Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2018-02-06 PC Regular Meeting Agenda Packet
CITY OF PALM DESERT REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2018 — 6:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CA 92260 I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IV. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Any person wishing to discuss any item not scheduled for public hearing may address the Planning Commission at this point by stepping to the lectern and giving his/her name and address for the record. Remarks shall be limited to a maximum of three minutes unless additional time is authorized by the Planning Commission. Because the Brown Act does not allow the Planning Commission to take action on items not on the Agenda, Commissioners will not enter into discussion with speakers but may briefly respond or instead refer the matter to staff for report and recommendation at a future Planning Commission meeting. Reports and documents relating to each of the following items listed on the agenda, including those received following posting/distribution, are on file in the Office of the Department of Community Development and are available for public inspection during normal business hours, Monday-Friday, 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., 73510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260, telephone (760) 346-0611, Extension 484. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR ALL MATTERS LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE ROLL CALL VOTE. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR AUDIENCE REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION AND ACTION UNDER SECTION VII, CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER, OF THE AGENDA. AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6, 2018 A. MINUTES of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of December 19, 2017. Rec: Approve as presented. Action: VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER VIII. NEW BUSINESS IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he or she raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. Remarks shall be limited to a maximum of three minutes unless additional time is authorized by the Planning Commission. A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of an amendment to Condition of Approval No. 10 for Tentative Tract Map 36351 and Precise Plan 14-170; and approve new architectural elevations for one- and two-story homes for the subdivision located at the southwest corner of Dinah Shore Drive and Dick Kelly Drive. Case Nos. PP 14-170/TTM 36351 Amendment No. 1 (Ponderosa Homes II, Inc., Pleasanton, California, Applicant). Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2716, approving Case Nos. PP 14-170/TTM 36351 Amendment No. 1. Action: X. MISCELLANEOUS None XI. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES B. PARKS & RECREATION XII. COMMENTS 2 G\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Comm ission\2018\Agenda\2£-18 agn.docx AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6, 2018 XIII. ADJOURNMENT I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing agenda for the Planning Commission was posted on the City Hall bulletin board not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting. Dated this 2nd day of February 2018. Monica O'Reilly, Recording Secr ry Please contact the Planning Department, 73510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260, (760) 346-0611, for assistance with access to any of the agenda, materials, or participation at the meeting. 3 G\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018Wgenda\2fi-18 agn.docx CITY OF PALM DESERT PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY MINUTES TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2017 — 6:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CA 92260 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Nancy DeLuna called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioner John Greenwood Commissioner Lindsay Holt Commissioner Nancy DeLuna Vice Chairman Ron Gregory Chairman Joseph Pradetto Staff Present: Jill Tremblay, Assistant City Attorney Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development Ron Moreno, Senior Engineer/City Surveyor Eric Ceja, Principal Planner Monica O'Reilly, Administrative Secretary III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner John Greenwood led the Pledge of Allegiance. After the Pledge of Allegiance, on behalf of the City Council, Mayor Sabby Jonathan presented the Commissioners with a gift of appreciation for serving on the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission thanked the Mayor and the City Council. IV. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Director of Community Development Ryan Stendell summarized pertinent December 14, 2017, City Council actions. PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2017 V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of December 5, 2017. Rec: Approve as presented. B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to approve a one-year time extension for Precise Plan 07-07 to construct a 17,600-square-foot professional office building located at 44-450 Monterey Avenue. Case No. PP 07-07 (Paul Delio, Palm Desert, California, Applicant). Rec: By Minute Motion, approve a one-year time extension for Case No. PP 07- 07 until December 19, 2018. Vice Chairman Joseph Pradetto requested Item B be removed for separate consideration under Section VI I, Consent Items Held Over. Commissioner Greenwood noted he would be abstaining on Item B. Upon a motion by Vice Chairman Pradetto, second by Commissioner Gregory, and 4-0-1 vote of the Planning Commission, the remainder of the Consent Calendar was approved as presented (AYES: DeLuna, Gregory, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSTAINED: Greenwood). VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to approve a one-year time extension for Precise Plan 07-07 to construct a 17,600-square-foot professional office building located at 44-450 Monterey Avenue. Case No. PP 07-07 (Paul Delio, Palm Desert, California, Applicant). Rec: By Minute Motion, approve a one-year time extension for Case No. PP 07- 07 until December 19, 2018. Vice Chairman Pradetto noted that staff is recommending an approval of a one-year extension; however, the applicant requested a two-year extension. He asked if the project is consistent with the recent General Plan update. The project was approved in December 2007 and asked the Planning Commission if it is worthwhile extending the project another year. Commissioner Ron Gregory asked why staff is recommending a one-year extension. Principal Planner Eric Ceja responded that the proposed project is for a two-story building located at Monterey Avenue. Given the changes to the General Plan and Zoning Code, the project still conforms to the updated General Plan. Staff 2 \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\12-19-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2017 recommended an approval of a one-year extension because staff felt it is a good office project at Monterey Avenue. Vice Chairman Pradetto asked if there are any updated Conditions of Approval and does the applicant abide by the earlier Building Code standards. Mr. Ceja replied that the applicant was conditioned to the Building Code standards of 2008. However, when the applicant submits their application, the applicant shall comply with the latest edition of Building Code standards. Vice Chairman Pradetto moved to, by Minute Motion, approve a one-year extension for Case No. PP 07-07 until December 19, 2018. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Gregory and carried by a 4-0-1 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Gregory, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSTAINED: Greenwood). VIII. NEW BUSINESS A. SELECTION of a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson. Rec: Nominate and appoint positions. Commissioner Greenwood moved to, by Minute Motion, appoint Vice Chairman Pradetto to Chairperson and appoint Commissioner Gregory to Vice Chairperson. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Holt and carried by a 5-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None). Chair DeLuna congratulated Chairman Pradetto. She said it has been an honor and a privilege to serve as Chairperson and wished newly appointed Chairman Pradetto the best. Vice Chairman Gregory congratulated Commissioner DeLuna for doing a wonderful job for the past year. B. SELECTION of Commission Liaisons for Art in Public Places and Parks and Recreation Commissions. Rec: Nominate and appoint positions. Chairman Pradetto asked the current appointees if they would like to continue to serve as liaisons for the Commissions, or if there is anyone who would like to volunteer to assume those roles. Commissioner Greenwood replied that he would be happy to continue as the Parks and Recreation Commission liaison. However, he is open if someone would like to volunteer to serve as liaison. Unless someone else is interested, Commissioner Holt commented that she does not mind continuing to be the liaison for the Art in Public Places Commission. 3 \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\12-19-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2017 Commissioner DeLuna moved to, by Minute Motion, reappoint Commissioner Greenwood for the Parks and Recreation Commission liaison and Commissioner Holt for the Art in Public Places Commission liaison. Motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Gregory and carried by a 5-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None). IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a Specific Plan, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Tentative Parcel Map 37234 for a 32-acre multi-use development bounded by Monterey Avenue, Dick Kelly Drive, A Street, and Gateway Drive. Case Nos. SP/MND 16-342 and TPM 37234 (MC Properties, LLC, Westlake Village, California, Applicant). Mr. Ceja recommended that this item be continued to a date uncertain. He stated staff is still under negotiations with the developer on the proposed project, and continuing this item will allow staff to re-notice the public hearing. Commissioner Greenwood stated he is employed by Prest Vuksic Architects, the architect involved with the proposed project. With that said, he recused himself from this item. Commissioner DeLuna moved to, by Minute Motion, continue Case Nos. SP/MND 16-342 and TPM 37234 to a date uncertain. Motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Gregory and carried by a 4-0-1 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Gregory, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSTAINED: Greenwood). B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to construct a 1,600-square-foot fitness center for Residence Inn by Marriott located at 38-305 Cook Street; and approval of a Notice of Exemption in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Case No. PP 17-173 (Twenty Four Seven Hotels, Newport Beach, California, Applicant). Mr. Ceja outlined the salient points from the staff report (staff report is available at www.cityof palm desert.org) and recommended approval. Vice Chairman Gregory asked if the Fire Department's concerns were addressed to the satisfaction of the Planning staff. Mr. Ceja replied yes. Chairman Pradetto declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. MR. WILLIAM SWANK, Twenty Four Seven Hotels, La Quinta, California, stated they are upgrading the interior and doing minor renovations to the hotel. He noted that Marriott has encouraged all of their brands to increase exercise room space and put an emphasis on fitness. He also noted that they will be adding top of the line Life Fitness equipment. 4 \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\12-19-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2017 Commissioner DeLuna asked if the public would be able to use the fitness center. MR. SWANK responded that only registered guests staying at the Residence Inn by Marriott or the adjacent Courtyard by Marriott will have access to the fitness center. With no further testimony offered, Chairman Pradetto declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Greenwood commented that the fitness center appears to be a nice project and a nice additional amenity for the hotel and moved for approval. Commissioner Greenwood moved to waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2714, approving Case No. PP 17-173, subject to conditions. Motion was seconded by Commissioner DeLuna and carried by a 5-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None). C. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a recommendation to the City Council to rezone three parcels from Open Space (OS) to Mixed Residential (R-2) and approve Tentative Tract Maps 37240, 37241, and 37242 for the construction of 69 condominium units on approximately 30 acres located on the former executive golf course at Palm Desert Country Club; and adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Case Nos. CZ/PP/CUP/EA 16-280 and TTM 37240, 37241, and 37242 (McFadden Architects, Palm Desert, California, Applicant). Mr. Ceja reviewed the staff report with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation (staff report is available at www.cityof palm desert.org). He noted that staff recommended two conditions regarding the landscape: 1) the applicant must submit final landscape plans for review to the Planning staff; and 2) the applicant must meet with the homeowners abutting the project site to determine final tree location. He emphasized that landscape is part of the proposed project and in no way should the applicant or homeowners look at eliminating trees from the area. Mr. Ceja made clear that staff is requesting that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed project to the City Council and understand that the Planning Commission does not make the final decision on this project. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission remove the approval of Tentative Tract Maps 37240, 37241, and 37242 as part of the proposed project. He noted the maps need further review, which would come back to the Planning Commission under a separate action. He offered to answer any questions. Commissioner DeLuna asked if there are homeowners' associations (HOA) or assessment districts with the governing of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) or any kind of provisions for financial participation for the maintenance or upkeep of the current Palm Desert Country Club (PDCC) Executive Course (Executive Course). Mr. Ceja responded that there is an HOA in PDCC; however, he did not believe there are association members on the Executive Course. 5 \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\12-19-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2017 A person from the audience interjected that there are association members on the Executive Course. Mr. Stendell interjected that the correct answer to Commissioner Del-una's question is no. He made clear there is no financial instrument between the homeowners and the Executive Course for the maintenance and upkeep of the course. In terms of any governing documents or any bodies with an HOA, Commissioner Del-una asked if that is not applicable. Mr. Stendell replied that is correct. He explained that there is an HOA which governs the homes, but they have no purview or connection to the actual golf course. Commissioner Greenwood asked staff to elaborate on Conditions of Approval No. 8 in regard to the option for the perimeter walls. Mr. Ceja responded that during some of the community meetings that were held, the privacy and loss of views were a major concern for many of the property owners. Therefore, at an Architectural Review Commission (ARC) meeting, the applicant offered three design options for the wall. The options were essential to accommodate the concerns made by the property owners. He further explained that if a property owner was concerned with privacy, the owner could opt for the six-foot- high wall. If a property owner would want to maintain their views, the property owner could opt for a wall that is more open. Commissioner Greenwood commented that many of the current owners have lower planter walls between their property and the golf course. He said individual homeowners on the existing course could request a property wall and asked if the walls on the adjacent property line will be at full height. He also asked if there would be a six-foot-high wall where the adjacent neighbor might not have one. Mr. Ceja replied that staff recommended the walls be placed near the property line so there is not a significant offset between both walls. Commissioner Greenwood clarified that there could be a possibility where two homes have a wall and three homes do not have a wall based on the three options. Mr. Ceja replied that is correct. He said there would be some type of fencing in place, whether it is wrought iron or a wall. He noted that the intent is to have fencing installed for those homes. Commissioner Greenwood asked if there would be a continuous wall being placed along the entire project perimeter. Mr. Ceja replied yes. However, the design would change home to home. Vice Chairman Gregory inquired if there is a concern with the patchwork quilt appearance of the linear wall with people wanting different types of fencing or walls. He commented it is very unusual. 