HomeMy WebLinkAboutTT 28320 PP 96-1 CATALINA WAY CONDOS 1996 CRY 01 FWM Cason
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 FAX(619)341-7098
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOTICE OF ACTION
Date: February 12, 1996
Holly Management, Inc.
47-800 Madison Street, #4
Indio, California 92201
Re: PP 96-1 and APT 28320
The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your
request and taken the following action at its meeting of February 6 ,
1996 .
PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED PP 96-1 AND TT 28320 BY ADOPTION OF
RESOLUTION NO. 1719 SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. CARRIED 5-0 .
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.
11i.-sC..i��
PHILIP DRELL, ACTING SECRETARY
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
PD/tm
cc: Coachella Valley Water District
Public Works Department
Building & Safety Department
Fire Marshal
RerytlrO
Paper
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1719
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO
ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM
PROJECT IN THE R-2 S.O. ZONE AT THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF CATALINA WAY AND SAN CARLOS.
CASE NOS. PP 96-1 AND TT 28320
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert,
California, did on the 6th day of February, 1996, hold a duly noticed
public hearing to consider the request of HOLLY MANAGEMENT, INC. , for
the above mentioned project; and
WHEREAS said application has complied with the requirements of
the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Imple
mentation of the California
-
Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 95 105, in that the director
of community development has determined that the project will not have
an adve
rse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration has
been prepared; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to
be heard, saidplanning lannin commission did find the following facts and
reasons to exist to justify granting approval of said precise plan:
I
1 . The design of the precise plan will not substantially
depreciate property values, nor be materially injurious to
properties or improvements 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 .
3 . The precise plan will not endanger the public peace, health,
safety or general welfare.
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to
be heard, said planning commission did find the following facts and
reasons to exist to justify granting approval of said tentative tract
map for condominium purposes:
1. That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general
and specific plans .
2 . That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is
consistent with applicable general and specific plans .
3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of
development.
4 . That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density
of development.
5 . That the design of the subdivision or the proposed
improvements are not likely to cause substantial
PLANNING COMMISSION: -SOLUTION NO. 1719
F
environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure k
fish or wildlife or their habitat.
6 . That the design of the subdivision or the type of €
improvements is not likely to cause serious public health
problems.
7 . That the design of the subdivision or the type of
improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by
the public at large, for access through or use of property
within the proposed subdivision.
WHEREAS, in the review of this tentative tract map the planning
commission has considered the effect of the contemplated action on the
housing needs of the region for purposes of balancing these needs
against the public service needs of the residents of the City of Palm
Desert and its environs, with available fiscal and environmental
resources .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of: the
City of Palm Desert, California, as follows :
1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and
constitute the findings of the commission in this case.
2 . That it does hereby approve the above described Tentative
Tract Map 28320, subject to fulfillment of the attached
conditions.
3 . That approval of Precise Plan 96-1 is hereby granted, subject
to the attached conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm
Desert Planning Commission, held on this 6th day of February, 1996, by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES : CAMPBELL, FERGUSON, FERNANDEZ, JONATHAN, BEATY
NOES : NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE n
PAUL BEATY, Chairpers n
TEST.
PHILIP DRELL, Acting Secretary
Palm Desert P anning Commission
2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1719
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NOS. PP 96-1 AND TT 28320
Department of Community Development:
1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with
exhibits on file with the department of community development/
planning, as modified by the following conditions.
2 . Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within
two years from the date of final approval unless an extension of
time is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null, void
and of no effect whatsoever.
3. 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.
4 . 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:
Coachella Valley Water District
Palm Desert Architectural Commission
City Fire Marshal
Public Works Department
Palm Desert Water & Services District
Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall
be presented to the department of building and safety at the time
of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated
herewith.
5 . Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to
conflict with parking areas. Said placement shall be approved by
applicable trash company and department of community development.
6 . Project shall be subject to all applicable fees at time of
issuance of building permits, including but not limited to Art in
Public Places, TUMF and school mitigation fees.
