Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDP 01-79 - CHAPARRAL CC FILE 2 1982 103 C. 167 1 / /DO Por- 10L bolt+ 0�1+ b s w 24! ,oJ •.v Ranchos Ltd. ©, gC 63 �' 575 r ' ®' / - 621-57l-004 57/ 572 573 fib 70', a4e t • ,7ry IIII ' �� r v>.' .✓ ��• '✓ o- O' © LO100 4 r..., • Al • '/J'y-`�'�/y 4 Ivy IIB/>r. IIJ _a 1Q= LOO �, ,� ' 2aQ Milor . "' /6J O 621 —S7J-oo3 r : QQ 246' ,20 O '• IN < //< , II/• T. Y1id ww" 16}' n,v a /6 q J. nn ` j 2J0 :2l9 •2I6 :2N � h + n- a u♦ �• �d b=u' 6 Zl-S / i 7 —•40/I - _ - - -ICY efi. LOT I C y (� / ,22 '.. U2� Q/53 �� , .3® O146 3I /60Q " 2S/ 4• ; PJJ 3/ _ \_O� - ?h111iPs 21 14I /47 �IQ !9® . 1JPO I P34 PJ/ PN Q g 621-5/ (-ooG 4O 2 0 Q �Iy © 5 v` � O •• /JOQ; /< /JS � /IJ© ©,48 o /SB© 25JQ �I - ` .: 4/923C 24 621- 6o1-ors14P! G 254 bOI Q ® ibsonMoon / •, /4, /sD Pss 6z1-6o1-002 3 ,16 2.' 28 /b rrr ® J W Q GOT EE O59 , O6" LJB ^ l39` Ia0 © +I eor.r. / 621-66 I—OQ3 L7ldnY of/l• L© , ® ° ®i _ ..: ...r a �, •C 2 :r _ �J..6 -.a 621- 601-0� Q152 ,�•/33 /34 - 621-601-004 I �+ © 4 `` _ hJ I4ul1 GkeSov% S 258 ^P3.9 C .^ ? G, +`2 •,t 621- 601r 006 TToct 4399 MB. 7713/-36 266 �zs/> '•? ti`' No,# ALL LOTS HAVE //289,6/NIEREJT - ^S ' ,N LOTS A TNHU W 8 AA TNRU 60 wr , T 25 4 / z c' 1.' Z C. A. 752,7505 N z SEC. /7 T. 5S. R. 6E. 22 20 _ 7 B uai'hs 6 .9 ozo.z "3z<a /6 /". 900 I 3.62t Ar. /3 O e 6.44rAC. C s . /6 /2.32Ar• 1 42 SIAc.n T( "L o MO. C.V C.W.D ,CY/ �'ny TE. ♦6.ZOAr r I R 40 r 79 0 y O . s /4.57Ac 3 P \ O \h � int e> nu Hz 1 ' I"I DATA R/5 2O138 34161 2s/58 36 3717 ASSL-SSOR (y, 5 R/VERS/DE COUNT ,MAP 6CALIF PG 35 SE P r4,867 ,7 � ei*< a ><L.p.�.s�-`u�y'S.�L.i '., Yt }� .4r�u ���7314 _•t _ � .S ;L - ' 1�'' � r ZNr ,� < 1,1 U'§ �•y..'�'�M11ptr 'r> n �r �1 'S �i> � '� t a^� f t r<� � 'r � ', "li !� y^'�r�'• NN rs "�� `' n i, c- -i� 7 , , r �, ✓9 > '1 ��rr... rc< `v 7, f ,• M, ! „r ', .xrr'YS3 � � • �.}ca L 'I .i�i .'L''1v�A ,1�: s"a L '� w,r.:. `- W cnhw� is�'e• 1 `�fi is-_f ii �.T, ;• 4 ..:.'`?t�YL'ysnY"vy^5,,¢¢/.c' +ti,3u _ `'t K:jR}G.}i 5: $ a a r,�eL4 L'1 r�s jia �Ff `� 14 kl.�� e '�� - ' � � � ��a-, � L�> a•y h a�Y• <�`�f-„� iS a�'� n r O . •Lf't. . i - 4. aAO fs _pt�' s - . a i. ?1 '4- r.r} � ac - r hrfr: 1 .� 4 i•. a v tj s C Y( � � r - •a 'Se :1 ' ,� `i �^{ ai rg,; kT '}a� fi,` may./.. �` g�'�a�"'S• tyr I 1 4 . . s f•`f \ ;'}� �y I l� r ,� `�2��"'" lw� t �y$, ;a -f��'b.� 1 R..�F�tr �.r/IT t.tsa > -�': °��,49 � a Ss'i` ;�;' 'n"' 4 iy +'a,L3 F-f�`�'t^ l a"'t•'' r r1 � n }. . . �, --'�' Aa � ♦ _fie; fa 4r- .�T a � .. � .-> �., 1 ', f , � `�";5���tluvgg �'rrir 5 t bF a ' a{ � � ,�M1 at' ,'a�,L}y L�•� '1/ }CyY_ '� I i ® r� .• - ,y3 ,; � 3a�� �+^Siv�. ��� (p•.; _ f 5.1.,,",ayb'� ` Yr, , f f 1 yyY 1 .F 1 1 t 11 y a��_ • s >�i- TV�q1"C"��aT T1<q f'>t 4 +i-�R~f�L S `It F�lS.e � r ,>j.L�f�1 f'W $W,.�j•�~�*LK. � k {YI�'VVS' ..� r '.� '•a '.h. t R _ f:• ,�• x .