6 \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\12-19-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2017 Mr. Ceja agreed it is unusual. He said staff did have a concern with the patchwork appearance. He mentioned staff contemplated a condition for three homes to have a consistent form. However, staff felt that would be difficult to do with property owners dictating their neighbor's wall design options. Vice Chairman Gregory said there has to be a concession of sorts by the developer to not have a continuous aesthetic appearance of the wall or fence. He noted that landscaping could help mitigate the appearance to some degree. He inquired how the chronology would work with the landscape architect meeting with each homeowner to determine the type of trees the homeowner would prefer. He asked if the landscape architect would show a design indicating where a tree might go, then meet with the homeowner to determine what specific tree might work for each case. He said there are times it does not work well because trees are different sizes. He asked how it would work so ARC and staff can review the plans when they are final. Mr. Ceja deferred Vice Chairman Gregory's questions to the applicant or the landscape architect. If the project is approved, Commissioner Greenwood asked what the timeframe for the development is. Mr. Ceja deferred the question to the applicant. Chairman Pradetto declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. MR. CHRIS McFADDEN, McFadden Architects, St. Charles Place, Palm Desert, noted the landscape architect, the civil engineer, and MSA Consulting are present to answer any questions. He mentioned the owner is also present and may want to speak as well. As they proceed forward with the infill project, he said they have come to the realization in a lot of areas in their lives where time has come to embrace change and change could be difficult. He communicated the golf industry is not as robust as it has been in previous decades. With the PGA National Golf Club moving to Florida, and the previous drought concerns and continued conservation efforts in California will continue to impact the viability and sustainability of all existing golf courses. He said the owners of PDCC are confident that they could continue to enhance and maintain the PDCC Championship Course (Championship Course) for years to come. Unfortunately, the Executive Course is no longer feasible to operate regardless of the outcome of the proposed project and the Executive Course will not operate as a golf course again. He stated one benefit of the project's former existence as a golf course is that they have reclaimed water available for all the landscaping for the new project. Mr. McFadden explained that when they first started working on the project, they looked at the largest parcel of land (Parcel A) and utilized the current small lot size in Palm Desert of 7,000 square feet. They introduced a current standard residential street width and they came up with a 67-lot solution at five units per acre for Parcel A. He said the information was shared with the current ownership and their response was swift. He was told by the owner that 7 \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Comm ission\2017\Minutes\12-19-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2017 they are looking for something with half as much density and lots of open space. After a few more reiterations and input from the community, they settled on the 69 condominiums on nearly 30 acres (2.34 units per acre). He stated the ARC solidified their approval of the units, the amenities, the circulation, landscape concepts, and entry points. He mentioned they still have some lingering items with the neighbors, which primarily focus on view encroachments. He believed they had viable solutions and a process to alleviate some of the concerns and deliver a wonderful project. However, they are not naive to believe that they would be able to satisfy every concern. Mr. McFadden explained that they adjusted the pad heights of the buildings to maintain a four-foot pad height relative to the lower resident pad heights. He noted they have self-imposed excessive setbacks at a 35-foot minimum, which far exceeds the requirement in the municipal code. Regarding the trees, he said their idea is to stake the trees 30 to 60 days prior to placement. This will allow them to meet with individual owners who have concerns and adjust locations as needed to maximize views. The landscape plans will have a palette of three or four trees that would work in various locations. In addition, they considered dedicating a five-foot buffer to the adjacent residences to help with the encroachments that have been made over the years onto the golf course. They also considered dedicating a buffer to the adjacent property owners to facilitate some of the substandard lot sizes, which would simplify the mishmash of the rear yard conditions. As the voice of resistance to that idea got louder and louder, they rescinded the dedication. Therefore, they have a five-foot buffer at the perimeter edge and proposing to locate a 24-inch square or 24- by 48-inch decapped split face pilaster at every property corner and at the midpoint on the majority of the lots. He briefly described the other two designs and other improvements. He noted that all of the designs have been included in the renderings. Mr. McFadden stated they would like to start on the project in the summer of 2018. He hoped concerns by the residents could be addressed tonight through the conditions of approval. He offered to answer any questions. Commissioner Greenwood asked if there would be an intermediate space between the new wall and the existing property. MR. McFADDEN replied that is correct. Commissioner Greenwood inquired if the space would be maintained by the developer. MR. McFADDEN replied that is correct. Vice Chairman Gregory asked if the existing walls or fences would remain. MR. McFADDEN replied yes. Vice Chairman Gregory asked if there is an offset of one to five feet, and would people have the option to extend their landscaping. 8 \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\12-19-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2017 MR. McFADDEN responded that they would ask the homeowner if they would like their fence removed and use the new fence instead. Vice Chairman Gregory asked if the homeowner elects to have the fence removed and maintenance has access, will there be enough gates to get around someone's property. MR. McFADDEN replied that they could install the gates at each location and provide locks for those gates. If a homeowner does not want maintenance to go through their property, the homeowner could put the lock on the gate. Vice Chairman Gregory asked if a gate is installed at every fence, could a homeowner elect to go into the condominium property to access the trail. MR. McFADDEN replied yes. Vice Chairman Gregory wondered if condominium owners would be reluctant to have strangers accessing the property so easily. Commissioner Greenwood inquired why a wall is being installed. Was the wall wanted by the developer or the residents? MR. McFADDEN said City staff pointed out to them that there are substandard lots so it was his idea to have a wall along with the five-foot giveaway. Commissioner Greenwood wondered if a wall was necessary. MR. McFADDEN remarked if the Planning Commission wants the wall removed, they will remove the wall. He noted for safety reasons, the pool areas would be enclosed and not open to the public. Commissioner Lindsay Holt asked if amenities are available to the PDCC residents. MR. McFADDEN replied no due to liability issues. Commissioner DeLuna asked how many acres is the proposed project. MR. McFADDEN replied that the project is approximately 29.45 acres. Commissioner DeLuna pointed out that there is a 50 percent density, which leaves 15 acres of open space. MR. McFADDEN said it would be approximately 15 acres of unimproved open space. However, the five-foot area at the perimeter is not included in the calculations. Commissioner DeLuna asked if that would increase the amount of open space. 9 \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\12-19-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2017 MR. McFADDEN replied yes. Vice Chairman Gregory asked the landscape architect how the selection of trees would be handled. MR. CHUCK SHEPARDSON, HSA Design Group (landscape architect), La Quinta, responded that they are treating the proposed project like a golf course project because there are a lot of open views to the open space that is no longer golf space. Typically, they tend to place the trees close to the property lines so it preserves their views and not in the middle of their lots. If the project is approved and they prepare the working drawings, they will come up with a design that would be presented to the City. As Mr. McFadden mentioned, they will stake the location of the trees and work with the homeowners on the locations and the tree species. He noted that they cannot remove trees because it will change the density and the look of the plan. Vice Chairman Gregory asked if plans would be submitted to the City without knowing what trees are being planted along the perimeter. MR. SHEPARDSON responded that if they have to make changes, there is a possibility the plans could get approved over the counter. Vice Chairman Gregory commented that some of the letters they received from homeowners said they are concerned with large or tall trees. He asked Mr. Shepardson if they are open to considering some smaller growing trees on the palette to meet those concerns. MR. SHEPARDSON replied they are receptive to considering smaller trees. Vice Chairman Gregory stated the City would probably make an approval based on the palette. Therefore, a palette is something that should be understood and agreed to by everyone. MR. SHEPARDON remarked that should happen prior to submitting the palette to the City. Commissioner Holt asked the Planning Commission if they completely understood how they arrived at the proposed project. For example, from the time the golf course was closed until today's actions to rectify the situation prior to considering medium density residential on the Executive Course. Chairman Pradetto clarified if they have questions beyond what is in the staff report. Commissioner Holt replied yes. She commented that she is not as familiar with the project as everyone else in the audience. She understood there was the Executive Course on the proposed project site and for whatever reason funding was no longer available to continue as a golf course. She asked how long the 10 \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\12-19-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2017 developer has owned the property, who owned the property before the current owner, and how did the transition of ownership take place. Mr. Stendell believed in 2011 the current owner took possession of the property (Executive and Champion Courses) from a previous private owner. He noted that the City has been engaged in the Executive Course in hosting community meetings, discussions regarding a possible assessment district, and private party purchase by the adjacent homes. At one point, there were also discussions about charitable donations, but the receiving entity was not in a position to take donations. Mr. Stendell expressed that the City has tried a lot to help this process along. Commissioner Holt clarified that there was an attempt to form an assessment district to be paid by the property owners within PDCC. Mr. Stendell replied that is correct. Commissioner Holt asked why it did not get approved. Mr. Stendell responded that staff looked at a Proposition 218 assessment district, and the City also looked at taking some form of an easement over the parcel. The community seemed to have an interest in it; however, the property owner did not put the information out to the community. He said there has been a lack of trust between the two entities. When the Planning Commission considers this application, Commissioner Holt asked what are the implications of viewing the existing conditions of the project site as a decommissioned golf course as opposed to a golf course. The reason she asked is that she knows this is not going to be the first project of this type in the valley. She also asked what would stop a developer from purchasing a golf course and letting it sit for a couple of years to revert into its desert natural state, then using that as the baseline condition in the environmental to do the assessment. Mr. Stendell replied that it is not necessarily trying to revert back to its natural state. After one year of inactive use, in his opinion, you revert back to unentitled land. He communicated that it was previously a golf course, but its entitlement as a golf course has since sunset. There is nothing to stop from this happening again. Commissioner Holt commented that she would hate for residents in the valley to sit and watch a golf course die so a developer could submit a plan to develop the land. She mentioned a resident commented that a previous development was completed by D.R Horton Homes and the developer created additional amenities for the PDCC members as a quid pro quo for the zone change. She asked staff to speak to that. 11 \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\12-19-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2017 Mr. Ceja responded there was a development agreement attached to the D.R. Horton Homes development. As part of the agreement, the developer made upgrades to a maintenance facility and the clubhouse. Commissioner Holt asked if there were discussions between the developer and the residents to get something in return for the loss of their viewshed. She voiced that the issue here is the loss of the residents' viewshed. Mr. Stendell responded that a developer could propose a different way to gain support for their project; however, it is not a requirement. In regard to the D.R. Horton project, the developer offered to upgrade the two facilities. MS. SERENA ILLK, Kentucky Avenue, Palm Desert, stated that one of the most compelling reasons to stop the proposed development of the former Executive Course, no matter how well designed, it is a conflict with their existing community. Such development would destroy valuable open space and the residents' quality of life for the sole purpose of enriching the PDCC ownership. She said to approve a development based on the determination that it may temporarily resolve the problem area and assume there is no other alternative would be a major policy error. She stated there has to be a better way than to further destroying lifestyles and the property values of concerned residents and property owners. She said 188 property owners are directly affected by the development and may seem like a small number. However, they deserve to have the City protect their remaining quality of life, which already have been degraded by the actions of the PDCC ownership over the past four years. Ms. Illk said many of them are seniors living on fixed incomes, but they should not be overlooked in favor of the avarice, which is proposing a development. They are citizens of the City of Palm Desert and their interest should be protected by their City officials. She ended by reading an article by Sherry Barkas from The Desert Sun and noted that she a notebook with 678 signed petitions opposed to the project. MR. JACK FORNEY, Kentucky Avenue, Palm Desert, stated he is opposed to any construction on the former Executive Course. Open space that is developed is open space that will be lost forever. He mentioned that he gave the Planning staff a written statement of his concerns and compromise suggestions for the proposed project. He said he is not an architect, an engineer, or a contractor so he cannot comment on the structural integrity of the proposed units. However, as a homeowner, his property abuts the course. He believed the proposed project could be made more community friendly by some compromise adjustments. Mr. Forney stated PDCC is a community of single-family homes that are primarily occupied by retired senior citizens who purchased their homes with majestic mountain views and the open area of the golf course. The citizens take pride in their community, maintain their property, respect their neighbors, and are an asset to the City of Palm Desert. He voiced that this project should be revised to comply with Article V of the City's project application development standards. He said compromises should be made to protect views, minimize noise and pollution, and provide privacy and security for the surrounding residents. He 12 \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\12-19-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2017 believed his written suggestions for the overall proposed project for the design, location, height, elevation, walls, fences, and landscaping would help to achieve the above-mentioned objectives. Mr. Forney said the proposed road is 16 feet from his rear property line. The attached sketches show the proposed and requested 90-degree relocation of unit numbers B8, B9, B10, and B11 to allow the units and the road to be moved 30 feet or more towards the south property. In applying for a change of zone, he listed several amenities that were provided by the former owners of PDCC on the former driving range and other areas of the course. MS. CINDY STEVENSON, Kentucky Avenue, Palm Desert, pointed out that the City's General Plan for 2020 states increasing the amount of open space land in Palm Desert. She said by approving the proposed project would be contradictory to the plan. The ban on short-term rentals (STRs) within the R-1 and R-2 zones would also be contradictory because in PDCC there is a 60/40 split between permanent and absentee residents. She said a majority of the permanent homeowners sometimes use their homes for vacation rentals or long-term rentals. With the proposed condominiums, there are going to be transient people even with the ban of STRs. She also felt the different ideas for fencing is crazy; it should be uniform. She voiced her concern with privacy and is opposed to the project. She said the demise of the Executive Course could have been prevented with more marketing and utilization of proper resources, which is something the owners did not want to do. MS. SHARON LASKIN, California Drive, Palm Desert, stated she is opposed to the project and believed the owners had the idea to develop the property when they bought the property for a low price. She backs the golf course and one day she was in her home with the doors closed and heard a sound. She went outside and saw a remote toy roaming up and down the course, which did not bother her. However, she cannot imagine being home and listening to the sounds of conversation and noise coming from the proposed project. She stated she purchased her home to be on the golf course not to be surrounded by noise. MR. DOUG BISHOP, California Drive, Palm Desert, said he has been a resident of PDCC for 31 years and a business owner in Palm Desert for 20 years. He was upset that the City scheduled the public hearing when many of the PDCC residents left to be with their families for the holidays. He felt public agencies