7 . That in exchange for the reduced parking standard provided under
Municipal Code Section 25 .52 .030 E the applicant agrees that all
future owners and occupants will be over the age of fifty-five
(55) years. Applicant agrees to submit for city review and
approval a copy of the draft CC&R's to assure compliance with this
provision.
3
PLANNING COMMISSIOL -XSOLUTION NO. 1719
Department of Public Works:
1. Drainage fees in accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code
Section 26 . 49 and ordinance No. 653 shall either be paid prior to
recordation of the final map or issuance of project grading
permits .
2 . Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert
Resolution Nos . 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance
of any permits associated with this project or the recordation of
the final map.
3 . The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation
Fees (TUMF) . Payment of said fees shall be at the time of
building permit issuance.
4 . 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 the issuance of a grading
permit.
5 . Complete tract map shall be submitted as required by ordinance to
the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to
the issuance of any permits .
6 . Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval
of plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the
Department of Public Works .
7 . Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and
modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert
Municipal Code.
8 . In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26 .44,
complete grading plans/site improvement plans and specifications.
shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking
and approval prior to issuance of any permits.
9 . As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26 .28, and in
accordance with Sections 26 .40 and 26.44, complete improvement
plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of.
Public Works for checking and approval before construction of any
improvements is commenced. offsite improvement plans shall
include construction of sidewalk and drive approaches and shall be
approved by the Public Works Department and a surety posted to
guarantee the installation of. required offsite improvements prior
to permit issuance.
10. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the
Department of Public Works and a standard inspection fee shall be
4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1719
paid prior to issuance of any permits associated with this
project.
11. Landscape installation on the property frontages shall be water
efficient in nature and maintenance shall be provided by the
developer. Landscape maintenance for the property frontages shall
be the responsibility of the property
12 . Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code
Section 12 . 12, Fugitive Dust Control
Riverside County Fire Department:
1. With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above
referenced plan check, the Fire Department recommends that
following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with
City Municipal Codes, appropriate NFPA standards, CFC, CBC, and/or
recognized fire protection standards.
The fire department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the
remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per California
Fire Code Sec. 10.401.
2 . A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual
operating pressure must be available before any combustible
materials are placed on the job site.
3. Provide, or show there exists, a water system capable of providing
a potential gallon per minute flow of:
a) 2500 gpm for multi-family structure.
The actual fire flow available from any one hydrant connected to
any given water main shall be 1500 gpm for a two hour duration at
20 psi residual operating pressure.
4 . The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrant(s)
( 6" x 4" x 2}" x 2;") , located not less than 25 ' nor more than
165 ' from all portions of the building.
Distances shall cover all portions of the building(s) as measured
along approved vehicular travel ways. Hydrants installed below
3000 ' elevation shall be of the "wet barrel" type.
5 . Provide written certification from the appropriate water company
having jurisdiction that hydrant(s) will be installed and will
produce the required fire flow, or arrange for a field inspection
by the fire department prior to scheduling for a final inspection.
5
PLANNING COMMISSIOA MOLUTION NO. 1719
6 . Prior to the application for a building permit, the developer F
shall furnish the original and two copies of the water system plan &&E
to the County Fire Department for review. No building permit
shall be issued until the water system plan has been approved by
the County Fire Chief. Upon approval, the original will be
returned. One copy will be sent to the responsible inspecting
authority.
7 . Comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations,
adopted January 1, 1990, for all occupancies.
8. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire
lanes and shall be clearly marked by painting and/or signs as
approved by the fire marshal. Painted fire lanes and/or signs
shall be stenciled or posted every 30 ' with the following:
a) No Parking Fire Lane - PDMC 15 . 16 . 090
9 . Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than
2A10BC in rating. Fire extinguishes must not be over 75 ' walking
distance and/or 3000 square feet of floor area. In addition to
the above, a 40BC fire extinguisher is required for commercial
kitchens .
