August. The commission agreed to consider cancelling the August 23, 1988, meeting. This item will be placed on the August 9, 1988, agenda for formal consideration by the commission. 3 HSM Properties P.O. Box 3352 Palm Desert, CA 92261 July 18, 1988 City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Committee 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 RE: Carports - 73-820 Shadow Mountain Dear Committee Members : Please accept this letter as a formal request for your committee to (reconsider the requirement to add wood facia to the carports)at our apartment site located at the above referenced location. I have enclosed photos of the structure without the facia and feel that the carports have a very clean and unobtrusive appearance. I will wait for your response and appreciate your reconsideration. c re Sien St dell HSM Properties KS/ds encl. �j0 rJG , IL 3 PROOF OF PUBLATION This space Is for the My Clerk's Filing Stamp (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County of Riverside CITY OF PALM DESERT I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to Proof of Publication of or Interested in the above-entitled matter. I CASE NO. PP 87-2 ............. am the principal clerk of the printer of the .............,....................... DESERTPOST ....................................... CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE ........................I................. CASE NO.PP 87-2 a newspaper of general circulation, printed NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held be- fore the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request H 1-Me e k 1 by HMS PROPERTIES for approval of a precise plan of design and and ublished ... 1.................. negative declaration of environmental impact for a 13 unit apart- p '• ment project on property zoned R-3 (multifamily residential) lo. cate feet Palm Desert west ofPot Shad"olaAvenue,e untain Drive and Lafrea ri more particularly O bed as: APN In the City of ............................ ,., 627-273-006&016 ' County Of Riverside, and Which news- SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 3. 1987. at paper has been adjudged a newspaper 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert City Hell, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert,California,at which time of general circulation by the Superior and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. , Court of the County of Riverside, State Of If you challenge the proposed actions In court,you may be limited to raising only those Issues you or someone else raised at the pub. lic hearing described in this notice,or In written correspondence California,under the date of„A/5, 19 6 4 delivered to the city council(or planning commission)at,or prior to,the.public hearing. RAMON A.DIAZ,Secretary 8 3 6 5 8 Patm Desert Planning Commission Case Number ................; that the notice, (Pub.D.P.Feb.20.1987) of which the annexed Is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire Issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: ........z/zo ...... ...................................... all In the year 19..8.7. I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing Is true and correct. Dated ..................... California,thls..2.04h.day of..Ea .b., .19 .11 n lure (/ 1- Froe c001411 of phis bis nk farm In W be secured from 1 CALIFORNIA UREASPAPERSERVICE Legal Advertising Clearing Hause 120 WOSI Second St., Los Angeles,Calif. 90012 Telephone: (2131625.2541 phoeoreouall GENERAL Proolof Publication when orderino this form. 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346.0611 March 28, 1988 ARa11T'ECIURAL REVIEW ca4grSSION ACTION CASE ND: PP 87-2 & 3 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): KEN STENDALL NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SUJUH: Request carport design approval for two 13 unit residential projects. LOCATION: Shadow Mountain Drive. ' ZONE: R-3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Upon reviewing the submitted plans and presentations by staff and by the applicant, the architectural commission approved this case by minutes motion subject to conditions (see attached minutes). Date of Action: March 22, 1988 Vote: Carried 4-0 (An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. ) MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL OCl2MSSION MARCH 22, 1988 2. CASE NO: PP 87-2 & 3 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): LEI STENDALL NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUQ-rr: Request carport design approval for two 13 unit residential projects. LOCATION: Shadow Mountain Drive. ZONE: R-3 Subject to the applicant submitting plans showing the detail of the connection of the wood facia to the structure and the manner in which the wood pieces will be joined to each other. 3. CASE NO: 1440 SA/REF. (PP 87-14) APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RAY-AL ENTERPRISES, INC. , 73-170 Ramon Road, Thousand Palms, CA 92276. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of Sign Program. LOCATION: 72-880 Fred Waring Drive. ZONE: O.P. Ccinwissioner Sullivan abstained. III. CASES. A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: 1436 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALMS TO PINES CANVAS, Pinyon Pines, P.O. Box 69, Mountain Center, CA 92361. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOLU": Approval of 2 awnings over suite entries. LOCATION: 72-608 El Paseo. ZONE: PC (3) S.P. 2 (;:zlo�� oq NAOM IT&a@4 ,,, ,• 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 November 16, 1987 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION CASE NO: PP 87-2 & PP 87-3 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : HSM PROPERTIES, P.O. Box 3352, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of carport design. LOCATION: Shadow Mountain Drive west of Portola. ZONE: R-3 (3) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Upon reviewing the submitted plans and presentations by staff and by the applicant, the architectural commission continued this case. Date of Action: November 10, .1987 Vote: Carried 5-0 (An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert within fifteen ( 15) days of the date of the decision. ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ STAFF COMMENTS: Please read the attached minutes. Upon receiving final approval it is your responsibility to submit the plans approved by the architectural commission to the department of building and safety. t11 NUT ES ARCIIIT[CTURAL COMMISSION NOVElIDER 10, 1987 1 . Monument sign not to exceed eight feet in height. Landscape plan to be revised for resubmittal . a Carried 5-0 7. CASE NO: 1376 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : ROSENTHAL & ASSOCIATES, 72-261 Highway III , Palm Desert, CA 92260; IMPERIAL SIGN, 46-120 Calhoun Street, Indio, CA 92201 . NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of identification sign. LOCATION: 72-261 Highway Ill , Las Sombros restaurant/office park. ZONE: PC (4) Commission reviewed the proposed plans and felt they were acceptable. It was moved by Commissioner McCrea, seconded by Commissioner Drury to grant approval subject to the following condition. 1 . The s1gn to be lowered by six inches from the top of the wa11 and narrowed in depth by eight inches. Carried 5-0 8. CASE NO: PP 87-2 S PP 87-3 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : HSM PROPERTIES, P.O. Box 3352, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of carport design. LOCATION: Shadow Mountain Drive west of Portola. ZONE: R-3 (3) Ken Stendell was present and showed commission brochures for a prefabricated metal/aluminum carport structure. Commission felt that the awning structures could better relate to the architecture of the main buildings. In addition, commission 5 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10, 1987 felt the aluminum fascia would be susceptible to dents and bangs from objects. The applicant's architect should provide an acceptable solution. It was moved by Commissioner Holden, seconded by Commissioner Sullivan to continue this matter to allow the applicant's architect time to provide details showing how the carport fits in with the building. Carried 5-0 9. CASE NO: 288 C AMENDMENT APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DOMINICK MANCUSO, 305 Tolosa Circle, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Amendments to working drawings for restaurant/office building under construction. i LOCATION: Palms to Pines Village (Carl 's Jr. Center) . ZONE: C-1 Commission reviewed the proposed amendments to the building. It was moved by Commissioner Holden, seconded by Commissioner McCrea to: 1 . Deny requested landscape substitution for trellis structure. Applicant may modify trellis so not to interfere with CVWD easement. Carried 4-1 2. Main sign located on elevator tower approved. Two signs on ends denied pending review of impact of trellis structures on visibility. Carried 4-1 3. No action taken on window treatment changes. 10. CASE NO: 1359 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : D 8 A SHADE COMPANY for SPECTACULAR SHADES, P.O. Box 417, Palm Springs, CA 92263. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of an awning with signage for new business. 6 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 May 29 , 1987 JU/V 21987 COMMONClry OP PALM D£SfRlHrcLMkN7 Mr . Ken Stindell HSM Properties P.O. Box 3352 Palm Desert , California 92261 Dear Ken : At its regular meeting of May 14 , 1987 , the Palm Desert City Council adopted Resolution No . 87-28 , approving a precise plan of design and negative declaration of environmental impact to allow construction of a 13-unit apartment project to be located between Larrea and Shadow Mountaion Drive , approximately 450 feet west of Portola Avenue . Attached for your records is a fully executed copy of the aforementioned resolution . If you have any questions or require additional information , please let us know , Sincerely, JL ' C�IR� l I 'k �� SHEILA R . GILLIGAN CITY CLERK/PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER SRG :mpf Attachment (as noted) w RESOLUTION NO. 87-28 A A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRON- MENTAL IMPACT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 13 UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT LOCATED BETWEEN LARREA AND SHADOW MOUNTAIN DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY 450 FEET WEST OF PORTOLA AVENUE. CASE NO: PP 87-2 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on a the 14th day of May, 1987, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by HSM PROPERTIES for approval of a precise plan of design and negative declaration of environmental impact to allow construction of a 13 unit apartment project on 40,500 square feet in the R-3 zone on property located between Larrea and Shadow Mountain Drive, approximately .450 feet west of Portola Avenue, more particularly described as: APN 627-273-006 and 016 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert did hold public hearings on this matter on March 3 and April 7, 1987 and approved said project. WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that the director of environmental services has determined that the project will not have an adverse impact on the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testi- mony and arguments, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify the p, granting of said precise plan of design: 1 . The design of the precise plan will not substantially depreciate " I property values in the vicinity. 2. The precise plan will not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of the property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes. 3. The precise plan will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm 9 Desert, California, as follows: 1 I . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the i findings of the council in this case. s= 2. That approval of Precise Plan 87-2 is hereby granted for reasons subject to the attached conditions. 3. That a negative declaration of environmental impact is hereby certified. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council , held on this 14th day. of May, 1987, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Benson, Snyder, Wilson & Kelly NOES: Crites ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None RIC ARD S. KELL , Mayor ATTEST: r� SHE ILA R. G LIGAN, City clerk ) r City of Pa m Desert, California /dig 2 l _— RESOLUTION NO. 87-28 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. PP 87-2 Department of Community Development: I . The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the department of community development, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any uses contemplated by this approval , the applicant shall first complete all the procedural requirements of the city which include, but are not limited to, architectural commission and building permit procedures. 3. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval unless a time extension is granted, otherwise said approval shall become null , void and of no effect whatsoever. 4. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval , the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Riverside County Department of Health Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Property Owner's Association 6. That prior to issuance of building permit the owner (developer) provide the city with evidence that he has paid the required school mitigation fee. 7. That the end of the row of open parking spaces be screened from view by a minimum three foot high wall or other suitable method of screening to be determined by the architectural commission. 8. The trash enclosures shall be located as approved by Palm Desert Disposal and the director of community development. 3 s RESOLUTION NO. 87-28 9. That the landscaping perimeter strip between the open parking spaces and the perimeter wall be provided as required by ordinance to the satisfaction of the city's architectural commission. 10. That the applicant enter into an agreement with the city guaranteeing that the property will voluntarily be a part of any undergrounding district which may be established by the city, including the property in question. The form of this agreement shall be acceptable to the city attorney and shall run with the land. This condition shall not be applicable to the service lines that lead directly to the building(s) which must be undergrounded. 11 . That six foot high masonry perimeter walls be provided along the east and west property lines. 12. That a landscape planter strip be provided on the east property line adjacent to the perimeter wall as required by the architectural commission. 13. That the approved site plan shall locate any two story. units adjacent to vacant property only. Department of Public Works: 1 . Drainage and signalization fund fees, as required by city ordinance, shall be paid prior to grading permit issuance. 2. Storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study by the private engineer that is approved by the department of public works. 3. Full public improvements, including traffic safety lighting, as required by ordinance and the director of public works, shall be installed in accordance with city standards. 4. Complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted, as required by ordinance, to the director of public works for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. The engineer shall submit "as-built" plans prior to the acceptance of the improvements by the city. 5. All private driveways and parking lots shall be inspected by the engineering department and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to grading permit issuance. 6. Landscaping maintenance on Larrea Street and Shadow Mountain Drive shall be provided by the property owner. 4 RESOLUTION NO. 87-26 7. Existing utilities between lots 6 and 13 shall be undergrounded per each respective utility district's recommendation. Swimming pool and spa constitute permanent structures within the existing public utility easement, and therefore must be relocated on either side of the ten foot easement. S. Complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted, as required by ordinance, to the director of public works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. 9. Installation of six foot wide sidewalk on Larrea Street and Shadow Mountain Drive. 10. Offsite improvement plans to be approved by public works department and a surety posted to guarantee the required offsite improvements prior to grading permit issuance. 11. Size, number and location of driveways to public works specifications with only one driveway approach to be allowed to serve this property. 12. Grading permit issuance shall be subject to the waiver of parcel map first being approved and recorded. 13. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permit(s) by the department of public works. 14. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the department of public works prior to issuance of the grading permit. 15. Assessor's parcel map indicates a 140 foot street frontage on lot 13, contrary to applicant's submitted materials which designate a 150 foot frontage. City Fire Marshal : 1 . That the applicant comply with the requirements of the fire marshal as specified in his letter dated March 7, 1987. 5 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 July 14, 1987 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION CASE NO: PP 87-2 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : HSM PROPERTIES, P. 0. Box 3352, Palm Desert, CA 92261 . NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final plan approval for a 13 unit apartment complex. LOCATION: Between shadow Mountain Drive and Larrea, 450 feet west of Portola. ZONE: R-3 (3) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Upon reviewing the submitted plans and presentations by staff and by the applicant, the Architectural Commission granted approval subject to restudy and resubmission of carport plans. Date of Action: July 14, 1987 Vote: (An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert within fifteen ( 15) days of the date of the decision. ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ STAFF COMMENTS: Please read the attached minutes. MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION JULY 14, 1987 S � SUB LOCATION: 44-574 Portola, one lot north of De Anza Way. ZONE: R-I Case discontinued as applicant was not present for approval . 3. CASE NO: PP 86-28 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : AHMANSON COMPANY, 1123 South Parkview Drive, Suite #360, Covina, CA 91724 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Revisions to approved landscape plan as required by Cal Trans and preliminary approval of satellite buildings on Pads 2, 3 and 5. LOCATION: Ill Town Center, Palm Desert ZONE: PC (3) S.P. It was moved by Commissioner McCrea, seconded by Commissioner Holden to grant preliminary approval of satellite building architecture. Motion carried. 4. CASE NO: PP 87-2 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : HSM PROPERTIES, P. 0. Box 3352, Palm Desert, CA 92261 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final plan approval for a 13 unit apartment complex. LOCATION: Between Shadow Mountain Drive and Larrea, 450 feet west of Portola. ZONE: R-3 (3) It was moved by Commissioner Holden, seconded by Commissioner McCrea to grant approval subject to restudy and resubmission of carport plans. Motion carried. 5. CASE NO: PP 87-3 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : HSM PROPERTIES, P. 0. Box 3352, Palm Desert, CA 92261 2 CITY OF PALM DESERT TRANSMITTAL LETTER t. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council [( , REQUEST: Approval of a precise plan of design and negative declaration of environmental impact to allow 13 residential units on a 40,500 square foot property in the R-3 20,000 (3) zone located between Shadow Mountain Drive and Larrea, 450 feet west of Portola Avenue. CITY COUNCIL +CTION: U I. APPLICANT: HSM PROPERTIES AP:OROVED _ DENIED P.O. Box 3352 RECEIVED OTHER Palm Desert, CA 92261 IV. CASE NO: PP 87-2 AYES : V. DATE: May 14, 1987 A8GENT: - - - ARSTAIff: - -- VI. CONTENTS: VERIFIED lY: - — Original on File wi City Clerk's Of£i< A. Staff recommendation B. Discussion C. Draft Resolution D. Planning Commission Minutes involving Case No. PP 87-2 E. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1208 F. Planning Commission staff report dated March 3 and April 7, 1987 G. Related maps and/or exhibits ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 87-28 approving PP 87-2. 0. DISCUSSION: January 12, 1987 the applicant filed this request for approval of 13 apartment units. The matter was heard by Planning Commission on March 3, 1987 at which time It was continued to April 7, 1987 to allow time for city council direction for future policy regarding two story development In this area. On February 26, 1987 and March 26, 1987 city council had reviewed staff reports (copies attached) concerning development standards. At the Apr 1 l 7, 1987 planning commission meeting the staff report (copy attached) recommended that this case be continued until June 16, 1987 1n that that seemed like a realistic date by which proposed amendments to development standards in the R-2 and R-3 zones could be reviewed and considered by both planning commission and city council . I I I I� PP 87-2 TRANSMITTAL LETTER The applicant presented his case to planning commission and persuaded the members that further delay would result in severe financial hardship. Commission was swayed by the applicant's arguments that he compiled with all requirements. Motion for approval passed on a 3-1-1 vote with Richards voting nay and i Ladlow abstaining. j i I Prepared by Reviewed and .Approved by /dlg i 2 I , CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. a A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRON- MENTAL IMPACT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 13 UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT LOCATED BETWEEN LARREA AND SHADOW MOUNTAIN DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY 450 FEET WEST OF PORTOLA AVENUE. CASE NO- PP 87-2 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on he the 14th day of May. 1987, hold approval of a noticedp ecise plan of d sign and negatider ive request by HSM PROPERTIES for apP declaration of environmental ua impact feet t i n the R-3ozoneu one property 1located project on 40,500 q 450 feet west of apart ment p Jain Drive, ximately between Larrea and Shadow Moun�escribed as:appro Portola Avenue, more Parti cularly y APN 627-273-006 and 016 WHEREAS. the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert did hold public hearings on this matter on March 3 and April 7. 1987 and approved said project. plied with the requirements of the "City WHEREAS, said application has com of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that the director of environmental services has determined that the project will not have an adverse impact on the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared. WHEREAS. at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testi- mony and arguments, of all interested persons desiring to be heard. said commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify the granting of said precise plan of design: 1 . The design of the precise plan will not substantially depreciate property values in the vicinity. 2. The precise plan will not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of the property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes. 3. The precise plan will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That -the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the council in this case. RESOLUTION N0. 2. That approval of Precise Plan 87-2 is hereby granted for reasons subject to the attached conditions. 3. That a negative declaration of environmental impact is hereby certified. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council , held on this day of 1987, by the following vote, to wit: i AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICHARD S. KELLY, Mayor i ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California /dlg 2 RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. PP 87-2 Department of Community Development: 1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the department of community development, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Prior to the issuance' of a building permit for construction complete ary uses val the applicant contemplated b P contemp Y this approval , the procedu ral requirements of the city which include, but are not limited r to, architectural commission and building permit procedures. 3. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval unless . a time extension is granted, otherwise said approval shall become null , void and of no effect whatsoever. 4. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction obtain of any use permits contemplated by this approval , the applicant and/or clearance from the following agencies: Riverside County Department of Health Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Property Owner's Association 6. That prior to issuance of building permit the owner (developer) provide the city with evidence that he has paid the required school mitigation fee. 7. That the end of the row of open parking spaces be screened from view by a minimum three foot high wall or other suitable method of screening to be determined by the architectural commission. B. The trash enclosures shall be located as approved by Palm Desert Disposal and the director of community development. _ 3 I! RESDLUTION NO. 9. That the landscaping perimeter strip between the open parking ordinance atos the and the perimeter wall be provided as required by satisfaction of the city's architectural commission. 10. That the applicant enter into an agreement with the city guaranteeing that the property will voluntarily be a part of any undergrounding district which may be established by the city, including the property in question. The form of this agreement shall be acceptable to the city attorney and shall run with the land. This condition shall not be applicable to the service lines that lead directly to the buildings) which must be undergrounded. 11. That six foot high masonry perimeter walls be provided along the east and west property lines. 12. That a landscape planter strip be provided on the east property line adjacent to the perimeter wall as required by the architectural commission. 13. That the approved site plan shall locate any two story units adjacent to vacant property only. Department of Public Works: 1 . Drainage and signalization fund fees, as required by city ordinance, shall be paid prior to grading permit issuance. 2. Storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study by the private engineer that is approved by the department of public works. 3. Full public improvements, including traffic safety lighting, as required by ordinance and the director of public works, shall be installed in accordance with city standards. 4. Complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted, as required by ordinance, to the director of public works for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. The engineer shall submit "as-built" plans prior to the acceptance of the improvements by the city. d parking lots S engineering edepartment and driveways n shall e inspected a standard Inspection be paid prior to grading permit issuance. 6. Landscaping maintenance on Larrea Street and Shadow Mountain Drive shall be provided by the property owner. 4 RESOLUTION NO. 7, Existing utilities between lots 6 and 13 shall be undergrounded per each respective utility district's recommendation. Swimming pool and spa constitute permanent structures within the existing public utility easement, and therefore must be relocated on either side of the ten foot easement. 8. Complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted, as required by ordinance, to the director of public works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. sidewalk on Larrea Street and Shadow 9. Installation of six foot wide Mountain Drive. 10. Offsite improvement plans to be approved by public works department and a surety posted to guarantee the required offsite improvements prior to grading permit issuance. to public works II with •onlymone driveway aapproa h totion of ibewalslo allowed to serve this pr tions nuber and operty. 12. Grading permit issuance shall be subject to the waiver of parcel map first being approved and recorded. 13. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the issuance .of valid encroachment permit(s) by the department of public works. 14. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the department of public works prior to issuance of the grading permit. 15. Assessor's parcel map indicates a 140 foot street frontage on lot 13, contrary to applicant's submitted materials which designate a 150 foot frontage. City Fire Marshal: . 1 . That the applicant comply with the requirements of the fire marshal as specified in his letter dated March 7, 1987. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 3, 1987 Vi. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PP 84-34 - LOU GLISAN, Applicant Request for approval of a time extension to August I , 1987 for a 19 , 000 square foot commercial building in the C- 1 .zone at the northwest intersection of Highway III and Painters Path. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, approving the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 3-0. VII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. Viii. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. PP 87-2 - HSM Properties, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design and negative declaration of environmental impact to allow 13 residential units on a 40,500 square foot property In the R-3 20,000 (3) zone located between Shadow Mountain Drive and Larrea, 450 feet west of Portola Avenue. Mr. Smith outlined the salient points of the staff report and requested a continuance pending direction from the city council regarding two story development in this area. Mr. Diaz indicated that council would review the matter at their second meeting in March. Commissioner Whitlock asked if the applicant had been before the Property Owners Association. Mr. Smith replied that they had received preliminary approval from them. Chairman Erwood opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. KEN STENDELL, partner, clarified that the name of the firm was HSM, not HMS as shown on the agenda. He stated that an 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 3. 1987 issue of concern would be the situation of the split parking. He indicated that he had concerns with providing access from Larrea. He stated that the Sun and Shadows would like to change their zoning to C-1 commercial . He felt there would be an impact on traffic which could create a hardship on business tenants. He also stated that a continuance created a hardship because the proposal was within the zoning requirements. He indicated that he had another piece of property with some of the same architecture. He felt the major issue was the parking lot on the Larrea Street side for present tenants and future use. fie stated that there was one driveway to this site per public works conditions. .Chairman Erwood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or I OPPOSITION to the proposed. MR. BOB PRESS, Desert Patch owner, stated that all of the long-time residents looked forward to growth, but felt that the smaller resorts were being pushed out, including Sun and Shadow, which was why they are trying to convert to a commercial use. He stated that they were not trying to Increase any traf- hazards. He felt they should be allowed to proceed with tr,e plans to change zoning to C-I In order to stay in business. MR. MASON NURICK, Casa Larrea owner, stated that when he came to the desert he wanted to develop two story and was denied; since then two story buildings have been built. He felt they had been detrimental to present property owners and now there are plans to build another two story building: He indicated that it is not good for Palm Desert to be only commercial and felt that the city was built on a small town principal and that he was against any two story layout. He stated that the city shou 1 d be more firm and decisions should not be made on a who you know basis. He stated that when the building to the west was built, a greatly different plan was put up and he was not notified of a change. Mr. Diaz addressed comments by Mr. Nurick by stating that the city does not make decisions based on "who you know." He also stated that C-1 and R-3 zones in the city did not even require public hearings until 1981. He stated that the building in question met all the code requirements and was not a case of "who you know." MR. BOB PRESS spoke regarding building in back of Mesa and stated that the city sent out a plan to all the residents, 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 3, 1987 z which they approved because the plans sent were one level . He stated that he did not know two stories were going up until he saw it. He stated that he was told that the city could not do anything to change it and that someone directed him to the property owners association. He Indicated that the property owners association laughed at him when he brought the matter up, at which time he contacted an attorney. He informed the commission that he loved this community and purchased property 100% from money that he had earned and stated that he was now faced with bankruptcy and could thank everyone for the situation. MR. WENDELL RYLEE, owner of property on San Luis Rey. stated that the original approval was never changed. He indicated that $100,000 was being spent on landscaping and asked that people wait until the project was complete before making judgments. Chairman Erwood reminded commission that the matter before the them was a request for continuance awaiting direction from city council . Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, continuing PP 87-2 to April 7, 1987. Carried 3-0. Mr. Smith noted that no further legal notices would be sent out and advised the audience that anyone wishing to offer further testimony should come back on April 7, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Bob Press stated that he was a single owner of a resort and indicated that it was a hardship for him to take time away from his business to come to the meeting, but stated that he would come again. B. Case No. PP 87-3 - HSM PROPERTIES, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design and negative declaration of environmental Impact to allow 13 residential units on a 40,500 square foot property in the R-3 20,000 (3) zone located on the north side of Shadow Mountain Drive, 750 feet west of Portola Avenue. Mr. Smith outlined the salient points of the staff report and reviewed the past history of the property. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 3, 1987 r _ I Chairman Erwood opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. KEN STENDELL, 72-847 Skyward, asked that commission review the projects on its merits alone and not on past approvals. He stated that he met with the property owners and listened to concerns and suggestions. He indicated that he would like to design a building that would be beneficial to the community. Chairman Erwood, asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed. MR. JOSEPH LYONS, 73-860 Shadow Mountain Drive, owner of property to the east. He stated that it was his third time before the commission. He indicated that he was told by his attorney that zoning of property did not constitute a vested right. Chairman Erwood stated that commission had never indicated otherwise. Mr. Lyons stated that he was concerned with trash removal and had contacted Palm Desert Disposal and was told that trucks would be in this area between 4:30 and 5:00 a.m. , and that the trash containers were next to his bedroom; he expressed concern regarding parking location, lighting, and crime. He felt that It was a total misuse of the land with his major objection being the trash dumpster in the back and parking. Commissioner Downs asked if staff could work something out to relocate the trash dumpster. Mr. Stendell and staff indicated that they would look Into the matter. Mr. Lyons stated that he supported other individuals who spoke earlier against two story units. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, continuing PP 87-3 to April 7, 1987. Carried 3-0. C. Case No. PP 87-4 - MONTEREY BUILDING PARTNERSHIP, Applicant Request for approval of a negative declaration and precise plan of design to allow construction of three professional office building in the office professional zone on property located on the west side of Monterey Avenue, 350 feet south of Fred Waring Drive. 5 i MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 7, 1987 Vt . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. TT 18986 - FREDERICK WHITMAN, Applicant Request for approval of an 18-month time extension for of tentative tract map and hillside development 'plan on 33.4 acres located west of Indian Springs Mobile Home Park, north of fat Creek debris basin. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs , seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, approving the requested time extension to September 6, 1988, by minute motion. Carried 5-0. i Vll . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. Vlll . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case No. PP 87-2 - HSM Properties, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design and negative declaration of environmental impact to allow 13 residential units on a 40,500 square foot property in the R-3 20,000 (3) zone loreted between Shadow Mountain Drive and Larrea, 450 feet west of Portola Avenue. Mr . Smith reviewed the background of the case and recommended a continuance to June 16 to allow ample time for council to resolve concerns and establish policy for R-2 and R-3 developments. Chairman Erwood owned the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. KEN STENDELL, 72-847 Skyward, stated that the project meets and/or exceeds all zoning requirements in use and noted that the planning department had recommended approval . He requested approval and informed commission that it has been a hardship with the continuance of 30 days already. Mr. Stendell asked commission to review the project on its merits. He informed commission that approved projects in the R-2/R-3 zones were able 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 7, 1987 _ to pull permits and felt that if this projer_t was not approved a moratorium should be called. He stated that if the project was going to be continued, he would ask for a denial so that he coulMr. dStendel 1 appeal i f he understood o the city council . the system!Commissioner Mr. StendRichards replied affirmatively. Upon question by Commissioner Richards, Mr. Connors indicated that the case could be postponed and if it goes to council stc y maybe propose a moratorium, with one other option being that referred to council for further clarification. Mr. Diaz stated that he could not recommend approval , but would recommend continuance based on council direction. He stated that if the commission wished to deny the project, it could be denied on the grounds that the project may not meet the long-range policies and future city ordinances, and when the matter gets to council , staff would recommend a moratorium. Chairman Erwood asked if it would go to council if approved. Mr. Diaz replied no. Commissioner Ladlow commented that it could set a precedent if this project were approved. Mr. Stende 1 1 stated that if his case is continued or denied and he meets all required criteria and anyone else is allowed to Pull permits and gets a fixed interest , then he would be treated arbitrarily. He requested approval and spoke against a continuance because that would not even allow for an appeal process. Chairman Erwood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed. MR. WAYNE GURALNICK, representing agenda item #0, stated that they also meet all the criteria. Chairman Erwood asked Mr. Guralnick to offer comment only regarding the project under discussion. Mr. Guralnick requested approval for the project and Indicated that the council could call it up if they wanted. Chairman Erwood stated that he was swayed by the applicant's arguments that he has compiled with all requirements. He noted. that no formal action had been taken by council and recommended approval . Mr. Diaz requested a two-week continuance to allow for council clarification. Action: cPronded by Chairman Erwood, approving Moved by Commissioner Downs, the findings as presented by staff at the March 3, 1987 meeting. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 7, 1987 Carried 3-1-I (Commissioner Richards voted no, Commissioner Ladlow abstained) . Moved by Commissioner Downs, ,econded by Chairman Erwood, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1208, approving PP 87-2 subject to conditions . Carried 3- 1 - 1 (Commissioner Richards voted no, Commissioner Ladlow abstained) . B. Continued Case No. PP 87-3 - HSM PROPERTIES, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design and negative declaration of environmental impact . . to allow 13 residential units on a 40 ,500 square foot property in the R-3 20,000 ( 3) zone located on the north side of Shadow Mountain Drive, 750 feet west of Portola Avenue. Commissioner Richards asked if there were any problems with conditions. Mr. Smith reviewed the conditions stating that "and planning staff" should be added to community development condition no. 8 and added conditions 10 and it relating to the applicant joining an undergrounding district for overhead lines, installation of six foot masonry wail , and providing a landscaped strip adjacent to the east perimeter wall as required by the architectural commission. Mr. Diaz noted that the conditions of the March 3 resolution would apply if commission were :to move for approval . Chairman Erwood Opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. KEN STENDELL stated that testimony from the previous case would apply for this one also. Chairman Erwood asked if anyone prespnt, wishrrl to peak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed. There being no one, the public_ testimony was closed. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Chairman Erwood, adopting the findings as presented by staff March 3, 1987. Carried 4-1 (Commissioner Richards voted no) . 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.- J2011 k. RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF ( I A 13 UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT LOCATED BETWEEN LARREA AND SHADOW MOUNTAIN DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY 450 FEET WEST OF PORTOLA AVENUE. CASE NO: PP 87-2 i WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 3rd day of March, 1987, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by HSM PROPERTIES for approval of a precise plan of design and negative declaration of environmental Impacts to allow construction of a 13 unit apartment project on 40,500 square feet in the R-3 zone on property located between Larrea and Shadow Mountain Drive, approximately 450 feet west of Portola Avenue, more particularly described as: APN 627-273-006 and O16 WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that the director of environmental services has determined that the project will not have an adverse impact on the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testi- mony and arguments, of all Interested persons desiring to be heard, said commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify the granting of said precise plan of design: 1 . The design of the precise plan will not substantially depreciate property values in the vicinity. 2. The precise plan will not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of the property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes. 3. The precise plan will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. 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 approval of Precise Plan 87-2 is hereby granted for reasons subject to the attached conditions. 3. That a negative declaration of environmental impact is hereby certified. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1208 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 7th day of April , 1987, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: DOWNS, WHITLOCK 8 ERWOOD NOES: RICHARDS ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: LADLOW RICHARD ERWOOD, Chairmen ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secre r /dig i i 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1200 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. PP 87-2 Department of Community Development• i 1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the department of community development, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Prior to the Issuance of a building permit for construction of any uses contemplated by this approval , the applicant shall first complete all the procedural requirements of the city which include. but are not limited to, architectural commission and building permit procedures. 3.. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval unless a time extension is granted, otherwise said approval shall become null , void and of no effect whatsoever. 4. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are In addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval , the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Riverside County Department of Health Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Property Owner's Association 6. That prior to issuance of building permit the owner (developer) provide the city- with evidence that he has paid the required school mitigation fee. 7. That the end of the row of open parking spaces be screened from view by a minimum three foot high wall or other suitable method of screening to be determined by the architectural .commission. 8. The trash enclosures shall be located as approved by Palm Desert Disposal . 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1208 ~ 9. That the landscaping perimeter strip between the open parkin spaces Paces and the perimeter wall be provided as required by ordinance to the satisfaction of the city's architectural commission. 10. That the applicant enter into an agreement with the city guaranteeing that the property will voluntarily be a part of any undergrounding district which may be established by the city, including the property In question. The form of this agreement .shall be acceptable to the city attorney and shall run with the land. This condition shall not be applicable to the service lines that lead directly to the building(s) which must be undergrounded. 11. That six foot high masonry perimeter walls be provided along the east and west property .11nes. 12. That the site plan be revised to provide two parking areas (approximately equal in size) one with access from Shadow Mountain and one with access from Larrea. Department of Public Works: 1. Drainage and slgnalization fund fees, as required by city ordinance, shall be paid prior to grading permit Issuance. 2. Storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study by the private engineer that is approved by the department of public works. 3. Full public Improvements, including traffic safety, lighting, as required by ordinance and the director of public works, shall be installed in accordance with city standards. 4. Complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted, as required by ordinance, to the director of public works for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. The engineer shall submit "as-built" plans prior to the acceptance of the Improvements by the city. 5. All private driveways and parking lots shall be Inspected by the engineering department and a standard Inspection fee shall be paid prior to grading permit Issuance. 6. Landscaping maintenance on Larrea Street and Shadow Mountain Drive shall be provided by the property owner. 7. Existing utilities between lots 6 and 13 shall be undergrounded per each respective _utility district's recommendation. Swimming pool and spa constitute permanent structures within the existing public utility 4. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO: RO0 easement, and therefore must be relocated on either side of the ten foot easement. B. Complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted, as required by ordinance, to the director of public works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. 9. Installation of six foot wide sidewalk on Larrea Street and Shadow Mountain Drive. 10. Offsite improvement plans to be approved by public works department and a surety posted to guarantee the required offsite Improvements prior to grading permit issuance. 11. Size, number and location of driveways to public works specifications with only one driveway approach to be allowed to serve this property. 12. Grading permit Issuance shall be subject to the waiver of parcel map first being approved and recorded. 13. Any and all offsite Improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permit(s) by the department of public works. 14. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the department of public works prior to issuance of the grading permit. l5. Assessor's parcel map Indicates a 140 foot street frontage on lot 13, contrary to applicant's submitted materials which designate a 150 foot frontage. City Fire Marshal : 1. That the applicant comply with the requirements of the fire marshal as determined when he reviews the plans during plan check. — 5 t i CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission i DATE: March 3 . 1987 I CASE NO: PP 87-2 REQUEST: Approval of a precise plan of design and negative declaration of environmenta impact to allow 13 residential units on a 40,500 square foot property in the R-3 Z0.000 (3) zone located between Shadow Mountain Drive and Larrea. 450 feet west of Portola Avenue. APPLICANT: HMS PROPERTIES P.O. Box 3352 Palm Desert. CA 92261 I. BACKGROUND: A. DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The Property is a gently sloping vacant site which extends from Shadow Mountain Drive through to Larrea. B. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE : North: C-1/office huildina (old city hall ) South: R-3 13,000 ( 3 ) /vacant East: R-3 20,000 (3)/multi family West: R-3 20,000 (3)/north half. vacant-south half, 6 unit co-op C. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential 5-7 du/acre ll . PROJECT DESCRIPTION$ The property Is a rectangular shaped site having 150 Feet of frontage ,on Shadow Mountain Drive and a depcn of 135 feet. A. SITE DESIGN, CIRCULATION AND PARKING: The applicant is proposing to construct 13 residential units around a central recreation area which will include a Pool and spa. Parking is shown at the southeast corner of the property with access from Shadow Mountain. PP 87-2 STAFF REPORT i I The Crime Prevention Officer suggests and we concur that the parking spaces should be split and with half located on the north end the lot with access from Larrea Street. The fourplex would be shhifted southerly• I i i i A total of 26 parking spaces are required of which 13 must be covered spaces. This requirement has been satisfied in that 13 carport spaces will be provided along with 13 open spaces. B. ARCHITECTURE: include exterior materials consisting The protect architecture will of spanish texture stucco. heavy wood trim and flat shake the roofing. The applicant will be required to receive approval from the city' s architectural commission and the Palm Desert Property Owner's Association Architectural Committee. C. UNIT TYPE AND MIX: The development will be a mix Of one and two story structures. The be 14 feet In height while the two 2 . eleven single story units will story units will be 24 feet in height. The units will be a Mix 'Of one 3 bedroom unit of 1224 square feet and twelve 2 bedroom units of 1086 square feet. Ill. ANALYSIS: A. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF A PRECISE PLAN: ►, The design of the precise plan will not substantially depreciate . property values in the vicinity. Justification: The use is attractive and acceptable from a design aspect and not Incompatible with other uses existing in the vicinity. 2. The precise plan will not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes. Justification: Existing uses in the immediate area are motels and multifamily. Apartments and motels are permitted In the R-3 zone. Develop- ment of the type proposed should not the unreasovicinnably interfere with the use or enjoyment of property In 2 PP 87-2 STAFF REPORT 3. The precise plan will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. justification: The project, as conditioned, is designed in a manner that will not endanger the public peace . Health . safety or general welfare. Staff feels these findings can be justified in this case. i Environmental Review: Several environmental impacts were identified in the initial study. It is felt that adequate means is available to mitigate these environmental impacts. Appropriate conditions will be j t to mitigate any adverse environmental imposed on the developmen impacts. With the imposition of these conditions the Project will not have a significant impact on the environment and a negative declaration of environmental impact has been prepared. IV. CONCERNS: Staff has discussed the proposed development with several residents and proertc concern theft oy torysportion ofc the in he tproject and y. The ithe possible loss of relates ofmountain views which could result from this development. The project as submitted complies with the number of units permitted on the site. the setback requirements and height limits of the R-3 zone. In response to an oral communication to the city council at its February 12, 1987 meeting staff prepared a report on the Sanborn-Rylee 20 unit, two story development at the corner of San Luis Rey and Shadow Mountain. This report will be presented at the council meeting of . February 26, 1987. Staff will advise commission of any direction which may come from council . it is important to note that the two, 2 story units in this project have been located adjacent to vacant land in an attempt to limit the impact on existing residents. In addition these 2 story structures are buffered on each end by single story units which create a stepped effect. A revised plan, received February 23, 1987 has corrected several areas of concern so they won't be repeated here. 3 I ' I PP 87-2 STAFF REPORT V. CONCLUSIONS ether or not the vised to spnitsthe barking areas Ifrom ne hboth a should Shadow mountain and ardreaeoreleave It as submitted. The parking could be split 12 spaces on one end and 14 spaces on the other end. This would require that the fourplex be shifted southerly on y easement which runs through the site the lot. Due to the public utilit 1 d have to be split i t Into two 2 unit from west to east the fourp 1 ex wou i buildings. As mentioned earlier staff feels that the parking should be split so that it Is more accessible to all units, less congestion in the deed end perking aisle and less need for street parking which the crime prevention officer prefers we avoid. In the other 13 unit case located 150 feet west of this site staff worked on splitting the parking area between the east and west end but given the confuratonstaff did Inot ow i she toi come between the o applicant and ng so. In ds the area resi dent In their quest to negotiate a compromise which has apparently been worked out. VI. RECONNENDATiON: Staff recommends: A. Adoption of the findings B. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. approving PP 87-2 subJect to conditions. V11. ATTACIRENTS: A. Draft Resolution B. Legal Notice C. Negative Declaration and Initial Study 0. Comments from city departments and agencies E. Plans and Exhibits Prepared by Reviewed and Approved by �~ /dig 4 -MANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT. CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION A 13ENVIRONMENTAL APARTMENTIMPACT PROJECTALLOW CONSTRUCTION LOCATED BETWEEN LARREA AND SHADOW MOUNTAIN DRIVE: APPROXIMATELY 450 FEET WEST OF PORTOLA AVENUE. CASE NO: PP 87-2 WHEREAS. the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert. California. did on the 3rd day of March. 1987. hold a duly noticed public hearing to 1 consider the request by HMS PROPERTIES for approval of a precise plan of ironmental impacts to allow construction design and negative declaration of env of a 13 unit apartment project on 40.500 square feet in the R-3 zone on �rr and Shadow i approximately 450 Property located fewest o Po olaAvenuemoe particularly described as: APN 627-273-006 and 016 WHEREAS. said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act. Resolution No. 80-89", in that the director of environmental services has determined that the project will not have an adverse impact on the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared. WHEREAS. at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testi- mony and arguments. of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify the granting of said precise plan of design: 1 . The design of the precise plan will not substantially depreciate property values In the vicinity. 2. The precie plan enjoyments sof the property inll inn the sv vicinity ityinterfere rby the occupants thereof for lawful purposes. 3. The precise Plan will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. NOW. THEREFORE, BE 1T 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 approval of Precise Plan 87-2 is hereby granted for reasons subject to the attached conditions. 3. That a negative declaration of environmental impact is hereby certified. li 1, , PLANNING COMISSION RESOLUTION NO. rt PASSED. +PP�VEDh and eld onDOthE at a a 3 d daYeofama marcng o the h. by the alfollow0eina Planning Comm vote. to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICHARO ERWOOD. Chairman ATTEST: I j i RAMON A. DIAZ. Secretary /dig I i I i 2 PLANNING COiNISSiON RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. PP 87-2 I Department of Cpnnunity Development: y with its 1 , Tone devFileewith the department of community nt of the Property h development, asl modified xbybthe following conditions. 2. Prior to the Issuance of a building permit for construction of any uses contemplated by this approval . the applicant shall first complete all the procedural requirements of the city which include. but are not limited to. architectural commission and building permit procedures. 3. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year j from the date of final approval unless a time extension is granted, otherwise said approval shall become null , void and of no effect whatsoever. i 4. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force. or which hereafter may be In force. 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval , the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Riverside County Department of Health Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Property Owner's Association 6. That prior to issuance of building permit the owner (developer) provide the city with evidence that he has paid the required school mitigation fee. 7. That the end of the row of open parking spaces be screened from view by a minimum three foot high wall or other suitable method of screening to be determined by the architectural commission. 8. The trash enclosures shall be located as approved by Palm Desert Disposal . 3 PLANNING COIMilSSION_RESOLUTION ND. i I i pen and g. That the landscaping perimeter bep astween the requiredo by Orrdinanceato the the Perimeter wall be Provided satisfaction of the city's architectural commission. ing ip, That the applicant enter into an agreement with the snit guaranteeing that the property w ill voluntarily be a including the Property In district which may be established by the city. i ac question. The form of this agreement shalThbg conditeoncePtableshall to knot ibe attorney. and shall run with the land. applicable to the service lines that lead directly to the building(s) which must be undergrounded. 11, That six foot high masonry Perimeter walls be provided along the east and west Property lines. parking areas 12. That the sit e)plan one bwithvaccessised pfrom Shado rovide w Mou tan and one withiaccess egos - from Larree. �rtn�ent of Public Horks:_ 1 . Drainage li fund be Paid Prior gradina ail permit eissuance. ired by city ordinance. n shall I be ent upon a ainage by Z. p�ivaterengineertthatios approved by se department of Public works. the t 3, Full public improvements, including traffic safety lighting, as required by ordinance and the director of public works. shall be installed in accordance with city standards. 4. Complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted, as required by ordinance, to the director of public works for checking and approval before construction of any Improvements is commenced. The engineer shall submit "as-built" plans prior to the acceptance of the Improvements by the city. S. All private driveways and Parking lots shall be inspected by the engineering department and a standard Inspection fee shall be paid prior to grading permit issuance. 6. Landscaping maintenance on Larrea Street and Shadow Mountain Drive shall be provided by the property owner. 7. Existing utilities between lots 6 and 13 shall be undergrounded per each respective utility district's recommendation. Swimming pool and spa constitute permanent structures within the existing public utility 4 PLAMIIING COMIISSION RESOLUTION NO easement, and therefore must be relocated on either side of the ten foot easement• g complete grading Plans and specifications shall be submitted, as required by ordinance, to the director of public works, for checking and approval orlor to issuance of any permits. Street and Shadow 9. Installation of six , foot wide sidewalk on Larrea Mountain Drive. guarantee the required offslte improvements prior to 10. offsite improvement plans to be approved by public works department an a surety posted to 9 grading permit issuance• works ll : Size. number and locaa1On of drveays to public roach toibew Pallowed to serve this specifications with only one driveway pP parcel map 12. Grading permit iss and shall b recorded. subJect to the waiver of first being approved 13. Any and all offsite improvements shall be Preceded by the approval t plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permits) by the department of Public works.14. A complete Preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer. shall be submitted to and approved by the department of issuance of the grading permit. public works Prior to 15, Assessor's parcel map Indicates a 140 foot street frontage on lot 13. materials which designate a 150 foot contrary to applicant's submitted frontage. city Fire Ilershall ements of the fire marshal as i . That the applicant comply with the requir determined when he reviews the plans during plan check. 5 I fEROFFICE MEMORANDUM I TO: DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES I FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS SU8JECT: F'fZVsGcSs fL-Aw S� DATE : W4LJARY 301 M07 The following should be considered conditions of approval : ' Drainage and signalization fund fees , as required by City ordinance, shall be paid prior to yip) (grading permit issuance) . p) Drainage facilities shall be provided. per Ordinance No . I 218 and the Master Drainage Plan , to the specifications of the Director of Public Works . 0 Storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study by the private engineer that is. approved by the Department of Public Works . Full public improvements , including traffic safety lighting, as reuired byce and the withctr Cityof Public Works , standards . 5) Improvement plans for water and sewer systems shall be approved by the respective service districts with "as-built" plans submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to the project final . © Complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted, as required by ordinance , to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval before construction ed . The "as-built"rplansn prior tots is m the c engineer n acceptanceofthe improvements by the City. © All private i-&tgee*s-) (driveways and parking lots) shall be inspected by the engineering department and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to Final_ (grading permit issuance) . ® Landscaping maintenance on ^ -+Ma ei,- a+.d �-�! '^(property y nr shell be provided by the }- owner) .. O9 Existing utiiides -e+'r h2= shall_ be undergrounded per each respective utility 015 trict' s recommendation. }p9_4444r4. t . Svilm 0"I vlq p0=1 a,d SPa cati+ lcute, p,,rma,.,o..•+� suoc-cures wrdk -►�, �t�a. v�sz►+�e.Pru-ablt�.ed oy� 2►T},w— S 1� � cf.�. 1ca..