schedule meetings when they think there will be lower attendance. Therefore, any decision should be delayed until January or February 2018. In regard to the proposed project, he believed it was some sort of railroad job "let's get it done attitude." He has heard from several City employees that the project is a done deal, which makes his stomach turn. He stated he had attended the ARC meetings, now attending the Planning Commission meeting, and plans on attending the City Council meeting. He also stated the mixing of condominiums with established residential buildings makes no sense. Adding pickleball courts to a residential community is stupid in his opinion. He encouraged the Planning Commission to read a book from the Historical Society, which goes against the plan for open space. He is proud to say he is a resident of Palm Desert. It would 13 \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\12-19-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2017 be great for the Commission to postpone their decision 40 or 50 years from now, and the future will probably be the proper time for the proposed project. MR. FRED KENT, California Drive, Palm Desert, agreed with Mr. Bishop regarding the scheduling of the public hearing. He said the giant staff report was available towards the end of last week, which he felt was intentional and residents only have three minutes to comment. In his opinion, he stated that the cart is before the horse. He voiced that the proposed site is not designed for homes. There is not enough room to add a street down the middle and homes on both sides. He stated it is obvious the project was a shoe-horn operation from the beginning. He said there are a lot of homes that have certain lot sizes, a certain look, and certain traffic patterns. The proposed project would give the community a different look with narrower homes and maybe a fence. He noted he has written many letters to the City of Palm Desert, which does not seem to make much of a difference. MR. BOB LUDWIG, Indiana Avenue, Palm Desert, said he has lived in PDCC since 1961 . During that time, they have never needed a pool or additional amenities and the proposed site should stay as open space. The area is not designed for homes. He stated his home is going to have a road right outside the fence with parking on the street. He declared that the area is supposed to be open space in perpetuity and never to be developed. He voiced his concern with noise, pollution, and transients. He stated no one is going to pay $400,000 to $450,000 for a 1 ,400-square-foot box. If approved, he complained the construction would go on for a long time. He stated there is no quid pro quo. He voiced the developer will be making $35 to $40 million for the development and the adjacent residents get their necks stepped on. He also voiced his concern with the loss of equity of his home. He pleaded for the Commission to not approve a change of zone. MR. DONALD BOLAS, California Drive, Palm Desert, commented that his home is in PDCC and occupied by his adult son. He has lived in Palm Desert since 1974. He mentioned he had attended meetings in the past where City bodies struggled with issues to preserve the desert and make it a special place. He said Palm Desert is not short of people. Therefore, they do not need to pack people in, which will happen with the proposed project. He stated that the project is the start of an error. He quoted what a wise man once said, "an error doesn't become a mistake until you refuse to correct the error." He believed the people present tonight want the Planning Commission to correct any error that might have been made in getting the application this far. He asked if the use is relevant and does it do justice to the existing property owners and the City of Palm Desert. He mentioned a city knocked down a 5,500-room hotel to give its people livable open space downtown. He stated Palm Desert does not have to knock down a big hotel; all the City has to do is preserve the open space and not give it away. Mr. Bolas said the project is a bank bailout. The golf industry suffers and the developers gain; however, the property owners lose. He vented that the people deserve something better and the Planning Commission has the power to deliver it. 14 \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Monica OFeilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\12-19-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2017 MR. MICHAEL HERREL, Kentucky Avenue, Palm Desert, said he purchased his home in PDCC more than three years ago and the proposed project would not work for him. He asked that the Planning Commission to require the developer to pay 10 percent to each affected homeowner of their current home value if a zone change is approved. He voiced that they have an attorney on a retainer; the residents do not plan to go away regarding this matter. MR. ROBERT BRENNAN, Oklahoma Avenue, Palm Desert, thanked Commissioner Holt for asking questions that he felt all should be asking. He said at every meeting he has attended and every homeowner, except for one, commented that the project would not work in PDCC. He asked the Planning Commission if they have looked at the site; the site is surrounded by homes. He opposed the project in the proposed area. MS. KATHLEEN BISHOP, California Drive, Palm Desert, stated the proposed project brings public development into a private single-family residential neighborhood. She said the main concern is environmental such as pollution, noise, and increased water usage. She expressed that the homeowners have the right to protect their property values. The project will block their views with buildings and walls, which will decrease their property value and change the aesthetics of their yards and infringe in their privacy. She proposed to leave the zone as open space. She does not believe golf is a dying sport and noted there are schools offering physical education in golf. She thanked the Planning Commission for their time. MR. NED WILMOT, Tennessee Avenue, Palm Desert, stated he is opposed to the project. He mentioned he was recruited to undertake the planning, design, and development of a new town on 15,000 acres of land between Baltimore and Washington D.C.; a pre-planned city of 100,000 people. His concern with the proposed project, it breaks the integrity of the original planning of the PDCC community. He said it constitutes a planned unit development and mixed-use retail. However, the PDCC was planned as a golf community built on the surrounds of 27 holes, a clubhouse, a practice range, and acres of open views of their magnificent mountains. Over the last 19 years, they have resided in PDCC and have seen the community dismantle piece by piece; pieces that come from open space land. He communicated that the integrity of the original good planning is being lost. He stated that the golfing lands were not only for golf, they also served to provide residents with amazing views. MS. TARA FRASER, California Drive, Palm Desert, stated she is speaking on behalf of her father, a homeowner in PDCC, who could not attend the meeting. She stated that their whole family is opposed to the project. She said the renderings look nice, but the developer is proposing too many buildings in a small space. Her father purchased his home in 1999 and had peace in his backyard. The former Executive Course has changed to a natural state and still is beautiful. She said their family is troubled because they will lose the natural beauty of their backyard. She thanked the Planning Commission for the opportunity to share her family's extreme displeasure. 15 \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Monica OFeilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\12-19-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2017 MR. JUSTIN JONES, California Drive, Palm Desert, commented that he has spent 17 years in PDCC, and plans on buying a home on the golf course for him and his son. He noted that not only are there elderly and retired people that live in PDCC, there are also new parents. He currently rents a home on California Drive and likes to take his son for a walk. However, it is not safe to walk on the street due to speeding cars and prefers walking his son in the backyard, which is the golf course. He mentioned the golf course owner has neglected to maintain the property, and the property owner has not reimbursed homeowners for pest control services due to the poor maintenance. Lastly, he voiced his concern with sitting in his yard and have to listen to domestic disturbance or noise that would come from the proposed condominiums. MR. JOSEPH MEDEK, California Drive, Palm Desert, stated he is highly affected by the proposed project and strongly opposed. He stated that the Planning Commission is not listening to the people as human beings. He said the developer bought the property for a very cheap price and let it go in order to develop the parcel for a profit. He stated the project would ruin the lives of the retired people living in PDCC. The homeowners bought their homes for the views and the open space. He asked the Planning Commission how they would feel if a developer were to build condominiums in front of their view. He pleaded for the Commission to not allow the developer to build on the proposed site. MR. BRAD TAYLOR, California Drive, Palm Desert, noted that there is a covenant agreement that runs with the land for the Villas on the Greens. He noted that the Planning Commission did not ask for comments in favor of the proposed project. He said the property owner of the former Executive Course has been accommodating with the agreement, except for the maintenance of the grass and land. He mentioned that he has talked to the property owner concerning one particular unit (C-18), which is part of the agreement. He asked the Planning Commission or City staff look at unit C-18 to make sure it is within the plan. In addition, the property owner has agreed to relocate or reposition C- 18 and would like to have that on record. He pointed out that there is open space within Site Plan C, which is also part of the agreement. The agreement states that nothing is to be built on or lower than the existing tree line or to the west of the tree line. He noted that one tree has already been removed from the tree line. He feared there are plans to build on the open space noted in Site Plan C. He mentioned the property owner has said there are plans in the future for recreational activities and Villas on the Greens would be involved in those decisions. He said if the zone is changed to mixed residential, the zone would not be correct for the tree line on the west as agreed to in the recorded covenant. MS. BARBARA POWERS, Kentucky Avenue, Palm Desert, on behalf of her husband Chuck Powers, stated he purchased their home in 1983. He had 30 years in law enforcement when he retired, and there were 14 retired law enforcement officers who lived within the PDCC streets. That is no longer the case and only a few of them left. Since 1992, they had a neighborhood watch on three streets (Tennessee Avenue, Oklahoma Drive, and Kentucky Avenue). Therefore, they know who belongs on the golf course and currently have clear 16 \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\12-19-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2017 views of neighbors' backyards. According to Mr. Powers, that is very important during the summer since many of the homeowners are snowbirds. If the project is approved, the ability to have clear views will disappear. According to the National Neighborhood Watch, they recommend harding homes through environmental design. That means no trees or bushes blocking the view of the homeowner to protect their homes from predators. Mr. Powers asked that the Planning Commission not approve the proposed project. Mrs. Powers mentioned they recently had a coyote on her back porch so she called and warned her neighbors. She saw the coyote try to jump a fence in an attempt to get to her neighbor's cats. She stated she was able to contact her neighbors since she had their contact information through the Neighborhood Watch Program, which she said the program works. MRS. POWERS stated that the golf course went through eight owners and provided a brief history of all the owners. She noted there are 18 holes on the Championship Course and nine holes on the Executive Course. The Executive Course consists of approximately 30 acres and she listed the number of homeowners in the HOAs; however, there are 111 homeowners on the Executive Course who are not in an HOA. She noted there are not a lot of people at the Planning Commission meeting tonight because the HOA made some type of arrangement with PDCC and are remaining neutral. The HOA also had a meeting scheduled the same evening. She requested a new traffic study to be done. When the current study was completed, it was done on a weekday and only for one day. In addition, she felt the mitigation of wildlife is the biggest mistake. She said there are hundreds of different birds in the trees. If the developer tears down the trees; they are going to have a rodent problem. She thanked the Planning Commission for their time. Chairman Pradetto called a recess at 8:07 p.m. and reconvened at 8:15 p.m. With no other comments from the audience, Chairman Pradetto asked the applicant to address some of the concerns made by the residents of PDCC. MR. McFADDEN said they have heard the comments and they have been working through the issues. He believed a lot of the issues have been addressed and mitigated to some concern; however, people are just plain opposed to the project. He also believed the OS designation in the General Plan was slightly altered so the project is more conducive to what the City would like to see done with these types of projects. He felt this decision needs to be made at a higher level. He said they have not heard any comments in favor of the project, but not everyone is opposed. He also said people are afraid to say they are in favor of the project because of the way they would be vindicated or ostracized and they were asked to remain anonymous. Mr. McFadden stated it is the first time he has heard of the 667 opposed petitions. He does not know how the petitions were solicited and not sure what the process for petitions is. He said they are always taking in a lot of concerns and criticism on the project and they try to adjust where they can. He commented that Commissioner Holt had a lot of good things 17 \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\12-19-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2017 to say about the project considering the history. He noted that the owner would like to speak regarding the history from a developer's perspective. MR. MOE SIHOTA, PD Holdings L.P., New Mexico Drive, Palm Desert, stated that he is not present to be some kind of voice of reason; he has his biases. He conveyed to the Planning Commission that the moderate methodical approach they have taken since entering this journey in dealing with an asset called the golf course. The owners bought it out of bankruptcy and it was a mess. The golf course was neglected, property values decreased, and the owners thought they could make a go of it. As mentioned, the golf course has a history of bankruptcy, so the owners were not immune to considerations around its past. Nonetheless, they thought they could make a go of it and they bought the golf course. Prior to buying the property, the owners met with City staff and discussed what it would take to rehabilitate the golf course. Staff pointed out to them that there were preexisting commitments made by the previous owners such as a maintenance building, water, and other infrastructure the City wanted them to honor. Notwithstanding the fact that there was nothing that would oblige them to do so; they carried out those commitments. He stated they invested approximately $4 million in the course, and they bought the property with the intent to run it as a golf course. He said to run a golf course you need seed, fertilizer, water, and labor; it is pretty straightforward. He said the fee for the Championship Course fetches approximately $50 to $60 per round, which makes it somewhat marginally viable. As the previous owners, they were burdened with the uneconomic capacity of the Executive Course at $30 to $40 per round which did not make sense to them. Consequently, the owners were faced with that reality and they looked at what they could do. He said they first approached charities to see if they were prepared to take the golf course over. They looked at options from soccer to golf for kids and trust arrangements, which none made sense because no one was prepared to take it on. At that point, they sat down with City staff to look at another option to save the Executive Course. The option was to establish a Landscape and Lighting District fee in the amount of $25 per resident that were situated on and/or contoured the Executive Course, which would make up for the economic deficiency. However, the people that spearheaded the PDCC open space committee were the same people who opposed the Landscape and Lighting District fee. Mr. Sihota stated they were met with significant community anger and resistance because of the proposal. With that said, they were left with the current option of proposing to develop 69 condominium units on the former Executive Course. He said they did not get involved in the current option to generate rank within a community so the approach they decided to take was to engage residents on a committee and ask them to assist in coming up with a sensible urban planning plan for the Executive Course area. He also said they invited the PDCC open space committee to participate in the process and the committee indicated they would not support or engage in any discussion or dialog with the owners of the Executive Course. They worked with a subset of residents and City staff. The end result of that process was to come up with a modest proposal that does not speak of a developer looking for a windfall. He said it is 2.3 units per acre and 50 percent of the land is set aside for open space. The net result required constant 18 \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\12-19-17,docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2017 attentiveness to what the community, City staff, and residents who wanted to participate had to