10 . All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway
extending to within 150 ' of all portions of the exterior walls of
the first story. The roadway shall be not less than 24 ' of
unobstructed width and 1316" of vertical clearance. Where
parallel parking is allowed, the roadway shall be 36 ' wide with
parking on both sides, 32 ' wide with parking on one side. Dead-
end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided with a minimum 45 '
radius turn around (55 ' in industrial developments) . Fountains or
garden islands placed in the middle of these turn-arounds shall
not exceed a 5 ' radius or 10' diameter. City standards may be
more restrictive.
11 . The minimum width of interior driveways for multi-family or
apartment complexes shall be:
a) 24 feet wide when serving less than 100 units, no parallel
parking, carports or garages allowed on one side only.
b) 28 feet wide when serving between 100 and 300 units; carports
or garages allowed on both sides, no parallel parking.
c) 32 feet wide when serving over 300 units or when parallel
parking is allowed on one side.
d) 36 feet wide when parallel parking is allowed on both sides .
12 . Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of
gates, barriers, guard houses or similar means, provision shall be
made to facilitate access by emergency vehicles in a manner
6
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1719
S
approved by the Fire Department. All controlled access devices
that are power operated shall have a Knox Sox over-ride system
capable of opening the gate when activated by a special key
located in emergency vehicles. Devices shall be equipped with
backup power facilities to operate in the event of power failure.
All controlled access devices that are not power operated shall
also be approved by the Fire Department. Minimum opening width
shall be 16 ' with a minimum vertical clearance of 13' 6" .
13. This project may require licensing and/or review by state
agencies. Applicant should prepare a letter of intent detailing
the proposed usage to facilitate case review. Contact should be
made with the Office of the State Fire Marshal .(818-960-6441) for
an opinion and a classification of occupancy type. This
information and a copy of the letter of intent should be submitted
to the Fire Department so that proper requirements may be
specified during the review process . Typically, this applies to,
but is not limited to, educational, day care, institutional,
health care type facilities.
14 . All new residences/dwellings are required to have illuminated
residential addresses meeting both city and fire department
approval. Shake shingle roofs are not longer permitted in the
cities .of Indian Wells, Rancho Mirage or Palm Desert.
s
15. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes,
ordinances, laws or when building permits are not obtained within
12 months .
16. Other: Must install a fire hydrant at entrance to project.
7
n[Y a
PLANNING COMMISSION ✓SOLUTION NO. 1719
EXHIBIT A
Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section
15070) of the California Code of Regulations.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NOS: PP 96-1 AND TT 28320
APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Holly Management, Inc.
47-800 Madison Street, #4
Indio, CA 92201
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: An eight unit residential condominium
project for seniors over age 55 located at the southeast corner of
Catalina Way and San Carlos, also known as APN 627-114-001 and 627-114-
002 .
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.
Vebruary 6 1996
PHILIP DREG,
ACTING DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
8
I
1 MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 6, 1996
Commissioner Jonathan said that he didn't want to hold up
this applicant and was willing to give approval as amended,
but suggested that concurrently staff could look at that CUP
and possibly have commission revisit it. This might allow
the commission to improve this situation and to keep Monterey
Avenue from having too many access points, which slowed down
traffic. He felt the commission could approve this
conditional use permit, but then hear back as to whether
there was an opportunity to address the concerns raised and
perhaps the applicant would then be allowed to come back with
the other design. Mr. Rudolph said that the commission could
look at it, but it would be highly doubtful anything could be
done at this time. Mr. Drell stated that there would have to
be some extreme findings .
Commissioner Ferguson stated for the record, that because he
was a firm believer in property rights belonging to the
individual and not to the city, absent of a provision similar
to condition #9 where Ms. Noel would have expressively waived
her right to assert her rights in this area, he didn't want
to do to Ms . Noel what had apparently happened to the
Stantons, which was that the property was adversely affected
with really no choice on her part. He was willing for Mr.
Rudolph to take a look at it, but as a lawyer, unless it was
in black and white, he would vote against "shoe-stringing
anything in on a general clause of public health and safety.
Chairperson Beaty asked fGr a motion.
Action:
Moved by commissioner Jonathan, seconded by commissioner
Campbell, adopting the findings as presented by staff .
Carried 5-0.
Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by commissioner
Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1718,
approving CUP 96-2, subject to conditions as amended.
Carried 5-0.
B. Case Nos . PP 96-1 anE TT 28320 - HOLLY MANAGEMENT, INC. ,.
Applicant
Request for approval of a Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact,
precise plan of design and tentative
tract map for an eight unit residential
condominium project for seniors over age
50 to be located at the southeast corner
of Catalina Way and San Carlos .
8
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 6, 1996
Mr. Smith clarified that the request was for age 50, but in
order to get the parking level that the applicant was
seeking, the ordinance required that they be restricted to
age 55 and over. The conditions would reflect that. Mr.
Smith stated that this was an existing vacant lot at the
corner of San Carlos and Catalina directly across the street
from the Senior Center. To the east it backed onto the
backyards of single family units. To the south was an
existing single family unit and to the west across San Carlos
was another existing senior apartment complex. The units
were proposed at 1252 square feet with two bedrooms and two
baths , and would be single story. Amenities include a six
foot lap pool, private rear yards and onsite RV parking for
two RVs . Access is from Catalina and the site would be
enclosed by a four foot wall and would be gated at Catalina.
Each unit would have one single car garage, plus one
uncovered driveway parking space. Architectural review
granted preliminary architectural approval with some minor
modifications . The project complied with the code
requirements for the R-2 zone as shown in the staff report.
He noted that typical condominiums have a requirement of two
covered spaces plus a half space for visitor parking. Using
the senior overlay zoning, the applicant could seek a
requirement for the 1.25 spaces per unit of which one was
covered, which he complies with. All units have one plus
one. Findings for approval of the precise plan could be
affirmed. Findings could. also be affirmed for the tentative
map. The purpose of the tentative map was to allow for the
project to become condominium units. There would be eight
individual lots plus three common lots for the driveway
areas, landscape areas, and pool area for common maintenance.
A Negative Declaration was included in the commission packet.
Staff felt the application was consistent with the secondary
plan for the area and recommended approval as submitted.
Commissioner Ferguson requested clarification on page 2,
Section D called "Coverage" with the ordinance requirement
being at 50% and the project at 34% . Mr. Smith explained
that was the percentage of the: lot allowed to be covered by
building with 50% being the maximum, although staff had never.
seen a request for more then about 40%-42%. Building was
defined as enclosed physical space.
Commissioner Jonathan said that he was surprised to see a
four foot wall instead of a six foot wall and asked if there
was a standard. Mr. Smith replied that six feet was the
maximum, but there was no minimum. Conceivably they didn't
have to put one up at all. Commissioner Jonathan asked where
code required an applicant to do a wall; Mr. Smith indicated
that it was when adjacent to open parking areas in commercial
districts--it either had to be walled, bermed or planted to
9
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 6 , 1996
screen within a two year period to an effective height of at
least 36 inches. That goal was also pursued for residential
projects . Commissioner Jonathan asked if this was the same
site that was previously approved as a senior housing project
a few years ago. Mr. Drell said there was a 13 unit
apartment project by Cable & Rylee, the same people who were
originally going to do the senior housing project.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if it was a different owner now;
Mr. Drell concurred.
Chairperson Beaty opened the public testimony and asked the
applicant to address the commission.
MR. JIM HOLLICKY, the principal of Holly Management,
stated that he was present to answer questions, but
wanted to clarify the question on the fencing. Their
plans were for six foot high fencing for about the bulk
of the perimeter except along San Carlos, where it would
be four feet high within 15 feet of the street.
Commissioner Campbell asked if this would be a gated
community. Mr. Hollicky concurred.
Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to address the
commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was
no one and the public testimony was closed. Chairperson
Beaty eked for comments from the commission.
Commissioner Ferguson stated that he liked this project. He
drove through the neighborhood and took note 6f the Senior
Center, the neighborhood and the grading of the lot and felt
this was a good location for this type of project. He
reviewed the blueprints of the plan as well and welcomed this
project into Palm Desert.
Commissioner Jonathan concurred and felt this would be a nice
addition, was in the right part of town, and was nice
project.