} Ly -+ yr:�,. y -' es S 13a.p:'f� { •` •ram � . � f r'�s F '�'� _4 Y._ �Y ��° p � /7 AS i vjY a >, ♦f s - L ttf. *er' M �� Ft. - >ti } if'S'1 <7.�•t L L a - )a 1 a r x.,5 - �v ��`' t+af'r-'�-: Jln = r -- 'r,IT..tiSa A q��g >`� .�ik l>.^�'�. _ 'Y'Y` �3 +51b S a2•,f"` < f s M� 1 ! a ,p M1 1i�: ,aa�>r„ VV�i . . '. � t' °T'� } d `{.ylf�li '� 1�, C •i � 7� s 5ku��a4 �p�- 'A �.a y ^]p' ♦ �' ��ca •r x� rC Ts�•1.'� '4.< $1y a .r. Y � ,�,*s � y..1'. t _ 9r LC ns,{F7 wx > k e > e`✓i• `� rot ;V ;. XS - ASSE5310R'S MAP QA: 62/ PG. 20 >� }. x *s""FaZ••TLf \ ] X91 .r ,zr f - q/V£RSLO£ -COUNTY CALIF :34 � ati � � � ir. ^- :�,`�. ' Y . /• t `' � .. �. v�.-L t,Ft 1aY,� d'8e3v .'zc ..tl':x YrFZi:,. g . .^1. •?+�vK 4 -.. _i. :>.; �. _ r William Bone Hidden Acres Sunrise Company P.O. Box 654 42-000 Bob Hope Drive I ` Rancho Mirage, Ca 92270 Rancho Mirage, Ca 92270 Consolidated Land Investment Co. University Plaza Inc. c/o Schlesinger Frank W. Clark Jr. Tr. P.O. Box 1906 c% Floyd M. Lewis Palm Springs, Ca 92262 333 S. Hope Street 27th Floor Los Angeles, Ca 90071 Ira L. Reed SP�IB Tr 21-1-03293-2 Trust R E Tax 2-68 P.O. Box 60802 Term Annex Los Angeles, Ca 90060 /\ West Coast Properties Mr. Raul Fernandez 1816 Belmont Road NW 1206 Myra Avenue Washington, DC 20009 Los Angeles, Ea 90029 Mr. William H. Phillips Mr. Maurice J. Gibson P.O. Box 577 2925 Artesia lbrrance, Ca 90504 Palm Desert, Ca 92260 `� { Patricia Aude etal Mr. Clinton W. Root 309 Avenue H. Apt C 22908 Vose Street Redondo Beach, Ca 90277 Canoga Park, Ca 91307 Barbara E. Hutcheson Mr. John H. Milor 24 Fairy Avenue 8 Santa Bella Road Huntsville, Ontario Canada Rolling Hills Estates, Ca 9027 Ronald L. Burton Artesia Bellflower, flower, Ca 90706 F.X. Mc Donald Jr. I 1900 E. Ocena Blvd Apt 1410 •' Qong Beach, Ca 90802 / Harvey S. Nurse c/o Maryanov Madsen Gordon&Campbel 500 South Palm Canyon Drive Palm Springs, Ca 92262 v Mr. Elmer E. Plum /� 260 Brawley Avenue Thermal, Ca 92274 ROBERT H. RICCIARDI, President THEODORE G. ROBINSON A. I. A. & Associates Architect/Land Planner 73-700 Highway 111 32107 Lindero Canyon Road Suite 1 Suite 220 Palm Desert, CA. 92260 Westlake Village, CA. 91361 ROBERT H. RICCIARDI, President THEODORE G. ROBINSON A. I. A. & Associates Architect/Land Planner 73-700 Highway 111 32107 Lindero Canyon Road Suite 1 Suite 200 Palm Desert, CA. 92260 Westlake Village, CA. 91361 ROBERT H. RICCIARDI , President THEODORE G. ROBINSON ! A. I. A. & Associates Architect/Land Planner 73-700 Highway 111 32107 Lindero Canyon Road Suite 1 Suite 200 Palm Desert, CA. 92260 Westlake Village, CA. 91361 DAME'-DOTY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY THEODORE G. ROBINSON P. 0. Box 100 Architect/Land Planner j San Ramon, California 94583 32107 Lindero Canyon Road Suite 220 Westlake Village, CA. 91361 DAME' -DOTY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY DAME' -DOTY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY P. 