say after several iterations they arrived at a 6-0 vote at the ARC meeting. He said they arrived at a situation where the PDCC HOA has withdrawn their opposition. He reiterated that the Planning Commission has a recommendation before them that is supported by staff. He communicated that the proposal is not perfect and reaffirmed they did not develop the proposal to generate a rank within the community. He pointed out that the land is not being used for a useful purpose if it is degraded into a desert. He mentioned between the Executive Course and Championship Course they have come up with 75 percent of residents between the two courses still having green space in terms of the homes that back up to the course. He said they also have restored significant vibrancy back into the community by bringing life back to the clubhouse. They have enhanced property values by reestablishing the Championship Course. He stated they understand the economics of golf and they made a commitment, which they would covenant to protect the entirety of the Championship Course. However, he is sorry that the same cannot be done with the Executive Course. He declared that this is the journey they have walked and how they have arrived at this point. He understood the situation the Planning Commission is in. It is difficult when one is faced with the wrath of a community and the sole voice of a developer. He conveyed to the Commission with every shred of whatever he has in him that they have tried to do this methodically, rationally, and sensitive to urban planning principles with the engagement of staff and residents who were prepared to participate in the process. With no further testimony offered, Chairman Pradetto declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner DeLuna commented that she is a prior property owner of a home on the Executive Course. She owned the home when the condominiums were being built along California Drive. At that time there was considerable opposition to that development with the same concerns she has heard from the residents this evening. However, the D.R. Horton project actually enhanced the value and improved the neighborhood. She felt the PDCC owner has been extremely sensitive in dealing with the community and pointed out that the owner is offering 50 percent open space. She also pointed out that the owner has worked with the neighbors and worked on addressing their concerns. She commented that 69 one-story condominiums do not seem to be an egregious encroachment into the neighborhood. She voiced her concern with the current condition of the Executive Course with insects, rodents, snakes, and coyotes. The proposed project is one way to address and improve the neighborhood. Commissioner Greenwood mentioned that it was said earlier that the Planning Commission would most likely be presented with another case like the proposed project. He stated he is sensitive to the homeowners and their concerns. However, from an open space standpoint, the Executive Course is being neglected and it is not being utilized and looks blighted. He felt that the neglected area weighs on the decrease in the property value. He said the proposal presented is sensitive and noted that the proposal could have come in with a 19 \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\12-19-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2017 much higher density or mixed-use commercial. He mentioned the architecture is consistent with the neighborhood and a nice addition. He said it is a decent proposal and reasonable. Commissioner Holt asked what the maximum density for the PDCC neighborhood is. Mr. Ceja replied that the maximum density in an R-2 zone is eight units per acre. Commissioner Holt asked how many units per acre the proposed project is. Mr. Ceja replied the proposed project is 2.3 units per acre. Chairman Pradetto asked how many units per acre in an open space. Mr. Ceja replied zero. Chairman Pradetto clarified that the current zone is open space. Mr. Ceja replied that is correct. Commissioner Holt stated that she read all the comments submitted to the City from the residents. She and staff are listening to them. Staff has been working diligently with the developer and staff has attended community meetings. She pointed out that staff did not have to attend the community meetings. Staff attended because they do care and are invested in the PDCC community. She commented there will always be a change and sometimes change can cause conflict and that is where they are at today. Unfortunately, many golf courses were designed and constructed to sell homes with very little due diligence done to determine whether the golf courses could survive or thrive on their own, and she felt this project is one example. She stated she knows for a fact that this is not going to be the last case the City would hear. She also stated this is something going on all over the nation and all over the Coachella Valley. She said it would be nice for the City to do a study on the repurposing of golf courses so they could have some other alternatives. She mentioned a project in Palm Springs plans to repurpose a golf course to an olive tree grove and harvest the olives. She thought that was a great idea. She stated it is unfortunate that the residents, the developer, PDCC HOAs, and City staff could not all work together to get on the same page. She also understands the current situation they are in, which precludes them from allowing the golf course to remain a decommission golf course. She stated that the conversion of open space to residential in an area where it is undesirable does not sit well with her. She asked where they go from here. She felt it is not her place to tell the residents of PDCC or the City what to do with the subject property. She stated she does not have an issue with the proposed development and applauded the developer for the low density, for the incorporation of open space, and the recreational amenities. However, the location of the proposed project gives her a little heartburn. She also is concerned about the precedent it may set. Lastly, she cannot recommend 20 \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\12-19-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2017 approval of a zone change to the City Council without the accompanying condominium maps. She preferred to approve the zone and the maps at the same time and asked if that is correct. Senior Engineer/City Surveyor Ron Moreno responded that the tentative tract maps would come back to the Planning Commission for approval. Due to the overlap of the previous City Surveyor and him taking over, he did not feel comfortable recommending approval of the maps since he has not had the chance to review them. He stated staff will review the maps with the applicant. Commissioner Holt inquired if the applicant would have to return to the Planning Commission. Mr. Moreno replied that is correct. The applicant would need to return to the Planning Commission with the maps. Commissioner Holt asked if the Commission recommends continuing the case, would it be a delay for the applicant. Mr. Stendell responded that there are plenty of steps left in the approval or non- approval process of the proposed project. He explained that maps are often separated from the precise plan of design and come back later for approval. He made clear that staff is recommending excluding the tentative tract maps from the project approval or the Commission could recommend that it all come back together as one. Commissioner Holt mentioned that some cities are not comfortable with allowing a zone change to go forward before a development plan is approved, which would be her preference for the proposed project. She liked the proposed project, but maybe if the residents were given some time, they could come up with some other solutions. In any case, something does need to happen with the property. She said it would be great to know what other golf communities are doing with golf courses. Vice Chairman Gregory commented that he was on the ARC for 32 years and graduated to the Planning Commission. Through all the years on the ARC, projects like the one being proposed or similar situations would come up. He mentioned his landscape architecture firm worked on designs for golf course communities. He said golf courses were built to create a lifestyle and enhance the value of the homes in the community, which was nice as long as the band was playing. However, starting at the beginning of the recession in 2008, the band stopped playing. He stated his firm has not worked on a golf course in years. They knew it would be a matter of time before some of the weaker courses would start failing, and unfortunately, that is the case with the Executive Course. He mentioned that he played golf on the Executive Course with his son and enjoyed it very much, and he was rather envious of the people living around the course. The views were great and a great place to live, but it is now being challenged. However, after being on the ARC, he had the opportunity to look at a 21 \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\12-19-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2017 lot of different developments. He referred to a comment made by Mr. Forney regarding "why can't compromises be made." He believed the developer had made compromises. He stated he has never seen a project with over 50 percent open space, which is made available to the neighbors. He also referred to the comment made about walking on a busy street like California Drive and said there is an opportunity to walk on very safe trails within the development that is open to the neighbors. As he looked at the architectural design of the project, he saw a lot of sensitivity towards making it possible for someone to live in one of the small units and not exceed height where the buildings are taller and in the center. Those are all hallmarks of good design that the City looks for. He felt sorry that change has to come and change is painful; however, the project is a very sensitive designed development. Chairman Pradetto asked the City's attorney and staff if the Commission were to recommend denial, the Commission is only recommending denial to the City Council. However, the applicant would have the opportunity to appeal or would staff move forward with a different recommendation. Mr. Stendell responded that the Planning Commission is making a recommendation to the City Council. The ultimate approval lies with the Council and the Planning Commission's recommendation whether it is an approval or a denial would move before the City Council. Chairman Pradetto commented that he feels for the developer, but thinks about why he feels the way that he does. He said it is because of the idea of concessions for the limited density. He explained that the developer has given a little something and it is human nature to have it reciprocated. He said it is a tactic in which there is no entitlement; therefore, there is no concession so you can't concede something you don't have. He said by saying you have less density, one automatically feels the developer is giving something. He felt that not to be true. However, on the other side, there is fear of change. On one hand, he wants to help the developer because of the human nature of that idea, but he also wants to help the community due to their concerns about their loss. Ultimately, it comes down to they have a problem and it is a golf course that continues to get worse and the developer knows that it is getting worse. He noted Commissioners Greenwood and Holt made great points, but the proposed project might be the best option. He stated that studying future proposals and options is a great idea. He communicated that the proposed project comes down to risk in which they have a problem and no good solutions. He noted that if the Commission continues the item to wait for the maps to be reviewed, it might give them a couple weeks of time. He asked the Assistant City Attorney if they wait for the maps, does the Planning Commission have to re-open the public hearing. Assistant City Attorney Jill Tremblay replied yes. Chairman Pradetto stated that the proposed project is pretty good, but Commissioner Holt made some good points. He said he would support a continuance unless there is a different motion. 22 \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\12-19-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2017 Commissioner DeLuna inquired if there is a continuance and the tentative tract maps come back to the Planning Commission for approval, does it change anything that the Commission has already discussed. To put it simply, moving the item forward to the City Council would not affect anything that happens with the maps. Mr. Stendell replied that is correct. He said it does not matter if the maps are separated from the project. However, if the Commission prefers the project and the maps stay together, staff is comfortable with that as well. Commissioner DeLuna stated it would not make a difference. Commissioner Holt interjected that her concern is if they recommend a zone change and there is no map tied to the change. With the zone change, the property value increases significantly. She is not saying the developer would do it, but the property owner could turn around and sell the property without any additional entitlements. In theory, she asked if that is correct. Mr. Stendell replied that is correct. However, there is no financial ability to sell the homes until maps are approved. Commissioner Holt voiced her concern moving forward with a zone change without a development plan tied to the change. Commissioner Greenwood clarified that if the Commission were to move the project before the City Council with an approval, then the Council deliberates and makes the final decision on whether the OS zone is changed to an R-1 zone. Commissioner Holt interjected and said what if something happens to the developer and sells the property, then someone else comes along and picks up the property and they submit a plan that is not as generous as the one being presented. Chair DeLuna asked if the project were to move forward, would the map be completed before going to the City Council. Mr. Stendell responded that the maps could be completed. There are a number of ways to handle the approval of the maps. Commissioner Greenwood asked if it is correct that the project they are moving forward is based on its merits presented during this evening's public hearing. In addition, if the maps are brought back to the Commission and the density changed to seven units per acre, he asked if it would require a new public hearing. Mr. Stendell remarked that the map is only the instrument by which the developer could sell the individual condominium units. He stated that an action could be taken on the Change of Zone, Precise Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and the 23 \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\12-19-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2017 Environmental Assessment. However, if the Planning Commission felt that approving the above-mentioned items is too challenging, then they could slow it down and keep it all together with the maps. Commissioner Holt clarified that it is only the condominium map that is not ready. Mr. Stendell replied that is correct. So Commissioner Holt could have a better understanding, he explained that the Precise Plan includes the preliminary grading, architecture, landscape, etc. Mr. Moreno interjected that the condominium map would be over the entire open space parcel. Therefore, there are no boundary changes to the open space. It is merely a condominium map on top of the original parcel. He made clear there are no lot line adjustments, no parcels being created, and no change to the original space other than a condominium map on top. Commissioner DeLuna understood if they moved the project forward with the condition that the map needs to be completed before it goes to the City Council, she asked if that is a viable path. Mr. Stendell replied no. He said the map has to first go to the Planning Commission for an action. The map could be separate and on a concurrent path. Commissioner DeLuna commented that the proposed project is complicated, complex, and sensitive. However, at this point and given what she has learned, she moved for approval. Vice Chairman Gregory said he would second the motion. Commissioner Greenwood referred to a comment made by Commissioner Holt. She mentioned a concern with this type of project being echoed on future developments. He pointed out that every proposal is based on its own merits and the Planning Commission is going to weigh each case based on the proposal; therefore, it would not create a precedent. For clarification purposes, Mr. Stendell asked if the motion includes staff's recommendation to strike the reference to the tentative tract maps. Commissioner DeLuna replied yes. Vice Chairman Gregory is aware and agreed to the motion. 24 \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\12-19-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2017 Commissioner DeLuna moved to waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2715, recommending to the City Council approval of Case No. CZ/CUP/EA 16-280 for the repurposing of the former Executive Course to establish 69 condominium units within PDCC; and strike the approval of Tentative Tract Maps 37240, 37241 , and 37242. Motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Gregory and carried by a 4-1 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, and Pradetto; Noes: Holt; ABSENT: None). X. MISCELLANEOUS None XI. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES None B. PARKS & RECREATION None XII. COMMENTS None XIII. ADJOURNMENT With the Planning Commission concurrence, Chair DeLuna adjourned the meeting at 8:54 p.m. JOSEPH PRADETTO, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: RYAN STENDELL, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MONICA O'REILLY, RECORDING SECRETARY 25 \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\12-19-17.docx CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: February 6, 2018 PREPARED BY: Eric Ceja, Principal Planner REQUEST: Consideration of a request for an amendment to Condition of Approval No. 10 for Tentative Tract Map 36351 and Precise Plan 14- 170; and approve new architectural elevations for one- and two-story homes for the subdivision located at the southwest corner of Dinah Shore Drive and Dick Kelly Drive. Recommendation Adopt Resolution No. 2716 approving the applicant's request to amend Condition of Approval No. 10; and approve architectural plans for one-, and two-story homes in the approved 111 lots, single-family subdivision (TTM 36351) at the southwest corner of Dinah Shore Drive ("Dinah Shore") and Dick Kelly Drive ("Dick Kelly"). Executive Summary On December 2, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution 2639, approving a tentative tract map and a precise plan for the subdivision of 30 acres into 111 single-family home lots, and an eight-acre parcel for future multi- family development. As adopted, the Resolution contained a Condition of Approval stating that the 111-lot subdivision was limited to single-story homes with a maximum building height of 18 feet, while the remaining eight-acre parcel could have maximum building height of 40 feet. The applicant is requesting that the condition is revised to allow for two-story homes up to twenty-eight (28) feet in height, as permitted by both the zoning ordinance and General Plan land use designations. This application has not requested any amendments to the remaining eight-acre multi-family site. Architectural Review Commission The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) reviewed the proposed project at their meeting on December 12, 2017, and recommended approval of the project's architecture by a 7-0 vote, subject to showing additional construction details on the building plans. February 6, 2018 — Staff Report Case Nos. PP 14-170/TTM 36351 Amendment No. 1 - Ponderosa Homes II, Inc. Page 2 of 4 Background Analysis A. Property Description The project site is located on the southwest corner of Dinah Shore and Dick Kelly. The 30-acre site is bounded by Dinah Shore to the west, Dick Kelly to the north, Cortesia Way to the east, and The Gallery housing tract to the south. The vacant parcel consists of sand and native vegetation, and a previously graded area along the southern property line. A 60-foot grade difference exists from the property's high point at the southwest corner of the site to the property's low point at the northeast corner of the site. B. Zoning and General Plan Designation Zone: PR-22 (Planned Residential 22 du/ac) General Plan: Town Center Neighborhood C. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use North: SI — Service Industrial (Various Industrial Buildings/Vacant) South: PR-5 — Planned Residential (The Gallery - Single Family Homes) East: PR-22 — Planned Residential (Vacant) West: P — Public Institution (Vacant — school site) Project Description In 2014, the ARC and Planning Commission (PC) approved typical home architecture for three separate single-story model homes. The models ranged from 1,659 square feet to 1,942 square feet. All homes were single-story in height, and as such, the applicant was conditioned to not exceed an 18-foot height limit for the 111-lot single- family subdivision. The applicant requests preliminary architectural approval for 5 single-family home models. The models are one- and two-stories in height. Models also range from 1 ,759 square feet to 2,410 square feet in size. Each model provides three different architectural elevations. The following table summarizes the features for each model: Plan S . Ft. Bedrooms Bath Garage Height 1 1,759 1 BR+ 2 2-Car 177-9" — 2092" 2 1,917 2BR 2.5 2-Car 17'-9" — 1915" 3 1,963 3BR 2.5 2-Car 17'-9" — 2056" 4 2,300 3BR+Bonus 3 2-Car 247-5" — 2712" 5 2,410 2BR+O tion 3.5 2-Car 24'41 — 262" \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Eric Ceja\Case Files\Tract Maps\T.36351 Ponderosa Homes\Hmendment No.1\PC Report(2.6.18).doc February 6, 2018 — Staff Report Case Nos. PP 14-170/TTM 36351 Amendment No. 1 - Ponderosa Homes II, Inc. Page 3 of 4 Each model has three separate elevations and nine different color schemes. The number of color schemes and elevations help break up the monotony of the housing product. Discussion The proposed changes to the project do not affect the subdivision or lot layout. However, development standards for the subdivision may change subject to the approval of the PC. The subdivision is zoned as PR which allows for flexibility in development standards for the development of cohesive residential projects. Although specific development standards (setbacks and height limit) are provided for the zone development standards may be modified during the map and precise plan process. At the time of the project's approval, the maximum building height in the PR zone was two stories at 24 feet in height. Because the original project only showed single-story homes, the project was conditioned to a single-story building height. Since then, the City has adopted a new General Plan and development standards for residential districts were changed to allow additional building height and product types. The proposed building height increase to allow for two-story homes conform to the 40-foot, three-story height limit provided in the Zoning Ordinance for the PR zoning district. The project's southern perimeter abuts The Gallery single-family development. The layout of the subdivision provides for a 30-foot landscape buffer along this edge to accommodate the grade difference between the two projects. In addition, a 29-foot wide roadway is provided with homes fronting along the northern side of the roadway. This provides over 60 feet of separation between the rear wall of property owners within The Gallery development. In addition, the lots within the Ponderosa II project are approximately 14' - 4' feet below the lots at The Gallery. Staff supports the applicant's request to add an additional story to this project and is recommending a condition that no more than 50 percent of the units are two-stories and that no two-story homes can be located on corner lots. In addition, there is adequate separation between this project and the adjoining project to the south and the approximate 14' — 4'-foot grade difference between the two projects preserves some views and limits privacy intrusion. Lastly, the General Plan promotes a mix of housing options and affordabilities. With the changes in unit type and square footage, the applicant is providing additional housing variation within the project itself. Final construction drawings will come back to the ARC for final approval to ensure consistency with preliminary architectural approvals. \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Eric Ceja\Case Files\Tract Maps\T.36351 Ponderosa Homes\Amendment No.1\PC Report(2.6.18).doc February 6, 2018 — Staff Report Case Nos. PP 14-170/TT 36351 Amendment No. 1 - Ponderosa Homes II, Inc. Page 4 of 4 Eric Ceja, P inc, al Planner LEGAL REVIEW DEPT. REVIEW FINANCIAL REVIEW CITY MANAGER N/A N/A N/A Robert W. Hargreaves Ryan Stendell Janet Moore Lauri Aylaian City Attorney Dir.of Comm. Dev. Director of Finance City Manager VENDOR: Ponderosa Homes II, Inc. c/o: Jeffrey C. Schroder 6130 Stoneridge Mall Road, Suite 185 Pleasanton, CA 94588 ATTACHMENT: Planning Commission Resolution No. 2716 Architectural Review Commission Minutes and Notice of Action (December 12, 2017) Neighborhood Correspondence Architectural Plans for new models Cross-section exhibit GAPlanning\Eric Ceja\Case Files\Tract Maps\T.36351 Ponderosa HomesWmendment No.1\PC Report(2.6.18).doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2716 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO PRECISE PLAN 14-170 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 36351 TO ALLOW FOR TWO-STORY DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DICK KELLY DRIVE AND DINAH SHORE DRIVE CASE NOS: PP 14-170rrT 36351 Amendment No. 1 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 2nd day of December 2014, adopt a Negative Declaration and approve Tentative Tract Map 36351 and Precise Plan 14-170 for a 111-lot subdivision for single-family homes at the southwest corner of Dick Kelley Drive and Dinah Shore Drive; and WHEREAS, the amendments to these applications have complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act," Resolution No. 2015-75, and the Director of Community Development has determined that the amendments to the applications will not have a negative impact on the environment and that a negative declaration can be adopted; and WHEREAS, the amendments to the precise plan and tentative tract map 36351 modify condition of approval number ten to allow for two-story homes in compliance with the development standards listed in the Planned Residential zoning district; and 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 the approval of said request: 1. As a non-age-restricted community, the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan "Town Center Neighborhood" designation and the amended applications are consistent with the development standards for the Planned Residential (PR) zoning designation and existing residential development in the vicinity. 2. As a non-age restricted community, the proposed development is consistent with the goals and intent of the General Plan in that the development offers a diverse range of housing types at densities consistent with the plan. 3. As a non-age restricted community, the proposed development is consistent with the City's Housing Element in that 10 percent% of the eventual apartment units will be made available as income-restricted units. In addition, the project site provides a balance of housing types that are suitable for residents across all socio-economic sectors and is compatible with surrounding non-age-restricted single-family and multi-family housing developments in the vicinity. 4. That the proposed Tentative Tract Map 36351 will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or be materially injurious to the surrounding properties or improvements in the City of Palm Desert. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2716 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. That the density of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. As a non-age restricted community, the proposed densities of eight units per acre for the single-family home site and 18 units per acre for the multi-family site are consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Town Center Neighborhood, which allows densities up to 40 dwelling units per acre. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the updated Housing Element of the General Plan as 10 percent of the multi-family site will be made available as restricted income units. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. The design and improvements of the subdivision have been reviewed by the Planning Department and Public Works Department for consistency with the General Plan. The lot sizes and drainage patterns meet all requirements of the General Plan. All existing perimeter streets are in conformance with the General Plan. Internal project streets conform to City standards and are consistent with adjoining residential developments. As a non-age restricted community, the single-family home subdivision is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element as the housing site provides a balance of housing types suitable for residents across all socio-economic sectors and preserves neighborhood character and compatibility. However, limiting sales of the single-family homes based on age requirements would conflict with these goals and the City's General Plan. As conditioned the subdivision is consistent with the City General Plan. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. The 30.77-acre project area is located adjacent to existing single-family residential communities that have successfully constructed similar types of development. No obstacles to the development of surrounding subdivisions were experienced and, due to the proximity and similarity of the proposed development, it's reasonable to conclude that the site is physically suitable for it. 4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The project area borders an existing single-family community to the south and is directly across the street from industrial developments to the north and an elementary school site to the west. The proposed density for the single-family site at eight units per acre is consistent with surrounding residential communities. In addition, the proposed density for the multi-family site is consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations as it provides a transition between the industrial areas to the north and the single-family developments to the south. The 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2716 infrastructure, soils, and terrain serving the development will adequately support these densities. 5. That the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injury to fish or wildlife or their habitat. For purposes of CEQA, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been adopted by the Planning Commission. The design of the project will not cause substantial environmental damage or injure fish or wildlife or their habitat since the surrounding area has been developed with similar densities and limited wildlife is present at the site. 6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. The design and layout of the 111 single-family lots are in compliance with all grading requirements and the properties will be developed in accordance with the Uniform California Building Code. Grade changes in the community are accommodated by smaller retaining walls, which break up the need for single taller walls which may enclose private yards and impact public health. The use of retaining walls on single-family lots helps to preserve private yard space and access to open space, natural light, and air. In addition, pedestrian access is provided to surrounding roadways and communities which decreases the need for vehicular traffic between adjoining communities and future elementary school. 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. The proposed subdivision will be developed as a private gated residential community and will not impact any public easements as part of the subdivision. In addition, the surrounding City streets are built-out to the General Plan designated width and will provide access to the project area. 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 Planning Commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby approve amendments to PP 14-170 and TT 36351, subject to conditions. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2716 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, at its regular meeting held on the 61h day of February 2018, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JOSEPH PRADETTO, CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: RYAN STENDELL, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2716 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NOS. PP 14-170 AND TT 36351 Amendment No. 1 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 1. All Conditions of Approval listed under Planning Commission Resolution 2639 remain valid and in effect for this project, with the exception of Condition of Approval No. 10 which is amended by conditions 7 and 8 below. 2. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following conditions. 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 Palm Desert 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 or structure contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) Public Works Department Fire Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the Department of Building & Safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5. The project shall be subject to all applicable fees at the time of issuance of building permits. 6. The single-family development site shall comply with all recommendations provided by the City's Architectural Review Commission at their meeting on December 12, 2017. 7. No more than 50 percent of all units may be two stories in height. No corner lots shall be two stories. 8. All single-family lots shall comply with the following development standards: Front Yard: 15 feet Side Yard: 5 feet minimum Street Side: 10 feet on corners Rear Yard: 15 feet minimum All other development standards shall comply with Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapters 25.10 and 25.40. 9. The applicant shall submit plans to the Department of Community Development for the development and use of the common area lot (Lot "E") prior to the issuance of the 22nd 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2716 building permit for the single-family home tract. The installation of the common area improvements shall commence prior to the issuance of the 55th building permit. 10. A precise plan shall be submitted to the City's Community Development Department for the development of the eight-acre multi-family housing site. The multi-family site is permitted for a maximum building height of 40-feet and three-stories and a maximum density of twenty-two dwelling units per acre (22 du/ac). 