+- �010't �'Svw+arrt, ` 10 ) Traffic safety ( ping on shall be provided to the specifications of _he Director of Public Works . A traffic control plan must be submitted to and approved by the Director of Public Works before placing pavemertE -markings . ll Complete grading plans and specifications shall be submit- ted , as required by ordinance , to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits . 12 ) Dedication of feet of right-of-way on i shall be done prior to issuance of any permits and approval of plans . 13 Installation of S1X-may Wes' sidewalk on 1 a <T-r '51amLaal kA­-Kain OrnAo l4) Waiver of access to except at approved locations shall be granted on the final map. 15 ) Close unused driveway with full height curb and gutter . 16 Offsite Improvement plans to be approved by Public Works Department and a surety posted to guarantee the required offsite improvements prior to ( lation-- F toe " "' -mep-)r (grading permit Issuance) . 17 ) Fuil Improvement of Interior streets based on ( 60 ' residen- tial ) (private) ( industrial ) street standards as established In accordance with Chapter 26 , Section 26 . 40 . 040 , C.P .D . . Code . �I 18) Installation of one-half landscaped median in or cash payment for one-half the cost of landscaped median at the option of the Director of Public Works . 19) Traffic analysis to be prepared for the project to address the specific Impacts on existing networks ( street and Intersections) and the proposed mitigation measures recom- mended for approval by the City. 20) Installation of sewers to serve this project . 21 Size, number and location of driveways to Public Works specifications with only A2ng. driveway approachF� to be allowed to serve this property. 22) No (new) requirements . (Original conditions apply) 23 Grading permit Issuance shall be subject to the waiver of parcel map first being approved and recorded . 24 ) Complete ( parcel ) ( tract ) map ( s ) shall be submitted as required by ord ince to the Director of r illc Works for checking and approval and be recorded befo, e Issuance of any permits . 25 Any and a1=1 off-site improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permit ( s ) by the Department of Public Works . ® A complete preliminary. soils investigation , conducted by a registered Bolls engineer , shall be submitted to and approv- ed by the Department of Public Works, prior to issuance of the grading permit . 27) Applicant shall secure reciprocal Ingress and egress access easements from the owner ( s ) of lot( s ) QY < pa= J man 1 �i aroma � �4r? StrazY 29) '''Richard J . Folkers . P .E . . (" RA/RJF . Rev . 7/25/86 t 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 Date . — DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF PLANS THIS IS NOT A PLAN CHEC 1 OEVELOPiIENT: A M The comments below are based on the following assumptions and code groups: 1985 Uniform Building Cade 1965 Uniform Plumbing Code 1965 Uniform Mechanical Cade 1964 National Electrical Code Title 24 Handicapp / Accessibility Standards Title 24 Energy Conservation Standards Title 24 Nulti-Family Adaptability Standards Code Assumption: �n7 Building Classification Type of Construction Sprinklered Allowable Floor Area: Basic Allowable Setbacks <1&W CW\ Sprinkiered Multi-Story Factor Total Allowable Sq.Ft. CHECKLIST Plans shall be prepared by a licensed California architect. Show current number on plans. Submit a list of features proposed that show compliance to the multi- amily handicapp regulations. Use a maximum cap of $740.00 per adapt- able dwe► ling unit. Page two. . . i IWpICAPPED* i Site requirements per handicapo standards. PARKING: i ❑ Show number of stalls required. k ❑ Revise parking stall locations to allow main entry access. 1-3 Show international logo, loading and unloading zone requirements. t3 Ramp from parking lot to sidewalk not shown on Plans. BUILDING ACCESS: ❑ Doors shall be minimum 32" clear in width. ❑ Provide 18" space on the swing side of doors. ❑ On plans, show height of all bathroom accessories. ❑ Handicapp bathroom layout does not conform to current standards.. Before further comments can be made. additional plans and specifications are. needed for review. The following Plans must be submitted to the Department of Building S Safety for plan review: Architectural Drawings and Details. Structural Drawings and Calculations. Complete Electrical . Mechanical and Plumbing Plans and Specifications. Title 24 Energy Conservation Documentation Forms. COMMENTS: eriPaNr -f-fe. - fa -T d4 d u-. mm ..W�PRINCIPAL L MINER �IATEq ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY °j$T _COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE 80% 1056•COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 TELEPHONE(619)398.2651 OFFICERS THOMAS E.LEJY.GENERA DIRECTOR T BNARDINE SUTTON,SECRETARY RATMONORRUMMOE ORH ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGEWAUDITOR TELLISCOOERA4. PRESIDENT NEITH H.AN REO WNE AND SHERRILL.ATTORNEYS JOHN P.POWELL _ PAUL W.NICHOLS THEODORE J.FISH February 4, 1987 y File: 0163. 1 Department of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred ,Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 . Gentlemen: I Subject: Precise Plan 87-2, Portion of Southeast Quarter, Section 20, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Meridian This area is protected from stormwater flows by a system of channels and dikes, and may be considered safe from stormwater flows except in rare instances. This area is designated Zone B on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which ate in effect at this time. The District will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with the current regulations of this District. These regulations provide for the payment of certain fees and charges by the subdivider and said fees and charges are subject to change. This area shall be annexed to Improvement District Nos. 54 and 80 of Coachella Valley Water District for sanitation service. Yours very truly, Tom Levy General Manager-Chief gineer CS:ra cc: Don Park Riverside County Department of Public Health, Indio TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY I i CITY OF PALM DESERT INTEROFFICE MEMO TO: Steve Smith FROM: Brent Conley RE: PP87-+t2 DATE: January 30, 1987 The plan as proposed shows the parking area for the entire project ty and convience of the on the westside of the project. The safe residents of the 6-plex could be enhanced by placing half the parking areas and carports to the east of the project. This would also reduce the need for street parking. The plans shows a large usage of sliding glass doors in the rear, especially on units A & B. These doors must be equipped with key- with equipped locks on the doors. Also solid-core doors, equipped dead-bolt locks and 190 degree viewers is essential. The addressing of the units is important for the safety of the residents. The use of "A" on the ground units and "B" on the second story units can help avoid confusion. Also a complex locator board on each entrance from the parking area and street access should be utilized. Addresses should be consistent with addressing on Shadow Mountain Drive. Another possible suggestion is to locate the Jacuzzi closer to the 6-plea for easier usage by all residents. Brent Conley Crime Prevention Officer BC/rrt 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 7. Section 15083 of the California Administrative Code. CASE NO2- PP 87-2 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: HMS PROPERTIES P.O. Box 3352 Palm Desert. CA 92261 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Approval of a precise plan of design to allow construction of a 13 unit apartment project in the R-3 zone located 450 feet west of Portola Avenue between Shadow Mountain Drive and Larrea. The Director of the Department of Community Development. City of Palm Desert. California. has found the c project will not ave a significant effect on the environment. COPYOf he Initial study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. RAMON A. DIAZ. DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /dig i i E{7i3C i3�1 dL SrX1TC<S OUT. IIIITIAL =,=y EI4I3C11='rrAL EYALLTATI011 CBECZ,IST NOTE: The Availabiiity of data necessary to address the topics listed below shall farm the basis of a decision as to whether the application is considered complete for purposes of environmental assessment. ENVIRCIVENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" And "maybe" answers, possible mitigation measures and comments are provided an attached sheets). Yes Maybe 1 , Earth. wilt the proposal result in: A. Unstable earth conditions ar in changes in geologic substructures? b. 01srctions, displacements, co0paction, or overcovering of the soil?C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. the destrjCtlan, covering, or modification Of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erasion of soils, either on or off the site? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. . Air _missions ar deterioration Of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objeetipnable odors? e. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? i 2, Yes Mayoe '+o 7. Water. Will the proposal result in: 4. Changes in currents, 'or the course or ✓ 1 direction of water movements? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of / surface water runoff? C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? _ _ _ d. Aiteration of.the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? e. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? _ _ f. Reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public water supplies? _ 4. plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, and crops)? v b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? .5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of animals? C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result In a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? _ d. Deterioration to existing wildlife habitat? J / 3. 4 Yes ,M�be no S. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate Of use Of any natural resources? b. Oepletian ofsany non-renewable natural resource? 1. Eneray. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? _ _ ✓ b. Oemand upon existing sources of energy, or re. quire the.deeelopment of new sources of energy? _ ✓ S. Risk of Upset—.a—.Does the proposal involve a risk Of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, pesticides,oil , chemicals, or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? V 9. Economic Loss. Will the proposal result in: i a. A change in the value of property and improvements endangered by flooding? b. A change in the value of property and impro•,ementsrexposed to geologic hazards — — beyond accepted cormunity risk standards? 10. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels t0ethe point at which accepted community noise and vibration levels are exceeded? A V 11. land Use. Witlethe proposal result in the asTcton of the present developed or planned land use of an area? 12. Open Space. Will the proposal lead to a ecrease in the romount of designated open / space? 1/ 13. Population. Will the proposal result in: a. Alteration of the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of- the City? _ b. Change in the population distribution by age, income,'A'eligion, racial , or ethnic group, occupational class, hcusehe)ld type? _ v 3. Yes `lavbe 'io 14. Employment. Will the proposal result in additional new long-term Jobs provided, or a change in the number and per cent employed, unemployed, and underemployed? 15. Housing. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in number and per cent of housing units by type (price or rent range, zoning category, owner-occupied and rental . etc. ) relative to demand or to number of / families in various income classes in the City? b. Impacts on existing housing or creation of a demand for additional housing? _ "ITrans ortation/Circulation. Will the proposal / resu t in: a. Generation of additional vehicular movement? _ b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or ✓ demand for new parking? c. Impact upon existing transportation systems? _ _ d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? i e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists. or pedestrians? 17. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon,or result in a need for, new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? _ ✓ c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities. including roads? _ _ �- f. Other governmental services? c .. Yes Maybe to 18. Public Fiscal Balance. Will the proposal result in a net change in government fiscal flow (revenues less operating expenditures / and annualized capital expenditures)? 19. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need r new systems, or alterations to the fallowing utilities: r: Power or natural gas? — b. Communications system? — e C. Water? 1� d. Sewer Or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? — f. Solid waste and disposal? 20. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. The creation of any health hazard or — Potential health hazard? b. A change in the level of community health care provided? ,L 21. Social Services. Will the proposal result in an increased demand for provision of general social services? 22. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in: a. Obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? c. Lessening of the overall neighborhood (or areal attractiveness, pleasantness. and uniqueness? 23. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? — 24. ArSheOle ieal/4istorical . Will the proposal refu t in an a teration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, / object, or building? V i I, Yea Ma_be yr Z5. Nanda'ory Findinas of Siani`fieanee. a. COGS the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment or to curtail the diversity in the environment? - v_ b. toes the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmeneai .goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occur$ in a relatively brief, dafinitive period of time wnile long-term impacts will endure well into the future. ) _ J C. Cass the project have impacts which are indi- vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small , but where the effect of the total of those impacts an the environment is significant. ) _ V d. Joes Vie projeCt have environmental effects wn)ch -ill cause $uastantial advarse effects on nusan beings, either directly or indirectly? _ V Initial S;udi ;neared By: � k`'7 INITIAL STUDY CASE NO. PP 87-2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLISTCHECKLIST) 0 COMMENTS AND POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES (CATEGORIES PERTAIN TOATTACHED I . Earth b. The loll on the site, which is vacant, will be over-covered by virtue of construction. Paving and landscaping. This activity on the Proposed site wou 1 d not have a negative Impact on the environmental and no mitigation measures are necessary. e. This Proposal may result In temporary wind eroslon of soil due to construction. Mitigation of impacts will occur by cooapliance with city requirements for watering during grading construction Phases. 3. Water b. This proposal will result in a change in absorption rates. drainage Patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff by virtue of development. Compliance with applicable grading ordinances at time of development will mitigate any adverse Impacts. 16. Transportation/Circulation a. The 13 unit could generate up to 10 trips Per unit Per day. That would amount to 130 trips Per day for the project. Trip distribution will be split between Portola Avenue and San Luis Rey from Shadow Mountain and Larrea. As mitigation measures street dedications. where applicable, and street improvements will have to be Provided. 17. Schools C. The project will have an incremental Impact on school facilities. School impact fees will be assess to finance new facilities. 23. Llaht and Glare There will undoubtedly be some new lighting Provided for safety, security and aesthetic reasons. Mitigation measures will Include utilization of lights designed for the appropriate use and provided with shields where necessary. /dig CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT _. Y STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: April 7, 1987 CASE NO: PP 87-2 8 PP 87-3 REQUEST: Approval of a precise plan of design and negative declaration of environmental impact to allow 13 residential units on a 40.500 square foot property in the R-3 20,000 (3) zone located between Shadow Mountain Drive - and Larrea, 450 feet west of Portola Avenue. APPLICANT: HSM PROPERTIES Ken Stendall P.O. Box 3352 Palm Desert, CA 92261 1. BACKGROUND: The applicant was before planning commission at its March 3. 1987 meeting at which time the matter was continued until April 7. 1987 based on a request from city council . The city council at its March 26, 1987 meeting reviewed a staff report (copy attached) which outlined some of the possible courses of action which could be used to address the problem of two story development moving, into an area of presently only single i story development-. Based on the March 26, 1987 staff report, city council directed that staff schedule for public hearing all of the options outlined on pages three and four. It is unlikely that all of the option would be implemented but it is likely that one or more may be enacted. These could have definite impacts on the above noted cases. Accordingly, these cases must be continued until after the ordinance amendment process is completed. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: CEQA guidelines section 15107 requires that a negative declaration must be completed and ready for approval within 105 days from receipt of completed application. The negative declaration may be approved at a later time when the permit .is approved. This case was received January 12, 1987. The 105 day period will expire April 27, 1987. For the purposes of this section the staff report of March 3. 1987 contained the necessary environmental documentation to meet the "completed and ready for approval" provisions of the law. The negative declaration will be approved at such time as the cases are approved. PP 87-2 6 PP 87-3 STAFF REPORT 11. RECOMMENDATION: i That PP 87-2 and PP 87-3 for HSM Properties be continued to the planning commission meeting of June 16, 1987 at which time the processing of the ordinance amendments for the R-2 and R-3 zones should have been completed. U I Prepared byL% 61� � i r Reviewed and Approved by /dlg 2 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING DATE= FEBRUARY 26, 1987 SUBJECTx 20 UNIT CONDO DEVELOPMENT - SAN LUIS REY AND SHADOW MOUNTAIN & LARREA (SANBORN & RYLEE APPLICANTS CASE N0S: PP 85-14, TT 20919 and 290 MF gfiQGRDUNO: i February 12, 1987, Mrs. Henderson addressed city council under the oral communications portion of the agenda. As a result of Mrs. Henderson's comments staff was directed to prepare a report on the review process used for the above noted cases. in addition, staff was directed to outline similarly zoned properties still available for development and discuss the merits of requiring that properties subject to public hearing for city review be appropriately signed to that affect. REVIEW PROCESS FOR CASES PP 85-14 TT 20919 & 2290 MF May 1 , 1985 - Applicant received preliminary approval for 20 unit development from Palm Desert Property Owners Association Architectural Committee. May 3, 1985 - Applicant submitted application for precise plan review with planning department. May 31 , 1985 - Notices of hearing mailed to property owners within 300 feet. of subject property. June 7, 1985 Notices of hearing published in Desert Post. June 18, 1985 - Public hearing held by planning commission - Resolution Nos. 1054 and 1055 adopted, approving project subject to conditions. June 25, 1985 - Received preliminary architectural approval from city's architectural review commission. September 10, 1985 - received final architectural approval from city's architectural review commission subject to two conditions: 1. No tennis court lighting approved„at. this time. 2. Staff to review building _foFhdeduate sd e6—'fKJ of roof-mounted equipment at time of. building finac: --------. '... C .k4 `•rERIFIEU Original an Fi c l ca ti Clark' s PP 85-14, TT 20919 AND 1 MF CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 26, 1987 September 11 , 1985 - Received final approval of Palm Desert Property Owners Association Architectural Committee. September 10, 1986 - Building permit obtained. AVAILABLE SIMILARLY ZONING PROPERTIES The property in question is zoned R-3 which permits a maximum height of 24 feet for. a pitched roof and 22 feet for a flat roofed two story structure. This present height Iimit has been in effect since September, 1985. Prior to September, 1985, the height limit had been, as established by the original zoning ordinance in December 1975, "30 feet or two stories whichever is less." It is interesting to note that .the draft zoning ordinance presented to the public in January 1975 had proposed a 40 foot height limit with a maximum of three stories. it is important to note that the Sanborn-Rylee project complies with current code in all respects ( i .e. : two story, 22 1/2 feet high with a pitched roof) . in fact this project was used as an example of a reason why 30 feet was excessive in that this was approved prior to the hearings on reducing the height limit from 30 feet to 24 feet. The map attached delineates the areas zoned R-2 and R-3 which would permit .two story development and which are still vacant. Council should be aware that the planning commission wi l l review two 13 unit projects In this same area at its March 3, 1987 meeting. Each of these projects will contain a mix of one and two story structures up to 23 feet in height. SHOULD THE CITY EXPAND iTS PUBLIC NOTICING REQUIREMENT Presently the city mails, by regular first class mail , notice of public hearings to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. The city also places the notice of hearing, at least 10 days prior to the hearing, In the Desert Post. Finally, the agenda of planning commission Is published In the Desert Post the Friday before the Tuesday meeting. Staff Is familiar with cities that require sign(s) be posted on properties which are Involved with precise plan requirements, zone changes, general plan changes, etc. These signs were four feet by four feet plywood signs, black lettering on white background and required to be installed on all frontages. These signs contained prescribed information such as: 2 i PP 85-14, TT 20919 AND 2`. CITY COUNCIL FEBRIIARY 26, 1987 PUBLIC NOTICE Be advised that this property Is subject to a precise plan application under review by the City of Palm Desert. The request is for a 20 unit residential 1, development Involving the construction of two story structures no higher than 23 feet . Additional information is available by called Community Development/Planning at City Hall at 346-0611 , please reference Case No. _ This sign would be required to be in .place on the site within 10 days of the filing of the application; otherwise, staff would put the case on hold until said sign is Installed. CONCLUSION We trust that this Is the Information which was requested. Should city council wish to proceed with the additional noticing requirements (i .e. placing signs on the subject property) then council could by minute motion direct staff to hold the necessary public hearings and add these signs to the requirements for filing applications with the city. MON A. DI DIRECTOR OF COMMUNI Y DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING RAD/tm 3 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert TO: HONORABLE tiAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING i DATE: MARCH 26, 1987 SUBJECT: HEIGHT LIMITS IN R-2 AND R-3 ZONES Background: i Council at Its February 26, 1987, meeting discussed a report on the 20 unit development at San Luis Rey and Shadow Mountain. Comments of council members seemed to indicate that the specific development In question, notwithstanding that It compiled with all ordinance requirements, was not compatible with existing development in the area. The criticisms seemed to center as follows: .1 ) . project is too dense it ) _ project is too crowded III ) project is too high iv) project is too close to the street Development Standards: R-3 (3) Requirements Sanborn-Rvlee Pro.lect Density 1 unit per 3000 sq. ft. of lot area 1 unit per 3000 sq. ft. of lot areal 14.52 du/acre 14.52 du/acre Height (pitched roof) 24 ft./2 story 22 1/2 ft./2 story Front setbacks 15 ft. 15 ft. Street side yard 10 ft. t5 ft. interior side yard 8 ft. It ft. Unit sizes (2 bdrm) 800 sq. ft. minimum 1264 sq. ft. Required Group Open 300 sq. ft./unit x 20 tennis 7200, pool 2400 Space 6000 total 9600 sq.. ft. Parking Spaces (condo stds 2 1/2/unit 50 spaces 50 spaces *Note: On this development there Is no rear yards, if there was its setback would be 10 feet. The above chart delineates that this project in all respects met or exceeded all the minimum standards and yet It is not felt to be compatible with existing development in the area. The question becomes why Is this project unacceptable (not compatible) . a. If it is too dense then the means to make It less dense is quite evident. The density at one unit per 3000 square feet is 14.52 units per acre. CITY COUNCIL HEIGHT LIMITS IN R-2/R-3 ZONES MARCH 26, 1987 . I Basic R-2 zoning allows one unit per 4000 square feet or 10.89 units per acre. Would this density have made for an acceptable project? b. if the project is too crowded then there are several possible means of making it less crowded. One would be to reduce the density. A second way would be to reduce the size of the units ( 1264 square feet, two bedroom units take up considerably more ground area than 850-900 square foot two bedroom units which are more typical ) . if the site is too crowded, Is it so .because more open space is required? The ordinance presently has two means of requiring open space. First there are the required setbacks as delineated in the above chart. Secondly, for each dwelling unit 300 square feet of group usable open space must be provided. This development has considerably more than the required 6000 square feet (300 square feet times 20 units) . It might be argued that the tennis court area could have been put to a more usable area but the owner felt that this could be an important element in the plan. if the group usable open space requirement (presently 300 square feet per unit) were changed to require an area equal to 50% of the area of each unit then in this case we would have obtained a minimum of 12,640 square feet or basically twice the present amount required. A requirement for open space tied directly to the size of the units might encourage development of smaller units. Smaller units would result in the project being less crowded although the density could be the same. C. If the project is too high, what are the possible options? This project is two story and 22 1/2 feet in height. it is felt that we have reduced the height limit about as much as possible. In 1976 the city established a 30 foot height limit. This limit was then reduced after public hearings before planning commission and city council to 24 feet or 22 feet for flat roofs. Single story development would be limited to 18 feet. if it is the desire of counci.l to reduce the height limit to single story ( 18 feet In height) , this could be accomplished by placing the Scenic Preservation (S.P.) designation on appropriate R-3 zoned areas. Staff would question whether the gain of 4 1/2 feet ( i .e. difference between l8 feet and 22 1/2 feet) would be significant seeing that this is an area of flat roofed structures built with total heights in the 8-10 foot range. At the planning commission public hearing of March 3, 1987, other property owners in the same block expressed concern with having two story development next door to their single story facilities. However, they indicated in discussions with staff that by the same token they felt that 2 Y CITY COUNCIL HEIGHT LIMITS iN R-2/R-3 2 S • MARCH 26, 1987 i the area should remain zoned for two stories. This of course would put the city in the position of creaking a "viscous circle." If we require single story. in the area now, those property owners will be coming to our public hearings in the future when the existing developments request i permission to redevelop with two story projects. Y In the matter of the two development proposals currently before the 1 planning commission there .Is sufficient vacant land around each of the two sites to allow the two story portion of the projects to be located there and only single story adjacent to the existing developments. d. Is the project too close to the streets? The specific development fronts on three streets and in all three cases is setback 15 feet from the property line. Total distance from the curbline to the buildings varies due to changes in the parkway width. On Shadow Mountain the parkway (distance from curb to property line) is 10 feet. Therefore, the building setback from the curb Is 25 feet while on San Luis Rey the parkway is eight feet wide and, .therefore, setback from curbline is 23 feet. Staff questions•whether increasing the building setback would achieve the desired affect. In looking at other two story ,deve I opments in the area, specifically El Paseo Village on Shadow Mountain at San Pablo the setbacks are similar. What is different Is that there is no wall on the property line. This allows for a feeling of openness and takes away the prison-like streetscape created by six foot high block walls. Of course there Is something to be said for a secure private development environment, however, this should be weighed with the aesthetic quality of the project and its impact on the neighborhood. In certain Instances ( i .e. around swimming pools and spas) fences are mandatory, however, nothing says they must be solid wood, stucco or masonry. Conclusion: The development in question meets or exceeds all of our present development standards. At this point in time It is not yet completed and given a few more weeks it should be. At this time we have a series of four issues which are of concern to some people. There does not appear to be any consensus as to which of those Issues or combination of issues are responsible for the problem. There would appear to be a series of possible options available to the council : i) Reduce the zoning density from R-3 (3) to R-2 ( 14.5 units per acre to 10.9 units per acre) . 3 CITY COUNCIL HEIGHT LIMITS IN R-2/R-3 Wi.-S MARCH 26, 1987 Limit the size of the units on both the minimum and maximum ends of the range. ill ) Change the group usable open space requirement from 300 square feet per unit to require a group usable open space equal to 50% of the area of each unit. (This would serve to limit dwelling unit size. ) IV) Reduce the permitted height from two story to one story with a maximum 18 feet in height. This could be accomplished by means of adding the Scenic Preservation S:P. designation to the R-3 areas. v) Increase the required setbacks for two story projects from the present 15 feet to 20 or 25 feet. vi ) Restrict the location of solid walls and/or fences. If security is a goal , then we could encourage the use of wrought Iron to retain the feeling of openness. if it is city council 's wish to address one or more of the problem areas, then they should be identified and the appropriate option(s) selected. The matter would then be referred to the planning commission for hearing and action. Following that action the matter would be returned to city council for hearing and final action. Another area of concern expressed by council was the number of garages being constructed facing a scenic corridor (Highway 74) . If It is the desire of council the ordinance could be changed to prohibit or limit the number of garage doors which face onto scenic corridors. PART It Also at the February 26, 1987, meeting Mrs. Henderson expressed concerns relative to the project under construction at San Luis Rey, Shadow Mountain and Larrea. As was explained to Mrs . Henderson when she visited this department on March 3, 1987, the project has frontage on three streets. The circulation pattern submitted by the applicant provided for access on both Larrea and Shadow Mountain. This provides two advantages: i ) It allows for disposal of traffic from the site from two points; ii ) it allows fire trucks an easy means of egress should they enter the site. The site is surrounded by a sidewalk on all three sides. The color of the building along with the other features of the architecture were approved by both the Palm Desert Property Owners Association Architectural Committee as well as the city architectural commission. 