Commissioner Campbell agreed with Commissioners Ferguson and
Jonathan stating that the area was nice for this type of
project.
Chairperson Beaty asked if there was a problem with the
difference in age of 50 versus 55 . Mr. Smith clarified that
in order to achieve the parking that the applicant is
requesting, the ordinance requires the age limit to be 55
years .
Commissioner Fernandez also agreed with comments made
previously. He felt it would be a good addition.
10
IiINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING LOMMISSION
FEBRUARY 6 , 1996
Chairperson Beaty concurred and asked for a motion.
Action:
Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner
Campbell, adopting the findings as presented by staff..
Carried 5-0.
Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner
Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1719,
approving PP 96-1 and TT 28320, subject to conditions .
Carried 5-0.
C. Case No. ZOA 95-3 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant
Request for approval. of amendments to
the sign ordinance to regulate signs at
mini bank branches and attempt to
establish size criteria for signs having
more than three colors .
Mr. Smith stated that this matter started out as what staff
thought was a fairly straight forward attempt at regulating
the additional signage that was being seen at supermarkets
where they were bringing in mini-bank branches and whether
they should have to have people there to serve the public
like at Union Bank where they have five or six employees . He
vis,-ted _the site several times and there were always people
there. Bank of America at Lucky' s at C6untry Club and
M?nterey had three people there most of the time and had a
long line of customers . Visiting the Von's on Highway ill
where the initial request for signage came from, he visited
it four or five times and saw one person one time and that
person was putting cash in the ATM, but didn't look like he
was prepared to act like a teller. Notwithstanding where
they originally started going with this, staff came back to
the existing situation where the city allows businesses to
have, in addition to their main sign identification, they
were allowed to identify two products or services if they had
sign area available to support that. That came about three
or four years ago when the business was Sports Fever and they
wanted to identify most of the products in the store and city
council had staff prepare an ordinance amendment at that time
where they limited the items to two. Effectively, that was
what staff was saying for mini-bank branches. That if there
was available signage under that portion of the ordinance
(i.e. goods and services available onsite) , then they would
be able to put up mini-bank branch signs provided that the
signs are: a) clearly ancillary of the main business signage,
b) that the overall aggregate sign area limit is not
exceeded, and 3) that the design of the signs is consistent
with the existing program to the satisfaction of the
11
20 0 20 60 TEN TH T/vmE
Scale 1 " = 20 ft N I TRA C T NOw 2 8320
BEING A SUBDIVISM OF THE' WEST HALF OP LOT 23 OF PALM4
a A/ �L-7- ; - ° -1 -5 VILLAGE, EXCEPT THE SOUTH 85.5 F:EET, AS PER MAP RECORDEDJI UI
. 1 1 .►V. Ul
1/1r-1 ,/A1 ^rA,//'1L7 vLAVTLR BOOK 20, PAGES 67OFMAPS� OF COI�VTY, CA.
V✓L.:L. I IV .:L_1Vl
JAIWARY N96
OWNER DEVELOPER ENGMER
R/W JIM M. HOLLICKY HOLLY MANAGEMENT, JNa 77-E ACH MOODY CO.AC
47-800 MADISON ST. 47-800 MADISON ST. 0K. E -LAADBERYEVOW
EXIST. S/W SUITE NO. 4 SUITE NO. 4 41-841 BEACON HILL, SUITE "D"
EXIST. F.H. INDIO, CALIFORNIA, 92201 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 PALM DESERT, CALIF. 92211
EXIST. CURB & GUTTER PHONE. 619-775-1183 PHONE. 619-775-1183 PHONE: 619-776-1542
(186.41) 8" OUT 188.91 PROP. 8" OUT
186.51 PROP 8" IN EXIST. 12" WATER 187.01 PROP 6" IN -B
o N 89'4400- E
T _ GENERAL NOTES
" PROP. R/w CA TALINA WAY 1. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE - 0.84 ACRES
PROP. 8 SEWER MAIN EXIST. R/W C.0. G G G G p ^ `O ¢ m 2. PROPOSED MINIMUM LOT SIZE - 3055 SF.
b o a 3 `O J. PROPOSED AVERAGE LOT SIZE - 3320 SF.