11. The Owner of the eight-acre multi-family site shall enter into a Housing Agreement with the City to make 10 percent of the total units within both project sites available to moderate-income households, as defined under California Health and Safety Code Section 50053, ("Restricted Income Units") at an "affordable rent," as defined in that same Section, including a reasonable utility allowance. The City shall have the option, during the term of the Housing Agreement, of requiring the Owner to rent an available Restricted Income Unit to Lower-Income Households, provided that the City agrees to provide a subsidy equal to the difference between the affordable rent for the lower income household that can be charged under California Health and Safety Code Section 50053 (b)(1), (2), or (3) and the rent allowed for the moderate income household. If market rent charged by owner is less than the affordable rent calculated under California Health and Safety Section 50053 (b)(4) for a moderate income household, then the subsidy shall be equal to the difference between the market rent and the affordable rent that can be charged under California Health and Safety Code Section 50053 (b)(1), (2), or (3). The subsidy may be paid monthly, or alternatively, in a negotiated sum payable by City or its designee to Owner in a one-time amount or installments as prescribed by agreement between the City and Owner. The Housing Agreement shall be entered into prior to the approval of a Precise Plan application on the multi-family site. 12. Consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Element, this community shall not be age-restricted. In the event that a homeowners' association is formed for any or all of the parcels created by this tract map, the governing documents of that association shall comply with the Unruh Civil Rights Act and shall prohibit sale or rental of housing from discrimination on the basis of sex, color, race, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or age. 6 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES December 12, 2017 Commissioner Vuksic said when this Commissions gets these sorts of requests they discuss not setting a precedent and articulate the reasons for approval. The reason for that is so the next time someone comes in this Commission can mention the reasons it was allowed. Mr. Swartz said one of the arguments to the code is that this is not a typical infill lot and is right on the corner of a busy road with traffic and visibility issues. After further discussion by the Commission, Commissioner McAuliffe said if privacy is an issue, the applicant has a choice of having a 6' high wall 20' back from curb. And if the applicant wants a 5' high wall this Commission is comfortable with 15' back from curb. The Commission continued to discuss the height and design of the wall and recommended denial. ACTION: Commissioner Brewer moved to deny wall exception. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by a 7-0 vote, with Brewer, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, Vuksic, and Van Vliet voting YES. 2. CASE NO: TT 36351 AMD #1/PP 14-170 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PONDEROSA HOMES II, INC, Attn: Rick Rosenbaum, 6130 Stoneridge Mall Road #185, Pleasanton, CA 94588 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT:. Consideration of a request for approval of new architectural elevations for one- and two- story homes and modification of condition of approval number nine of the approved tract map 36351. LOCATION: SWC Dinah Share & Dick Kelly Drive ZONE: P.R.-22 Mr. Eric Ceja, Principal Planner, reminded the Commission that in 2014 they approved a 111 lot sub-division for single-story homes only on the corner of Dinah Shore Drive and Dick Kelly Drive. Since that time, market preferences and the City's zoning ordinance have changed and the applicant is now proposing two-story homes there. The original proposal came back to the ARC in October 2017 for a revision of the architecture. At that time, the Commission made several comments on the project including some of the rooflines on the Plan 6 models that had a strange end cap on the second story architecture so the plan was eliminated. The applicant has revised their drawings and provided a sample plot plan of what the elevations will look like on the front. There are also architectural details that the Commission requested regarding the window reveals and some of the rafters coming off the rooflines.The GTlanningVenineJudylARGll Minute s12013.2017t2 01711 7 1 2 1 2mmtl(Kx Page 3 of 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES December 12, 2017 architecture has been updated based on the Commission's comments. Staff is recommending approval of the changes. MR. RICK ROSENBAUM, Ponderosa Homes, said they reviewed the conditions recommended by the Commission at the October 2017 meeting regarding the windows, fascia, eaves, and some of the cap details. They reviewed Plan 6 and how it fits into their program and they weren't comfortable with re-elevating it so they eliminated it from the program. The plan presented today has a streetscape of five plans; three two-story and two single-story with a pop-up, each with three elevations and three exterior color schemes. He also described architectural development standards they developed; a maximum of 50% of the homes can be second story in the project, no two-story homes can be on corner lots, none of the plans shall be plotted more than 33 times in the project so that the total of each plan shall not exceed 30% of the total homes built to avoid repetition on any particular street, each of the elevation types will be used at least 20% of the time on each street and no more than three two-story plans will be plotted on three consecutive lots, and finally no exact plan elevation or color scheme will be next to each other or across from each other. MR. ALLAN MINZIE, Architect, referred to Plan 5C and stated they changed the roof from a gable to a hip roof. He discussed the Commission's concerns with screening the electrical meters from the street and said they have extended the 6' high side yard privacy wall approximately 10' in front of the garage and the meter cabinets will be placed on the garage wall. The Commission and the architect reviewed and discussed wall plans, materials, and returns. The Commission and the architect discussed the rafter tails and Commissioner McIntosh said he wasn't comfortable with them. He was worried about 1 X and 2X material going crooked and suggested a substantial piece of wood. He asked the applicant to submit a photo of the foam rafter tail glued to the surface of the stucco. Commissioner Vuksic said he was concerned with it as well. It was recommended that the applicant use authentic rafter tails. Mr. MINZIE said they could do a 3 x 6 or 3 x 8 for the rafter tails. Commissioner Levin asked if exterior down drains were allowed per city code. Mr. Ceja said there isn't an ordinance against them, however this Commission typically recommends those to be inside the wall. The Commission and the applicants discussed internal drains and scuppers. It was recommended that the drains be internal with no visual down drains or scuppers with an internal overflow. G.TlanninpUamneJudMRClIMinutesl2019.2017\201A171212mindXx Page 4 of 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES December 12, 2017 MR. ROSENBAUM discussed the Commission's concern with the garage door recess and stated it has been increased to 10" from 4" on all floor plans. The Commission reviewed the plans. MR. ROSEMBAUM discussed the renderings on A6.2 and stated that all the new soffits will have stucco coloring with a strip vent for ventilation. On detail 1, in lieu of doing the simulated roof rafter tails, they actually took the stucco off and will use full size rafter tails. The Commission and the architect discussed the simulated rafter tails and Commissioner Vuksic said this needs to look good and be reasonably durable. MR. ROSENBAUM discussed the renderings on A1.4 for the one-story privacy wall and said they added grids to the upper levels of the plans to finish the treatment. The windows occur mostly on the front of the two-story elements with minimal windows to the rear of the homes to eliminate privacy concerns introduced by the Commission at their last meeting. MR. ROSENBAUM said they added some details around the windows on the front elevation where the stone siding and the stucco interface. Commissioner Vuksic was concerned with the stonework on that element and said it should be out beyond the thickened wall. Commissioner McIntosh mentioned that the applicant said they will develop details and asked if this Commission will look at them later on down the road. He said conceptually the massing and architecture is good but the details will tell the story. Mr. Ceja said this project moves forward to the Planning Commission for approval and final construction drawings will come back to this Commission for final approval and at that time this Commission can anticipate seeing a lot of those details. Commissioner McAuliffe had a question about the contemporary plans regarding the stone veneer. He said there are some elevations that have a contemporary look but the stone patterns on the contemporary elevations actually look like more traditional stone. He also commented that the traditional details on the garages for the contemporary models all have framed boxes applied to the door fronts. He said they need to be more simple and horizontal to be consistent with the contemporary design. The Commission asked if they could review the construction documents before the final submittal. Mr. Ceja said staff can retrieve those plans from Building and Safety as soon as they are received and present them to the Commission. Mr. Stendell said what helps staff the most is if the Commission gives staff the critical path items so that there are no surprises when it comes back at a later date. MR. ROSENBAUM said G 1PlanningUanine Jud}MRL11 Minutas12013.2017120171171212min dxx Page 5 of 7 ARCHITECTURAL. REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES December 12, 2017 he would submit those to staff when they go to working drawings for the Commission's review. Commissioner Brewer referred to the stone face and asked if the Commission wants a 4 or 5" stucco box with 2" stone veneer or is there something more substantial in terms of the stone face. Commissioner Vuksic said they are looking for that dimensionality where it looks substantial as opposed to looking really thin. After further review, Commissioner Vuksic suggested they provide details to show stonework dimensionality. Commissioner Vuksic referred to the front elevation and said the top looks pretty utilitarian with the metal cap flashing detail and said the exposed parapet edges need to have a little more aesthetic intention. Chair Van Vliet pointed out the grade differential from lot to lot and Commissioner Levin pointed out that it's about 80' from Gerald Ford Drive down to the north side. Chair Van Vliet asked where the walls were going to sit on the property lines between the various units with the grade differentials and how it would be handled. Mr. Ceja said they placed a condition on the map so there would be adequate space in the rear yards. If there is a slope, they may have to add an additional wall to retain that slope. It was recommended that the applicant show details of wall/retaining walls between the property lines and how the walls are finished as it protrudes to the street. ACTION: Commissioner Vuksic moved to approve project design subject to: 1) reviewing details at construction documents; 2) aesthetic consideration to the top of the parapet and flashing to show dimensionality; 3) provide details to show stonework dimensionality and substantial offset; 4) provide authentic rafter tails; 5) show details of wall/retaining walls along the property lines and how walls are finished as it protrudes to the street; 6) drains shall be internal with no visual down drains or scuppers; and 7) garage doors shall be contemporary. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Lambell and carried by a 7-0 vote, with Brewer, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, Vuksic, and Van Vliet voting YES. B. Preliminary Plans: None C. Miscellaneous Items: None G'PwmgUanineJudy\ARC1lMinutas\20134017\2017\171212mindocx Page 6 of 7 CITY 01 P 0 1 M DES R � 73—5 10 'RED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEI.: 760 346-o6i i info@cityofpalmdesert.org December 22, 2017 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOTICE OF ACTION CASE NO: TT 36351 AMD #1/PP 14-170 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: PONDEROSA HOMES il, INC, Attn: Rick Rosenbaum, 6130 Stoneridge Mali Road #185, Pleasanton, CA 94588 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of a request for approval of new architectural elevations for one- and two-story homes and modification of condition of approval number nine of the approved tract map 36351. LOCATION: SWC Dinah Shore & Dick Kelly Drive ZONE: P.R.-22 Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff, and by the applicant, the Architectural Review Commission granted approval of project design subject to: 1) reviewing details at construction documents; 2) aesthetic consideration to the top of the parapet and flashing to show dimensionality; 3) provide details to show stonework dimensionality and substantial offset; 4) provide authentic rafter tails; 5) show details of wall/retaining walls between the property lines and how walls are finished as it protrudes to the street; 6) drains shall be internal with no visual down drains or scuffers; and 7) garage doors shall be contemporary. Date of Action. December 12, 2017 Vote: Motion carried 7-0 (An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. Any amendments to this approved plan would need to be re-submitted to Commission for approval.) STAFF COMMENTS: It is your responsibility to submit the plans approved by the Architectural Review Commission to the Department of Building and Safety. f,rnnu NieRrlico ruu Ceja, Eric From: Cynthia Tauferner <nealcin@msn.com> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2018 10:19 AM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: The Gallery impacted by new homes & request for 2 story Dear Sir, We received the letter from the City of Palm Desert regarding the project of homes that are to be built behind The Gallery along Dinah Shore Drive and Dick Kelly in Palm Desert. The issue is the request for 2 story homes. We strongly feel that this will impact our home with privacy , value, and aesthetics. We are very disappointed that the builder is requesting 2 story homes as it seems out of balance with the flow of the rest of The Gallery Project in our community. Please take into consideration our request for denial for 2 story homes. Respectfully, Neal & Cynthia Tauferner 73638 Picasso Drive Palm Desert, Ca. 92211 760-485-7814 i Ceja, Eric From: Neal Victor <nealgalleryboard@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2018 5:59 AM To: Ceja, Eric; Mary Herrick; Morag Cousins;Jim Field - Gallery ARC Committee; Karl Twombly Subject: project at dick kelly and dinah shore since the developer wants to make changes how about if they make another entrance to the d evelopment so that emergency vehicles do not have to use the gallery entrance and there would be no need to have a gate access at raphael. presently we have a plastic wall years after the project is complete. we are entitled to a brick wall yet the developer has left our project unfinished. Before anything changes are approved let them make these changes additional entrance and exit and complete oure wall neal victor, hoa president gallery of homes i Ceja, Eric From: Terri Szabo <blueyefyrfghtr@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 9:27 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Gallery II Good Day, I am writing this as a homeowner in "The Gallery". I was I formed that a proposal is being brought for to allow changes for 2 story homes up to 24' in height. I am hoping enough folks will write you before The public hearing to voice their concerns. I myself am concerned for my privacy and the privacy of my neighbors, not to mention the value of my home going down in value because of this. Right now I am surrounded with beautiful single story homes that allow my family to enjoy the wonderful view of the mountains no matter which way I look. Building 2 stories would look out of place with the aesthetics of the area right now. I hope you will consider all of our concerns as they come to you. I bought my house there because of the area and lack of 2 story homes Thank You for your consideration. Respectfully, Terri Szabo Gallery Home Owner Sent from my iPhone i Ceja, Eric From: David Liptz <mliptz@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2018 8:27 AM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Gallery II Dear Mr. Ceja, I am writing to you with concern over the change of plans for Gallery II. When I purchased my home the plans called for houses to be built in the lot adjacent to my home. I bought the home believing that the homes would be similar in size, and only one story, to my home. This was not going to affect the privacy aesthetics or property value of my home. I am extremely concerned that two story homes would definetly infringe on the enjoyment on my home. I think that it will negatively affect my privacy and value of my home. I would urge you to not approve the addendum to allow Ponderosa to build two story homes. Thank you for your time in this matter. Sincerely, Michelle Liptz Raphael Ceja, Eric From: Hamlet Davari <hdavari@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 11:49 AM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Ponderosa Homes II Dear Mr. Ceja, This letter is in regards to the legal notice that I received yesterday regarding the Ponderosa Homes project. We purchased our property at the Gallery about a year ago and we were told that in the future the developer will construct One Story single family residential houses north of our property. It is unimaginable that now the City of Palm Desert even considering allowing the construction of two story houses, and affordable multifamily housing north of our homes. The new two story properties will block our view of the mountains, and impinge on our privacy. This will decrease the value of our property significantly. We intend to fight this project, and if necessary we will take legal action against the developer and the city of Palm Desert. Sincerely, Hamlet Davari Hamlet Davari D.D.S.,Q.M.E. Implant & Cosmetic Dentistry Qualified Medical Evaluator. Clinical Instructor at White Memorial Craniofacial Pain &TMJ Clinic. Offices in Glendale, San Bernardino, Cathedral City, Covina, Montebello, Torrance, Bakersfield, Lakewood, El Monte and Rancho Cucamonga. Office Phone: 818-242-4781 1 Ceja, Eric From: Meghan Kinslow <meghankinslow@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 11:55 AM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Concern Over Dinah Shore/ Dick Kelly Amendment for 2 Story Homes Dear Eric, My husband and I reside at, and own, 73861 Da Vinci Ct, Palm Desert, CA 92211. We are extremely concerned about the proposed amendment to allow for 2 story homes adjacent to our development, on the Southwest Corner of Dinah Shore and Dick Kelly. We specifically elected to purchase a home in Palm Desert, and particularly our property due to the lack of two story homes. Adjacent homes up to 24 feet will significantly reduce privacy, aesthetics of the area, and ultimately property values as a result. We strongly urge the City of Palm Desert and Planning Department to deny the amendment and limit new development to single story homes in the area. We will consider further steps, including litigation if needed, to protect our neighborhood and investment. Thank you for your consideration and time to review our concerns in this matter. Sincerely, Meghan & Ryan Kinslow 73861 Da Vinci Ct. Palm Desert, CA 92211 310-691-0346 meghankinslow@gmail.com i a T iz , V" r� Plan 2 Plan 4 Plan 1 Plan 5 Plan 4 Elevation B Elevation A Elevation C Elevation A Elevation B Site Plan - - - - -- --- -- -- --- - Sheet Index % a STREET SCENE SS Cover Sheet ! A1.1 Plan 1 -Floor Plans A2.4 Plan 2- Front Elevations A3.6 Plan 3- Exterior Elevations C A5.3 Plan 5-Front Elevations I A1.2 Plan 1 -Roof Plan A2.5 Plan 2- Exterior Elevations A A4.1 Plan 4- Floor Plans A5.4 Plan 5 - Exterior Elevations A I1rN PLAN PLAN PLANPLAN PLAN PLAN PLAN PLAN A1.3 Plan 1 -Front Elevations A2.6 Plan 2-Exterior Elevations B A4.2 Plan 4-Roof Plans A5.5 Plan 5- Exterior Elevations B 1 4 5 2 4 1 5 4 3 A1.4 Plan 1 Exterior Elevations A A3.1 Plan 2-Exterior Elevations C A4.3 Plan 4-Front Elevations A5.6 Plan 5- Exterior Elevations C ; A3.2 Plan 3-Floor Plans A4.4 Plan 4-Exterior Elevations A A6.1 Architectural Details ---- - - -- -- - - A1.5 Plan 1 -Exterior Elevations B _ _ - - - _ A1.6 Plan 1 - Exterior Elevations C A3.3 Plan 3-Roof Plan A4.5 Plan 4-Exterior Elevations B A6.2 Architectural Details A2.1 Plan 2 Floor Plans A3.4 Plan 3- Front Elevations A4.6 Plan 4- Exterior Elevations C A3.5 Plan 3- Exterior Elevations A A5.1 Plan 5- Floor Plans -� A2.2 Plan 2- Roof Plans A2.3 Plan 2 Front Elevations A3.6 Plan 3- Exterior Elevations B A5.2 Plan 5- Roof Plans PLAN 1 PLAN 3 PLAN 2 $ _ M" _ LAN 5 PLAN 4 PLAN 5 r =---- 1i SCALE:V=25'4' Elevation `A' Elevation `B' Elevation `C' PONDEROSA GALLERY 11 - Tract 36351 SS H O M E S PALM DESERT, CA ©zon;MuinM HezMUHucM aacwhcTs,INC mavnaa 12012268 1 12-12-17 . _ - CMU WALL 1 I 1 I 40,_0„ z g I I o 1 14'-8" 1 T-4" 8'-0" 1 I r T------------------------------------T-- , o I o � I I , OPT.COVERED PATIO I -0 Plan 1 iI Elevation 'A' shown 1 1,759 SF OWNER'S BDRM. RE 2 Bdrm/2 Ba/Den AR o ,a PORCH o III — 1 2 Car Garage ,J KITCHEN � p 1 OGREAT RM. --------_ "s HALL I s _ __J BATH cum ` ° --------- Ac� 1 I I O NTRY ;4 '.