4 CITY COUNCIL HEIGHT LIMITS IN R-2/R-3 ZO. MARCH 26, 1987 The chimneys referred to by Mrs. Henderson actually serve wood burning fire places which are provided in each unit. Hence the need for 20 chimneys. All air conditioning units are roof-mounted below the top line of the shed roofs. RAMON A. DIAZ DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY 9EVELOPMENT/PLANNING RAO/SRS/tm I � 5 i Y . 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE; PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION Date: April 9, 1987 HSM Properties P.O. Box 3352 Palm Desert, CA 92261 Re PP 87-2 The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of April 7, 1987. APPROVED BY ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1208. CARRIED 3-1-1 (RICHARDS VOTED NO LADLON ABSTAINED Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the Director of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen ( 15) days of the date of the decision. RAMON A. DIAZ, SECRETA42Y PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION RAD/tm PLANNING C C I N G COMti1S�I0,i RESOLUTION NO. 1208 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLAN14ING COHI1ISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 13 UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT LOCATED BETWEEN LARREA AND SHADOW MOUNTAIN DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY 450 FEET WEST OF PORTOLA AVENUE. CASE NO: PP 87-2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 3rd day of March, 1987, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by HSM PROPERTIES for approval of a precise plan of design and negative declaration of, environmental impacts to allow construction of a 13 unit apartment project on 40,500 square feet in the R-3 zone on property located between Larrea and Shadow Hountain Drive, approximately 450 feet west of Portola Avenue, more particularly described as: APN 627-273-000 and 016 WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that the director of environmental services has determined that the project will not have an adverse impact on the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testi- mony and arguments, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify the granting of said precise plan of design: 1 . The design of the precise plan will not substantially depreciate property values in the vicinity. 2. The precise plan will not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of the property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes. 3. The precise plan will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. 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 approval of Precise Plan 87-2 is hereby granted for reasons subject to the attached conditions. 3. That a negative declaration of environmental impart is hereby certified. PLANNING CONHISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12U8 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 7th day of April , 1987, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: DOWNS, WHITLOCK & ERWOOD NOES: RICHARDS ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: LADLOW 9 RICHARD ERWOOD, Chairman ATTEST: ANON A. DIAZ, SeeretSry /dig i 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1200 CONDITIONS OF ArPROVAL CASE P'O. PP 87-2 Department of Community Development: 1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the department of community development, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any uses contemplated by this approval , the applicant shall first complete all the procedural requirements of the city which include, but are not limited to, architectural commission and building permit procedures. 3. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval unless a time extension is granted, otherwise said approval shall become null , void and of no effect whatsoever. 4. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval , the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Riverside County Department of Health Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Property Owner's Association 6. That prior to issuance of building ,permit the owner (developer) provide the city with evidence that he has paid the required school mitigation fee. 7. That the end of the row of open parking spaces be screened from view by a minimum three foot high wall or other suitable method of screening to be determined by the architectural commission. 8. The trash enclosures shall be located as approved by Palm Desert Disposal . 3 PLANNING CONIIISSIOiI iiLEOLL+F. iu;1 1i0. 12i13 9. That the landscaping perimeter strip between the open parking spaces and the perimeter wall be provided as required by ordinance to the satisfaction of the city's architectural commission. 10. That the applicant enter into an agreement with the city guaranteeing that the property will voluntarily be a part of any indergrounding district, which may be established by the city, including tie property in question. The form of this agreement shall be acceptable to the city attorney and shall run with the land. This conditionlshall not be applicable to the service lines that lead directly to the building(s) which must be undergrounded. 11 . That six foot high masonry perimeter walls be provided along the east and west property lines. 12. That the site plan be revised to provide two parking areas (approximately equal in size) one with access from Shadow Mountain and one with access from Larrea. Department of Public Vorks: 1 . Drainage and signalization fund fees, as required by c�ty ordinance, shall be paid prior to grading permit issuance. 2. Storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study by the private engineer that is approved by the department of public works. 3. Full public improvements, including traffic safety lighting, as required by ordinance and the director of public works, shall bo installed in accordance with city standards. 4. Complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted, as required by ordinance, to the director of public works fo checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. The engineer shall submit "as-built" plans prior to the acceptance of the improvements by the city. 5. All private driveways and parking lots shall be ins ected by the engineering department and, a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to grading permit issuance. 6. Landscaping maintenance on Larrea Street and Shadow Mountain Drive shall be provided by the property owner. 7. Existing utilities between lots 6 and 13 shall be undergrounded per each respective utility district's recommendation. Swimming pool and spa constitute permanent structures within the existing public utility i 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1208 easement, and therefore must be relocated on either side of the ten foot easement. 8. Complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted, as required by ordinance, to the director of public works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. 9. Installation of six foot wide sidewalk on Larrea Street and Shadow Mountain Drive. 10. Offsite improvement plans to be approved by public works department and a surety posted to guarantee the required offsite improvements prior to grading permit issuance. 11 : Size, number and location of driveways to public works specifications with only one driveway approach to be allowed to serve this +Iproperty. 12. Grading permit issuance shall be subject to the waiver of parcel map first being approved and recorded. 13. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by th approval of plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permit(s) by the department of public works. 14. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the department of public works prior to issuance of the grading permit. 15. Assessor's parcel map indicates a 140 foot street frontage on lot 13, contrary to applicant's submitted materials which designate a 150 foot frontage. City Fire Marshal : 1 . That the applicant comply with the requirements of the fire marshal as determined when he reviews the plans during plan check. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION S` APRIL 7, 1987 VI . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. TT 18966 - FREDERICK WHITMAN, Applicant Request For approval of an 18-month time extension for of tentative tract. map and hillside development plan on 33.4 acres located west of Indian Springs Mobile Home . Park, north of at Creek debris basin. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs , seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, approving the requested time extension to September 6, 1988, by minute motion. Carried 5-0. VII . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VIII . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case No. PPP 87-2 - HSM Properties, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design and negative declaration of environmental i!I�pact to allow 13 residential units on a 40,500 sluare foot property in the R-3 20,000 (3) zone located between Shadow Mountain Drive and Larrea, 4.50 feet west of Portola Avenue. Mr. Smith reviewed the background of the case and recommended a continuance to June 16 to allow ample time foi council to resolve concerns and establish policy for R-2 and R-3 devielopment.s. Chairman Erwood opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. KEN STENDELL, 72-847 Skyward, stated that the project meets and/or exceeds all zoning requirements ing use and noted that the planning department had recommended approval . He requested approval and informed commission that it has been 'a hardship with the continuance of 30 days already. Mr. Stendell asked commission to review the project on its merits. He informed commission that approved projects in the R-12/R-3 zones were able 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION ij APRIL 7, 1967 LJto pull permits and felt that if this project was not approved a moratorium should be called. He stated that if the project was going to be continued, he would ask for a denial so that he could appeal to the city council . Commissioner Richards asked Mr. Stendell if he understood the system. Mr. Stendell replied affirmatively. N Upon question by Commissioner Richards, Mr. Connors indicated that the case could be postponed and if it goes t8 council they may propose a moratorium, with one other option being that this could be referred to council for further clarification. Mr. Diaz stated that he could not recommend approval , but would recommend continuance based on council direction.pyy He stated that if the commission wished to deny the project, it cou]id be denied on the grounds that the project may not meet the long range policies and future city ordinances, and when the matter gets to council , staff would recommend a moratorium. Chairman Erwood asked if it would go to council if approved. Mr. Diaz replied no. Commissioner Ladlow commented that it could set a precedent if this project were approved. Mr. Stendell stated that if his case is continued or denied and he meets all required criteria and anyone else is allowed to pull permits and gets a fixed interest , then he would be treated arbitrarily. He requested approval and spoke against a continuance because that would not even allow for an appeal ocess. Chairman Erwood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed. MR. WAYNE GURALNICK, representing agenda item #D, stated that they also meet all the criteria. Chairman Erwood asked Mr. Guralnick to offer comment only regardin6 the project under discussion. Mr. Guralnick requested approval for the project and .indicated that the council could call it up if they wanted. Chairman Erwood stated that he was swayed by the applicant's arguments that he has complied with all requirements. He noted that no formal action had been taken by council and recommended approval . Mr . Diaz requested a two-week continuance to allow for council clarification. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, 3 MINUTES ~ PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 7, 1967 instructing staff to prepare a resolution of denial . Vote: 2-3 with Commissioners Ladlow, Whitlock and Chairman E�wood voted no. Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Chairmal Erwood, approving the findings as presented by staff at the March 3, 1987 meeting. Carried 3-1-1 (Commissioner- Richards voted no, 1 mmissioner Ladl.ow abstained) . Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Chairman Erwood, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1208, approAg PP 87-2 subject to conditions . Carried 3- 1- 1 (Commissioner Richards voted no, Commissioner Ladlow abstained) . B. Continued Case No. PP 87-3 - HSM PROPERTIES, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of de ign and negative declaration of environmental impact to allow 13 residential units on a 40d500 square foot property in the R-3 20,000 (3) zone located on the north side of Shadow Mounain Drive, 750 feet west of Portola Avenue. Commissioner Richards asked if there were any problems with conditions. Mr. Smith reviewed the conditions stating that "and planning staff" should be added to community de elopment condition no. 8 and added conditions 10 and 11 relatinc to the applicant joining an undergrounding district for overhead lines, installation of six foot masonry wall , and providing a landscaped strip adjacent to the east perimeter wall as required by the architectural commission. Mr. Diaz noted that the conditions of the March 3 resolution would apply if commission were to move for approval . Chairman Erwood opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. KEN STENDELL stated that testimony from the previous case would apply for this one also. Chairman Erwood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed. There being no one, the public testimony was closed. 4 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: April 7, 1987 CASE NO: PP 87-2 PP 87-3 REQUEST: Approval of a precise plan of design and negative declaration of environmental impact to allow 13 resident°ial units on a 40,500 square foot property in the R-3 20,000 (I3) zone located between Shadow Mountain Drive and Larrea, 45'0 feet west of Portola Avenue. APPLICANT: HSM PROPERTIES Ken Stendall P.O. Box 3352 Palm Desert, CA 92261 1. BACKGROUND: The applicant was before planning commission at its March 3, 1987 meeting at which time the matter was continued until April 7, 1987 based on a request from city council . The city council at fts March 26, 1987 meeting reviewed a staff report (copy attached) which outlined some of the possible courses of action which could be used to address the problem of two story development moving into an area of preseAtly only single story development. Based on the March 26, 1987 staff report, city council directed that staff schedule for public hearing all of the options outlined on pages three and four. It is unlikely that all of the option would be implemented but it is likely that one or more may be enacted. These Icould have definite impacts on the above noted cases. Accordingly, these cases must be continued until after the ordinance amendment process is completed. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: CEQA guidelines section 15107 requires that a negative declaration must be completed and ready for approval within 105 days from receipt of completed application. The negative declaration may a approved at a later time when the permit is approved. This case was received January 12, 1987. The 105 day period will expire April 27, 1987. For the purposes of this section the staff report of March 3, 1987 contained the necessary environmental documentation to meet the "completed and ready for approval" provisions of the law. The negative declaration will be approved at such time as the cases are approved. PP 87-2 8 PP 87-3 STAFF REPORT II. RECOMMENDATION: That PP 87-2 and PP 87-3 for HSM Properties be continued to the planning commission meeting of June 16, 1987 at which time the p ocessing of the ordinance amendments for the R-2 and R-3 zones should havJ been completed. Prepared by Reviewed and Approved by /dig 2 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING DATE: MARCH 26, 1987 SUBJECT: HEIGHT LIMITS IN R-2 AND R-3 ZONES Background: Council at its February 26, 1987, meeting discussed a report on the 20 unit development at San Luis Rey and Shadow Mountain. Comments of council members seemed to indicate that the specific development in questilon, notwithstanding that it complied with all ordinance requirements, was not compatible with existing development in the area. The criticisms seemed to center as follows: I ) project is too dense Ill project is too crowded III ) project is too high IV) project is too close to the street Development Standards: R-3 (3) Requirements Sanborn-Rvlee Project Density l unit per 3000 sq. ft. of lot area 1 unit per 3000 sq. ft. of lot areal, 14.52 du/acre 14.52 du/acre Height (pitched roof) 24 ft./2 story Front setbacks 15 ft. 22 I�/2 ft./2 story Street side yard 10 ft. 15 f 15 flt. I , Interior side yard 8 ft. I1 ft. Unit sizes (2 bdrm) 800 sq. ft. minimum 1264 sq. ft. Required Group open 300 sq. .ft./unit x 20 tennis 7200, pool 2400 Space 6000 total 9600 sq., ft. Parking Spaces (condo stds 2 1/2/unit 50 spaces 50 lere aces *Note: On this development there is no rear yards, if was its setback would be 10 feet. The above chart delineates that this project in all resp�cts met or exceeded all the minimum standards and yet it Is not felt to be compatible with existing development in the area. The question becomes why is this project unacceptable (not compatible) . a. If it is too dense then the means to make it less dense is quite evident. The density at one unit per 3000 square feet is 14.52 units per acre. CITY COUNCIL HEIGHT LIMITS IN R-2/R-3 ZONES MARCH 26, 1987 Basic R-2 zoning allows one unit per 4000 square feet or 10.89 units per acre. Would this density have made for an acceptable project? b. If the project is too crowded then there are several possible means of making it less crowded. One would be to reduce the density. A second way would be to reduce the size of the units ( 126, square feet, two bedroom units take up considerably more ground area than 850-900 square foot two bedroom units which are more typical ) . If the site is too crowded, is it so because more open space is required? The ordinance presently has two means of requiring open space. First there are the required setbacks as delineated in the above chart. Secondly, for each dwelling unit 300 square feet of group usable open space.must be provided. This development has considerably more than the required 6000 square feet (300 square feet times 20 units) . It might be argued that the tennis court area could have been put to a more usable area but the owner felt that this could be an important element in the plan. If the group usable open space requirement (presently 300 square feet per unit) were changed to require an area equal to 50% of the area of each Iunit then in this case we would have obtained a minimum of 12,640 squarge feet or basically twice the present amount required. A requirement f44or open space tied directly to the size of the units might encourage development of smaller units . Smaller units would result In the project being less crowded although the density could be the same. C. If the project is too high, what are the possible options? This project is two story and 22 1/2 feet in height. It Is felt ghat we have reduced the height limit about as much as possible. In 1976 > he city established a 30 foot height limit. This limit was then reduced after public hearings before planning commission and city council to 24 feet or 22 feet for flat roofs. Single story development would be limited to 18 feet. If it is the desire of council to reduce the height limit to single story ( 18 feet in height) , this could be accomplished by placing the Scenic Preservation (S.P. ) designation on appropriate R-3 zoned areas. Staff would question whether the gain of 4 1/2 fe t ( i .e. difference between 18 feet and 22 I/2 feet) would be significant seeing that this is an area of flat roofed structures built with total heights in the 8-10 foot range. At the planning commission public hearing of March 3, 1987, other property owners in the same block expressed concern with having two story development next door to their single story facilities. However, they indicated in discussions with staff that by the same token they felt that 2 CITY COUNCIL HEIGHT LIMITS IN R-2/R-3 ZONES MARCH 26, 1987 the area should remain zoned for two stories. This o� course would put the city in the position of creating a "viscous circle." [f we require single story in the area now, those property owners wild be coming to our public hearings in the future when the existing developments request permission to redevelop with two story projects. In the matter of the two development proposals currently before the planning commission there is sufficient vacant land around each of the two sites to allow the two story portion of the projects tb be located there and only single story adjacent to the existing developments. d. Is the project too close to the streets? The specific development fronts on three streets and in all three cases is setback 15 feet from the property line. Total distance from the curbline to the buildings varies due to changes in the parkway width. On Shadow Mountain the parkway (distance from curb to property line) is 10 feet. Therefore, the building setback from the curb is 25 feet while on San Luis Rey the parkway is eight feet wide and, therefore, setback from curbline is 23 feet. Staff questions whether increasing the building setback would achieve the desired affect. In looking at other two story developments in the area, specifically El Paseo Village on Shadow Mountain at San Pablo the setbacks are similar. What is different Is that there is no wall on the property line. This allows for a feeling of openness and takes away the prison-like streetscape created by six foot high block walls. Of course there Is something to be said for a secure private development environment, however, this should be weighed with the aesthetic quality of the project and its impact on the neighborhood. in certain instances ( i . e. around swimming pools and spas) fences are mandatory, however, nothing says they must be solid wood, stucco or masonry. Conclusion: The development in question meets or exceeds all of our present development standards. At this point in time it is not yet completed .and given a few more weeks it should be. At this time we have a series of four( issues which are of concern to some people. There does not appear to be any consensus as to which of these issues or combination of issues are responsible for the problem. There would appear to be a series of possible options available to the council : 1 ) Reduce the zoning density from R-3 (3) to R-2 ( t .5 units per acre to 10.9 units per acre) . 3 • CITY COUNCIL HEIGHT LIMITS IN R-2/R-3 ZONES MARCH 26, 1987 i1 ) Limit the size of the units on both the minimum a�d maximum ends of the range. Change the group usable open space requirement from 300 square feet per unit to require a group usable open space equal to 50% of the area of each unit. (This would serve to limit dwe11ling unit size. ) IV) Reduce the permitted height from two story to one story with a maximum 18 feet in height. This could be accomplished by means of adding the Scenic Preservation S.P. designation to the R-3 areas. v) Increase the required setbacks for two story projects from the present 15 feet to 20 or 25 feet. vi ) Restrict the location of solid walls and/or fences. if security is a goal , then we could encourage the use of wrought iron to retain the feeling of openness. If it is city council 's wish to address one or more of the Problem areas, then they should be identified and the appropriate option(s) selGected. The matter would then be referred to the planning commission for hearing and action. Following that action the matter would be returned to city council for hearing and final action. Another area of concern expressed by council was the number of garages being constructed facing a scenic corridor (Highway 74) . If 1t is the desire of council the ordinance could be changed to prohibit or limit the number of garage doors which face onto scenic corridors. PART 11 Also at the February 26, 1987, meeting Mrs. Henderson expressed concerns relative to the project under construction at San Luis Rely, Shadow Mountain and Larrea. As was explained to Mrs . Henderson when she visited this department on March 3, 1987, the project has frontage on tihree streets. The circulation pattern submitted by the applicant provided for access on both Larrea and Shadow Mountain. This provides two advantages. i ) it allows for disposal of traffic from the site from two points; li ) it allows fire trucks an easy means of egress should they enter the site. The site is surrounded by a sidewalk on all three sides. The color of the building along with the other features of the architecture were approved by both the Palm Desert Property Owners Association Architectural Committee as well as the city architectural commission. 4 CITY COUNCIL HEIGHT LIMITS IN R-2/R-3 ZONES MARCH 26, 1987 The chimneys referred to by Mrs. Henderson actually serve wood burning fire places which are provided in each unit. Hence the need for 20 chimneys. All air conditioning units are roof-mounted below the top line of the shed roofs. RAMON A. DIAZ DIRECTOR OF COMMUN6YVELOPMENT/PLANNING RAD/SRS/tm I 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 3, 1987 VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PP 84-34 - LOU GLISAN, Applicant Request for approval of a time extens10 i to August_ 1 , 1987 for a 19 , 000 square oot commercial bui lding in the C- 1 zone at the northwest intersection of Highway III and Painters Path. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, approving the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 3-0. VII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. Vill . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. PP 87-2 3 HSM Properties, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of lesign and negative declaration of environmental impact to allow 13 residential units on a 40,500 square foot property in the R-3 20,000 (3) zone located between Shadow Mountain Drive and Larreal, 450 feet west of Portola Avenue. Mr. Smith outlined the salient points of le staff report and requested a continuance pending direction from the city council regarding two story development in this areas Mr. Diaz indicated that council would review the matter at their second meeting in March. Commissioner Whitlock asked if the applicant had been .. before the Property Owners Association. Mr. Smith replied that they had received preliminary approval from them. Chairman Erwood opened the public testimo y and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. KEN STENDELL, partner, clarified that the name of the firm was HSM, not HMS as shown on the agenda. He stated that an 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 3, 1987 I— issue of concern would be the situation of he split parking. He indicated that he had concerns with providing access from Larrea. He stated that the Sun and Shadows would like to change their zoning to C-1 commercial . He felt there would be an impact on traffic which could create a ha dship on business tenants. He also stated that a continuance created a hardship because the proposal was within the zoning requirements. He indicated that he had another piece of property with some of the' same architecture. He felt the major issue was the parking lot on the Larrea Street side for present tenants and future use. He stated that there was one driveway to thus site per public works conditions. Chairman Erwood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or . OPPOSITION to the proposed. MR. BOB PRESS, Desert Patch owner, stated that all of the long-time residents looked forward to growth but felt that the smaller resorts were being pushed out, including Sun and Shadow, which was why they are trying to convert to a commercial use. He stated that they were not trying to inNcrease any traffic hazards. He felt they should be allowed to proceed with the plans to change zoning to C-1 in order to stay in business. MR. MASON NURICK, Casa Larrea owner, stated that when he came to the desert he wanted to develop two story and was denied; since then two story buildings have been built. He felt they had been detrimental to present property owners and now there are plans to build another two story building. He indicated that it is not good for Palm Desert to be only commercial and felt that the city was built, on a small tow• principal and that he was against any two story layout. He sitated that the city should be more firm and decisions should be made on a who you know basis. He stated that when the bIuilding to the west was built, a greatly different plan was put up and he was not notified of a change. Mr. Diaz addressed comments by Mr. Nurick by sating that the city does not make decisions based on "who you know. " He also stated that C-1 and R-3 zones in the city did not even require public hearings until 1981 . He stated that the building in question met all the code requirements and was not a case of "who you know." MR. BOB PRESS spoke regarding building in back of Mesa and stated that the city sent nut a plan to all the residents, 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING CORHISSION MARCH 3,. 1987 -Y which they approved because the plans sent were one level . He stated that he did not know two stories were going up until he saw it. He stated that he was to that the city could not do anything to change it and that someone Idiruected him to the property owners association. He indicated that the property owners association laughed at him when he brought the matter up, at which time he contacted an attorney. I He informed the commission that he loved this community and purchased property 100% from money that he had earned and stated that he was now faced with bankruptcy. and could thank Everyone for the situation. MR. WENDELL RYLEE, owner of property on San Luis Rey, stated that the original approval was never changed. He indicated that $100,000 was being spent on landscaping and asked that people wait until the project was complete before mak ng judgments. Chairman Erwood reminded commission that the latter before the them was a request for continuance awaiting direction from city council . Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs , seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, continuing PP 87-2 to April 7, 1987. Carried 3-0. Mr. Smith noted that no further legal notices would be sent out and advised the audience that anyone wishing to offer further testimony should come back on April 7, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Bob Press stated that he was a single owner, of a resort and indicated that it was a hardship for him to take time away from his business to come to the meeting, but stated that he would come again. 8. Case No. PP 87-3 - HSM PROPERTIES, Applicant Request, for approval of a precise plan of design and negative declaration .of environmental impact to al low 13 residential units on a 40300 square foot property in the R-3 20,000 (3) zone located on the north side of Shadow Mountain Drive, 750 feet west of Portola Avenue. Mr. Smith outlined the salient points of the staff report and reviewed the past history of the property. 4 CITY OF PALM DESERT TRANSMITTAL LETTER I. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council 11 . REQUEST: Approval of a precise plan of design and negative declaration of environmental impact to allow 13 residential units on a 40,500 square foot property in' the R-3 20,000 1 (3) zone located between Shadow Mountain drive and Larrea, 450 feet west of Portola Avenue. III. APPLICANT: HSM PROPERTIES P.O. Box 3352 Palm Desert, CA 92261 IV. CASE NO: PP 87-2 V. DATE: May 14, 1987 VI . CONTENTS: A. Staff recommendation B. Discussion C. Draft Resolution D. Planning Commission Minutes involving Case No. PP 8fpril -2 E. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1208 F. Planning Commission staff report dated March 3 and 7, 1987 G. Related maps and/or exhibits -- - -------------------------------------------------------------------- A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. approving PP 87-2. B. DISCUSSION: January 12, 1987 the applicant filed this request for approval of 13 apartment units. The matter was heard by Planning Commission on March 3, 1987 at which time it was continued to April 7, 198�7 to allow time for city council direction for future policy regarding two story development in this area. On February 26, 1987 and March 26, 1987 city council had reviewed staff. reports (copies attached) concerning development standards. At the April 7, 1987 planning commission meeting the staff report (copy attached) recommended that this case be continued until June 16, 1987 in that that seemed like a realistic date by which pro osed amendments to development standards in the R-2 and R-3 zones co ld be reviewed and considered by both planning commission 'and city council . PP 87-2 TRANSMITTAL LETTER The applicant presented his case to planning commission and persuaded the members that further delay would result in severe financial hardship. Commission was swayed by the applicant's arguments that Ile complied with all requirements. Motion for approval passed on a 3-1-1 vote with Richards voting nay and Ladlow abstaining. i Prepared by Reviewed and Approved by /dlg 2 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONX MENTAL IMPACT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 13 UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT LOCATED BETWEEN LARREA AND SHADOW MOUNTAIN DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY 450 FEET WEST OF PORTOLA AVENUE. CASE NO: PP 87-2 1 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 14th day of May, 1987, hold a duly noticed public hearinghto consider the request by HSM PROPERTIES for approval of a precise plan of design and negative declaration of environmental impact to allow construction of a 13 unit apartment project on 40,500 square feet in the R-3 zone on �roperty located between Larrea and Shadow Mountain Drive, approximately 450 feet west of Portola Avenue, more particularly described as: APN 627-273-006 and 016 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert did hold public hearings on this matter on March 3 and April 7, 1987 and approved said project. WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirem nts of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that the director of environmental services has determined that the project will not have an adverse impact 0n the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and cons idering all testi- mony and arguments, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said commission did find the following facts and reasons to exit to justify the granting of said precise plan of design: 1 . The design of the precise plan will not substantially depreciate property values in the vicinity. 2. The precise plan will not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of the property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes. 3. The precise plan will not endanger the public pea le, health, safety or general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the council in this case. RESOLUTION NO. 2. That approval of Precise Plan 87-2 is hereby granted for reasons subject to the attached conditions. 3. That a negative declaration of environmental impact is hereby certified. PASSED. APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of 1he Palm Desert City Council , held on this day of 1987, by the following vote, to wit, AYES: NOES.: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICHARD S. KELLY! Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California /dlg 2 RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. PP 87-2 Department of Community Development: I . The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits t on file with the department of community development, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any uses contemplated by this approval , the applicant shall first complete all the procedural requirements of the city which include, but are not limited to, architectural commission and building permit procedures. 3. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from - the date of final approval unless a time extensNdggion is granted, otherwise said approval shall become null , void and of no effect whatsoever. Iif 4. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval , the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Riverside County Department of Health Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Property Owner's Association 6. That prior to issuance of building permit the owner (developer) provide the city with evidence that he has paid the required "school mitigation fee. 7. That the end of the row of open parking spaces be screened from view by a . minimum three foot high wall . or other suitable method of screening to be determined by the architectural commission. B. The trash enclosures shall be located as approved by Palm Desert Disposal and the director of community development. 3 RESOLUTION NO. 9. That the landscaping perimeter strip between the open parking spaces and the perimeter wall be provided as required by ordiInance to the satisfaction of the city's architectural commission. 10. That the applicant enter into an agreement with the city guaranteeing that the property will voluntarily be a part of any undergrounding district which may be established by the city, including ){the property in question. The form of this agreement shall be acceptable to the city attorney and shall run with the land. This conditioXXXXXX''n''' shall not be applicable to the service lines that lead directly to he building(s) which must be undergrounded. . . 11 . That six foot high masonry perimeter walls be provided along the east and west property lines. 12. That a landscape planter strip be provided on the east property line adjacent to the perimeter wall as .required by the) architectural commission. 13. That the approved site plan shall locate any two story whits adjacent to vacant property only. Department of Public Works: Public Works: 1 . Drainage and signalization fund fees, as required by city ordinance, shall be paid prior to grading permit issuance. 2. Storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study by the private engineer that is approved by the department of public works. 3. Full public improvements, including traffic safety lighting, as required by ordinance and the director of public works, shall be installed in accordance with city standards. 4. Complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted, as required by ordinance, to the director of public works for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. The engineer shall submit "as-built" plans prior to the acceptance of the improvements by the city. 5. All private driveways and parking lots shall be inspected by the engineering department and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to grading permit Issuance. 6. Landscaping maintenance on Larrea Street and Shadow Mountain Drive shall be provided by the property owner. 4 RESOLUTION NO. 7. Existing utilities between lots 6 and 13 shall be undergrounded per each respective utility district's recommendation. Swimming pool and spa constitute permanent structures within the existing public utility easement, and therefore must be relocated on either side �of the ten foot easement. 8. Complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted, as required by ordinance, to the director of public works for checking and approval )' prior to issuance of any permits. 9. Installation of six foot wide sidewalk on Larrea Street and Shadow Mountain Drive. 10. Offsite improvement plans to be approved by public works department and a surety posted to guarantee the required offsite improvements prior to grading permit issuance. 11 . Size, number and location of driveways to public works specifications with only one driveway approach to be allowed to serve this property. 12. Grading permit issuance shall be subject to the waive of parcel map first being approved and recorded. 13. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval , of plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permit(s) by the department . of public works. 14. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted Iy a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by tie department of public works prior to issuance of the grading permit. 15. Assessor's parcel map indicates a 140 foot street frontage on lot 13, contrary to applicant's submitted materials which designate a 150 foot frontage. City Fire Marshal : 1 . That the applicant comply with the requirements of the fire marshal as specified in his letter dated.March 7, 1987. 5 i . CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: March 3, 1987 CASE NO: PP 87-2 REQUEST: Approval of a precise plan of design and negative declaration of environmental impact to allow 13 residential units on a 40,500 square foot property in the R-3 20,000 (3) zone located between Shadow Mountain Drive and Larrea, 450 feet west of Portola Avenue. APPLICANT: HMS PROPERTIES P.O. Box 3352 Palm Desert, CA 92261 1 . BACKGROUND: A. DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The property is a gently sloping vacant site which extends from Shadow Mountain Drive through to Larrea. B. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: North: C-1/office building (old city hall ) South: R-3 13,000 (3)/vacant East: R-3 20,000 (3)/multi family West: R-3 20,000 (3)/north half. vacant-south half, 6 unit co-op C. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential 5-7 du/acre II . PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The property is a rectangular shaped site having 150 feet of frontage on Shadow Mountain Drive and a depth of 135 feet. A. SITE DESIGN, CIRCULATION AND PARKING: The applicant is proposing to construct 13 residential units around a central recreation area which will include appool and spa. Parking is shown at the southeast corner of the property with access from Shadow Mountain. r PP 87-2 STAFF REPORT , The Crime Prevention Officer suggests and we concur that the parking spaces should be split and with half located on the north end of the lot with access from Larrea Street. The fourplex would be shifted southerly. A total of 26 parking spaces are required of which 13 must be covered spaces. This requirement has been satisfied in that 13 carport spaces will be provided along with 13 open spaces. B. ARCHITECTURE: The project architecture will include exterior materials consisting of spanish texture stucco, heavy wood trim and flat shake the roofing. The applicant will be required to receive approval from the city' s architectural commission and the Palm Desert Property Owner's Association Architectural Committee. C. UNIT TYPE AND MIX: The development will be a mix of one and two story structures. The eleven single story units will be 14 feet in height while the two 2 story units will be 24 feet in height. The units will be a mix of one 3 bedroom unit of 1224 square feet and twelve 2 bedroom units of 1086 square feet. III . ANALYSIS: A. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF A PRECISE PLAN: 1 . The design of the precise plan will not substantially depreciate property values in the vicinity. Justification: The use is attractive and acceptable from a design aspect and not incompatible with other uses existing in the vicinity. 2. The precise plan will not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes. Justification: Existing uses in the immediate area are motels and multifamily. Apartments and motels are permitted in the R-3 zone. Develop- ment of the type proposed should not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the vicinity. 2 PP 87-2 STAFF REPORT 3. The precise plan will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. Justification: The project, as conditioned, is designed in a manner that will not endanger the public peace, health. safety or general welfare. Staff feels these findings can be justified in this case. Environmental Review: Several environmental impacts were identified in the initial study. It is felt that adequate means is available to mitigate these environmental imparts. Appropriate conditions will be imposed on the development to mitigate any adverse environmental impacts. With the imposition of these conditions the project will not have a significant impact on the enviJonment and a negative declaration of environmental impact has been prepared. IV. CONCERNS: Staff has discussed the proposed development with several residents and property owners in the vicinity. The basic concern expressed relates to the two story portion of the project and the possible I o ss of mountain views which' could result from this development. The project as submitted complies with the number of units permitted on the site, the setback requirements and height limits of the IR-3 zone. In response to an oral communication to the city council at its February 12, 1987 meeting staff prepared a report on the Sanborn-fylee 20 unit, two story development at the corner of San Luis Rey and Shadow Mountain. This report will be presented at the council meeting of R February 26, 1987. Staff will advise commission of any direction which may come from council . It is important to note that the two, 2 story units in this project have been located adjacent to vacant land in an attempt to limit the impact on existing residents. In addition these 2 story structures are buffered on each end by single story units which create a stepped effect. A revised plan, received February 23, 1987 has corrected several areas of concern so they won't be repeated here. 3 r PP 87-2 STAFF REPORT V. CONCLUSION: Commission should determine whether or not the plan should be revised to split the parking areas from both Shadow Mountain and Larrea or leave it as submitted. The Parking could be split 12 spaces on one end and 14 spaces on the other end. This would require that the fourplex be shifted southerly on the lot. Due to the public utility easement which runs through the site from west to east the fourplex would have to be split into two 2 unit j buildings. As mentioned earlier staff feels that the parking should be split so that It is more accessible to all units, less congestion in the dead end Parking aisle and less need for street parking which the crime prevention officer prefers we avoid. In the other 13 unit case located 150 feet west. of this site staff worked on splitting the parking area between the east and west end but given the configuration of the site it did not lend itself to doing so. In addition staff did not wish to come between the applicant and the area residents in their quest to negotiate a compromise which has apparently been worked out. VI. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends: A. Adoption of the findings; B. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. approving PP 87-2 subject to conditions. VII. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft Resolution B. Legal Notice C. Negative Declaration and Initial Study D. Comments from city departments and agencies E. - Plans and Exhibits Prepared by Reviewed and Approved by Al�'-1- /dla 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 13 UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT LOCATED BETWEEN LARREA AND SHADOW MOUNTAIN DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY 450 FEET WEST OF PORTOLA AVENUE. CASE NO: PP 87-2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert. California, did on the 3rd . day of March. 1987, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by HMS PROPERTIES for approval of a precise plan of design and negative declaration of environmental impacts to allow, construction of a 13 unit apartment project on 40,500 square feet In the R-3 zone on property located between Larrea and Shadow Mountain Drive, appI-oximately 450 feet west of Portola Avenue, more particularly described as: APN 627-273-006 and 016 WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Envirorimental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that the director of environmental services has determined that the project will not have an adverse impact on the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared. WHEREAS. at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testi- mony and arguments, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to Justify the granting of said precise plan of design: 1 . The design of the precise plan will not substantially depreciate Property values in the vicinity. 2. The precise plan will not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of the property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes. 3. The precise plan will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. 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 approval of Precise Plan 87-2 is hereby granted for reasons subject to the attached conditions. 3. That a negative declaration of environmental impact is hereby certified. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PASSED. APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 3rd day of March, 1987, by the following vote. to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICHARD ERWOOD, Chairman ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary /dlg 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. _ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. PP 87-2 Department of Community Development: 1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the department of community development, as 2difled by the following conditions. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any uses contemplated by this approval , the applicant shall first complete all the procedural requirements of the city which include, but are not limited to. architectural commission and building permit procedures 3. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence lithin. one year from the date of final approval unless a time extension is granted, otherwise said approval shall become null , void and of no effect whatsoever. 4. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes no tw in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 5. Prior to Issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval , the applicant shall firs • obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Riverside County Department of Health Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Property Owner's Association 6. That prior to issuance of building permit the owner (developer) provide the city with evidence that he has paid the required Khoo] mitigation fee. 7. That the end of the row of open parking spaces be screened from view by a minimum three foot high wall or other suitable method of screening to be determined by the architectural commission. 8. The trash enclosures shall be located as approved by Palm Desert Disposal . 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 9. That the landscaping perimeter strip between the open parking spaces and the perimeter wall be provided as required by ordinance to the satisfaction of the city's architectural commission. 10. That the applicant enter into an agreement with the city guaranteeing that the property will voluntarily be a part of any undergrounding district which may be established by the city, Including the property in question. The form of this agreement shall be acceptable to the city attorney and shall run with the land. This condition shall not be applicable to the service lines that lead directly to the building(s) which must be underarounded. 11 . That six foot high masonry perimeter walls be provided along the east and west property lines. 12. That the site plan be revised to provide two parking areas (approximately equal in size) one with access from Shadow Mountain and one with access from Larrea. Department of Public Works: 1 . Drainage and signalization fund fees, as required by city ordinance, shall be paid prior to gradina permit issuance. 2. Storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study by the private engineer that is approved by the department of public works. 3. Full public improvements, including traffic safety lighting, as required by ordinance and the director of public works, shall be installed in accordance with city standards. 4. Complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted, as required by ordinance, to the director of public works for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. The engineer shall submit "as-built" plans prior to the acceptance of the improvements by the city. 5. All private driveways and parking lots shall be inspected by the engineering department and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to grading permit Issuance. 6. Landscaping maintenance on Larrea Street and Shadow Mountain Drive shall be provided by the property owner. 7. Existing utilities between lots 6 and 13 shall be undergrounded per each respective utility district's recommendation. Swimming pool and spa constitute permanent structures within the existing public utility 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. easement, and therefore must be relocated on either side of the ten foot easement. 8. Complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted, as required by ordinance, to the director of public works for checking and approval Prior to issuance of any permits. 9. Installation of six foot wide sidewalk on Larrea Street and Shadow Mountain Drive. 10. offsite improvement plans to be approved by public works department and a surety posted to guarantee the required offsite improvements prior to grading permit issuance. N lt . Size, number and location of driveways to public works specifications with only one driveway approach to be allowed to serve this Iyproperty. 12. Grading permit issuance shall be ,subject to the waiver Of parcel map first being approved and recorded. 13. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of Plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permit(s) by the department of public works. 14. A complete preliminary soils investigation. conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by th4 department of Public works prior to issuance of the grading permit. 15. Assessor's parcel map indicates a 140 foot street frontage on lot 13, contrary to applicant's submitted materials which designate a 150 foot frontage. City Fire Marshal : 1 . That the applicant comply with the requirements of the fire marshal as determined when he reviews the plans during plan check. 5 � k , INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FROM : DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS ' SUBJECT: PRE�-,tSE� ft-AH 9-7--Z DATE: _I�1.k LlARY 3o I ICI Pr7 The following should be considered conditions of approval : Ol Drainage and signalization fund fees , as required by City ordinance , shall be paid prior to ( Feeepdatlem _f the Final he') ( grading permit issuance) . 2 ) Drainage facilities shall be provided , per Ordinance No . 218 and the Master Drainage Plan , to the specifications of the Director of Public Works . V Storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study by the private engineer that is approved by the Department of Public Works . 4 Full public Improvements , including traffic safety lighting , as required by ordinance and the Director of Public Works , - shall be installed in accordance with City standards . 5 ) Improvement plans for water and sewer systems shall be approved by the respective service districts with "as-built" plans submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to the project final . 1 Complete Improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted, as required by ordinance , to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced . The engineer shall submit "as-built" plans prior to the acceptance of the improvements by the City. O7 All private 44tx-&ei9-', (driveways and parking lots ) shall be inspected by the engineering department and a standard Inspection fee shall be paid prior to ' ^--^-J tie.- of the f-Faa4—maP4--4grading permit issuance) . D Landscaping maintenance on L�arr¢.a Sc, a,nd kA_1 tBin (�r� shall be provided by the eiat; a„ (property owner) . . (D Existing utI1ItIes -en b2zt1Ijoa.,4 lames � a,nA 13 shall be undergrounded per each respective utility dis- trict' s recommendation . if + rmined to be unfeasible �r��+A9 des# =7st . `JWlmmlviS_�j a.-,-j n sPa ccr�stltut� (J2rvana�vr_, S'cruc-ru�s wI In PaCt5t-In IJ GI�� ky Q2Set++�+t and tom-'F­r�2- YhuS G ¢ f 2( ed 10 ) Traffic safety striping on shall be provided to the specifications of the Director of Public Works . A traffic control plan must be submitted to and approved by the Director of Public Works beC ore placing pavement markings . ll Complete grading plans and specifications shall be submit- ted , as required by ordinance , to the Director lof Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits . 12 ) Dedication of feet of right-of-way on shall be done prior to issuance of any permits and approval of plans . 0 Installation of v -b _^G+ g tteP Me.- 9 1 dewa I k on La 3a �2 revr -- 4 i ti�m promo`. 14) _ Waiver of access to exce t at approved locations shall be granted on the final map . 15 ) Close unused driveway with full height curb and gutter . 16 Offsite improvement plans to be approved by Public works Department and a surety posted to guarantee the required offsite improvements prior to c +h. Tr- 1 rnap)r (grading permit issuance ) . 17 ) Full improvement of interior streets based on ( 60 ' residen- tial ) (private) ( industrial ) street standards as established In accordance with Chapter 26 , Section 26 . 40 . 040 , C.P . D . Code . 18) Installation of one-half landscaped median in or cash payment for one-half the cost of landscaped median at the option of the Director of Public Works . 19) Traffic analysis to be prepared for the projel t to address the specific impacts on existing networks ( street and intersections ) and the proposed mitigation measures recom- mended for approval by the City. 20 ) Installation of sewers to serve this project . 21 Size , number and location of driveways to Public Works specifications with only Girta-_ driveway appjoachEe to be allowed to serve this property. IIB 22 ) No (new) requirements . (Original conditions apply) 23 Grading permit issuance shall be subject to the wa ( ver ,of parcel map first being approved and recorded. 24 ) Complete ( parcel ) ( tract ) maps ) shall bt submitted as , required by ordinance to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval and be recorded before issuance of any permits . 25 Any and all off-site improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permit ( s ) by the Department of Public Works . A complete preliminary soils investigation , conducted by a registered soils engineer , shall be submitted to and approv- ed by the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of the grading permit . 27) Applicant shall secure reciprocal ingress and egress access easements from the owner ( s ) of lot ( s ) 28 ��a deSos '�Tf�o l via o it -io 14�i SGrezr 11 r _Y.--�._��� 29) delRichard J . Folkers , P . E. RA/RJF Rev . 7/25/86 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92 260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 -7 Dated_— ��l_(�, DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF PLANS THIS 15 NOT AP,LAAN CHECK I1 DEVELOPMENT: A • I 1�� 1- '!�—1 1 AP1C(��KTi�� ��� oy\+M) The comments below are based on the following assumptions and code groups: 1985 Uniform Building Code 1985 Uniform Plumbing Code 1985 Uniform Mechanical Code 1984 National Electrical Code Title 24 Handicapp / Accessibility Standards Title 24 Energy Conservation Standards Title 24 Multi-Family Adaptability Standards Code Assumption: �7 Building Classification I 1 Type of Construction ? w aMs Sprinklered Allowable Floor Area: Basic Allowable Setbacks Sprinklered Multi-Story Factor Total Allowable Sq.Ft. CHECKLIST Plans shall be prepared by a licensed California architect. Show current number on plans. Submit a list of features proposed that show compliance to-ifmulti- amily handicapp regulations. Use a maximum cap of $740.00 per adapt- able dwelling unit. Page two. . . HANDICAPPED: Site requirements per handicapp standards. PARKING: f\ ❑ Show number of stalls required. ❑ Revise parking stall locations to allow main entry access. N ❑ Show international logo, loading and unloading zone requirements. ❑ Ramp from parking lot to sidewalk not shown on plans. BUILDING ACCESS: ❑ Doors shall be minimum 32" clear in width. ❑-t Provide 18" space on the swing side of doors. N ❑ On plans, show height of all bathroom accessories. ❑ Handicapp bathroom layout does not conform to current standards. Before further comments can be made, additional plans and specifications are needed for review. The following plans must be submitted to the Department of Building & Safety for plan review: Architectural Drawings and Details. Structural Drawings and Calculations. Complete Electrical . Mechanical and Plumbing Plans and Specifications. Title 24 Energy Conservation Documentation Forms. A . COMMENTS: � . e eca . d d � ELLER PRINCIPAL PLANS EXAMINER . z ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY ' COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058• COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236• TELEPHON (619)398-2651 DIRECTORS OFFICERS RAYMOND R.RUMMONDS,PRESIDENT THOMAS E.LEVY,GENERA1. L MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER TELUS CODEKAS,VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON,SECRETARY JOHN P.POWELL KEITH H.AINSWORTH,ASSISTANt GENERAL MANAGERIAUDITOR PAUL W.NICHOLS REDWINE AND SHERRILL,ATTORNEYS - Y" !, THEODORE J.FISH February 4, 1987 File: 0163. 1 Department of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Gentlemen: Subject: Precise Plan 87-2, Portion of Southeast Quarter, Section 20, Township 5 Sout0h, Range 6 East, San Bernardino MeridiaNn This area is protected from stormwater flows by a system of channels and dikes, and may be considered safe from stormwater flows except in rare I instances. This area is designated Zone B on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in effect at this time. The District will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with the current regulations of this District. These regulations provide for the payment of certain fees and charges by the subdivider and said fees and charges are subject to change. This area shall be annexed to Improvement District Nos. 54 and 80 of Coachella Valley Water District for sanitation service. Yours very truly, Tom Levy General Manager-Chief gineer CS:ra cc: Don Park Riverside County Department of Public Health, Indio TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY CITY OF PALM DESERT INTEROFFICE MEMO TO: Steve Smith FROM: Brent Conley RE: PP87-if 2- DATE: January 30, 1987 The plan as proposed shows the parking area for the entire project on the westside of the project. The safety and convience of the residents of the 6-plex could be enhanced by placing half the parking areas and carports to the east of the project. . This would also reduce the need for street parking. The plans shows a large usage of sliding glass doors in the rear, especially on units A & B. These doors must be equipped with key- equipped locks on the doors. Also solid-core doors, equipped with dead-bolt locks and 190 degree viewers is essential. The addressing of the units is important for the safety of the residents. The use of "A" on the ground units and "B" on the second story units can help avoid confusion. Also a complex locator board on each entrance from the parking area and street access should be utilized. Addresses should be consistant with addressing on Shadow Mountain Drive. Another possible suggestion is to locate the Jacuzzi closer to the 6-plex for easier usage by all residents. Brent Conley Crime Prevention Officer BC/rrt 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 t NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to Title 14. Division 6, Article 7. Section 1, 083 of the California Administrative Code. CASE NO: PP 87-2 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: HMS PROPERTIES P.O. Box 3352 Palm Desert, CA 92261 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Approval of a precise plan of design to allow construction of a 13 unit apartment project In the R-3 zone located 450 feet west of Portola Avenue between Shadow Mountain Drive and Larrea. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert. California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the initial study has Pen attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. RAMON A. DIAZ. DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /dig ■ M : c,^lCIR0V3=7AL SEIIVICES CEPT. INITIAL STUDY E21VIRo.`13IF.YTAL EVALUATI021 CSECZ,IST NOTE: The availability of data necessary to address the topics listed below shall form the basis of a decision as to whether the application is considered complete for purposes of environmental assessment. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers, possible mitigation measures and comments are provided on attached sheets). Yes Maybe No I . Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Oisruptions, displacements, compaction, or ' overcovering of the soil? iz c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction; covering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. : Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? / . I _ Y 2, Yes Maybe No i 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a.; Changes in currents, 'or the course or ✓ it direction of water movements? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? — — c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? V/ � d. Alteration of.the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? -L/ e. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? V f, Reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public water supplies? _ — 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, and crops)? V b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, are, or endangered species of plants? , — c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? _ -S. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of. animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, or Insects)? _ — b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of animals? — c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? _ d. Deterioration to existing wildlife habitat? u.. ■ ' 3. Yes Maybe No 6. Natural Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? - r — — b. Depletion ofeany non-renewable natural resource? ?. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? _ b. Demand upon existing sources of energy, or re- quire the-development of new sources of ✓ energy? 8. Risk setloes the proposal involve a stl risk oof U an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, pesticides, oil , chemicals, or radiation) in / the event of an accident or upset conditions? V 9. Economic Loss. Will the proposal result in: 1 a. A change in the value of property and improvements endangered by flooding? t ✓ . — b. A change in the value of property and impro•.ementsrexposed to geologic hazards beyond accepted coc7nunity risk standards? — — 10. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing . noise levels toethe point at which accepted col nunity noise and vibration levels are exceeded? A 11. Land Use. Willethe proposal result in the a E'e�ation of the present developed or + Planned land use of an area? 12. 0 en S ace. Will the proposal lead to a decrease in the:amount of designated open space? 13. Population. Will the proposal result in: a. Alteration oP the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human Population of- the Citv? b. Change in the Population distribution by age• income,'§-eligion, racial , or ethnic group, occupational class, household type? — 4. Yes Maybe No 14. Emolovment. Will the proposal result in i additional new long-term Jobs provided, or a change in the number and per cent employed, unemployed, and underemployed? 15. Housing. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in number and per cent of housing _ _ I units by type (price or rent range, zoning category, owner-occupied and rental , etc.) relative to demand or to number of I families in various income classes in the City? b. Impacts on existing housing or creation of a — demand for additional housing? 16. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal / result rn: a. Generation of additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, it l� — — demand for new parking? c. Impact upon existing transportation systems? _ _ d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? V 17. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or resu t in a need for, new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? ✓ d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? V' f. Other governmental services? S., Yes Maybe No 18. Public Fiscal Balance. Will the proposal result in a net change in government fiscal flow (revenues less operating expenditures / and annualized capital expenditures)? _ V 19. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a needor new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: a-- Power or natural gas? b. Communications system? c. Water? i d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? — — 20. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. The creation of any health hazard or Potential health hazard? b. A change in the level of community health �L care provided? 21. Social Services. Will the proposal result in Y an increased denand for provision of general social services? 22. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in: a. Obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? _ _ V It. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? — _ ✓ c. Lessening of the overall neighborhood (or area) attractiveness, pleasantness, and uniqueness? 23, Li ht and Gl4ra. Will the proposal produce new i g t or g are. e -- — 24. Archeolo ical/Historical . Will the proposal resu tin an a teration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object, or building? �/ B i 1 l / ' 6 Yes Mtybe No 2:. Mandatory Findings of Sioni icance. a. 00e3 the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment or to curtail the diversity in the environment? V� b. Ooes the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-tarm, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future. ) / C. Ooes the project have impacts which are indi- vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small , but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant. ) d. Does the project have enviranmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Initial Study Prepared By: , i y INITIAL STUDY CASE NO. PP 87-2 N ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST COMMENTS AND POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES (CATEGORIES PERTAIN TO ATTACHED CHECKLIST) I . Earth b. The soil on the site, which is vacant, will be over-covered by virtue of construction, paving and landscaping. This activity on the proposed site wou 1 d not have a negative impact on the environmental and no mitigation measures are necessary. e. This proposal may result in temporary wind erosion of soil due to construction. Mitigation of impacts will occur by compliance with city requirements for watering during grading and construction phases. 3. Water b. This proposal will result in a change in absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff by virtue of development. Compliance with applicable grading ordinances at time of development will mitigate any adverse impacts. 16. Transportation/Circulation a. The 13 unit could generate up to 10 trips per unit per day. That would amount to 130 trips per day for the project. Trip distribution will be split between Portola Avenue and San Luis Rey from Shadow Mountain and Larrea. As mitigation measures street dedications, where applicable, and street improvements will have to be provided. 17. Schools C. The project will have an incremental impact on school facilities. School impact fees will be assess to finance new facilities. 23. Light and Glare There will undoubtedly be some new lighting provided for safety, security and aesthetic reasons. Mitigation measures will include utilization of lights designed for the appropriate use and provided with shields where necessary. /dig ye PM ,' - ► "'�'-•_ ' b i4 APR 0 'C I1'2 l.rOu . �,' '• 'll~ '?- ' 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 f �,fQy 1{' _/9g1 Hq�Bfsa� ® CITY NATI0 L BANK - r(7S" 74785 EL ASEO 1f ^ a PALM D ERT, CA. 92260 627- 1-015 - - � no � � aZ U v 73510 FRED WARING DRIVE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 ETOn Z 70 ryF0 ��. - _ A iEnOEn rn �W �GLE17N A. PUP.VIN3S & ASSOC. �NS �/�I� NDiXNpwN c ",� r" �_� 45445 PORTOLA AVE. N0. 2A c qp V. ,,. H NUMB pREss ti PALM DESERT, CA. 92261 627-273-021 4 RCp fpR WARD s @iS4s� OO Ita�m IlfgS®IP� a i 2 2 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE,PALM DESERT,CAl 260 C �J.177�]N.�. 02�17�87 ,, c- TF_ El�. >o'``e RFTlJf1N TO aL'.iVUEri FO IFFT s`"°ER n�a Farcwrarnsn�c o0oFO ON r�xL�_ UNAO�~ .1.0 Farw�,i,rJ ^ ' m M a I N ROBERT W. & JEAP LTE STEWART Lw W y L 24061 WINDWARD DR. I LAGUNA NIGUEL, CA. 92677 Op _ 627-273-017 1 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 K TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 February 12, 1987 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. PP 87-2 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by HMS PROPERTIES for approval of a precise plan of design and negative declaration of environmental impact for a 13 unit apartment project on property zoned R-3 (multifamily residential ) located between Shadow Mountain Drive and Larrea Street, 450 feet west of Portola Avenue, more particularly described as: APN 627-273-006 8 016 I uLr R-3T4)7 P-3 (4Y t0 R-3 (47 R-3 C-I; S.,P. I -IS.P. C- I , S..P' I � II ' �. I ` IC-I,!IS.P. �: I � ;'li C-•,Ij .SLR. �.. il � C-I 'S.P a 0 ® a W AY �~ t - 17— C-}1,S.P. -E u— — d' A5E0 `• J C-1 �R3201� -1 C SUBJECT PROPERTY AR E" �- -- T -3 (4T R .REA R-1 R-3(4) r' P k-3(3} �• a E A , Lt JRIVE G`Anrw uCJ"-L.V 7 F:VE - 00 (3) P R-3 I3,000 (3) CA.v GL E W 0 0 D ` 00 R-1 12,000 R-I P ,R-3 (3) NA:_W _ANE S I R E E T < R-I R-1 12 00 R-) C H I C O R Y S I R E E T ` ~ 1 - \ R-{ 16,000 P.R .-7 —J ; T R E E T (C.U.P.03 73 P PAROSELLA ST R-( 1 / R-1 20,000 PEPPE RG RA55 m o S T R E E T ' ( . \ - R— 1 c � - a i. n p h F A b R W 4 Y S. � I '^STR EEC . ', 'i 'Irfr �"--I I I "1 11 ' SAID public hearing wi I be held on Tuesday, March 3, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert City Hall , 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the city council (or planning commission) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary February 20, 1987 Palm Desert Planning Commission 73-510 FLIED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 -T TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 February 12, 1987 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE j CASE NO. PP 87-3 j NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by HMS PROPERTIES for approval of a precise plan of design and negative declaration of environmental impact for a 13 unit apartment project to be constructed in the R-3 (multifamily residential ) zone on the north side of Shadow Mountain Drive, 440 feet east of San Luis Rey, more particularly described as: APN 6277--2.73�-013 8 01�4..../" 1 dJ c-r R3 74) L..i��l=7g�� a-a cell R acs) P-1 (4) 7, 77 < ,C-I,;S.P. , . C-;Ij SLP. W ![. c-1-1 SIP C-L, S.P. 1 C- I S.P ;, C-1 // : 320,000(B 1 C-1 P C-I >: 16 R-3(4) r R Ea C Is 0 • 72) R-3(4 P F�-3(3) pw 77 - JRiv � 5-af_Jw CaN �!v JR.vE R-3 13,000 r�► - 139000 ' (3) CAAJLEw R-1 12,000 SUBJECT PROPERTY R-Iw '12„ooa R-1 P !�0:. TREE STR E E T rE R-1 12 00 u R-I v CRICORv R-1 - 20,000 R-1 161000- RR.-7 H (C.U.P.03 73 P a P ST9 E ET � 's Rrl 20,000 R-120,000 �1 a zP I N T 0 N S T R E E T �l _ R- 1 �r P n - -+ R-1. 2a,000 R - .� FAT S SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 3, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert City Hall , 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the city council (or planning commission) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary February,20, 1987 Palm Desert Planning Commission 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 REQUIRED SIGNAGE ON PROPERTY SUBJECT TO DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS (Public Hearing) As of May 1 , 1987 all development proposals before the planning commission/city counci l of the City of Palm Desert, in addition to the usual pub] is notices mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the subject site and the newspaper advertising, will be required to post the property with a sign meeting the following specifications: 1 . Said sign shall read: PUBLIC NOTICE This property is subject to a development proposal before the n/city council of the City of Palm Desert. The develop- ment proposal provides for 1 /np 0,.,,,.e itry I r y_Yh1 The public hearing on this development proposal has been -benta4izvep scheduled for 7:00 pm on �Y fOXY 11:1,, B7 at Palm Desert City Hall . If you wish more information regarding this project please contact city hall at 346-0611 and refer to Case No. > p 81-A . 2. Said sign shall be erected at least 10 days prior to the public hearing. Failure to post at least 10 days prior to the hearing will result in the matter being continued to the next meeting. 3. Said sign shall have dimensions 4' X 4' and shall have a white background with black lettering. Said lettering shall be two Inches in height. "Public Notice" shall be 4" lettering. 4. -bIIrrter }ats_= r Ost one s.ign on each of the street frontages. 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 April 13. 1987 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. PP 87-2 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by HSM PROPERTIES for approval of a precise plan of design and negative declaration of environmental Impact for a 13 unit apartment project on property zoned R-3 (multifamily residential ) located between Shadow Mountain Drive and Larrea Street, 450 feet west of Portola Avenue, more particularly described as: APN 627-273-006 & 016 Ralsl C- I• S. P' � I • 1 ' I . ' a 1 R . F i l i c I, ,s.P . ' h c-:IJ siR. Q 9 9 4 M - W �C-I S.P. •S.f� -;+1 � � �I I ICj 1 ' ;Fa! I � i • I . a , �N r —•� Y 1 . t Ali Iil � ll i S E o Cr11S.P. S.P , C-1 I = C-1 R.3 - C-1 SUBJECT PROPERTY ARyEN © 20,000( _ sT. K-3 aRREa R-1.. C-11011 �. R-3(4) , Po�anE ' A IJR I 'JF $"A!'�•�w MC .4 �'4 :R'VE 00 (3) R-3 13,000 (3) CAN 0 L E w000 3 0012,000 R-1 P R-3 (3) w a SIRE E r n+-:w LAKE R-\I' 1200 R_1 C„ I C0Rr STREET R-1 16,000- Q ~ 1 > P.R.-7 < ._. S T R E E T (C.U.P.03-73 � 'q P PAR`SEA R-1 PLA w 1 R-1 209000 t N � PE--E®�: 2� I .. e o�1 S T R R- 1 " , o - ac n-1 2",0 R Fk.1-R '4 AY ) A��_ �•�'_.-1�1�1 �J SAID public hearing wi I l be held on Thursday, May 14, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Pa I m Desert City Hall , 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described In this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the city council (or planning commission) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk May I , 1987 City of Palm Desert, California Z 10 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 April 13, 1987 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. PP 87-2 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by HSM PROPERTIES for approval of a precise plan of design and negative declaration of environmental impact for a 13 unit apartment project on property zoned R-3 (multifamily residential ) located between Shadow Mountain Drive and Larrea Street, 450 feet west of Portola Avenue, more particularly described as: APN 627-273-006 & 016 R•3 RIMf � N 0-� 4) c-i , ,i s.a it c-:)j siR• I C-I 'S.P. C-f , S,P. W 11 ! ICtI RIB _ PAS E _� _ C-11's.P.4• S.P C-I C-I -f R-320 ` ' C-1 SUBJECT PROPERTY AROEN R El z R R E -3 < R-I :R-3(4) C 1 P F2-3(3} 0. 5G AnE 00 (3) R-3 13,000 (3) ,RoLEw000 00 R-i 12,000 R-I P _ w - a STRE F r ��- .� __�E R 3 (3) R_I — R 2 00 R-f I C 0 R r 5 T H E E r Q - R-f 16,000 —_J P.R .-7 Q a R-�- T R E E T (C.U.P.03-73 s - C4 P a RAROSELIA Sr R-I P�.) � ? zPE-PERGRASS °' a - ' - < 5 T R E E r R- I rt l ' i S�—f �0`,V0V rf(. ems— '=—� , FAIR N4 ! J, J � " -5TREEr �S•�• . -�_..- � R-3 (4) '� SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, May 14, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert City Hall , 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the city council (or planning commission) at, or Prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk May 1 , 1987 City of Palm Desert, California JOHAN & GEERTRUIDA ZANTMA� JO C. MCCART PACIFIC NATIONAL .. 8011 RIVER PL. P.O. BOX 48777 BICENTENNIAL P.O. BOX 2097 TERM ANNEX CARMEL, CA. 93923 LOS ANGELES, CA. 90048 LOS ANGELES, CA. 90051 627-271-002 627-271-012, 013, 014 627-272-005 ALBERT H. & DONALD BROMLEY JAMES A. DANIS i GERALD LAWRENCE 73640 GOLF COURSE NO. 8 73925 •EL PASEO 148E JAMES & LEONE CABLE PALM DESERT, CA. 92260 PALM DESERT, CA. 92260 250 NEWPORT CENTER DR. 200 _ 627-271-003 627-271-013 NEWPORT BEACH, CA. 92660. 627-273-001, 010 WALTER B. HAVEKORST SEAL FURNITURE & SYSTEMS MASON & RUTH HURICK INC. !73833 EL PASEO 104 73771 LARREA ST. PALM SPRINGS, CA. 92262 80 S. SANTA FE DR. PALM DESERT, CA. 92260 1.; DENVER, CO. 80223 627-271-003 627-273-002, 003, 004 x 627-271-014 PALM DESERT PROPERTY OWNERS ZANTMAN ART GALLERIES LTD. ARMAND L.FONTAINE ASSOCIATION P.O. BOX 5818 73517 HAYSTACK RD. 73833 EL PASEO CARMEL, CA. 93921 PALM DESERT, CA. 92260 PALM DESERT, CA. 92260 627-271-014 627-273-006, 013, 014 627-271-003 DRESSING ROOM BY CARLISLE IN ' LEISURE LIFE PATIO FURNISHING BILLY D. EISMAN 73-833 EL PASEO 102 B 103 73847 EL PASEO 73929 LARREA ST. PALM DESERT, CA. 92260 PALM DESERT, CA. 92260 PALM DESERT, CA. 92260 627-271-003 627-271-014 627-273-007 ROBERT R. ROTTSCHAEFER MD LILLY PURLITZER OF PALM DESER STEPHEN & FRANCES HISCOK ?I 73833 EL PASEO 105 336 S. COUNTY RD. P.O. BOX 1578 PALM DESERT, CA. 92260 PALM BEACH, FL. 33480 PALM DESERT, CA. 92261 {l 627-271-003 @ 627-271-014 627-273-008 ' DESERT CENTER FOR HUMAN GROW'11 KELMAC CORP. CONTINENTAL SIX INC. 73-833 EL PASEO NO. 106 43353 APACHE RD. JOSEPH L. LYONS PALM DESERT, CA. 92260 INDIAN WELLS, CA. 92210 73860 SHADOW MOUNTAIN 627-271-003 627-271-014 PALM DESERT, CA. 92260 - -- •j ---- - 627-273-015.---- - -- RALPH & VONNA WESTFALL RAL CARMONA, BOB BLOCK . JEANNE HANSEN 73768 LARREA ST. 73847 EL PASEO 73880 EL PASEO 2 ,zT PALM DESERT, CA. 92260 PALM DESERT, CA. 92260 PALM DESERT, CA. 92260 627-271=006 627-271-014 627-273-016 - - -------- ----------._ 4f ti a ALEXANDER TAKACS CITINATIONAL BANCORP ROBERT W. & JEANETTE STEWART 10598 WEST DR. 400 N. ROXBURY DR. 24061 WINDWARD DR. '.. DESERT HOT SPRINGS, CA. 922i BEVERLY HILLS, CA. 90210 LAGUNA NIGUEL, CA. 92677 ' 627-271-008 627-271-015 627-273-017 A� CITY NATIONAL BANK �VAUGHN L. & SUSAN EDGAR p" 74785 EL PASEO DONALD D. PECK PALM DESERT, CA. 92266 1721 ANTIQUA WAY 627-271-015 NEWPORT BEACH, CA. 92660 627-273-018----- --- - - --� ROBERT & BARBARA ROTTSCHAEFE PACIFIC SOUTHWEST REALTY CORP. BOBBIE PRESSON 73363 TAMARIST ST. P.O. BOX 2097 TERM ANNEX 73758 SHADOW MOUNTAIN PALM DESERT, CA. 92260 LOS ANGLES, CA. 90051 PALM DESERT, CA. 92260 627-271-009 11 672-272-005 627-273-020 PORT01-A SQUARE PARTNERHSIPT PHILIP B. & MARY JEFFERSON * JERRY & JUDY YOUNG P.O. BOX 1955 DRAWER "J" P.O. BOX 1188 �• PALM DESERT; CA 92261 )EL MAR, CA. 92014 tANCHO MIRAGE ', CA.' 92270 t. 627-273-021 627-341-007, . 098 627-351-029 GLENN ,A. PURVINES & ASSOC. ANNA C. MARTELLA ( a. ROBERT & JUDITH STEWART 45445 PORTOLA AVE. NO. 2A 73752 SHADOW LAKE DR. 73350 EL PASEO PALM DESERT, CA. 92261 PALM DESERT, CA. 92260 PALM DESERT, CA: 92260 627-273-021 627-341-009 627-351-030 LAWRENCE C. WATSON ANNE H. ECK WILLIAM & DEBBY FLANNERY Y OD A PROF. OPTOMETRIC CORP 73780 SHADOW LAKE DR. 73900 MT. VIEW 45445 PORTOLA AVE. NO. 6A PALM DESERT, CA. 92260 PALM DESERT, CA. 92260 ; PALM DESERT, CA. 92260 627-341-010 627-351-032 627-273-021 BATEMAN EIXHLER HILL RICHARDS HELEN F. HUNTINGTON i OBERT & JUDITH STEWART 700 S. FLOWER ST. P.O. BOX 701 73350 EL PASEO r; LOS ANGELES, CA. 90017 PALM DESERT,. CA. 92261 PALM DESERT, CA. 92260 627-273-021 627-341-011 627-351-033 SAVIN CORP. PHILIP & MARY JEFFERSON ARTHUR L. WILLIAMS P.O. BOX 10270 P.O. DRAWER J � 39 ASILOMAR BLVD. STAMFORD, CT. 06904 DEL MAR, CA. 92014 ACIFIC GROVE, CA. 93950 627-273-021 627-341-012 627-351-034 i GUOTRON SYSTEMS INC. ` DON & PATRICIA MARTINSON 5454 BEETHOVEN ST. ' 7386Q SHADOW LAKE LOS ANGELES, CA. 90066 " PALM DESERT, CA. 92260 627-273-021 627-341-013 t -- — — BEHR LEASING FINANCIAL CORP. ANDREAS & FARIDEH MOZORAS 700 S. FLOWER ST. u. 73880 SHADOW LAKE DR. : LOS ANGELS, CA. 90017 ? PALM DESERT, CA. 92260 "! 627-273-021 627-341-014 ELMA J. ROUSSELLOT CAKE CORP. : .10817 SANTA MONICA BLVD. 21186 HAWTHRONE BLVD. LOS ANGELES, CA. 90025 TORRANCE, CA. 90503 672-341-001 627-351-001,002 ROBERT & MARY LEIB VEE N. VANDELDEN 73793 SHADOW MOUNTAIN 77760 SEMINOLE RD. '. PALM DESERT, CA. 92260 INDIAN WELLS, CA. 92210 627-341-002,003 627-351-003, 004 ' E MITCHELL & ELLEN RABB STANLEY B. & SHIRLEY THORP. MICHAEL KINNE 73955 SHADOW MOUNTAIN DR. 73005 SHADOW MOUNTAIN PALM DESERT, CA. 92260 i PALM DESERT, CA. 92260 627-351-005 6277341-004, 005 T_ DUANE FLETCHER . '. ALLAN FALK JAMES B. FRY E 1627-351-028 WILLIAM R. SETZLERP.O. BOX 982 73950 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE.PALM DESERT, CA. 92260 PALM DESERT, CA. 92260 627-341-006 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION Date: March 4, 1987 HSM Properties P.O. Box 3352 Palm Desert, CA 92261 Re: PP 87-2 AND PP 87-3 The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of February 3, 1987. CONTINUED TO APRIL 7, 1987 TO ALLOW TIME FOR CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION FOR FUTURE POLICY REGARDING TWO STORY DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA. CARRIED 3-0. Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the Director of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen ( 15) days of the date of the decision. RAMON A. DIAZ, SECR TA o PALM DESERT PLANNING CSSION RAD/tm I' CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: March 3, 1987 CASE NO: PP 87-2 REQUEST: Approval of a precise plan of design and negative declaration of environmental impact to allow 13 residential units on a 40,500 square foot property in the R-3 20,000 (3) zone located between Shadow Mountain Drive and Larrea, 450 feet west of Portola Avenue. APPLICANT: HMS PROPERTIES P.O. Box 3352 Palm Desert, CA 92261 I. BACKGROUND: A. DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The property is a gently sloping vacant site which extends from Shadow Mountain Drive through to Larrea. B. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: _ North: C-1/office building (old city hall ) South: R-3 13,000 (3)/vacant East: R-3 20,000 (3)/multi family West: R-3 20,000 (3)/north half, vacant-south half, 6 unit co-op C. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential 5-7 du/acre I1 . PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The property is a rectangular shaped site having 150 feet of frontage on Shadow Mountain Drive and a depth of 135 feet. A. SITE DESIGN, CIRCULATION AND PARKING: The applicant is proposing to construct 13 residential units around a central recreation area which will include a pool and spa. Parking is shown at the southeast corner of the property with access from Shadow Mountain. PP 87-2 STAFF REPORT The Crime Prevention Officer suggests and we concur that the parking spaces should be split and with half located on the north end of the lot with access from Larrea Street. The fourplex would be shifted southerly. A total of 26 parking spaces are required of which 13 must be covered spaces. This requirement has been satisfied in that 13 carport spaces will be provided along with 13 open spaces. B. ARCHITECTURE: The project architecture will include exterior materials consisting of spanish texture stucco, heavy wood trim and flat shake the roofing. The applicant will be required to receive approval from the city's architectural commission and the Palm Desert Property Owner's Association Architectural Committee. C. UNIT TYPE AND MIX: The development will be a mix of one and two story structures. The eleven single story units will be 14 feet in height while the two 2 story units will be 24 feet in height. The units will be a mix of one 3 bedroom unit of 1224 square feet and twelve 2 bedroom units of 1086 square feet. III. ANALYSIS: A. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF A PRECISE PLAN: 1. The design of the precise plan will not substantially depreciate property values in the vicinity. Justification: The use is attractive and acceptable from a design aspect and not incompatible with other uses existing in the vicinity. 2. The precise plan will not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes. Justification: Existing uses in the immediate area are motels and multifamily. Apartments and motels are permitted in the R-3 zone. Develop- ment of the type proposed should not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the vicinity. 2 PP 87-2 STAFF REPORT 3. The precise plan will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. Justification: The project, as conditioned, is designed in a manner that will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. Staff feels these findings can be justified in this case. Environmental Review: Several environmental impacts were identified in the initial study. It is felt that adequate means is available to mitigate these environmental impacts. Appropriate conditions will be imposed on the development to mitigate any adverse environmental impacts. With the imposition of these conditions the project will not have a significant impact on the environment and a negative declaration of environmental impact has been prepared. IV. CONCERNS: Staff has discussed the proposed development with several residents and property owners in the vicinity. The basic concern expressed relates to the two story portion of the project and the possible loss of mountain views which could result from this development. The project as submitted complies with the number of units permitted on the site, the setback requirements and height limits of the R-3 zone. In response to an oral communication to the city council at its February 12, 1987 meeting staff prepared a report on the Sanborn-Rylee 20 unit, two story development at the corner of San Luis Rey and Shadow Mountain. This report will be presented at the council meeting of February 26, 1987. Staff will advise commission of any direction which may come from council . It is important to note that the two, 2 story units in this project have been located adjacent to vacant land in an attempt to limit the impact on existing residents. In addition these 2 story structures are buffered on each end by single story units which create a stepped effect. A revised plan, received February 23, 1987 has corrected several areas of concern so they won't be repeated here. 3 PP 87-2 STAFF REPORT V. CONCLUSION: Commission should determine whether or not the plan should be revised to split the parking areas from both Shadow Mountain and Larrea or leave it as submitted. The parking could be split 12 spaces on one end and 14 spaces on the other end. This would require that the fourplex be shifted southerly on the lot. Due to the public utility easement which runs through the site from west to east the fourplex would have to be split into two 2 unit buildings. As mentioned earlier staff feels that the parking should be split so that It is more accessible to all units, less congestion in the dead end parking aisle and less need for street parking which the crime prevention officer prefers we avoid. In the other 13 unit case located 150 feet west of this site staff worked on splitting the parking area between the east and west end but given the configuration of the site it did not lend itself to doing so. In addition staff did not wish to come between the applicant and the area residents In their quest to negotiate a compromise which has apparently been worked out. VI. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends: A. Adoption of the findings; B. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. approving PP 87-2 subject to conditions. V11. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft Resolution B. Legal Notice C. Negative Declaration and Initial Study D. Comments from city departments and agencies E. Plans and Exhibits Prepared by Reviewed and Approved by /dlg 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. _ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 13 UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT LOCATED BETWEEN LARREA AND SHADOW MOUNTAIN DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY 450 FEET WEST OF PORTOLA AVENUE. CASE NO: PP 67-2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 3rd day of March, 1987, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by HMS PROPERTIES for approval of a precise plan of design and negative declaration of environmental impacts to allow construction of a 13 unit apartment project on 40,500 square feet in the R-3 zone on property located between Larrea and Shadow Mountain Drive, approximately 450 feet west of Portola Avenue, more particularly described as: APN 627-273-006 and 016 WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that the director of environmental services has determined that the project will not have an adverse impact on the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testi- mony and arguments, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify the granting of said precise plan of design: 1 . The design of the precise plan will not substantially depreciate Property values in the vicinity. 2. The precise plan will not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of the property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes. 3. The precise plan will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. 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 approval of Precise Plan 87-2 is hereby granted for reasons subject to the attached conditions. 3. That a negative declaration of environmental impact is hereby certified. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. _ PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 3rd day of March, 1987, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICHARD ERWOOD, Chairman ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ. Secretary /dlg 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. _ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. PP 87-2 Department of Community Development: 1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the department of community development, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any uses contemplated by this approval , the applicant shall first complete all the procedural requirements of the city which include, but are not limited to, architectural commission and building permit procedures. 3. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval unless a time extension is granted, otherwise said approval shall become null , void and of no effect whatsoever. 4. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval , the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Riverside County Department of Health Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Property Owner's Association 6. That prior to issuance of building permit the owner (developer) provide the city with evidence that he has paid the required school mitigation fee. 7. That the end of the row of open parking spaces be screened from view by a minimum three foot high wall or other suitable method of screening to be determined by the architectural commission. 8. The trash enclosures shall be located as approved by Palm Desert Disposal . 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 9. That the landscaping perimeter strip between the open parking spaces and the perimeter wall be provided as required by ordinance to the satisfaction of the city's architectural commission. 10. That the applicant enter into an agreement with the city guaranteeing that the property will voluntarily be a part of any undergrounding district which may be established by the city, including the property in question. The form of this agreement shall be acceptable to the city attorney and shall run with the land. This condition shall not be applicable to the service lines that lead directly to the building(s) which must be undergrounded. It . That six foot high masonry perimeter walls be provided along the east and west property lines. 12. That the site plan be revised to provide two parking areas (approximately equal in size) one with access from Shadow Mountain and one with access from Larrea. Department of Public Works: 1 . Drainage and signalization fund fees, as required by city ordinance, shall be paid prior to grading permit issuance. 2. Storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study by the private engineer that is approved by the department of public works. 3. Full public improvements, including traffic safety lighting, as required by ordinance and the director of public works, shall be installed in accordance with city standards. 4. Complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted, as required by ordinance, to the director of public works for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. The engineer shall submit "as-built" plans prior to the acceptance of the Improvements by the city. 5. All private driveways and parking lots shall be inspected by the engineering department and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to grading permit issuance. 6. Landscaping maintenance on Larrea Street and Shadow Mountain Drive shall be provided by the property owner. 7. Existing utilities between lots 6 and 13 shall be undergrounded per each respective utility district's recommendation. Swimming pool and spa constitute permanent structures within the existing public utility 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. _ easement, and therefore must be relocated on either side of the ten foot easement. 8. Complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted, as required by ordinance, to the director of public works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. 9. Installation of six foot wide sidewalk on Larrea Street and Shadow Mountain Drive. 10. Offsite improvement plans to be approved by public works department and a surety posted to guarantee the required offsite improvements prior to grading permit issuance. 11 . Size, number and location of driveways to public works specifications with only one driveway approach to be allowed to serve this property. 12. Grading permit issuance shall be subject to the waiver of parcel map first being approved and recorded. 13. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permit(s) by the department of public works. 14. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the department of public works prior to issuance of the grading permit. 15. Assessor's parcel map indicates a 140 foot street frontage on lot 13, contrary to applicant's submitted materials which designate a 150 foot frontage. City Fire Marshal: 1 . That the applicant comply with the requirements of the fire marshal as determined when he reviews the plans during plan check. 5 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDU',. TO: DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES iD FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS 'I���^�� V A 84 SUBJECT: PRE�.- 6SE� f�_AW 8-7 Z r c 4 1987 DATE: �f U)gRy 1/ COMMUNITY UOf PALM ERYARiMENi CITY Of HALM DESERT - The following should be considered conditions of approval : ODrainage and signalization fund fees , as required by City ordinance , shall be paid prior to (.^e..,._a_} ' -- of the final map) ( grading permit issuance) . 2 ) Drainage facilities shall be provided , per Ordinance No . 218 and the Master Drainage Plan , to the specifications of the Director of Public Works . 3@ Storm drain construction shall . be contingent upon a drainage study by the private engineer that is approved by the Department of Public Works . Full public improvements , including traffic safety lighting, as required by ordinance and the Director of Public Works , shall be installed in accordance with City standards . 5 ) Improvement plans for water and sewer systems shall be approved by the respective service districts with "as-built" plans submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to the project final . © Complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted, as required by ordinance , to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced . The engineer shall submit "as-built" plans prior to the acceptance of the improvements by the City. �7 All private k4t-p� (driveways and parking lots ) shall be inspected by the engineering department and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to ' ..,...,.plot ' -^ of the F44;��grading permit issuance) . ® Landscaping maintenance on L_Zrrcza Crt a.,,rJ Ai kA41 r,31n (�r� shall be provided by the at en+- (property owner) . . O9 Existing utilities -ems ,�A,op� �a�s � 13 shall be undergrouncied per each respective utility dis- trict' s recommendation. if deteimmined ,to be w Feasible, .aRl't tran.i�8iiaa-l—a 'wFideFgr-euRd4-Rg--444-st4. 4-Gt . 5wlmm,v) and S�a c�vTs ltutu F¢.rW1aV1cv1-t:., S'truc-Gures fn 0I711c- u-r111 t y Q- sa4 ,a4l-r.J a d �L�z -f w,us-G Q I l 10 ) Traffic safety striping on shall be provided to the specifications of the Director of Public Works . A traffic control plan must be submitted to and approved by the Director of Public Works before placing Pavement markings . ll Complete grading plans and' specifications shall be submit- ted , as required by ordinance , to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits . 12) Dedication of feet of right-of-way on shall be done prior to issuance of any permits and approval of plans . 13 Installation of Six-Frn� Wde sidewalk on Lar 14 ) Waiver of access to except at approved locations shall be granted on the final map. 15) Close unused driveway with full height curb and gutter . 16 ) Offsite improvement plans to be approved by Public Works Department and a surety posted to guarantee the required offsite improvements prior to 4+Ae A+- inn of the-final maHz (grading permit issuance) . 17 ) Full improvement of interior streets based on ( 60 ' residen- tial ) (private) ( industrial ) street standards as established in accordance with Chapter 26 , Section 26 . 40 . 040 , C . P . D . Code . 18) Installation of one-half landscaped median in or cash payment for one-half the cost of landscaped median at the option of the Director of Public Works . 19) Traffic analysis to be prepared for the project to address the specific impacts ' on existing networks ( street and intersections ) and the proposed mitigation measures recom- mended for approval by the City. 20 ) Installation of sewers to serve this project . 2l Size , number and location of driveways to Public Works specifications . with only c3na_ driveway approach (-e-s.) to be allowed to serve this property. 22 ) No (new) requirements . (Original conditions apply) 23 Grading permit issuance shall be subject to the waiver of parcel map first being approved and recorded . 24) Complete (parcel ) (tract ) maps ) shall be submitted as required by ordinance to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval and be recorded before issuance of any permits . 25 Any and all off-site improvements shall be preceded by the . approval of plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permit ( s ) by the Department of Public Works . A complete preliminary soils investigation , conducted by a registered soils engineer , shall be submitted to and approv- ed by the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of the grading permit . 27) Applicant shall secure reciprocal ingress and egress access easements from the owner ( s ) of lot( s ) 28 A-m-essaiciG !pac, •aj vviRn I-4()i S_V:re,2-r �rMT•aGt2. �v� I t +'3 � _-•-,_-, � lira � 29) ' Richard J . Folkers , P . E .. RA/RJF Rev. 7/25/86 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 Date —&rZ k,--S DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF PLANS � THIS 15 NOT AA PLAN CHECKI1 DEVELOPMENT: A. ti - gf I K[)I�KTIe� (u�) omf- r ff) 1 1 $ l 7 The comments below are based on the following assumptions and. code groups: 1985 Uniform Building Code 1985 Uniform Plumbing Code 1985 Uniform Mechanical Code 1984 National Electrical Code Title 24 Handicapp / Accessibility Standards Title 24 Energy Conservation Standards Title 24 Multi-Family Adaptability Standards Code Assumption:Building Classification I"nn —1 Type of Construction Sprinkiered Allowable Floor Area: Basic Allowable Setbacks Sprinklered Multi-Story Factor Total Allowable Sq.Ft. ` CHECKLIST Plans shall be prepared by a licensed California architect. Show current number on plans. Submit a list of features proposed that show compliance to the multi- amily handicapp regulations. Use a maximum cap of $740.00 per adapt- able dwelling unit. 1 Page two. . . HANDICAPPED: Site requirements per handicapp standards. PARKING: ❑ Show number of stalls required. ❑ Revise parking stall locations to allow main entry access. NV ` ❑ Show international logo, loading and unloading zone requirements. ❑ Ramp from parking lot to sidewalk not shown on plans. BUILDING ACCESS: ❑ Doors shall be minimum 32" clear in width. ❑ Provide 18" space on the swing side of doors. ❑ On plans, show height of all bathroom accessories. ❑ Handicapp bathroom layout does not conform to current standards. Before further comments can be made, additional plans and specifications are needed for review. The following plans must be submitted to the Department of Building & Safety for plan review: IC rchitectural Drawings and Details. tructural Drawings and Calculations. o mplete Electrical , Mechanical and Plumbing Plans and Specifications. Title 24 Energy Conservation Documentation Forms. COMMENTS: I e d � �4LLER PRINCIPAL PLANS EXAMINER cr p#'t 112N hla#ia� �+` pAcl` occ�R- N ATEq ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY ��STRI�t COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058•COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236•TELEPHONE(619)398-2651 DIRECTORS OFFICERS RAYMOND R.RUMMONDS,PRESIDENT THOMAS E.LEVY,GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER TELLIS CODEKAS,VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUI TON,SECRETARY JOHN P.POWELL KEITH H.AINSWORTH,ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER/AUDITOR PAUL W.NICHOLS REDWINE AND SHERRILL,ATTORNEYS THEODORE J.FISH February 41 19873 m ;NA lt� File: 0163.1 ;Ic 8 10 1987 COhiMUN1C Ty E NT OF PALMBESERT)IHTtAENT Department of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Gentlemen: Subject: Precise Plan 87-2, Portion of Southeast Quarter, Section 20, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Meridian This area is protected from stormwater flows by a system of channels and dikes, and may be considered safe from stormwater flows except in rare instances. This area is designated Zone B on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in effect at this time. The District will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with the current regulations of this District. These regulations provide for the payment of certain fees and charges by the subdivider and said fees and charges are subject to change. This area shall be annexed to Improvement District Nos. 54 and 80 of Coachella Valley Water District for sanitation service. Yours very truly, zoo- Y� Tom Levy General Manager-Chief gineer CS:ra cc: Don Park Riverside County Department of Public Health, Indio TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY CITY OF PALM DESERT INTEROFFICE MEMO TO: Steve Smith FROM: Brent Conley RE: PP87-if-2- DATE: January 30, 1987 The plan as proposed shows the parking area for the entire project on the westside of the project. The safety and convience of the residents of the 6-plex could be enhanced by placing half the parking areas and carports to the east of the project. This would also reduce the need for street parking. The plans shows a large usage of sliding glass doors in the rear, especially on units A & B. These doors must be equipped with key- equipped locks on the doors. Also solid-core doors, equipped with dead-bolt locks and 190 degree viewers is essential. The addressing of the units is important for the safety of the residents. The use of "A" on the ground units and "B" on the second story units can help avoid confusion. Also a complex locator board on each entrance from the parking area and street access should be utilized. Addresses should be consistant with addressing on Shadow Mountain Drive. Another possible suggestion is to locate the Jacuzzi closer to the 6-plex for easier usage by all residents. Brent Conley Crime Prevention Officer BC/rrt 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 7, Section 15083 of the California Administrative Code. CASE NO: PP 87-2 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: HMS PROPERTIES P.O. Box 3352 Palm Desert, CA 92261 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Approval of a precise plan of design to allow construction of a 13 unit apartment project In the R-3 zone located 450 feet west of Portola Avenue between Shadow Mountain Drive and Larrea. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the initial study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. RAMON A. DIAZ, DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /dla 1 ^ CASZ N0. r. F'+='IROM.IE:TTAL SEF{VICES DEFT. INITIAL STUDY Ei`1VYB0`l}!Ea`1TAL EVALUATION CHECXLIST NOTE: . The availability of data necassary to address the topics listed w below shall form the basis of a decision application i as to whether the assessment. ,s considered complete for purposes of. environmental ENVIRONMEr`ITAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes", and "maybe" answers, possible mitigation measures and comments are provided on attached sheets) , .., . Yes Maybe No I . Earth. Will the proposal result inc a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b.'' Disruptions; displacements , compaction, or overcovering of the soi17 c. Change in .topography or ground surf relief ,features? d. The destruction; covering, or modification Of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a a• % Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? 1 b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration ofair movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, f'a either locally or regionally? !// ,° 2, Yes Maybe No 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a.. Changes in currents, `or the course or . k • direction of water' movements? _ b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of / surface water runoff? V c. Alterations to the course or flow of — -flood waters? V/ d. Alteration of .the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? — — e. Change in the quantity. of ground waters, J either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an — aquifer by cuts or excavations? f. Reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public water supplies? — 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species , or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs , grass , and crops)? V b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area , or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? 4. Animal. Life. Will the proposal result in: . . a. Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds , land animals including reptiles , or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of animals? — — c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? _ 1i d. Deterioration to existing wildlife habitat? v 3 Yes M_ ybe No 6. Natural Resources . Will the proposal result in: a'. Increase in -the rate of use of any natural resources? - ✓ r _ b, Depletion of:any non-renewable natural resource? o - 7. Energv, Will the proposal result in: :+ . a, Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? _ b. Demand upon existing sources of energy, or re- quire the.development of new sources of energy? ✓ 8. Risk of Upset:tiDoes the proposal involve a risk— explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, pesticides , oil , chemicals , or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 9 Econon�ss. Will the proposal result in: a. A change in the value of property and improvements endangered by flooding? t _ — b. A change in the value of property and improvementsrexposed to geologic hazards _ beyond accepted cor:munity risk standards? 10. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing �L noise levels tOPthe point at which accepted community noise and vibration levels are exceeded? ;i a — 11. Land Use. Will ^cthe proposal result in the a t-T eration of the present developed or planned land use of an area? — / 12. Open Space. Will the proposal lead tb a V decrease in theramount of designated open space? 13. Popuon. Will the proposal result in: a. Alteraticn of` the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human Population Of- the City? — — b. Change in the population distribution by n nic group, occupatl o onalclass , household type? a. Yes Maybe No 14. Employment. Will the proposal result in additional new long-term ,jobs provided, or a change in the number and per cent employed, unemployed, and underemployed? 15. Housing. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in number and per cent of housing units by type (price or rent range, - - zoning category, owner-occupied and rental , etc. ) relative to demand or to number of / families in various income classes in the City? b. Impacts on existing housing or creation of a demand for additional housing? _ V/ 16. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal / result in: a. Generation of additional vehicular movement? _ b. Effects on existing parking facilities , or demand for new parking? c. Impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles , bicyclists, or pedestrians? 17. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon , or result in a need for, new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? v b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities , including roads? V� f. Other governmental services? Yes Maybe No 18. Public Fiscal Balance. Will the proposal result in a net change in government fiscal flow (revenues less operating expenditures and. annualized capital expenditures)? 19. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: a-.-- Power or natural gas? b. Communications system? ✓, c. Water? _ — d. Sewer or septic tanks? _ e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? _ — 20. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: ' a. The creation of any health hazard or Potential health hazard? _ — b. A change in the level of community health ' care •provided? _ — ✓ 21. Social Services. Will the proposal result in an increased demand for provision of general social services? 22. Aesthetics . Will the proposal result in: a. Obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? c. lessening of the overall neighborhood (or area ) attractiveness, pleasantness , and uniqueness? _- 23. Li ht and Glare. Will the proposal produce r new ig t or g are? 24. Archeolo ical/Historical . Will the proposal resu t to an a teration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object, or building? 1 6. Yes Maybe No 25. Mandato ri Findinas of Siani °icance: a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment or to curtail / the diversity in the environment? _ V b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future. ) c. Does the project have impacts which are indi- vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small , but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant. ) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects — — on human beings , either directly or indirectly? Initial Study Prepared By: INITIAL STUDY CASE NO. PP 87-2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST COMMENTS AND POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES (CATEGORIES PERTAIN TO ATTACHED CHECKLIST) 1 . Earth b. The soil on the site, which is vacant, will be over-covered by virtue of construction, paving and landscaping. This activity on the proposed site would not have a negative impact on the environmental and no mitigation measures are necessary. e. This proposal may result in temporary wind erosion of soil due to construction. Mitigation of impacts will occur by compliance with city requirements for watering during grading and construction phases. 3. Water b. This proposal will result in a change in absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff by virtue of development. Compliance with applicable grading ordinances at time of development will mitigate any adverse Impacts. 16. Transportation/Circulation a. The 13 unit could generate up to 10 trips per unit per day. That would amount to 130 trips per day for the project. Trip distribution will be split between Portola Avenue and San Luis Rey from Shadow Mountain and Larrea. As mitigation measures street dedications, where applicable, and street improvements will have to be provided. 17. Schools C. The project will have an incremental impact on school facilities. School impact fees will be assess to finance new facilities. 23. Light and Glare There will undoubtedly be some new lighting provided for safety, security and aesthetic reasons. Mitigation measures will include utilization of lights designed for the appropriate use and -provided with shields where necessary. /dlg 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 1 February 23, 1987 i I Mr. Robert W. Stewart, Jr. A Law Corporation 73-350 El Paseo, Suite 203 Palm Desert, CA 92260 RE: --H"57 Properties Dear Mr. Stewart: Further to your letter of February 18, 1987, please be advised that the project in question is a mix of one and two story structures ( 14 feet and 24 feet in height, respectively) . The proposal currently calls for-11 single story units and two, two story units. As of today the planning department is still negotiating .with the applicant concerning certain features of the plan and consequently our recommendation has not been finalized. The staff report containing the department recommendation ,will . be available as of Friday afternoon, February 27, 1987. We would encourage you to visit our office and review the plans on file any time prior to the hearing. Sincerely, Stephen R. Smith Associate Planner SRS/dig w _ ROBERT W. STEWART JR. A LAW CORPORATION ROBERT W. STEWART JR. 73350 EL PASEO, SUITE 203 'PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 (619) 346-7427 I February 18, .19875 � FLB 201987 City of Palm Desert gOMIAONITV OEYEEO� i'r.l+! in_rAnlnlLidl Planning Department CITY of PAUA 0ESF.RT 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 -1- Re: _ H.M.S Properties Gentlemen: This is to advise that I recently received a copy of the attached Legal Notice. Would you please provide more information for me regarding this project. Will this be a one story or a multi- story project? If this is to be a multi-story project, how many stories? Also, I would like to know the recommendations of the planning department in this matter. Very truly yours, ROBERT W. WART, JR. , A L 7ppoMaon Robert W. Stewart, Jr. , Member RWS/mhj Encls. FEB 1 T 19W 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 February 12, 1987 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. PP 87-2 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request .by HMS PROPERTIES for approval of a precise plan of design and negative declaration of environmental impact for a 13 unit apartment project on property zoned R-3 (multifamily residential ) located between Shadow Mountain Drive and Larrea Street, 450 feet west of Portola Avenue, more particularly described as: APN 627-273-006 8 016 Li u 11F/ H4) {u�,�r,}R-3 a R-3 l�ll) R-3(9) P-314Y . 'i R-3 (4) R-3 N V c-I; s.e a c I,'Is.a c-1� siR. C-I S.P. .S. l C-1AS.P. E =P A 5 E 0 S.P C_I C-1 _- C-t SUBJECT PROPERTY °ROE" � R-3 20,000( - ,- ,� - 6 R E A ¢ f�-3 �A P A E A T (4T C.1 Nv. P A pA1VE S�A9pw NC :.v'_� N I F vE 00 (3) P R-3 13,000 ' (3) CA" GL Ew000 R-I '12,000 R-I R`3 (3) O bA-.'N -AXE ♦ R-I i - ¢I STRE ET R-I 12 00 G R-1 a C R I C G R Y S T R E E T - \ R-I 16,000 P.R._7 > u+ }_ S T R E E T (C.U.P.03-73 w P PARGSELLA ST R-1 1 / R-1 20900 •1 n z PE?PE AG AA55 a m o S T R E E T 'l '- R- I .. y FA.b R 'N AY R- - SAID pub is hearing wi I I be held on Tuesday, March 3, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert City Hall , 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the city council (or planning commission) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary February 20, 1987 Palm Desert Planning Commission AN 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 March 2.. 1987 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION CASE NO: PP 87-2 & PP 87-3 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : HMS PROPERTIES, P.O.. Box 3352, Palm Desert, CA 92261 . NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary architectural approval of plans for two 13 unit apartment projects. LOCATION: . Shadow Mountain Drive, west of Portole. ZONE: R73 20,000 (3) Upon reviewing the submitted plans and presentations by staff and by the apollcant, the architectural commission approved this case by minute motion subject to conditions. Date of Action: February 24, 1987 Vote: Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner McCrea abstaining) (An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert within fifteen ( 15) days of the date of the decision. ) ---------------------------- -------------------------------=----------=------ STAFF COMMENTS: Please read the attached minutes. MINUTES PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION TUESDAY - FEBRUARY 24. 1987 I:00 P.M. COMMUNITY SERVICES CONFERENCE ROOM 73-510 FRED HARING DRIVE . a rr w ar r a w a r w w a r w w r w r w w w w w a r w w aw w w r w w a w a 1. The meeting was called to order at I :00 pm after a one hour study session. Commission Members Current Meetina Year to Date Present Absent . Present Absent Ron Gregory. Chairman X .4: 0 Al Cook X 3 Mary Drury X 3 . 1 Russell McCrea X 4. 0. Rick Holden. Alternate X 4 0 Staff Present: Steve Smith Ken Weller Donna Gomez It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Holden to approve the minutes of February 10, 1987 as written. Carried 5-0 11. Moved by Commissioner Cook. seconded by Commissioner Drury to approve • the following cases by minute motion. Carried 4-0-I (Commissioner McCrea abstaining on all minute motion cases. Commissioners' Gregory and Holden abstaining on Case No. 319 Q . 1. CASE NO: 300 MF APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : DAVE MANOOKIAN, 737550 Alessandro, Suite 2. Palm Desert. CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final plan approval for 24 unit apartment project. LOCATION: Southeast corner of San Pablo.,and Santa Rosa. ZONE: R-3 5.0. _ 2. CASE NO: 301 MF 1 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : DAVE MANOOKIAN, 73-550 Alessandro, Suite 2, Palm Desert. CA t92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of. plans for a 16 unit apartment project. LOCATION: West side San Rafael south of Catalina Way. ZONE: R-3 5.0. MINUTES 'ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION FEBRUARY 24, 1987 3. CASE NO: 1297 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : HEATH & COMPANY FOR HOME .SAVINGS, 3225 ,Lacy Street. Los Anaeles, CA 90031 . NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of sign program for Home Savings. LOCATION: Corner of Highway III and Town Center Way. ZONE: PC (3) S.P. This Item was continued on a minute motion basis. 4. CASE NO: 319 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : TRAVELERS INN/DENNY JONES, 1802 Commercenter West, Suite 8, San Bernardino, CA 92408. ,r NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of plans for 118 unit Traveler's Inn. LOCATION: Southeast corner of Fred Waring Drive and Highway ill . ZONE: PC (4) E Approval Includes plans for fountain. 5. CASE N0: PP 87-2 8 PP 87-3 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : HMS PROPERTIES, P.O. Box 3352, Palm -Desert. CA 92261 . NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary architectural approval of plans for two 13 unit apartment projects. LOCATION: Shadow (Mountain Drive, west of Portola. ZONE: R-3 20,000 (3) Approval subject to all conditions listed in the staff report and the followlna conditions: 2 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION FEBRUARY 24, 1987 1. That the landscaping perimeter strip between the open parking spaces and the perimeter wall be provided as required by ordinance. . 2. Landscaping to be provided at the trash areas facing the parking lots. 111. CASESs A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: 1286 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DAN LOVE, 72-560 El Paseo, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of cupola and awning for Dan Love's Barbecue Restaurant. LOCATION: 72-560 El Paseo ZONE• PC 3 S.P. Mr. Love explained that they had attempted to extend the cupola but felt It was unattractive. He thouaht that the awning along with the cupola Improved the overall appearance. . Commission discussed the loss of parkina spaces, signage allowance, awning details and the concerns over the torches.. Chairman Gregory ' felt the cupola should be widened. Commissioner Drury had no concerns with the cuoo_la. She agreed that the awning did Improve the appearance. Commissioner McCrea thought the proposal had improved but felt the cupola needed to be widened. It was moved by Commissioner Drury. seconded by Commissioner McCrea to approve the cupola with the condition that it be widened to the light fixture area on the front of the building and the height being a maximum 21 feet ! from arade. Carried 4-1 (Commissioner Cook opposed) . Moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by. Commissioner 'Drury to deny the use of torches In the cupola. Motion died at a 2-2-1 vote: 3 _.. J AGENDA ITEM NO: 111-B-1 DATE: FEBRUARY 24, 1987 ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION CASE NO: PP 87-2 8 87-3 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : HMS PROPERTIES, P.O. Box 3352, Palm Desert, CA 92261 . NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary architectural approval of plans for two 13 unit apartment projects. LOCATION: Shadow Mountain Drive, west of Portola. ZONE: R-3 20,000 (3) DISCUSSION The applicant is the owner of two separate sites each being 40,500 square feet in area and each proposed for 13 residential apartment units. The architecture of the projects will be similar. Case PP 87-2 proposes 13 units in three buildings (triplex, four-plex and six-plex) . Two of the units will be two story and 24 feet in height with the remaining Il units being 14 feet in height. The architecture of these units will utilize exterior plaster with a trowled finish, spanish texture. Units will have heavy wood trim and concrete tile roof (flat shake type) . Commission may wish to review more fully the adequacy of the solar protection. The roof mounted equipment appears to be adequately screened. RECOMMENDATION: That the commission grant preliminary architectural approval for Cases PP 87-2 and PP 87-3 subject to the following conditions. 1 . Construction plans shall be submitted for approval to the city fire marshal prior to issuance of building permits. All conditions shall be made a part of construction and no certificate of occupancy shall be issued until completed. 2. Final construction drawings, including a final landscaping, grading, lighting, amenities, trash storage, walkway layout, irrigation plans and sign program shall be submitted to the architectural commission. PP 87-2 & PP87-3 No final inspection or occupancy permit shall be given by the department of community development to this project until the aforementioned approved plans and construction shall have been completed. 3. That the applicant obtain preliminary and final approval of the Palm Desert Property Owner's Association Architectural Committee prior to submitting final working drawings to the city's architectural commission for final approval . 4. ' . That the applicant submit preliminary and final plans for approval of the carport structures and in addition a preliminary and final landscape plan. . SRS/dlg 2 i 2 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 February 12, 1987 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. PP 87-2 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by HMS PROPERTIES for approval of a precise plan of design and negative declaration of environmental impact for a 13 unit apartment project on property zoned R-3 (multifamily residential ) located between Shadow Mountain Drive and Larrea Street, 450 feet west of Portola Avenue, more particularly described as: APN 627-273-006 & 016 R-3(9) �~ A. �9 A. 3 (4i R-3 1s.a C- I ,'S.iPi - c-1 S-Pt7 1 c-,1 sa. CAI S:P. ALN DESERT C S.P. —E A 5 E 0 • R-320000( C-it SUBJECT PROPERTY 'ARDEN ' © ¢ L A R R E A v S T. ... — FA (4T LARREA R-1. A. C-1 �P k3(3) 0. L -3 ) 4 GGA E R (4 1 !` L OFIVE - GHADDW NGUN TAIN DRIVE Oq (3) a R-3 p3,000 i '(3) CIlN DL'E w0 0 D 0d/'( ' R-1 '12,000 R-I � --,R`3 '(3) • -I RA w AK R-1 S T R E E T R-I < - ~ ' R-1 ; C H I C 0 R Y S T R E E T R-) '16;000' q P.R.