1Q 1� o o Pt� �1 o g01 �.yl �rl �l 1 cam' �ry1 �-yl g6l 611 �1 6►.1 9l yo�l 1� p O o o o rn
o N g g �. g gel• rn 3 _ c� 4. CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE - CON77NENTAL CABLEVISION
gfj• g�• fig, g�• ,q fig• g�. k• �9g R� '�gk' ugh ,�gk (0.15 ��h 9y' (0.21 �°� +�°� �°' Ik EXIST. CURB & GUTTER O ~ tt1 N m a to
L L M L L N L� L� L `�_ ` L L '� L ` � 1 L 1 `,1� � X C-4 5. ELECTRICAL SERVICE - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
6. GAS SERVICE - SOU77-IERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
�1 o N 89'44'00" E � 187.93' PROP. 6' S/W EXIST. S/W w 7. SEWER SERVICE - COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
I OT• „A „ • N N gj o 0 1 8. TELEPHONE SERVICE - GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY
o9. WATER SERVICE - PALM DESERT WATER do SERVICES DISTRICT
15•18 $ n RAN o 0. 10. SCHOOL DISTRICT - DESERT SANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
\ I o 69.95 "o F 1F 6 79.97' ►� _rn o ;�� z 11. EXISTING ZONING - R-2 S.O.
I ( I 196 0 =0 12. PROPOSED ZONING - R-2 S.O.
o 19ID
N 6G N M LOT `�'�. °' `o` 6 w (�; b fr 13. ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER - 627-114-001 & 627-114-002
F.F. - 196.9 g5• F.F. = 196.9 �9 1.0 O
1 0�, PAD - 196.4 Fs 6o PAD - 196.4 N • Ln
020, (TYP.) n 1g5` I �00 s lrj L I
N I h rn g5• G0 F IOY5
C� LiJ< N O �Fs �' o w LOT SUMMARY LEGEND
L,` I ( ►� � � ti O 95$ ti°' -gn I o ° LOT " A " - 1052.20 S.F. C.Y. = CUBIC YARD
rr) � N I 3 16. 6• 2.oX MIN. 6• �� }!. N 2.oX MIN. �4 Li j LOT " B " - 6818.38 S.F. EXIST. _ EX1S71NG
M o c�
I) �, ^ 0y 9y 5 N s my 46 c3 c_ "
_ _ I I O �` �� F� �' °' I o rr� �,� _ C q LOT C - 2277.76 S.F. E G. - EXIS77NG GROUND
I O. 2.oX 77.74 M M 2.OX MIN. co o ;) (') ►� LOT 1 - 3114.42 S.F. EQUIP. = EQUIPMENT
wI N OK 2.46X MIN. r: 81.98 2.OX IN. ui C9 w L,J d - _
n, I III °0I w I �G tb0 go o� Cd �L°� V-b�' h o' w _ r , �r NLOT 2 - 3548.46 SF. F.F. - f7N/SH FLOOR
Seelo � oX MIN. ��F5 �°'�� 2.oX MIN. �. �, N ;C q LOT 3 - 3549.07 SF. F.G _ FINISH GRADE
bt LOT 4 3540.97 S.F. F.H. FIRE HYDRANT
!- �j r. 4i m w C ��) LOT 5 - 3529.18 S F. F.L = FLOWUNE
30.0 - `Co rn LOT 96ti 20' (TYP. I �; h LOT 6 - 3111.58 S F. F.S� = F7N/SH SURFACE
p; of 7 F� a n LOT 2 n. L�J o LOT 8 - 3055.27 S F. MIN. = MINIMUM BEAK
I � I
. LiJ I 20.00' 10' N F.F. m 197.2 ° 1ge �' F.F. - 197.2 7 0.1