\V Hvaa DEN LAUNCH KITCHEN li GV II II -'--- s.x -- I 1 I nL ,I . � SERV. I s •• � - ---� ' Y O -- tiI ,I I � � •. BATH 2 , I I ` I B a HALE �i OPT.DE 1 �----� I Opt. Den @ Bdrm. 2 I I' �r1-r 7 I 0 O GARAGE I BATH 2 �1 BATH 2 GATE — ENTRY NA NII X5 �J I ENTRY , GATE DEW OPT.BDRM 3 BERM.3 PORCH i PORCH N 18''°y2" 8'5" 12`8)/2" Opt. Bdrm. 3 @ Den C. 5'-0"MIN 40'-0" 5'-0"MIN I 1 I 1 �- ---- 50.00'_ J NOTE: A.)ALL EXTERIOR(INSULATED)WALLS TO BE 2X6 B.) WINDOW RECESS AT FRONT ELEVATION:6" GALLERY II - Tract 36351 Al .1 Fgff PONDEROSA - 8 H O M E S PALM DESERT, CA VVFA Q 2017 WILUAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS.INC.dW WHA. 120122681 12-12-17 - -----, -------------------- e' �F Elevation C Elevation B Elevation A Plan 1 Roof Plans GALLERY 11 - Tract 36351 Al 2 FAPONDEROSA o 2 4 8 H o M E S PALM DESERT, CA VVFA Q 2017 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS.INC.dba WHA. 12012268 1 2-12-1 7 - � t CONCRETE FLAT TILE WOOD FASCIA HARDIE TRIM 6'RECESSED WINDOW 6 LAP SIDING STUCCO COLUMN -- - --- - MANUFACTURED STONE CAP �Imw MANUFACTURED STONE VENEER STUCCO FINISH -- ------�- - -�- -� :. i MANUFACTURED STONE WAINSCOT(WRAPPING INSIDE PORCH) STUCCO OVER FOAM AT DOOR TRIM Elevation A -'AL CAP F �x LOWS'CONC.TILE PREFABRICATED PIPE DETAIL CONCRETE FLAT TILE DECORATIVE METAL ACCENT a ±*' '�;�:., z WOOD BARGE BOARD- ., SPLICE @45° " PARAPET WITH METAL FLASHING CAP WOOD FASCIA METAL AWNING STUCCO OVER FOAM MANUFACTURED STONE CAP 6"RECESSED WINDOW - - _- - 6"RECESSED'MNDOW STUCCO COLUMN "__. _: STUCCO STUCCO STUCCO SILL SHELF "'=_ STUCCO FINISH _ _..� MANUFACTURED STONE VENEER _ STUCCO FINISH _ r' STUCCO OVER ST NUFACTURED TONE CAP CCO COLUMN FOAM AT DOOR TRIM Elevation C Elevation B Plan 1 Front Elevations GALLERY II - Tract 36351® A1 .3 - PONDEROSA O 2 4 8 I-, o M E S PALM DESERT, CA ®zm7 wuw.HUWMCHAnZWECTS,NC.m.WI,N. 12012268 12-12-17 — T,O.P. T.O.P. T.O.P. ,c. ___________ ___ ___ ______________ __ __ ____________________ ________LHI r--___ _________ _____ __ _____ _____ ____ ______ _____ ___ ____ ____ ____ ___ ___________ �i Zn m A F.F.RO.0 F-17_O.C._ _ _—_—___ FU.O.C. CMU SCREENING WALL 6'GATE TYP 6'WALL TYP 6'WALL nP. Right Rear 1C 3 A6.1 A6.2 TOP_ ---------------------------------------- _ _ _ _ _ - _—_—_—_—_—_—_—_— _—_—____ __T.O.P. T.O.P._____— ------------- —_— _________ B __________________________ __________________________________ ,�_______ - - ______�„ A F.F/T_O.C. -------------- _ _ _ _ ----- --- _ - - - - - — - - 6'WALL iYP 6 GATE TYP CMU SCREENING WALL 2 1A 18 A6.1 A6.1 A6.1 Left Front Plan 1 Elevation A GALLERY 11 - Tract 36351 A1 .4 Hrr PONDEROSA o 2 4 6 H O M E S PALM DESERT, CA ©2017 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS,INC.ma WHA. 1201 2268 12-12-17 - T.O.P. TOP. T OP T.O.P. —_— —_ - --_—_ --- _ _—_ — R -- - - - - _ - - - ------------------—- - _ --_—_-- ----------- --------- —-—_—_ --_— i - - ILL Ts. rc F.F/T.0_C._.T _ —_ _ — ___—_—_—_—_—___—_—_—____ ___ _ _ _ _—_ _F .O.C. ,FF .O_C._—_ _ _—_—_— —_—_ _—_—_—_ _—_—_—_—_— _—_F_fJT.O.C. CMO W11EEN114 WALL 6'GATE TW. 6'WALL TYR 6'WAL TIP Right Rear 6 6 9 4 2 A6.2 A6.1 A6.2 A62 A6.2 SCUPPER PARAPET W/METAL FLASHING CAP 1 I I � 1 1 1 TOP. T.O.P. T.OP __________{ __ _ _______ __ ___ LLLJJJ i C��� A6.1 m F.FlT.O.C, F.F.T.O.C_ FF,T.O.0 Ji _—_ _ _—_ _—_ _— _—_ —_ — - - - _ Jy F.F,T.00. 6'WALLTW 6'GAI'E7YR CMG SCREEN/TM,WALL 3A A6.1 Left Front Plan 1 Elevation B GALLERY 11 - Tract 36351 A1 .5 PONDEROSA 02 4 B H O M E S PALM DESERT, CA WFA Q 2017 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS.INC.ma WHA. 12012268 I 1 2-12-17 CPO 00 -TO..P. T.0 P T.O.P. ________ ___________ ___ ____ ______________ __ ___ ____________________ ________ _____ __ _____ __ ________ _____ _-_ ___________I--, _________ __ _____ _____ 7 F.F.1.0.0 i _ _-_-_-_ -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_____-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_=4=_-_-_-_-_ _ _-_-_ _ F.F./T.O.C. Ff./f.0_C._-_ _ F_F./f.O.C. CMU SCREENING WALL 6'GATE TYP 6'WALL TYP 6'WALL TYP Right Rear 7 5 8 5 1 A6.2 A6.1 A6.2 AU A6.2 SIMULATED WOOD RAFTER TAILS i 1 1 1 1 1 O 1 T.0 P 7.O.P. T.O.P -__ _-_____-_____-_-_-_ _ _-_ --_-_-_-___-_-_-_-_-_-_ _-_ - -_-_-_ _-_____-___-___-___-_ -_ - _-_ _-L _ - _________ _ --------------- _ __ ____ __________ __________ E3 -_____ ®0III ---- E3 F .O. `!I F C C_C -- - - - _ I- - LFIT 6'WAll TYP 6'GATE TYP CMU SCREENING WALL 4 A6.1 Left Front Plan 1 Elevation C GALLERY II - Tract 36351 A1 .6 PONDEROSA 0 2 4 8 H O M E S PALM DESERT, CA V*A 0 2017%MLUAM HennurluCH AaCHTECTS,INC maWHA. 1 2012268 12-12-17 CMU WALL — ---------------------------------- - — — 40,_0„ — --- — 1 13'-8" 13'-10" _ 12'-6" 1 I I �I �III111IlI7Tf� I I o i co I OPT.EXPANDED ti COVERED PATIO V I I n Ito ad N, OWNER'S BOHM. 1 R GEAT RM. DINING - I' ll I 1 I 1 1 OWNERS 7H% ---- 1 BATH "s 7177 0 ____ —i KITCHEN I s DROP ` ' o „o i I ZONE - 1 4 1 'I W.LC. I SERVICE 1 'ii it _LLLll — __J O — —_� lJ BATH2 . f PWD ENTRY 2-CAR �I GARAGE 1 I \\ 1 GATE �Ii Ili A OWNER'S I GATE 1 I I BDRM 2 I �i PORCH I I Plan 2 -� � CV Elevation 'B' shown 1,917 SF ff 2 Ownr. Bdrm./2.5 Ba 12,$,„ 2 Car Garage 1 s'-102" 8'-5" 2 9 5'4'MIN 40'-0" 5'-0"MIN 1 1 1 1 �- ----50_00'_ NOTE: A.)ALL EXTERIOR(INSULATED)WALLS TO BE 2X6 B.) WINDOW RECESS AT FRONT ELEVATION:6" GALLERY II - Tract 36351 A2.1 PONDEROSA 0 2 4 8 AH O M E S PALM DESERT, CA VWA ©2017 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS,INC.®a WHA. 12012268 12-12-17 s , ------- /- - - ; ----------------- -- z, — /= ► ----------------------------- ► -- ------------ ---- / Elevation C Elevation B Elevation A Plan 2 Roof Plans GALLERY 11 - Tract 36351 A2.2 - PONDEROSA 0 2 4 4 AH o M E S PALM DESERT, CA WFA 0 2017 MLLIAM HENALHALCH ARCH11EC15.INC.cba MA. 12012268 I 12-12-17 CONCRETE FLAT TILE s ^ •, " -. WOOD FASCIA HARDIE TRIM STUCCO OVER FOAM AT DOOR TRIM 6'RECESSED WNDOW&LAP SIDING STUCCO COLUMN MANUFACTURED STONE CAP STUCCO FINISH' f MANUFACTURED STONE VENEER MANUFACTURED STONE WAINSCOT(WRAPPING INSIDE PORCH) Elevation A _ Jz I PREFABRICATED PIPE DETAIL LOW'S'CONIC.TILE WOOD BARGE BOARD- " ,7 SPLICE @45- s' CONCRETE FLAT TILE PARAPET WITH METAL FLASHING CAP WOOD FASCIA 4 '> WOOD FASCIA STUCCO OVER FOAM STUCCO FINISH ■ 6"RECESSED WINDOW —-- 6'RECESSED WINDOW STUCCO COLUMN STUCCO STUCCO S STUCCO FINISH �1. � i ,— � - TUCCO COLUMN STUCCO SILL SHELF j G --- AWZ MANUFACTURED STONE VENEER STUCCO OVER FOAM AT DOOR TRIM Elevation C Elevation B Plan 2 Front Elevations GALLERY II - Tract 36351 A23 5 PONDEROSA 0 2 4 8 H @ M E S PALM DESERT, CA 2017 WLLIAAI HEZMALHAICH ARCHITECTS.INC.dEa WHA. 12012268� 12-12-17 .. T.O.P._—_ _—- _—_ _—_____—___—_—_—_—_—_—_____—___—_—_—_—_—_—_—___—_—_—_—___—-—_—_—_—_—___—_—___ --_—_ __TOP. T.O.P�__ E ___ __—_—_—_____ _—_—___—___—_—_ -_T.O.P .. ________ B —______________ _________________ ___ ___ _____________ ____ ___________ - ________-____-- - ______-__ _________ - _ _____ _____ a m.F.FJOC_ -- -- F.FJOOC. FFJLCC._ CMU SCREENING WALL 6'GiPE 7YP 6'WALL 7YP 6'WAL TIT. Right Rear 1C 3 A6.1 A6.2 TO.P____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___—_—__ __TO.P. T.O.P.___—_—_ _—_—_—_—_—_—_ _______ —_—_—_—_ —- ___________ _ _____________ ___________________________ ___________________________________ ____ __________ __________ _______ IIUII -- ______ ❑lu _ 16 [] 0 0 ® A6.1 ' _ ' F.F./T.O.C. .C_H/T.O ' - - - -- F.F./T.O.C. 6'WAU 7YP 6 GATE 7YP CMU SCREENING WAL 2 1 A6.1 1A A6. Left Front Plan 2 Elevation A GALLERY 11 - Tract 36351 A2.4 PONDEROSA o 2 4_ H D M E S PALM DESERT, CA WFA ©2017 WILLIAM HEZMALHALGH ARCHITECTS.INC.Wa WHA. 1201 2268 1 12-12-17 6-.'1c; --'-_us.=.'-_' ——':., -. T.O.P.__ __-_ T.O.P� T' T.O.P.__ _ --- — _—.—.—_—___—___— _T.OP. ---------- ----- —-------------- _____________ -----------m-------------------------------- -I'- _- —J rn m b ------------ - F.F(T.0_C. i _ - _ F_f.,'T.O.0 L.O_G.___ _ —______ ____—_ _—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_ CMU SCREENING WALL 6'GVE NP. 6 WALL TW 6'WALL TV. Right Rear 6 7 5 2 A6.2 A6.1 A6.1 A6.2 SCUPPER PARAPET W/METAL FLASHING CAP I - - I � 1 _____ El -, T.O.P. T.O.P. .T_______ _.._ —- I —_I _ - U - bi b b I' _ ® 1 Ii b i , FPJf.0.C. _ F.F.R.O.C. FF/f.0.C. __ 1 __.__... ____.___._____ ii FF iTO.C. _ _ _—_ _ +_—__ — —_ 6V✓ALLTY' 6'GAIEIYR CM SCREENING WALL 3A A6.1 Left Front Plan 2 Elevation B GALLERY 11 - Tract 36351 A2.5 PONDEROSA o 2 4 8 H O M E S PALM DESERT, CA VWA ©2017 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS,INC ma WHA 12012268 12-12-17 — - CPO O® T.0 P. T.O.P. _—-—-T 0 P i _ a, . I _ _______ -------------- ________________ _ __________ _________ _ _ ______ __ ____ _______ TG u. i F.F.;T.O.C. FFA0 C. f FJT.O.C. F.F.R.O C --— ...___ _—_—_—_---_—_—_ _----_—_—_ --_— —_—_ - _—.—.._—_—_ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ -—-—_— CMU SCREENING WALL 6'GATE TYP 6'WALL W. 6'WA.TYP Right Rear 5 7 1 A6.2 A6.2 A6.2 SIMULATED WOOD RAFTER TAILS 1 00 1 C ___ , T.O.P. } __. —_- LIT ©� _—_ ___—___—_—_—_—_—_— —_—_ fF.T.00 FF.To.c. - _ — — ::F k.;T.00 �r !6"WAIL TYP 6'GTE TYP CMU SCREENING WALL Left Front Plan 2 Elevation C GALLERY II - Tract 36351 A2.6 0 2 4 8 PONDEROSA H O M E S PALM DESERT, CA V*A ©2017 WILLIAM HEZMAHACH ARCHITECTS,INC.Ma WHA. 12012268 I 12-12-17 CW WALL ----------------------------------� 40'-0" 1 1 � Z I 32-0" o I I o I OPT;COVERED PATIO I o I I 3050 SH 4050 F% 3050 SH 3056 SH 5056 FX 3056 SH 177 R - R BACK l\ I o PORCH '\ rll GRE114RM. � OWNER �i. I 1 — I BDRM. 1 �v� MP.GL.SLID I g E DINING R R R -= I Plan 3 OWNER 0 llV BATH v --- -------I I Elevation 'C' shown 0 a :' 1,963 SF I MGM KITCHEN I 2 Bdrm/Den/2.5 Ba I I 2 Car Garage --I ----- I Cn I '•I I% •\I PANTR I � vrANT W.I.C. Ili -SERVICE 'J FWDR. 1 PWDR. LAUNCH cua* os ac I I I, I x I I m x HALL I DOOb OPT.JBERM.3 R I HALL li BDRM.3 WTI CAR GAR E 1 GATE III BATH 2 BATH 2 ENTRY R 1 NTRYJCF IV R 1 II I #� II I I GATE I i R 8n .. PORCH I .CH I R I A N � I _ r rjJ 3050 SH 3050 SM 1 3050 SH 30505H 3 3 U � U N ,o-• 6,7„ 14'- ° Bdrm. 3 Opt. 5'-0"MIN 40'-0" 9-0"MIN I � I I 00 L- -------_- NOTE: A.)ALL EXTERIOR(INSULATED)WALLS TO BE 2X6 B.) WINDOW RECESS AT FRONT ELEVATION:6" ® PONDEROSA GALLERY 11 - Tract 36351 A3.1 2 4 8 HH o M E S PALM DESERT, CA WFA Q 2017 WILLIAM HEZMALHALGH ARCHITECTS.ING dW WHA 12012268 12-12-17 _•1111L<:C IN i 1.-Qs-C-11.-... i i i ------------------ e� L-------------------------- Elevation C Elevation B Elevation A Plan 3 Roof Plans GALLERY 11 - Tract 36351 A3.2 ® I'O � ULREIIS 1 0 2 4 a PALM DESERT, CA W"A Q 2017 WLLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS.INC.®a WHA � 2012268 1 12-12-17 x ,y CONCRETE FLAT TILE VQOD FASCIA HARDIE TRIM x ,• 6"RECESSED WNDOW&LAP SIDING ' - --_ -= STUCCO OVER FOAM AT DOOR TRIM STUCCO COLUMN MANUFACTURED STONE CAP STUCCO FINISH MANUFACTURED STONE VENEER MANUFACTURED STONE WAINSCOT(WRAPPING INSIDE PORCH) k A- Elevation A 4,, .� �. METAL CAP LOWS'CONC.TILE •w .. PREFABRICATED PIPE DETAIL �:_ ,. DECORATIVE METAL ACCENT"' - -'^ `�"- •� •• �y*„� yF � CONCRETE FLAT TILE d'.'S. ,+ f°.r. WOODBARGEBOARD - F) . SPLICE @ 45" x PARAPET WITH METAL FLASHING CAP WOOD FASCIA - WOOD FASCIA STUCCO OVER FOAM ;gip'-n. METAL AWNING 6"RECESSED VANDOW r STUCCO STUCCO FINISH STUCCO COLUMN .—_- ■ ■: �. STUCCO COLUMN ---�- - _-- -- ____ 6"RECESSED WINDOW STUCCO FINISH IVY _', STUCCO OVER ,. STUCCO FOAM AT DOOR TRIM " STUCCO SILL SHELF MANUFACTURED STONE CAP A lawMANUFACTURED STONE VENEER Elevation C Elevation B Plan 3 Front Elevations GALLERY II - Tract 36351 A3.3 PONDEROSA O 2 4 8 H O M E S PALM DESERT, CA ■ CzanMuwaHEZMALHALCHARCHHECTS,*C.dMMA- 12012268 12-12-17 T.O.P._—_—_ ___—_—_—___—_—_—_—___—_____—_—_—_—_ ___T_O.P. T.0_F__ _________—_____—_—_—_—_—___—_—_—_—_ _ _—_____ _—_—T.O.P. ---- -------- H _ _________ __ _____ m i as Ed EF.T.O.C. i - F.F.R.O:C. f.F,R:O:C.__ _ F.FJT.O.C. .� _.—-_r- _. _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _—___--_ _—-—.— .—.___—_—_—___—_—_ _ __ _ _—__ __—_—___—_—_—_—_—_—_____—_—___—____ CMU SCREENING WALL 6'GATE TYP. 6'WALL TYP 6'WALL TW.. Right Rear 1C 3 A6.1 A6.2 T,O.P__ _____—_—_—_____—___—___—_____—_—_—___—___—___—_—_—_ _—___ __TOPS T.O.P.._-_-__— —___—_____—.—.—. _ _ - - ___T.OPi i ----__----------------------------_____ ---- -----I ___________� ______ __. - _ ------- p [i a ❑ -i -; 0 -� � A6.1 1 II F.F .O.C. _ _ — — — — — --___ _ N20 F.FJTO.Oh FTJT_O.C. II —_—_—_— _._IIF F_T OC TT- 61WALL To 61GATE TYR CMU SCREENING WALL 2 to A6.1 A6.1 Left Front Plan 3 Elevation A GALLERY II - Tract 36351 A3.4 PONDEROSA o 2 4 - 6 HOM ES PALM DESERT, CA ■ Q 2017"LUAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS.INC.dIa WHA. 12012268 I 12-12-17 P__ _—_ _ _—_—_ ___—_—___—�—___—_—_____________—___—___—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—___________—_—_ _—_—T.O.P. R T.O.P. _—_—_—_—_—_—___—_—_—_—_—___—___—_—_—___—_____—_ _—_—_T.OP� ---- ----- ��u-4_____ __________ __ H ------------- - ___ _ _ __________ _________ __ ----- ----- I a A F F.;T.O.C. ill ______—_ F.F./T.O.0 f ._O.C._ _ _______ F.F./t O.0 CMU SCREENING WALL 6'GATE TYP 6'WALL TYP 6'WAUL IYR Right Rear 6 6 r4 2 A6.2 A6.1 A6.2 A6.2 SCUPPER PARAPET W/METAL FLASHING CAP -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - ----- T.O.P. 1.O.P, T.O.P. 1 1 ________ ___ _______________ ____ __ __ ____________ ________________ ____ _________ ___________ _ _ _ ________ --• ��I 0 -------T. A FLT.O.C. - F_F./T.O.C, F.F/T.P.C. i i "� - - - �� F.F./T.O.C. LT Lc —_—__ ___ — — — — _ _—_ _—_—_—_ _ __ _—_ _ _ _ —_ _—_ _ - - 6'WALL TYP 6'GATE TW CMU SCREENING WALL 3A A6.1 Left Front Plan 3 Elevation B GALLERY II - Tract 36351 A3.5 -- PONDEROSA o 2 4 8 H O M E S PALM DESERT, CA WFAM Q 2017 W LUAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS,INC.Na WHA. 1201 2268 I 12-12-17 CO ___—___—_—____ _—_____—_—_—_______—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—___—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—___ _—_T_O.P T.O.P._—_ —_—_ _—_--T.O.P. I TG f.Flf.0.CTl __— —_—_— —___— — _ F.F.R_O.0 FF!F.O.C. CMU SCREENING WALL 6'GATE TYP 6'WALL 1YP 6'WALL TYP Right Rear 7 5 6 5 1 A6.2 A6.1 A6.2 A6.2 A6.2 SIMULATED WOOD RAFTER TAILS 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 T,O.P_ T.O.P. T.O.P. _- T.O.P.—- _—___—_—_______—_—___—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—___—_—_ — - _ - - _ _.—_—_— _ —-- - __ _____________ __if _______________ ____ ___________________________________ _________ __________ r '_ L_ A II Lj _______ _T ��I'''''' _ ______ IIL Jlr -1 j LLLu_ _.L: _ III II _ _ _ _____ _— _—_—_ _— _—___—li4 i F.f/f.O.C. F.F./CO.C._IT.__— —_ _ � %/T.O.C. 11 6'WALLM 6'GATETYP CMU SCREEN/NGWALL 4 A6.1 Left Front Plan 3 Elevation C GALLERY 11 - Tract 36351 A3.6 PONDEROSA 0 2 4 8V*A H O M E S PALM DESERT, CA nc ©2017 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS,INC.CN WHA. 1201 2268 I 1 2-12-1 7 .._ __ .., -_ CMU WALL I 1 I 1 40'-0" z I 40'-0" � I 1 14'-8" 8" 23'-8" q I 14'-8" 17'-4" 8'-0" n ---- - 1 I `�I o I r 7 I o I II � I � 1 I I , I I I OPT.COVERED PAT10 O 0 1 I 1 n I - - OWNER'S - Plan 4 BORK REAR I o — PORCH � Elevation 'A' shown 1 2,300 SF 11 GREAT RM. ' �s— x 2 Bdrm/3 Ba/Bonus/Den 2 Car Garage 0 , 1 HALL _ - vacm "5 BATH 1 * , ------- I ly I I ;4 a ai w idDKN 1 ----- -- -! --_-.--- h I --------- DEN R HALLS------- — —T o-d ixaz.iv CV I II _-- co I I I -------- PANTRY I ---------- I W.I.C. o � o I li ry— ii •`x SERV. o-n � x; �.6- SIN I i I ' 01 7 c4'i N 9 i BDRM.21 OPT.DEN BATH 2 II v Opt. Den @ Bdrm. 2 y i � �A H3 � wux"w ro / BONUS RM. "x ---- aass pi - 2-CAR BATH BATH I GARAGE I a , GATE � � � I � ars r. z.x5 z.ee VI i 1 ; ______ I ENTRY "— II �. GATE 1 xs U DEW I s BDRM.3 1 _awx OPT.BDRM 3 1 I M uPD O ` 1 ,5 iaa I ■�■ t,Y.iPa S 1 PORCH , PORCH I N io 10'-q- 5'-92' 231-8" , N 18'102" 8'-5' 12'_82x 40'-0" r L 5'-0°MIN 40'-0" 5'-0"MIN Opt. Bdrm. 3 @ Den 1 I Lower Floor SF_ 1 Upper Floor - 541 SF so.00' __J NOTE: A.)ALL EXTERIOR(INSULATED)WALLS TO BE 2X6 B.) WINDOW RECESS AT FRONT ELEVATION:6" GALLERY II - Tract 36351 A4.1 - PONDEROSA 2 4 8 H O M E S PALM DESERT, CA ©2017 W LLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS.INC ma WHA. 12012268 1 12-12-17 Q4ANCL CCJNI Y._(ri ANDS LLS.JAY ---------- ---------------------- ------------------ ------------------------------ -------------------------------------- ------------- --------------------------------- --------------- 4- --- --------- -------------------- --- ---------------------------------- ------------------ ------- ---------------- Elevation C Elevation B Elevation A Plan 4 Roof Plans GALLERY II - Tract 36351 0 2 4 A4.2 PONDEROSA - L HOMES PALM DESERT, CA WFA (D 2017WLUAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS INC.CIMMA. 