-7���� a a -R-}._JJJ (C.U.P03 73 W �l P PAROSELLA ST P.D. ",-1 S T R E E T ) R-1 20 000 PEPPEPGRASS e oz) I G T R E E T ` .,`.. - � _ R- 1 z L. ' a '- R-I" 20`,000- R-4 --:l - ..." ...... �` FA,.I.R.WAY 3 S. . { o --STREET R-3 (4) _ - T .�I SAID public hearing wi I I be held on Tuesday, March 3, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert City Hall , 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the city council (or planning commission) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary February 20, 1987 Palm Desert Planning Commission 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 February 12, 1987 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. PP 87-2 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by HMS PROPERTIES for approval of a precise plan of design and negative declaration of environmental impact for a 13 unit apartment project on property zoned R-3 (multifamily residential ) located .between Shadow Mountain Drive and Larrea Street, 450 feet west of Portola Avenue, more particularly. described as: APN 627-273-006 8 016 is SAID public hearing wi I 1 be held on Tuesday, March 3, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert City Hall , 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are Invited to attend and be heard. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising - only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the city council (or planning commission) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: . Desert Post RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary February 20, 1987 Palm Desert Planning Commission 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO(S): . PROJECT: APPLICANT: - Enclosed please find materials describing a project for which the following is being requested: N12 �--Q'r'� r . ._ - - —— --- - ur e-e r� 5 #Po e ThrMaU 004 e attached -data-- was prepared by the applicant and is_ - -being — comments and recommended conditions of approval. The city g forwarded to you for impacts on the environment (including land, air, water, minerals, florasted , fau thena, noise objects of historical or aesthetic significance) and recommended conditions of approval based on your expertise and area of concern. Your comments and recommended conditions of approval must be received by this office prior to 4:30 p.m, 0 9 in order to be discussed by the land division committee. The land div sion in (comprised of director of environmental services, city building official, city engineer, fire marshal and a representative of CVWD) will discuss the comments and recommended conditions of approval and will forward them to the planning commission through the staff report. Any information received by this office after the receipt deadline will not be discussed by the land division committee. Sincerely, RAMON A. DIAZ DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES RD/lr - - Attachments "c 73-510 . .ad Waring Dr., Palm Desert, Ca. u2260 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 1POPLOCATCH FORHe Dept.of Planning and Community Development HSM_PrMertias Applicant (please pant) - - P.n_ Rox 3352 619 340-2496 Mailing Atldress Telepnone Palm Desert, CA 92261 City Store Zip-wae REQUEST: (Describe specific nature of approval requested Arrhitectural Review Aooroval for 13 Unit Apartment Project, Lots 6 & 13 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: i nt¢ S and 13 in Block V of Palm Desert Unit No. 1 as per Map recorded in Book 21, Pages 50 through 54 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said county. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. Lot 6 - 627-273-006-1, Lot 13 - 627-273-016-0 EXISTING ZONING - Property Owner Authorization a untlen a th y era the owner(s) of the property described herein and hereby give auinor- Sation f t plication. Q JAV 8� Si nature Dare Agreement absolving theMw ive to any deed restrictions. I DO BY MY SIGNsolve the City of Palm Desert of all liabilities regarding any deed restrictions of may be applicable to Me property described herein. - - q J"P7 Date Applicant's Signature J- vak— Signature Date (FOR STAFF USE ONLY) Environmental Status Accepted_ ❑ Ministerial Act E.A. No. " ❑ Categorical Exemption n �R� �j ❑ Negative Declaration CASE IS f1V Ho p / ❑ Other - Reference Case No. revieoeezeru szev¢zsi.rs a-n-ez CITY OF PALM DESERT APPLICATION FORM DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PROCESS Design Review Of: CASE NO. 13 Unit Apartment Project, Lots 6 & 13 e o Project) YP HSM Properties pp scant 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 Depart- ment of Building and Safety will not issue a building permit or allow occupancy on the use permitted until this signed confirma- tion 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 Environmental Services. Any substantial change requires approval 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 Standards and all requirements of the City Engineer. All new and existing electrical distribution lines, telephone, cable antenna television, and similar service wires or cables, which are adjacent to and provide service to the property being de loped 11 be iPal led underground as a part of development f m the g pole not on the property being developed s re q Code. II (STqnatuife) - Date Departme of Environmental Services Form Is The Design Review Board process is the method by which the City of Palm Desert reviews detailed design and construction plans prior to the issuance of a building permit. SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES, ACOI TIONS UNDER 52-00, CCM ME=CIA L.ACOI TICKS OF LESS THAN 2R O� OF FL^OR AREA SIGNS UNDER SIC CC FENCES, POOLS a TENNIS COURTS DE?ARTMENT DESIGN PLANNING DEPART, ENT A of OF ENVIRON - REVIEW P. lCATiDN I� \ COMMISSION BUILDING ANO r C^yS? MENTAL BOARD L, (APPROVES OR SAFE-1 T Y L> ICN SERVIC-S STAFF (ADVISORY) OVLIES PROJECT) , Li REMCOE", MINCR ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL, OR PLUMBING PERMITS PROCESSING SCHEDULE: SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES and similar projects require 2-4 working days before they may be Submitted to the Building and Safety Qiv.fsion for plan check. MULTI-FAMILY, COMMERCIAL, and other projects that must be reviewed by the O.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. STAFF USE ONLY: ate Received Date of ACTOR 'Meeting ACTION APPLICANT NOTIFI. Staff ORB P.C. C.C. Department of Environmental Services Form la JF PALM DD CUSS ER U FORM N®a 73-610 Fred Waring Dr., Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 PRECISE PLAN Ga1Pf LOCAMON DORM: Dept.of Planning and. Community Development HSM Properties Applicant (please print) P.O. Box 3352 616 340-2496 Mailing Address - Telephone Palm Desert, CA 92261 City State Zip-Cods REQUEST* (Descrtbe specific nature of approval requested). Precise Plan Approval for 13 Unit Apartment Project, Lots 6 & 13 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: - Lots 6 & 13 in Block V of Palm Desert Unit No. 1 as per Map recorded in Book 21, Pages 50 through 54 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. Lot 6 - 627-273-006-1. Lot 13 - 627-273-016-0 EXISTING ZONING R-3 Property Owner Authorization a under ates m to a the owner(s) of the property described herein and hereby give author- zarion f mg of t is I' Lion. IAA �7 e Agreement absolving th Cify o} Oaaert all Ii bll' Ive to any deed restrictions. I DO BY MY SIGNATU TNIS T solve the City of Palm Desert of all liabilities regarding any deed restrictions at may be applicable to the property described herein. %gnature Date Applicant's Signature Signature UQ? (FOR STAFF USE ONLY) Environmental Status Acloted by: ❑ Ministerial Act E.A.No. ❑ Categorical Exemption ❑ (CASIE Had Negative Declaration - ❑ Other Reference Cass No. rANR011YfeT�L senvao �r Hr-es EXPLANATION OF ITEMS I THROUGH 10 1. Applicant's Environmental Information Form The Environmental. Information form must be submitted with the filing o application, so that an environmental determination can be made. Shou Environmental Impact Report be required, the application will not be accept processed until one has been submitted: 2. Filing Fee Resolution 79-7 of the City of Palm Desert Municipal Code requires a filin dependent upon the type of development. 3. Application The attached application must be completed as indicated on the form authorization of legal owner to process the Precise Plan. (Notarization) 4. Supporting Statements This is to show justification for this application. 5. Legal Description Application will not be considered complete until legal description is approv the Environmental Services Department. (The information from deed of r will suffice) 6. 300-Foot Radius Map The 300-foot radius map must be prepared to the attached specifications_ folded to 8Y2" x 13" maximum size. 7. Property Owner's List The property owner's list must be typed in duplicate on gummed labels available in the Department of Environmental Services. This list must have the names and mailing addresses of all property owners within or partially within the 300-foot radius map. It must be prepared from the latest equalized assessment rolls of the Riverside County Assessor. All names must be numbered to correspond wit' numbers on the required radius map. The 3rd list does not have to be on gui labels. 8. Precise Plan Precise Plan drawings must be prepared to the following specifications and f to maximum 8Y2" x 13" size. I.. Format A. Title as follows: Name, address, and phone number of applicant. :300' RADIUS M,4,- CASE N(a _ FOR, (AP UCANT'S NAME) (ADDRESS) (PHONE? 3 D e SAN PED- ST O SA WA ST: I3 Q � �c ? �j ho MO.N OE LANE �o = O RUSSELL_ AVELU D 12 CC leZo vacw w carer LEGEN � KEY Tn pWidCR L,1.S'r 54�: PARCrL ACUR 'L�S r CERTIFICATION OF PROPERTY OWNERS LIST (To be filled out by applicant) CITY OF PALM DESERT Department of Environmental Services 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 Subject: Gentlemen: do hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, that the attached list sets forth the names and addresses of the following persons as they appear on the last equalized assessment roll of the Riverside County Assessor. Sincerely, Printed Name Address Phone Number Dated in the City of , California. Signature SEE ATTACHED CERTIFICATION CASE NO. Environmental Assessment Form TO THE APPLICANT: Your cooperation in completina this form and supplying the information requested will expedite City review of your application pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. The City is required to make an environmental assessment on all projects which it exercises discretionary approval over. Applications submitted will not be considered complete until all information necessary to make the environmental assessment is complete. G7XIERAL INFORMATION: 1 . Name, address , and telephone number of owner, applicant or project sponsor: t1SM properties. P.O. Box 3352- Palm Desert, CA 92261 619 346-8071 2. Name, address and telephone number of person to be contacted con- cerning the project (such as architect, engineer, or other repre- sentative) : Robert S. Ritchey, AIA, 45-120 San Pablo, Suite 2D, Palm Desert, CA 92260, 619 340-2496 3. Common name of project (if any) : Chnrinw Mnuntain Apartments 4. Project location (street address or general location) : 5. Precise legal description of property (lot and tract number, or meets & bounds) : Lots s 6 and 13 in Block V of Palm Desert Unit No. 1 as par Man scarred in Book 21,pages 50 through 54 of Maps, in the office of the Cniinty Rpcord r of said County. 6. Proposed use of the site (project for which the form is filed; describe the total undertaking, not just the current application approval being sought) : 13 Unit Apartment Project 7. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects (describe how this project relates to other activities , Wises , and develop- ments planned, or now underway) : D.N.A. . 8. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, to go for,iard, including those required by the City, Regional , State and Federal agencies (indicate sub- sequent approval agency name, and type of approval required) : NONE I EXISTING CONDITIONS: 9• Project site area : 45,000 square feet (Size of property in sq. ft. or acreage) 10. Present zoning: R-3 (Proposed zoning) : R-3 11 . General Plan land use designation: Multifamily 12. Existing use of the project site: Vacant 13. Existing uselon adjacent properties : (Example - North, Shopping Center; South, Single Family Dwellings; East, Vacant, etc. ) . rea St. West - Apartments - Shad w Mountain East - Apartments I I 14. Site topography (describe) : Flat 1 -3 % slope 15. Are there any natural or manmade drainage channels through or adjacent to the property? NO X YES 16. Grading (estimate number of cubic yards of dirt being moved) : Less than 2000 yards 17. List the number, size and type of trees being removed: NONE 18. Describe any cultural , historic, or scenic aspects of the project site: 19. Residential P,roiect (if not residential do NOT answer) A. Number alnd type of dwelling units (Specify no. of bedrooms) : I �2 _ 7 RPdrOOm ADCs t _ 3 Bedroom Apts. B. Schedule) of unit sizes : 2 Bedroom - 1086 SF 3 Bedroom - 1224 SF i C. Number of stories 1 & 2 Height 141/241 feet. D. Largest single building (sq. ft. ) 7740 (hgt ) 141/241 E. Type of household size expected (population projection for the project) : Max 4 per unit F. Describe' the number and type of recreational facilities : Pool and Jacuzzi G. Is there any night lighting of the project: Yes Low level I H. Range of sales prices or rents : $ to $ I . Percent of total project devoted to: Building . 32 0, Paving, including streets. . . . . . . . . • 19 a ro Landscaping, Open, Recreation Area . . . . . 49 20. Commerci 1 , Industrial , Institutional or Other Project: A. Type o use(s ) and major function(s) ( if offices , specify type & mber) : B. Number If square feet in total building area : C. Number if stories Height feet. D. Largest) single building q. Ft. ) (Hgt. ) E. Number of square feet in ou oor torage area: F. Total number of required park' spaces number (provided G. Hours if operation: H. Maximum number of cli ts, patrons , s ppers , etc. , at one time: I. Maximum number employees at one time- J. If patron se ing is involved, state the numb K. Is the) any night lighting of the project: Yes No L. P cent of total project devoted to: uilding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paving, including streets. . . . . . . . Landscaping and Open Space (Recreation) . . . i Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects : Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary) . YES NO 21 . Change in existing features of hillsides , or substantial alteration of ground contours. X 22. Change in theldust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in the project vicinity. X 23. Subject to or resulting in soil errosion by wind or flooding. X 24. Change in grolund water quality or quantity, or alteration of, existing drainage patterns. X 25. Change in existing noise or vibration level in the vicinity: Subject to roadway or airport noise (has the required acoustical report been submitted?) X 26. Involves the use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances , flammables or explosives. X 27. Involves the use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy. X 28. Changes the demand for municipal services X (police, fire, sewage, etc. ) 29. Changes theldemand for utility services , beyond those presently available or planned in the near future. X 1 30. Significantly affects any unique or natural features, including mature trees. X 31 . Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public land or public roads. X 32. Results in the dislocation of people. X AIL I' YES NO 33. Generates cont 1oversy based on aesthetics or other features of the project. X [ ] Additiolal explanation of "yes" answers attached. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached) exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation, to the best of my ability, and that the facts , statements alnd information presented are true and correct to the best of my,knowled�e and belief. Robert S. Ritche AIA HSM Properties L::221 r Ty For UP)o e Date T I I INITIAL STUDY FEE : $30. 00 (Make check payable to the City of Palm Desert and sub- mit with this form. ) I I I P,' ,I P. y i t.t-..4 I�.I..I."�.�r..=-I2**N11(4�L",1�1,�"�..�1,I.I,,-�I�.II�t rI.,1-.1 r4 1-�1,.I.I I:I�-,-.I-I 1I1-I-----I.I,,I MI I.-I""�-.--I..L1 I_-1"I---�--..1-.i,. .'tI L, Ir,�II I III L I I I I�-I,"..I�O��1P I�I,I­�,,I.�I�,.,11 I.ICL 1-,�'-.�I t.�I'LI�I Il.-I.0�-1.�. I �_I I_-- .II I I I�I I�..-I II�1 I�I� -I.1I 1 II I.I I E�I .tII 4 -N-I I--'I, -_D-..I,�_-�..t 1 1 ..,.- - p, -.,,,. 4 r .�.1�a.1_Il.I�-.-._-I._.4.I.- r ..q .• z,?�. „.r ,. ..,r,.,. ,ay..,:,e. . . -... ,K, ,.,,,,,,p.. ..y ,r F .I"-.I.-;I*.r�,.-.m I,�I,,�1''"-1��1I,��I I I.-"'I..""1 4�,o I,,. 5 _..qn,:+.nR.a.s xry,,..'4,i oY. .,f ae ^S91'kM e i��i._i-i io-a-._�--f-__�_I--L I-I I---_I--- -- " -.ZIII-_:-..I,--�I I'll-bm:-vI-_-I I- ,�II I.-I�_..-'Ir o_."I IIII_-.-:­-11_�r.�a_I1 I-_L;-'I-_=-1�.--=%L��A II. -1I6�-=-�-.9 II I=�- --_-.'A-L_-a_II 4�;-.1�11 r -'4.�-I�-I-I-.111-I- f,�­,I-,1-, 1�1 I.P-I-I-��-,,, .�,s,IO I r.',I I.�-�-I-0I 1.1I1 I1 L�I,-.II�I��Ii�1 W---,._I_��IL0 1��L.I 4.-1 A,.�-.---I 1,L.'�I-I�.�--I F U,�I.,��-..4--.4J�._-I",I..=I II_-L*."��-4_I.-�--,y:�IA, I_,O-I1.L.,,I�,IiI I-I II"._&-�II I I 1 I�;1.t_I LI,I.-1I1..-_-I I L 11M..-Lm..1 I-.SIK I'�-IIA1�.'1I�--.I%�-7--L I_-M,w ..-�&.I I I-I IU II�-_ _,.I I,I I.�I;-IL 1l,�l-. �l.I 11 II I,l..��j�) I�I,I_I�L_.I.II,II"FLI�I "I-1,-.,�.m�.l..��tI.1.!*'I�,1I�,-�,4.,-,1�I -1 Z.L�..wI1I.-1 -II�1�1 R%%I-I�- .I�:I�.0 I I;...�.I.;-.-.II.=. 11II I-L�r r I1.I1 t I[L ,I L III�1�"I.�II. .I II.,�.�..m� I., .Il?I��,, .�11,�l 1 IN."I�.I I�I�I.4 t.�.�%.,III,..6 r.,I,�I'_.11-i�i�I II -I I I,�II I�,-���I11��I I I1 11"',k I#-�-'-�,I-IILI"�-I.,� ,IL:.,'�I,.II�-I"1,�1,., ,�,I�-%,,,II II.I1"..�,�I,I.I.� 1--'"�,AIi,,,,...,"1�.�.I�,tI I.1..41�-"L 1,'I�.I"t-!,,rIII�11,;AI':I..,��'4 I1_t Ll �-I"l�1,Il-I.l,-���1 I�"_I,I 1kIS.'1,i III�IL�ZL�II ft,-",,�I�L�1f,�,�A.'i II 4, �I1.1I",lI.,,1��,'_i,""1�,,.V�,I.1,,.,:I�,,T I�l�4I II Il�--I 4�,,f,;i�,�),�r 1�I,II,I.,I!�-I-���II I�1I1 I..f,l�,I I)� I-i I-I.1,I 1',i�II 1� I I F_,L*�1_I1�-..II"I,-,,"."�,"I..4���II��II I I.I.A, -�.I�I,.�.,�I",�'%�.*,,;lI,'�;,I.�,.��,I,��I.IIL,�I;�I.._.I4.-1q.I II�1I:I-I..��-I 1--..�I�,�� I'_-�-,­-�"I,�,I,.I-II R I-.�2_�,I,��L I�-I,�IrI_-,1 i',L1,,.L-i1"�m1.t '�t'�,I I'�.:"�,_.-Ii��-.,I�� --1z-,-.LrI�I4L-. 'I-��I-II�-�i.'I,I.,--,:I�-�I-.'-_II�m.1,l�II"-i;.',.I"-I,,��'-II�.I,III i1"'1I��,I-*'.I,�-It,�1 1,-,.,I��II O-rI,-1,,I�o�I-II��I11:�-_1"�.�I I X.I It�l,Ao1,,e f I1I.,,-'*.�I I�-1,I"I 1 I.,".I I-I"`-L ,L�,I1�,1I..'l�-"IO L�III*N..II�,,_I.1.�__I�I�I'-I,,t��.I,,I L I,I.t­II-i�,,��Iq1-I L 1v-I-I'I 11­,..II I III---I,- < . . -I ��IT,IiI 1,LI II�. I-I�I�-�._I-..II II III�I .-�I r 1 m III.I�I�IIIl IL I I-I��,.V*�"-L 11 I.,I�t L I II.I II -"I,1,II 1,...�4f 1.,.II1 I 11I I III 1 ,__II I I��"��I I,vI,..,I 1.LI.-1.--.1 �*�.I­I I-'I I-L1", ,IIII1,I�1 I,.,�jt,�I II1 I,I�l I,�I��,IfL,'-�,0,.��I t l;.Ie,j I�-�. I,.�1.I.I� t.II II�-I,-�.I II4 -_��'I..�17-I.­IL� 11�,t I#,O,L I.,-,I.­I,Ls X1I,.I�-;I"...,L,,I 1�I1 I'1,II�I',­I�1 I,�!.,"�II.I,_I,:�1-! 1,�I. : 4 y�i, ,. �.. ', - � ,.. a -. .... .-, „dR -- ,. ;:1,i`'` '••� � rP.: ,t'�+ � .,..« ,.'!!�'-' E{m" , •i�_I,. , ,.:r,T(! d, t" Aaa. :y. T I,��--t_I I II II.I�_-II II I1-, II�I_�o�'1.L�1"I,I II I,--_.I I.L I",�I�_'II;I, w*II..'�,-I I�I,,�'V,.!�I�-I�.I- I I I,.,.,I--��I I,.I.�_I,'II,t1IIL,""�,-I. r I�-.�.�t.,.I�_-� L-I.I�1I­�,.�1--_1,_"1,.I-7"1­�T; ,11���X ..��',,I1�,.,q 1,L 1I,1�,I4,i,,,�/,.I,I I'I,wI,I L�,'-1,,I.,L�,'1,!,,,,.I.-I,-".ITI�I-,_,,-,iiI����i,j­C.I,��,.L:,� ,IL'I�L I"L��I l.IL, �­�1l1,�L,,,N��v l-I I tI,,I1II�,�I" I­"�I 1 I,,I1-��1�l,L�,4,II�I��1I.,k I,I-q,r.I�d L1�..,II I.,-�l.Y�I,,II,.L�1I�I.­I-"I-1�II-II,I..��1 ",.,II1 I,'�I ILI�,*�1�.IL 1,II'I,,�I%II I1�I�L.IL,�L I �.,,"II I�I­.I��,-iI`-,II, ,��,.I�.�-.I t,.-��z_,.1 4"l I,I-'I.I I,,,'..I I I.I�If�-1,"I,I L1,,I I1,.,"�1�f-I,�"�I "I,I,I,.���I I,,i,.1,I- I-T I I 1�t�II r,2 t-�I-I,I I I,III�l I, `�I.�,I�'�r I,�II I�,I,I 1,Fi1,�rI�ItL�I�I�,I.r I,�"rI,I,I�,�,.II:LI"LI I I,,�'.'I k iI",.I,I.I�, �,.1"�1 L,,�.I �l1F,L�,%I1�,.,I.I�'"1,,.'-II I,Ik'�"1-4II..It o*:L'1,,L�I,,1�.LI_ I��.,�1 .�I��`I��.r"_LI'�I I II4�II�-L1 n-,I!t1.14,,I L.�I"1�Il ��Il,-,�1_.. �i­11,I-:.II,-�.I I, .�.t�1-I I,-;I,Ii,I1,-I.�I ,.L,I-AAI,IkI-1I�I1,.II1 f.L I I��"�"3I;,�...II,I i"I I11-xii�­I.,. �,-L4lI 11Ie,.I,_�1,I1 II,�I-L1,I I LL�,I""���,I..�.I I.'.."I1"I�,"II ,*-�...,..�,..II .1 I:�I,"11I.� �,L� �,��11.,*�, .II�,,i,�,,I�I��.,,,,.,..�I ;,�*I,'I.I I,-:f-�I;", �-ItI',II,�1­,I'-1,,,.,,I�,�i,-..��, .....I 7�I,Ii,..�I I"'II,:1�.,�11�iI,1,,,,YII-"',,IL1..I�1, �.....L-�� .L�. I�L I II1 I�. ,I 1 l�IL z."'.1�II��t-1.�1' �J�.,-"f�,L�-� ,-.1�,,k�1t d--,�­L-:.",­-.,"1 I 11,,7,�,­5,:.1��t,,�I ,,"1 111�-iII.t I,7, �",Z:L L 1�� l�..,1 I,'1,�"�'­�,,,,I I',t'11..,- "11 I,�",!llII "_I.,,, 1 L,-,,_�,,����- rI �,:_�_�I�, 1"- o�-­".�k....t�,��i a-1, -,'1,�-�,.1�1­X�ALIt llts,,t 1 �_ ,�-,,4', I,,"'. �. -�n�.i`,-_1: : i,-I:I;i-i ,t'r. �r:_�I -t7 M� 1� 1.l:,,,,I I ,l I,�,�L 1�I"� 1�,�� I�4,."",,�I,�11, o ,� 1,-,,I�&,"� it 1. r p. a t ,M, aM•„ . R- ,x ,C zt c; vgyp, '-.: x , g�.. >. , -„1 • :,. >, 7 , p , p+ : .i , , , ' .,,- p ,. P n•.. R.r 4^ ,.iSf M`+ ,.. ..c. l ,0 1 Y.., -. 1 ''}' yr1`:' r. y,� y, e s Y W� 4 ::" .�C T. r. ,C"" ii. .,, .,.. 'a{4.,,....� i.M1 F Y 4 'M ,f', "`y„ r�P t°/' £ wl '.T • ,, a... <..e+l'! M ,r. ' , .p :w •d UA: ha rr'y " , y N1'P /.,P��"� 3, Pt . .: ,. .r< •; ,+' a r:. `,� , ,,,R r.P• :. Y"' 'r�ry 1 , * b,. , , f , s ` .. rw,e ': , , J'., R , y , :f ' { ," . , # ny' �I , Y a P•. r • 4 �A! o'"` '^ .G♦� Y, '. ,a ,i 1 ',, u >r a >, t r ' ,, � + v « .. RT a'' ,.! 6 r• Jk«'. `,'.fir .., r% P x 4:'t ` ,a„ •.1,, uf.Y� +�n.. ..x. ' ,, r ,,, , +i.P. v^ A - " s' , ' k , . e+ : µ,, ,da3w , ) - r r a r-- k... t- P n ,.. • _ L , h r.P .. y�T ,r } 1 - , i `. 1' a; al ° ' • lv kr , , ;: . . , , j , , .,Io , �"yT ' t ' fh, y - r' .s.. - n., 61h r -. F� v. ,,,. " II, --I x ' . �_ • -� n r¢,` :. • • �� 'G �' ! ., y } k'e r " a 'l.. O -P. . , .. r - ; •. Y -i. .R ,' �'` �ra y r s.- ,,. P .: - e y � '.,", - § I t S' Ye. i "' } 4 - - ,, r a w t: w�` ; a u �'a. t '<3 ,,,I '. h x 'j ct i < fit.. •.IK¢ t�°"�' ,� sc..,x �" iK. 'wx R „w ,, w ,p I ' ljq V . `'- @ ,,r.. t •R:, _ ' I' .. K S r - Y s ro rw '.. h - , �. w : .v, �pkV wx y n , ,11��.��II�I:,��IlI te1,:�4,.t1��njvlh14fI§iI,,,,"�M':�.,�"I­0�A14.,'.ItI�j-111p Xti�9I,,,1tTr_"9Ii�!�,-'"g-"",,,,::I1.;;�",o,',1vv"t1,I,�,,�I1"�I�I:��","t,III f;,��1---,I;I!,i1"#h,X�Ir""I,���,'lI1�*l,�i�*_fI­,,-_,1'Ik,1�I"�,�A�"�,;I"4"1-It�tI�L 5,,;�I��jI Z*,i,IM,f I.�,_t 1,,,IT,I�,,,,`,1,,II'-t*'��'l i,),-1 i,1`-,i,,7"-4W"�,l"W�e,,��1 4,;� �:lI,,,��,,,���wg,,,-�_�,N",,,­`7k5�'t_,.-,t�,,�,��,.,�,,ig,�1t,�e�l-�6!,�Llf�',_'ll,*II�r�_4.�,�L�--�,,_1�A1,",t,,",:,,�".�'� x, Q .: 0 ; ..-�_._ .. F ��-,-��rII",,"!,�I,,.,,I12"-"1,,,­$*'l ',­it,1:",��;,N;",IiI'"t,l,�-L:,,�;,*;,�i-,1­lP,YI�z,IIf r� • x '_ � ; a s k 3}, q �"­",��1-,'�1,AI,���_,,,�,',�,�_.. *4"r 1'��,,,;pI�I,�,�W;�1�-t"�,,._,",w�1��I,�11��-,w.,,I',l,4A!"-�r,',4��l�I::,I,�,,"""I l,�,-4���-,_!, ,"-�%,1,q�R��,,�,I.,"L�I,il�,*l7'""-.....,,­,0,I�1,L,.j,-l"`,7 I�'",­l'.;,�,, t,;'�,,��L­,��.,�',"1"l TI f.L'I 1,,,'II1,"I1,," v,,�;1�4�,�!),-,"l 1t'�­ ,1,li1,"�'__.l,�I,�,�, l'�,1 lIt 1r,I11 I_.,--,",",,i I,,�LIL.,�I��;I-,4_lI LI I;,���'lI�1.L,1,I,1 I I",I,��I 141�-r�1 I I,1_-'I II'..�I,II i I11,I­.II�',,#�,1 1..I'I�.I,II L..1 1.iI­�L�"III��',11::",I�,.1�.I�I-I I IIl��.I,L,.�I.:11.�I",,II I�l"AII,I,I­F II-�'�.---,'I�.II.11�,��I11��I�,.II1'.....'11 I 4-�,L�;I;�-,� �__I*I-_.I ILI�..-­­�I I-- -I I,�,-.I .I,11�I LI-I--4-N I-���I - �� .-n Ii-o-w-- __ I,I-I� -I 1III i=1I-I "I-I.�L*l�i�)-Ir u11�-�.-�1�I?:1,I" �I.­!-��I-iL I.I-1I��-1.-�I 1�-,I-,�I I-��)i���i,I Ii'm_--��-I--IJI I-M. _- I_N I,--RI-T---�-_--_-, I I_I-_-..l_I A-I_V-..l-m�-_-I- . I ImI�iI.,-I A-�-.-.I-.I I.-�V� .-I:._::I..I.:-:A1 1:,--:I.;.I..=--._--J. �-1.,II.I­1 L�.I I=�1�a1.­.I.*-I'II L-1 o��-­1.1 1 L-_1.­1' �.,�.I1I�-..II1. h !.:!I-I ---i - --�- -�.. .�R-I-_ - •,7'j I ,,�.,.".,,�,I.`i.�.,,',,,_I,I,_,�I,,,­-,-'�VI�,;�II 1 I,tL�",vI tI,'�I�I,�--:,I,�lr-1:,I,�",-I..I r,�,'I,,,,,-I,, ,,�1,Il I,4L,,I-­LI t'. d e,L",5�-,�1't,L�,1 k,�4-,1�I.�f.',��I.�,L-�l 1 ,�,1��-I,,�-;-�j,.�,��1"M',',o 11�,1�-'-'1',t,_"""­,�­11!I,,O �'1�1�',­II',� �`',,'"3�t,�-' '"-:�t­:1',i,�,�",,o,.',,;�'-�".-��,I'"­ _-',�'"I'T,,I,-1 l,,1,�,","­�",; ,_�,.,��,:,'�--t1T,,,- I"-,"'t-1�_��,,-�t'.L,.I.-­'1,.�I,Iil�",�.,,��rr,�;,.�,,","�. �"_vt;���"-11.,4t�,��,'1_,,v,,��'',-'��,-�l,�r,�L,i�-1 ZI��rL.I�.'�-�-f_%.­�1'I,I'1 4,I,t1lj,.,L-�,�r,,,-!1,1,'l"�1j`,-t-fI'4�,,rI 1,,,"t,r.,'1;�., �IlIl,l 1l 71,,,l�-,Ir.7 "I,,,``_:_,�,t1-I',l�,,,-r,L;;ie�',I,�'�,��'w-�IItj,��­�__��,,,wi",,,: ,I_".��L"I 1��r1'l',?k,A"��,�',�l_A1t�,,�1 2 PlI�l1-1",,�,1 t;,�,1,,,,IL,�,,,l,-.1"�-, �AI I'��';�,1-,,�,­ .,,,�1l_k'�,'II,J',�,�I,_-,"t�1t,,,,�,­_­�t­c lP�.,�:�,,�,;4,'''*-NIZ,'._I,,":,.-,_41�l�"E m,�.­'I I "l,,­�lk,* ,,,,1-I i",_4,,,',,1.��,:�1�,L'�"I,.�,-�1�1'����I '�'.,��-,4_,�I��1 I;I, �'ll,I r,tI,-i p1-_L��t� l II,,�"l1-.,I Il.I�,LL,,L'�_�'�3­III,-,"I,,A l 1����,I,;, I�,,ItI,�,,IIII L,-,I.,-'I-4,.,,LrI�I 1tl"/I,-.,,'�,I,,I A,I I�,"r�I I:1� k 1,���I;I�I I1;t�II�I.I.��.II;,� I zILI II�I1.,I.It�I",I IItII.I,I.1I I I,I,i-. .� _D-,__-E_"�I-- -_I -i_"*A_i_m__-.__-_I_A_II-_I ---m-R---�-_--I_,,--.-_o-I,-_�-�-n-,-_---s--,a-1 .--- I__ m_E-I_ 1III F�--_-�M-.I-I-�.­--A-_-- -I.-I--I,_R-II 4__"I_I. .-I I- .I_-_�II.I _I...I--__- _-_-..I-.-I a., i • F R a;�R. 5 e ._ .. M «w a ..' .:. _ - .N' £ L#Y } • i T + a;z �!_ y, 2 -. R ,, ;, } . 'rr w r Y� _ a - , 3 - A }. ' ",,. h S• I , _ r {�` „ < .. r t t. � r � .. �� c d,} - 'tt ' v ar. - - "3 } #I "'�rf . s A i- 1 - , .� 'N� r r. i 9 , py f Y'FFS Ij' ',` ,r ', 7Y f • > yy r .. K ! Y .F .. ,,i a ' � , k f a - i i- r ..a P . m, p ''_ . ' 1 :. 4 e T } y , ,,I?�",i.-I,4 0 L�%gI-l;�*��, �- ,I.,�"1,:-�,"�1l, IL�,� �'A­,,"�I-1�- � ,I��,I-__q" 4��'-� ,_ -­A,;'�.,?� ,ft4it,1" i 1,,-j,-,-��r,�I­. -�P a" �%."-,I�-I��I.-,I�LI'l-",I� ;,,l:-.4"l X ...�. 11_ �,. � l . 1, 11 r.,,-;;,rrr �--,1�l'"':', -,.,l I`"t, "1�� ,";-r �.I -'"�-,'4�III-I.�,LLl-jiJ-',"_�oI-`,.IIIi,I11 -*,-L- �, k.e..Lr,*.l�1"�L,.i. -1,,�L 1 , �,:_�":`.'�, s } " �T 5 > " » '- s ' _,. . «,. x .,, , .: ,. *: - 'S 1'- a, . 5 Y , E - •,n t '`,. t. , , ,,: ,' ., a ` s 4 I"'" _. - �r _ z r k ; k, x 4 t f4 ry' TT . �2 lii"' ,2, s. b. ',.: u s F y x+ j.r - .,_ • � - c - V - ,4 t,- ,. h y :I� ,.. .. .:.4 _ :. ., .. ,."I ^, is ,' -Y ',t M T - k .1, %',,-,"1��-,�,,,%-�-,"." �,1- "-I ,,1.'., - ' f :t'p, a +., - i'i� x r ,I.11I,-.;,1Ii1v";l,I,t:',..II-ILl.11:-I II"ItI I,IL���I,1��.I......., I�",,11p,� .,I1,l,.t-�I"I o,.I..�.,,,11(�,"1,,I11I�t "II qp I,11I L,,,��-,,L�.I, "I:..II�".......��I .I;I'�.�',4'II1�.,*��.I'll',k i----"I.I V*.11 I"L11,"j."111,,�.,I",,.1-,�� I 1.I11iI.11,I,-�,1.�#1,,1�I.,V I t,,, 1 u LI I11�-�L" I�.!,L J"M0.I��1 14L: I,�I;I��IW i- l 4,�Ii 1,1,I�,I,WI�.�I.I=r l- .-I4.Il:D.l 2,Z jIc- .1 A.1��i-1 I1. .- .,-i.- ," ;- I,,�1,��4Bff I",�I11#I tftC�.*-,>u�.I',,IIz;,1>Il_.-1I r.I"I 1"),4�,,_-. !�11'�1'll,.."I,II.�� ,rI,I:-lI��-UI�'I II-,",_�� :-1I�I,�����­,14,,l .,���1,�U'..,,,,,�,11I-o�,��,.l�,,.4�1.`1,I� I I�&:,,,l II I_,"I..11!-." �I 11� �",A-­I-';,I11,LL IL�,M��,III---�,Il,1.I�i I.1111,�O",I�,' ,4`I ,:I,�,�4I��L II�,',tI,"I�;-.��I;1P"� ,��ie�1.�!'II4,,�.'�,_v'I C%A�7� t L,1I�I i1,"�,"�11,�;"t��0',�,-'"I I.,. 1_,I I,,; �I 1�. t,II L�, ,-,''I,.-,"',I ,�,"�,,'-1.���,7� ,I-in�,,.�',,�n i,�I,.4 ,,,,1, t 4��--,:I�1�.�-�4 g,,��_.,I�:�t 1,"4 ,eL -",-_4'��,-"� ,�I- ,,.I�.:.,,,- I..�1'-- "t-,I,,1I'L1',,.'I'1 4 T!_�. ::l I.I,, ., �,_..-"�,',�l­.,- ,,�t��,"�:r1,:,I,..���!I*�,,,'j,"�-I. -`���,I? --1l- ,I��,Z4�I,: L�E,,`�,�,'��'I l��L,LL' �t"L'­, ��I��i .1,t'_-j�,��.ii,,"�II,,,-�_k,1--�'.I�,-�I ,��1I 1 ��,-,,''I.1�' -� �,1,, ,lI_.e o���,��,���,' t,l i­--I,"-,tt-1,'1:_ �­��0 v _ttt`�,'',"I-�1'�.LK���_,_ ,',���"I�1,,,,,, L II4""-n "II�I',,"�,",-�"�,,,11,F,I:,�,,"",II�Il,4, -,,,I ,I_, ,1.."­,l, .,i FtL�!,,,"I 4 .I11-t I;II,��.,l".IL�I�4 �:IL�LL"I1I,L".`L I,91AI,�t�1� iI III1<II I J4.,I j-II,II I, 3 ,�J�I�I ,,"1,-::I",&t,I....IIw LI l I 1 I,L L:l,�.,�II1I),.��III1 I 4 11,-�I,�,11"I���,LL�.""I-.,I' ,,1I-�11'.L I--It�I I1 I-rI 4 II,I',..-1,�-- ,�V!I��,::: �.,�,",, �,�* ,�r-L II,�4_,,,,,,,,.�,"'.4l*,I,II,';I,,�I,, ��L�r 0�,��4_-,L,II_,,"tI�II,.�I�.II",,,,,,,,,�, �­1i,,7,, .111,I.�I"� ,"4��1 Ii��l I,,�,-�;,I ,W���*k- .I��ItII 4,"',,'�, I.I jt���. ,I���.,.I­�.,,,.,,I7",,,*-.4 1�I6-I 0�J IN�f�: 1­_;Iu�,,&tl,".11,-­1 0 --'',-I�:'L-_,=�,.�l,,.--�-,�,�'`,;.�';Z.e�4,"'1"tli,.��.,��I� e'.I.�,,1.v­­,,.-j-:,I.1 .�,.,,."-' It,..,I,�,,�,",�,,,'*I.1,"�)�,V, t�,&��1�',..11I i�. ,-�,-4t I�-,".,I6�lI,.',,t,V�.-'­ _-�,_,�,,L�I,-��,�,�,t,"" �,�IL-1 � y I iYRr � i + « � �z �adAB d ` •.. ^ c•Y >i+e 9 't� - + 4 F. P y! ,*' r Y a 0 x ws y„�rw ""�R 7E'j` y ,C Y !'._, D •,+R ` .. ,. M.; ss,r . R k• a 3W .utR. pi+ 1 - _ 1 4 333333YYY , _ M. a_ k F " I }_ 4 ArA '.: -'.'y, II- r .__ �._ ,.,fY 1 , s - .. -C +Y rI : .^ - t, - `- - r, : :n t 4 '.r i k!y .. .. S �} 4T H•.. n < Fyr, _. ... _. .... d 4 l. I,v �/� k, , y s�.' - ."sT 1: - , t"� e+l. XP K ,. ,,1",,-'"Lr,I.S�,�4tt-'1,r,,,4��-'�"'"�'"".,,',l�,,I��l"t�Cl�41',�',1_,It`4�:I.�.,"1­"���e,,,��,L,I,,,'-,",�r�,,1;�I',,I�,,`���,-J I,"",;-�,"f:-���_"�"�.,'JL 4�­'� �I,'�" ",.;,%';l,"�:'41-,L"�'.:�_,.-'Il�I--'F 1�ti,'-I,1, t"I,-��1,"",,�q',�ZI,,�,�I1,�1;IL,,,""-."I -II�_W--iI�­_PII I,t I_I I�,II'llrr,�111�I,:.....I�_"t- -....-�,I"II 4;I'I ,fff-".-i���#"I�ll I� e,�I�,I I_�.I�I.....��,I1 o, II�I ,,,I-,I�.--- I,-I v,'I.I,,11 L- I�I4,II.-;L,I I"L,�,,I I 1. �IItt�I.,II..I�-1.-LI`��­�I1�TI. l,L-L-�II-'_I,, I:Ix 1 1.II,�I t"�-I..WIJL."Lx t,l',I-1I,II1 q"11..r L I f I1 lr0� ''I1I,1,,,-.:Iw II�Ii�LL1 AN5.I"I,I-"L,,,1�..III.,,.I II.-I Ir..6I,,'",-,I1"�-" �,�_1,I�I,-v ?��,,I 4 II I���; eII II,�A��"L�,-,-,I1 V _'L 1,-"�,,.V*I.fj�1­,X, W't1�,`0�1T 1w:-,;,,t.JI.,.�1,I"1I,.�.',II,� O'O1'4",'-.I II�1� �,i�,,-ll,,,�,�,%.�".,,"r,l .I'"�"tI.1 I�,LI*I<LL.1,,,.I�I L,I.�;Vy_-I�,L, i�1 1,�I�l",-�I1 Z�"',I.�L 0-%I,I I"_, L�1 I,,�,; 4 I,"",-�.l­),,.,ij I,,-,ti _,_,I�,1I ,IF II,.i,k-.,I��II1,.,&"�L 1 1 I:.���,,ffI�Ii,-�I,�I "i,74.I IL�tt�",LIi%I,P. ,L��._"I 1.-',�1r'lI,7C_,-���L�p...11,....I,te'.1,',"-",��_,M��,,1-��"',1,,.�,�L1_­,�-�,, Il ,�g,.II 1 l 11 1--I iI:,�,,.....,_�Im_11,I, �,I oI��c�l...."14,I I.,I I":,I �,",��-,151 1i,L,,iI.,t� �1,:,1 I:-�.�.,��lll-1,"­...W l&.�"�'1,t,:I1,"I'l,... -.�1�'o.�*. �� �*�`I1i 1,";�- ��t­t�w,.�1�,�,�'r" -I--1_,4�I-�1-,��IL I.,I-_I1 I" I I'�I''i,1,-1,�Ll� I',1,4,"�,.­��)p�,. I,�,� z1,,iI�­ ,."1 3 i q r I II*l��II k 4. II�.V 1" ),,-,I,1-I,1�I,�"I 1 I I,,1I I,�,I�1 r4.' ,!4,,1�I 11 l I,�-�I�I,I,­_.".�'1I.1�".�_I1 I.II ,.._��I'Ii`I�,".I4, ,1,,",�'N��,�4,1�I,11,-I,�"I"LI4. 1I..�,,,1.l'��I I�I.l'1,��....�­II�I-I,,-LL':�I� It",I',�,,'.,",';I,_ ';I 4,��,� -"..I.,�I"�-,�,,II 1,l. ,,I,:-If L�,,�".t1,,1 1;4­ ,"���, ,'1 I, LI",.r,_' 4 I,�"-ff," �__:_­.�,1' *-'� .",�,l tLII..�1.1� 11,_�1 L'�.I..11 lI­ "9"� 1"i-�" ,"1I L- .'L, ,11 "1 1I- I��_....,j 11.iI " 1.1 ,.,.�o.�,', -;11'l ,�;i. I. ,, t I I� �._'LI�,��L���­ ,,I I-I(I L�I1t,u �I_1,: I',"I­�'I,LL,. 11� �1.I,, :I,I,.�.""I1I1,,1"��I I,, 1 -if,-,,"7 I, I'll�t',L.�.,",1,�"�AI �-_.,I��'��L -I-_"I�; W-i r z ," a_ ' ' , ,, , V"-,I"I,,n, ,,l�� � ,f t.. } v 0 r � ?", - - - - r�ti.,: s< _ ' y .�r a , . d,. k _, s`'p x y , f� r. +a. I F ,. n r - - ..... „Y, '. 'h I. " # t P y .. J ` ¢, - - , .. y.y q , i p 5 E�' -„ - - �4 k ti v 1 II °4 1 Al I:. III u - �d. .. .. L. ^,.; - -- , ,,. x ,a , .. .. , - ,.::. - F .. -,: ., c. :. r , ..E:,+.. y .x" -:... -_ ,. _ ,.. ... ,. �. « ten..,..,. � - ,. s, , ,-. :, --- .,.::.;G. u; v:u-�,:. . -.-.. . .. ,.rM- ..,. �s.. ,..:.. -_ �`r:-.fa r ,x, .,ti.„f ,....y,., *, �,. ' r.- ' �* ,, .- ..,s. k . ... .. 5. .. .„ `. i 11 , ,:. i w y lrm 4 + , e , W y r W)" PftVe*q.ne5 i 4 g 68 U V Cif v r I Meig' T Till IL + 90*A( JL)N VL �' - «+wa.+.H:.,n..»,we�..-*+�i.:n+. y+e+au.pnt�.r; a-rrwr.�i+•-'�'�:.w awe<:r.*e's+.�:._,...,,,s'* tr. .. 14 "Ago &s rlw a. W ,. 1 YnxcM Fxa 3 t t �h i f w ✓(5 All L,DRAkCiP we k/ Cv1TV1 5To dN a� x ' RT Q7 TV WORM -� 1 j t+�.►n+�faN.�ao ..r•, :,ry�i�mxw.wpgPn�a_�..�sroe•�.a..yea. z.�aa...-aw«..,,,w�n�.�+w,..�..,e.a a 1 r 44 tw J , IL 1 BUG Mal _ I _ E -6 , z i ye e tF c, PC CW! ..uu•.... .+.'z<..:.�,�....r�..�.......»,....ao.a.:w� ..w.,,:ar:.........a.»x«w .. ... xx -. ... pM��l� ,... � - ..:�:.._�;sz�.�,� n..�.., a......, a^v.,......,y.o rya.+..:n-.. ..,.;..::..., ,...,,;.. ,r�.....,�sn�r,a - . . o 14 MAIL � 1 ' S t LEM,- I i 11, r r f g f r • � r r I lilki�G�TI�I �1�JtM � KIV1,�C� �� n • I 1 f I Wr � � 1 r 1 iY �j , i �I i