77
`C I III Fs� = N \) C N . I R.V. = RECREA 7701VAL VEHICLE
I 1`11 t PAD i96.7 1g6• PAD 196.7 Lo � R/W = RIGHT-OF-WAY
I V I I rn C.O. F5 ,���0' `� -
I oil 00• 77.7$' 6' S1.99' F�' I i, S F. = SQ�RE FEET ERTY E
W - I R �- o�
I III , I a POOL z 1 1.13X oo EXIST. CTV RISER S1W = SIDEWALK
I ,n 6 ro 97 '. rn a,
aC N 7� LOT C E 2 m �� rn rn c� T10-6)uv-) m (19� = EX/ST1NG CONTOURS
13 II io 0 R RV �� -- -- = RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE
I p Cq
„wplw W+ Mti rv.. '»sJ:.gn t. r.w4xa5^n w.,v, _... •17 I I 0, x30. 1 �of r
N = PROPOSED PROPERTY LAWS
to POOL 04 j Nfn
S
;. N r. ,.. .. w w PROPOSED O ALINE
9
O •O V ;«n"-»rd.'3t #;17+ -e'-• y: .t` I'^o
Z `g� �I 9 24.00' 51.99' o I �r� = E7rIS17NG ]BEES (W BE REMOVED)
II N c
A `9 LOT 6 0� LOT 3 Lo �9, �� �, oCn
I (Qj M FF. - 197..7 ;` 1� �g� F.F. s 197..7 n, i �?
rr� J I CV - F Fs 116
3 C e+. <- co
I r t PAD 197.2 ,�g'I PAD 197..2 c� �; L'J N
�C' 'S oo of '� Fs ��' Lo I 0) C)
� I � I 3 N / LiJ
w l `C g16 `� 0 Z � � ��� ��� `rn o- =• \1�) wlLiJ1.OX MIN. Qi N O�N�
�{
I
Ln I {� C; •00• 2.14X 2.OX 77.76' M N 82.00 2.0% '� Z rn o L
�> (� N I I NAB I p MIN. 1.OR �� �� MIN. 3.5 . w !� �� %) N !�
; I X II a O 9 '1 ,1. 19 l9 l9 tt � V
w ( " CO' N 6 g 6 > > �- 9
u0i z�n11 g +�g1 �� 1.OX MIN. 9� 01 - Q, liJ
L, F FS �- FG o L J .
Cc�.'
L,J C
I �� LOT 5 oLOT 4 I
ii I I ���, III F.F. - W.1 M F.F. m W.1 �; n
I P .s I
0
I
I I III 19 w `�
a.
CD V
I I I III 4.00 82.01 �r Lo � WAIM DAPW
+ � M1
N 89 43 48u E 198.40 198.72 188.03+ 00
tii
o II EXIST. 6' CHAIN r o I \
L9 16 UNK FENCE B w �l j rn {!1
t• I I O� 621- - I w w
Q
o J
I III I 9'��, I1 L.:,LJL►V vL_ 9 I 1,
J N
c) w c� c) o
I I I II I W
Q
�iJ I I •:) Li j 4• MANTA /�A a WAY
� �r
� I �
0
IWI1 � I I
7, Li j X Q- Li j
CC � w w tr
l�J
CC PFI'T
R `
30.00' 188.03' � Z_ GATALNA WAY
now
an
20.00' 10.00' 20.00' 50.00' 48.03' 50.00' 20.00'A It
¢3
6' 10.00' 10.00' 12.01' 1 24.00' 12.02' 10.00' 10.00,
NIICI V Y MAP
N.T.S
PROP. 4'
CONC. WA PROP. 6' CONC. WALL
197.60) TC A.
.G 1g�T 9�5 PRELIM/NARY GRADING PLAN
2.0 1.6X FF. >97.717 1.0�MiN 1.0� MIN. F.F. �7.7�7 % 1.60% ,ox FG '` ES77MATED DIRT QUAN7777ES
197.04 CUT - 366 C.Y.
197.72 197.06 197.2 197.2 197.04 197.2 197.2 197.06
FS FL PAD PAD S FS PAD PAD FL f7LL - 62 C.Y.
EXIST. GROUND 4" CONC. DRIVE
SECTM A - A
SCALE: I" - 20'
i