12012268 I 12-12-17 "y N"v pt)'<•k"M ,oaf ,y�j,.V'b "a12L 1F (� Min+, ° y? ll iw CONCRETE FLAT TILE WOOD FASCIA 6"RECESSED WINDOW&LAP SIDING HARDIE TRIM _ STUCCO OVER FOAM 4. .. HARDIE TRIM STUCCO OVER FOAM AT DOOR TRIM 6'RECESSED WINDOW&LAP SIDING STUCCO COLUMN MANUFACTURED STONE CAP STUCCO FINISH MANUFACTURED STONE VENEER MANUFACTURED STONE WAINSCOT(WRAPPING INSIDE PORCH) Elevation A WOOD BARGE BOARD- "" SPLICE @ 45- PREFABRICATED PIPE DETAIL LOWS'CONC.TILE STUCCO OVER FOAM WOOD FASCIA - WOOD FASCIA METAL CAP 6"RECESSED WINDOWc t ,p a x yi 6"RECESSED WINDOWSTUCCO STUCCO - PARAPET WITH METAL FLASHING CAP CONCRETE FLATTILE 40 STUCCO OVER FOAM '-• �- -"." _._ 6"RECESSED WINDOW 6"RECESSED WWDOW STUCCO COLUMN STUCCO STUCCO ice---� MANUFACTURED STONE VENEER 1 STUCCO FINISH STUCCO FINISH STUCCO COLUMN ' UK STUCCO SILL SHELF STUCCO OVER FOAMSTUCCO OVER FOAM AT DOOR TRIM Elevation C Elevation B Plan 4 Front Elevations GALLERY II - Tract 36351 A4.3 PONDEROSA 0 _2 4 8 H O M E S PALM DESERT, CA (`2O17 WILLLAM NUMALR4CH ARCHRECTS.WC.&.WK& 1201 2268 I 12-12-17 _ T.O ------------ T.O.P. -—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—- ------ --- -----------------1 -----------—-—-—-TO P. 11DEIET �Ell 7 -—-—-- —-—-—-—-— F.F. F.F. P. L ..... ... F TOP 710 p ----------------------------------------- -- ------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------ ------------- ---------- - ------------ ----- ------- - ---------------- FI- -------------- ---------------- ---------- ALI F F,T OC. —-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-— — —-—-—-— —-—-—-L.Fj�.C, �U/UCJC_ —-—-—-—-—- -—-—-—-—- -—-—-—-—-— F.F./T.O.C. -—-—-—-—-—-L—-—-—-—-—- CMU SCREENING WALL 6'GATE TW. 6 WALL TYP 6'WALL TIM Right Rear ic 3 A6.1 A6.2 TOP._________—_—_—___—___—_ _ ---- — ----- - 0 P. T.O.R------------------- --- ---------LO—p- -------------------- ------------- ------- - I 7 F.F. -—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—- -—-—-—-—- -—-—- F.F. U-- .......... -—- -—-—-—-—- -—-— .. ...... ............F.F. T. OR ---- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- ---------- - -------------------------- ---------------------------------- ------- --------- 171 - --------- ------------ -- - B F.F.17 O.0 Ff 11 o�L F.F./T.O.0 ................... -—-—-—-—-—-�T— —- -—- --—-—-—- _4 Left 6'WALL TYP. 6'GATE rM. CMU SCREENING WALL Front Plan 4 Elevation A GALLERY II - Tract 36351 A4.4 PONDEROSA 0 2 4 8 H 0 M E S PALM DESERT, CA WFA Q2017AI HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS,INC.dbaWHA 12012268 I 12-12-17 _T.O.P. T.O,P._—_—_—_—_—_—___—_—_—______-_ _—_—_—_—___—_—_ -__—_—___ _ - -—_—_—_—T.O.P. - - a _ -- ---- _—_—_—_—_—_—__ ___ F.F. F.F,_ ___—___—_—_—_—_—_—_—___ -__—___—___—___—___—_____ _—_—_—_—-—_—___ _ ____ __—_—_____—_— _—__ _—_TO.P. T.O.P.— ___—_—_—_—___—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_ —_—___—_—____- __ -----a- F-tq--------- Ljl:j -- I--- --------- ------------ _. 2---------- ------------- --- ------ H to in i - i FFR.O.C. Uf[O.C._ _F_F R.GC. CMU SCREENING WALL 6'GAFE 7YP 6'WALL 7YP 6'WALL 1, Right Rear 2 6 6 A6.2 A6.1 A6.2 T_O.P—_—_—___ _ _ _—___—_—_—_—_—_—_ _—_—_ _ ___ ___T.O.P. T.O.P..__—_—_—_—_—_—_____— _—__ - - -—- _— —_— 7 SCUPPER ❑ ❑ ❑ PARAPET W/IVErAL FLASHING CAP _—_—_— _ FF. _—_—_ ___f.F. F.F. T.O.P — —_— —___—_—_—_—_—_____ —_—___— —_—_________—_—_—_—_—___— ___ __—_—_—_—_ _ T.O.P. T.O.P.___—_—_ —_ _ _ _ _—_—_—_—_—___—_ _—_—__—_—_—_ __________ ------------------------- ___ __• -------------------------------- _ I F.F./F.O.Q_ ___—_—___—_—_—_—___—_— —_—__ _ _ _ __ _—_—_ _ _ _F F.rT_0_C. F.F.;T.O.C__ .F Tr_—_—_ � _ _ __ _ —____ — _ ___—i :F1F_O.C. 6'WALL 7YP 6'GATE TYP CMU SCREENING WALL Left Front Plan 4 Elevation B GALLERY11 - Tract 36351 A4.5 ® PONDEROSA o 2 4 8 H O M E S PALM DESERT, CA ©2017WLLIAM HEZFAALHALCH ARCHITECTS,ING QV WHA 12012268 1 12-12-17 •:):t.+.•:C. _G5.1 l..L1.lnr.;u_I 0 00 T.O.P. T.OP T.O.P.. .— __—__ __—_—_—_—�—_—_—_ _—_—___—_—_—_—_T_O,P. " OO F.F. F.F. F.F. _ __—_—___—_—_—_—.—_—_—_—_— —_—_ 0 _ F.F. n ___ _____—_—_—______.—_—_—_____—_—___—_—_—_—_—_—_ _—_—_ _ _— — __ T.O.P. _ T.O.P. T.O.P. _—_—_—_—_—___—__ ____TO.P. __ ____________________ ________ _____ __ __ ___________ -_________ _ ____ ____ ___ _ __ _______ __ ____ ___ _____ _____ _____ ___ ______-___ Eli Ali I I _C. i _ _— }F�.O.C_ _ _—_— _ —_—_ —_ F.F./T_O.C. _T — —_ _—_—_ _—_____—_—__ _ ___—_—_—_____ __- — __—_—_ CMU SCREENING WALL 6'GATE TYP 6'WALL TYP 6'WALL TYP Right Rear 5 7 A6.2 A6.2 1 5 A6.2 A6.1 i CPO i 1 1 TOP _—_-0 _—_—___—_—_____—_—_—_T_O.P. TOP._-------—_—_—___ _ _ _ ___ ___ _—_—T.OP. SIMULATED W o WOOD RAFTER TAILS - m m a __ _ ____ Ff_ _ _ _ __ . F.F.___—_—_— —_—_____—_____—__ .-0__ _ _—_—_Ff. T.O.P._—___ —_______—_—_—_—_—__.—_—.—_—_____—_—_—_—_______—___—___—_—_—_________— —_ __ TOP. TOP—_—_—__ __—_—___—_____—___—___ _ __ —_—___— _— —_—_—_—T.O.P. ____________ _ _____ __________________________ ___ __ __------------------------------_ ____ _________ ___________1=7 __ _ ______ 17 • LL�JJ _ _ -_ -•__ice A E3 F.FJT.O.C_ _ j__ FF.,?A.C. FFj C. �t_—_— — _ _ _ _—_—_ _—_ _— —_— _—_ — — _ — _ —_— —_—_ — _� _ � ._ -TF.T.O.C. 6'WAf1 TYP 6'GATE 1YP CMU SCREENING WALL 4 A6.1 Left Front Plan 4 Elevation C GALLERY II - Tract 36351® A4.6 PONDEROSA 0 2 4 8 H O M E S PALM DESERT, CA V*A qq Q 2017 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS.tNC ma WHA. 12012268 I 12-12-17 - CMU WALL 40'-0" i 00 40'-0" I I 14'-8" 12-10" 12'-6" I 13'-8" 13'-10" 12'-6" z_ I 1 orr-------------------- - - 0 o I t o do c'o I OPT.EXPANDED COVERED I do PATIO PATIOg I , c0 I 1 cD 1 1 i� OWNERS BORM. ��TRM. DINING g I I I I KV - � SIN i t V 7 — C7 M I O l} yI I OWNERS BATH "s ---- PANTRY bb __ X O KITCHEN 1 O 1 m I O I o n SERV. i = _ I N " --- 7 3a I o FWD BATH 2 I OI bbSC 1p i I � I'----_--- I I' I• II � a b ENTRY • Ic ca BONUS RM./ 8088'BI-PASS Q OPT.SDRM.4 8 LOFT 1 I ' 2-CAR rG6 � f-TE�= III 1 v OWNERS GATE 1 ,i BDRM 2 'f N +58.tsa J I PORCH Plan 5 � 1 1 1 - -- - Elevation 'B' shown _ 1 2,410 SF jl Z j� 2 Ownr. Bdrm./3.5 Ba/Bonus 0 2 Car Garage 0 N 14'_11° g 18'-1012" �t 13'-0" 2 2 8'-5" 40'-0" t2 5'-0"MIN 40'-0" T-0"MIN 0 1 1 0 Upper Floor - 493 SF Lower Floor- 1,917 SF ----- ---------------------------J NOTE: A.) ALL EXTERIOR(INSULATED)WALLS TO BE 2X6 B.) WINDOW RECESS AT FRONT ELEVATION:6' GALLERY 11 - Tract 36351 A5,1 PONDEROSA 0 2 4 6 H O M E S PALM DESERT, CA WFA Q 2017 WILUAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS,INC.®a WHA. 1201 2268 I 12-12-17 u.:�,.�.�,—1.1 r._'S:,--•.;.,,,, -------- --- , 12 ------------ a _ — 1 , i 1 Elevation C Elevation B Elevation A Plan 5 Roof Plans PONDEROSA GALLERY II - Tract 36351 0 8 A5.2 H o M E S PALM DESERT, CA WFA ©2017 MLLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS,INC.ma WHA. 12012268 I 12-12-17 CONCRETE FLAT TILE . - WOOD FASCIA LAP SIDING MITERED CORNER "-- "' 6"RECESSED WINDOW&LAP SIDING .� _. HARDIE TRIM " STUCCO OVER FOAM STUCCO OVER FOAM AT DOOR TRIM HARDIE TRIM STUCCO COLUMN 6'RECESSED WNDOW&LAP SIDING STUCCO FINISH ' MANUFACTURED STONE CAP �'-` MANUFACTURED STONE VENEER MANUFACTURED STONE WAINSCOT(WRAPPING INSIDE PORCH) Elevation A LOWS'CONC.TILE CONCRETE FLAT TILE PREFABRICATED PIPE DETAIL W000 FASCIA ; WOOD FASCIA STUCCO OVER FOAM .H: 6"RECESSED WINDOW N - STUCCO STUCCO WIDOW z }. •• 7 `� �., ... � ' ", �,� # _�... �' I WOODBARGEBOARD - - STUCCO OVER FOAM "` _ _ t SPLICE @ 45° PARAPET WITH METAL FLASHING CAP 0 STUCCO OVER FOAM RECESSED WINDOW -� 6"RECESSED WINDOW } UCCO - STUCCO STUCCO COLUMN STUCCO FINISH I -(STUCCO FINISH �( l f _ - STUCCO COLUMN STUCCO SILL SHELF MANUFACTURED STONE VENEER - �' - '-•-' STUCCO OVER FOAM AT DOOR TRIM Elevation C Elevation B Plan 5 Front Elevations GALLERY 11 - Tract 36351 A5.3 PONDEROSA 0 2 4 8 H O M E S PALM DESERT, CA ■ (9)2017vILLIMH MALMCHARDirECTS,MC.&aWX 12012268 12-12-17 —A. cECC NIY._01 Tok T QP_ —-—-—-—-— — — — — —-—-—- —-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—- -— LO P- FEFE-111 0 11 -—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-— —-—-—-—-—- F.F. -—-—-—- -—-—- -—-—-—-—-—-—-—- -—-—- -—-—-—-—- N T.G.P j OR L——-—-—-—-—-—-—---- -- ---------- -------------------------------- ---- ---------------- ----- ----- -- - ------- ----- - -- ---------- El ❑ 7 ----------------- ----------------- ------------ ----------------- -----LFILO-0.4 ----------- -—-—-—-—-—- CMU SCREENING WALL 6'GATE TYP. 6 WNi TYP 6'W&L TNWP Right Rear 3 1 c A6.2 A6.1 T'O.R -—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—- -—-—-—-—-—-—-—- -—-—-—-—-—-—-—12-p- }T R-O —-—-— — —-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—- -—- -—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—- -- P. 0 0,7, BFI= T n El FF -—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-— -—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—- — -—-—-—-—- -—- --—-—-—- —-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—- -—-—-—-—- -—----—-—-—-— —-—-—-—--U-� I—T-C P T OR ----------- - ------------- �IB-- - —-—-—-—- — 7 7 --------------------------- ---------------------------------- ---- -------- -------- 7 7 - �A6.1 j UJO.C. FF T. -—-—-—-—-—- —-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—---- —-—-- —- _FLT I I FF.TOC Left 61 WU 7W. 6'GATE TYR CA411 SCREENING WALL Front Plan 5 Elevation A GALLERY II - Tract 36351 A5.4 5 PONDEROSA 0- 2 4 8 H 0 M E S PALM DESERT, CA WFA (D 2017 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS,INC We WHA 12012268 I 12-12-17 T:O ,P—-—-—-—-—-—-—- -—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—---- ----------------------------------------------------- —-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—- -—-—-— —-—----- --------io P- FE❑-11 EE-❑I ED FF. F.F. Fp------- TO TOP, TOR B 2 ---------------------------- -ni -----------------■ ----------------- -------------9---------- - : - -- --------------- ----------- - -------- E ,FO - —-—-FT, C. — —-—-—-—-—-—----—---—-—-—-—- JF TOC - ------ --- -------------- CMU SCREENING WALL 6t TYP 6 WALL 7YP 6 WALL TYP Right Rear El 6 2 7 -6-� A6.2 A6.2 TOP TOP, TO p❑ - ScUPPFR PARAPET W/METAL FLASHING CAP Ell F ------------ --------------- ------------------------- __LFj 4,_FL----------- ---- ------—-------- IFT. OP_.__-_ ----- TOP. -T.O.P, L---- --- ------ ----DIP- --------- - U-p- L ------------------------------ ---------------- -------- -------- -------------------------- ----------------------------------- _F FJ O_G, ----- --------------------- F.F.,7 0.1 ----------- Left 6,WALL TVP. 6'GATE TYP CMU SCREENING WALL Front Plan 5 Elevation B GALLERY II - Tract 36351 A5.5 a �ITL FQA PONDEROSA 0 2 4 8 H 0 M E S PALM DESERT, CA VVFA (9)2017WLLIAMHEZMALMALCHARCFNTECTS,INC.dbaWHA, 12012268 I 12-12-17 T.O.P. ----- -_ TO T.O.P. IMIRIF11 _ _ _ _ __ _-_____-_-_-_____-_-_-_-_-_-___-_-_-_-_____-_-___-___-_-_-_-_-_-_-_____-_-_-_ F.F� F.F, _____-_ -_ _ _-_-_ O O FF. T.O.P. T.O.P- T.O.P. _-_-____.__-__ -_� T.O.P. m ------------------9---------------- ---------- ----- i F. TQ F.F./f O.C._ -_ _-_-_-_ _ ___ - -___ _____ __ __-_ _ Ff./T.O.0 0 C F.F./F._._-_ _ __F.F./r.O.C. _ _ _____-_-_-_-_-___ _ -� CMU SCREENING WALL 6'GATE TYP 6'WALL 7YP 6'WALL TYP. Right Rear 5 SIMULATED WOOD RAFTER TAILS A6.2 A6.2 CPO _-_-_ OP. T.O.P,____ T.O.P. m ___-_-_-T. um uu A67 .2 O F.F,___ _-_ F.F. F.F. FF. -_-_-_-___-___-_-_-_-___-_-_-_-_-_ _ _ _____ _ _ _ .__F2- � _-_ T.O.P. _____ ___________________________ __ __ _--------------------------------_ _____ _________ _______ ________ - -- - _-______ -_-_-___-___-_-___-___-_-_-___-_ _- _-_-_ _- _-.-_-_ iFF./M C. f.F.iT,O.C.i _-_- - _ _-_-_-_ -_-_- -_-_ ii F.F./T.O.C. 6'WALL iW 6 GATE 7YP CMU SCREENING WALL 4 A6.1 Left Front Plan 5 Elevation C PONDEROSA GALLERY II - Tract 36351 o 2 4 a A5.6 Y{ H O M E S PALM DESERT, CA WFA ©2017 WILUAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS,INC.02 WHA. 12012268 I 12-12-17 -.>,.6__.:,.1,,1,-. 2x FRAMING 2x BACKING WINDOW FRAME GYP"-TRiMFIBER 8D N -WHERE OCCURS DO PT.WOOD TRIM-RIP TO PIT WITH PLASTER STOP CEMENT LAP SIDING ALUMINUM PARAPET CAP SIDING PER ELEV. SLOPED TO DRAIN-ROOF SIDE FACTORY FIMSH TO MATCH L STUCCO COLOR 2.) WINDOW JAMB Cci) FRONT ELEVATION `A' STUCCO OVER BUILDING PAPER pMEN6gN PEP RAN INSULATION WHERE - - OCCURS - STUCCO ZX6 FRAMING 2X6 FRAMING 6.) PARAPET WITH METAL FLASHING CAP CcD `B' ELEVATION 3 = -o" GYP.8EE fix HEADER PER STRUCT. HARDIE TRIM WINDOW FRAME P�_ C.)WINDOW HEAD BLOCKING SLOPED METAL FLASHING N6 FRAMING 2x6 FRAMING Zx6 FRAMING Zx6 FOAMING AAACAP D SEPL((ATTACH CAN WINDOW FRAME GYP.BD. AT THE SIOE(S) INSULATION WHERE OCCURS WINDOW FRAME SULATION WHERE OCCURS Sy 1X2 STOP STUCCO mEtill T___ 1� STUCCO J1 H ' Qj ARDIE TRIM BI"�O°PAR � METAL CAP DETAIL Q `C' ELEVATION VENEER O STOCCU _ MANUFACTURED STONE ' BUILDING PAPER VENEER MANUFACTURED OCCURS VENEER WHERE OCCURS _ �; SOFFIT FRAMING 1 1/2"=1,O„ . STUCCO OVER 6.6 POST B.)WINDOW JAMB B.)WINDOW JAMB METAL FLASHING W/DRIP STONE LEDGER WINDOW FRAME 4"EXT.GRADE PLYWD. WINDOW FRAME WINDOW FRAME 2x8 SILL HAADIE TRIM 2.4 FRAMING 216 SILL 2x6 SILL (. GYP.BD. 1,7 EXi.GRADE STUCCO MANUFACTURED ADHERED SL. PLYWOOD GYP.80. GYP.BD. STONE VENEER OVER STONE CAP STONE CAP BROWN COAT.INSTALL WHERE OCCURS-COLOR COAT OVER PER MFR'S INSTRUC➢ONS RIGID FOAM TRIM-SIZE PER ELEV.-OVER SLOPED 2R FRAMING STUCCO BASE GOAT-INSTALL PER MFR. Posr BASE ATTACHMENT SLOPED 2x LEDGER - - — _ n;' INSTRUCTIONS-TYP. PER STRUCT.PLANS INSULATION INSULATION WHERE INSULATION WHERE Fx.RR WHERE OCCURS OCCURS OCCURS ° 2x BLOCKING 2X8 FRAMING 2X6 FRAMING 2X8 FRAMING \ MANUFACTURED STONE MANUFACTURED STONE ° a ° VENEER WHERE OCCURS VENEER WHERE OCCURS a s � H I H I1=III-III- STUCCO NOTE:SFE CRC SECT.RIOJ.12 FOR AOHFAD VENEER REWaN1EN15 A.)W1NDifW 5ILL A.)WINDOW SILL 7.) COLUMN & SOFFIT DETAIL Cc� ELEVATION `26' 4.) WINDOW DETAIL P FRONT ELEVATION `C' 3.) WINDOW DETAIL 6H) FRONT ELEVATION `B' 1.) WINDOW DETAIL (@ FRONT ELEVATION `A' 1 1/2"=1'-0" 1 1/2"=1'-O" 1 1/2"=1'-0" 1 1/2"=1'-O" ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS GALLERY II - Tract 36351 A6.1 PONDEROSA 0 2 4 8 H O M E S PALM DESERT, CA WFA 02017WILUAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS.INC.dba WHA. 12012268 1 12-12-17 vl LJMIv. TRUSS FRAMING SHEATHING CONCRETE TILE 2X BACKING RECESSED OPENING Stucco 2X4 BLOCKING h BACKING —SMOOTH TROWEL FINISH COLOR COAT OVER RIGID FOAM TRIM-SIZE METAL FLASHING a4, PRE-FABRICATED PER ELEV.-OVER BROWN WITH DRIP FOAM ACCENT COAT-INSTALL PER MFR. INSTRUCTIONS INTERIOR FINISH 2X WOOD FASCIA WHERE OCCURSrROOF INSULATIONWHERE OCCURS — STRIP VENT � STUCCO � a+ETewiO _ - 2X BACKING ELEVATION SECTION3.) ENCLOSED EAVE (a- ELEVATION `A' 1 1/2"=1'-O" : SEE ELEVATION FOR STUCCO ACCENT CONFIGURATION. 9.) STUCCO DETAIL (c- `B' NOTE ELEVATION AND LOCATION 1 1/2"=1'-0" ELEVATION SECTION 5.) DECORATIVE PIPE ACCENT() `C' ELEVATION TRUSS FRAMING 3"=V-10" ROOF SHEATHING - UBACKMG CONCRETE TILE RECESSED OPENING TOP CHORD OF ROOF TRUSS 1-SO.STEEL TUBE WELD TO STUCCO 20 BLOCKING ANCHOR PUTES.WELD ALL - a BACKING JOINTS,GRIND SMOOTH METAL FLASHING WITH DRIP 1'SO.STEEL TUBE WELD TO ANCHOR PATES.WELD ALL JOINTS,GRIND SMOOTH STUCCO2X WOOD FASCIA_ xOTE AU TueIxc TO eE MIN. WHER�OCCINIS URS OF ROOF TRUS ES NAILED TO ENDS is GAUGE.PflIN ED AND PAINTED WITH ALL CONNECnONSFNLETWELDED.GRINDALL INSULATIO STRIP VENT wELDs SMOOTH WHERE OCCURS MANUFACTURED gTONE VENEER WHERE OCCURS STUCCO 2%BACK NG PER ROOF PVN 5' 9" 5' � ELEVATION SECTION 2.) ENCLOSED EAVE Cad ELEVATION `B' 1 1/2"=1'-O" 8.) METAL DETAIL PIG' ELEVATION CROSS BRACING ABOVE 1 1/2"=1'-0" METALPANEL EXTERIOR FINISH PER ELEVATIONS BLOCKING AS REO'D W eLOCKNG CANOPY ATTACHMENT PER MANUFACTURER PERFORATED METAL PANEL *�OOTF' NG - :^nc.s' caxcnErt THE aaar R%R amcogeRs AT 1° PRIME AND PAINT TO MATCH CANT, RocF nlE o.c. CENTERS 000000 - TOP CHORD OF ROOF TRUSS ROUND HOLES ON STAGGERED DxNIER�Roar CENTERS j. ---- ---- -_ - .._ COHf.I%RIP 3%a NWC fl.RCF fXMRD 2X4 BLOCKING TO 9ff (SPfK:E O AS wxFAE APPLICABLE) snlccO METAL RUSHING PER Roar rN,w WITH DRIP Z%B.RGE-SIZE PER ELEV"igNS s BEE p„„s CONTINUOUS ANGLE AT PERIMETER.WELD INTERIOR CCURS" 2x S OF ROOF FASCIA — NAILED To CDATs ortR Cx—m 2X3SSMULATED WOOD ERAFTER TAILS PERFORATED PANEL TO ANGLE INSULATIONADHERED TO BOTTOM OF STUCCO C-CHANNEL OVER NEOPRENE GASKET, WHERE OCCURS & ENCLOSED EAVE PRIME AND PAINT PER ELEVATIONS AND STUCCOSTRIPvENr CTTR ro aoor FINISH SCHEDULE R Boo PUN MNAIrACO1RERG NOTE;RTUR To RaCF + -LATCH FOR WMF,A_OF SPECIfTCAPIXIG FOR INSALUPIXI O<GMC. MSfALAIiON D<COYP.SNNCIEB iLE 7.) RAKE DETAIL ELEVATION `C' 6.) RAKE DETAIL ELEVATION `B' 4.) STEEL CANOPY DETAIL 1.) ENCLOSED EAVE Cad ELEVATION `C' 1 1/2"=1'-0" 1 1/2"=1'-O" 1 1/2"=1'-O" 1 1/2"=1'-O" ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS P N GALLERY II - Tract 36351 0 2 4 _$ A6.2 �� �� °-1�� �� 0 DER08A H O M E S PALM DESERT, CA ©20nWILLIAMHEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS,INC.maWHA, 12012268 1 12-12-17 � Y 1 1 1 1 1 10, 1 1 2nd ; Floor I setback 102' separation (PIan4) 1 1 � 1 , 1 , 1 1 PROJECT !1 , ?llF1 DARY 20' min oil 1.,"1."...,w,.................... Front ; Renoir Place9B ----- 57 landscape area + street Setback ! -- uj I Existing Lot 11 15' STRM "F" ( Pad Elevation 232.9 Rear NEW HOME with Pop_Up Yard (6' higher than Lot 58) (Lot 58 Pad Elevation 226.4) EXHIBIT - Section thru existing neighborhood and Gallery II Lot Grading: New Gallery 11 Lots are Lower Than Existing Homes 40\ , uuj CL of TCE us ro I Aa F a t A0190i q I '80 i Ao 05 AM-3•n•d AL LC •3•n•d .0 2/ .0 1 1 01 -12� 4�J'�" . i I i I U. t ' t Qj Nt N f' Ile CM LL C4 C*A% 14 cm I x w N N `' 5 I IF, lotg Rn _ Existing 6' Tall Masonry Wall ( �"� yA_ `fS� � �v f^t h•�' ITT ♦ vNR � R .y6V-- u.RV.- 4 It z� P z.� z.. _ z �' x 3� . / v+ { w x z.. y six (06 z Ci , Iv z ad ems; R `'a4 � Existing Gallery Homes Lot Grading (continued): New Gallery 11 Lots are Lower Than Existing Homes _)+ 00'. _ a INN. 1�iYt 00 OS 60'OS .00,0C 0,09 .00'OS .0D'0C .007 't1 1y'S .� b Cy CM C4 — t q �i a� .00- AO'09 vs ",00'0S "4 OD' 09 0'OS 'C5 Lf'p£ .09ve CY ,��y"�. . � 'Y Ig N �g l � N 1 1 'o �i � vD INLN c" di m N N w QD cq .. a1 1 La U. W yak 1 to N Cj rg to N OOV9 6! Q� LL.LL d,\ _ Y ' k 4 s \ Eysting MasonrAWall " r M r (4N►� c4�vn 90) N CO LIL _� Existing Pailery Homes - See Section