0. Box 100 P. 0. Box 100 San Ramon, California 94583 San Ramon, California 94583 DAME' -DOTY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY P. 0. Box 100 San Ramon, California 94583 Frank Radmacher ` FRANK RADMACHER ASSOCIATES 17722 Irvine Boulevard Suite 3 Tustin, California 92680 JACK SAUNDERS, Vice President WEBB ENGINEERING, INC. 600 E. Tahquitz-McCallum Way Suite D Palm Springs, CA. 92262 ROBERT H. RICCIARDI , President A. I. A. & Associates 73-700 Highway 111 Quite 1 alm Desert, CA. 92260 Frank Radmacher JACK SAUNDERS, Vice President FRANK RADMACHER ASSOCIATES WEBB ENGINEERING, INC. 17722 Irvine Boulevard 600 E. Tahquitz-McCallum Way Suite 3 Suite D Tustin, California 92680 Palm Springs, CA. 92262 Frank Radmacher JACK SAUNDERS, Vice President FRANK RADMACHER ASSOCIATES WEBB ENGINEERING, INC. 17722 Irvine Boulevard 600 E. Tahquitz-McCallum Way Suite 3 Suite D Tustin, California 92680 Palm Springs, CA. 92262 Frank Radmacher JACK SAUNDERS, Vice President FRANK RADMACHER ASSOCIATES WEBB ENGINEERING, INC. 17722 Irvine Boulevard 600 E. Tahquitz-McCallum Way ff1 fn3 California 92680 Suite D Palm Springs, CA. 92262 FROM TO JACK SAUNDERS, Vice President WEBB ENGINEERING, INC. 600 E. Tahquitz-McCallum Way Suite D Palm Springs, California 92262 PARO.SL POST CONTENTS: MERCHANDISE R&TYRM RSQW6STRO FROM TO JACK SAUNDERS, Vice President WEBB ENGINEERING, INC. 600 E.. Tahquitz-McCallum Way Suite D Palm Springs, California 92262 PA CEL POST CONTENTS: MERCHAVW19E RMUMN REQUffSTBD FROM TO JACK SAUNDERS,, Vice President WEBB ENGINEERING, INC. 600 E. Tahquitz-McCallum Way Suite D Palm Springs, California 92262 PAUNMEL POST CONTENTS: MERCHA 40185 EMTURN affauESTao MOM TO Frank Radmacher FRANK RADMACHER ASSOCIATES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 17722 Irvine Boulevard Suite 3 Tustin, California 92680 PAMOUL POST CCNT.ENS9: MERCHAIMSE RBTYRN R6gW6SS8D oM TO Frank Radmacher FRANK RADMACHER ASSOCIATES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 17722 Irvine Boulevard Suite 3 Tustin, California 92680 PAJWmL POST CONTENTS: MERCHAWDISE RBTWtN RUQU6RT6D MOM TO Frank Radmacher FRANK RADMACHER ASSOCIATES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 17722 Irvine Boulevard Suite 3 Tustin, California 92680 PA MUL POST CONTENTS: MERCHAN613H RETURFA RBQIJESTED FROM TO THEODORE G. ROBINSON Architect/Land Planner 32107 Lindero Canyon Road Suite 220 Westlake Village, California 91361 PARCEL POST CONTENTS: MERCHANDISE RETYRM REQMESTEO FROM TO THEODORE G. ROBINSON Architect/Land Planner 32107 Lindero Canyon Road Suite 220 Westlake Village, California 91361 PARCEL POST CONTENTS: MEI.RCHANOi96 RBTYRBI R£gY£STEO FROM TO THEODORE G. ROBINSON Architect/Land Planner 32107 Lindero Canyon Road Suite 220 Westlake Village, California 91361 PAKCBL POST CONTENTS: MERCMAIW0189 ltSTf�1l M RHQWBSTED FROM TO ROBERT H. RICCIARDI , President A. I . A. & Associates 73-700 Highway 111 Suite 1 Palm Desert, California 92260 PA MZL POST CON.T,ENTS: MERCHAN619M RRTD!!N RRQURSTED FROM TO ROBERT H. RICCIARDI , President A. I. A. & Associates 73-700 Highway 111 Suite 1 Palm Desert, California 92260 PARCEL POST CCDITENTS: MERCHANDISE RETURN mazer-STIRD FROM TO ROBERT H. RICCIARDI , President A. I. A. & Associates 73-700 Highway 111 Suite 1 Palm Desert, California 92260 PA MUL POST CONTENTS: MERCHANDISE RBTWIN W1:STIM FROM TO DAME' CONSTRUCTION CO. , INC. P. 0. Box 100 San Ramon, California 94583 ATTN: Dame'-Doty Development PARCEL POST CONT;ENSS: MERCHAWNDIM RETURN REQUESTED FROM TO DAME' CONSTRUCTION CO. , INC. P. 0. Box 100 San Ramon, California 94583 ATTN: Dame'-Doty Development PAROUL POST CONTENTS: MERCMANDIOE R6TYRN REQUESTgm PROM TO DAME' CONSTRUCTION CO. , INC. P. 0. Box 100 San Ramon, California 94583 ATTN: Dame'-Doty Development PA WIRL POST CONTENTS: MERCHANDISE RETURN RRQIJUSTRD I I i t `w �� _ �� �Ss:.~ - .�-� — --- �-' -- ' ' a - I r s rr .�� r �. __„S � i `' ii �'.� ;-ra —__ .. ��yy. CT y� _.3 S�1'. { �� �9{fir•,,. -1 � f�T�3i�� of rtr� Sim LpG,riN� uTN, 14eB, s S T TfiE kfW,7S 4-me ('sft1N/!EL Lov/fiN� �o6cr7���T r✓ i�/E G�N.¢iU.dEL HOMES 13Y DAME q' DAM[ CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. / - �• CLVY �O\ SAN RAMON. CALIFORNIA 94583 (415)837-0544 � I� SEP-0 September 20, 1982 "NCI 07,982 C!y F`pAL DES ` v f tRr Board of Directors Chaparral Homeowners Association Chaparral Country Club Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 - - Gentlemen: At the request of and upon instructions from the City of Palm Desert Fire Marshal, -Dame' Construction Companv will cut down the vegetation for a distance of 50' from the wall along the wash in Phase 1. Dame'- Construction Company hereby absolves itself from any responsibility for damage incurred as a result of the elimination of the protective vegetation in this area; . i. e. erosion, rain damage, wind damage, pedestrian and vehicle damage. We also .disclaim any responsibility for damages incurred by this activity to the sprinkler system which was installed by Dame' . Construction Company to encourage the growth of vegetation. Very �truly yourrs,y/(/y�/ Carl D. Dame' HOMES BY DAME DAME CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. P. 0. BOX 100 SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 (415)837-0544 JAN 19 1981 City of Palm Desert ENv.,;oHNIE'NTAL SE6VICES Planning Department - CITY. OF PALM DESERT. 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Att: Stan January 19, 1981 Dear Stan, Please be advised that subject to our agreement with the City of Palm Desert,to hold the last four units in Phase I. for finals until all land- scaping can be walked through. I have found myself in a position, where the first house in the buil- ding was due to close escrow this week. As per our conversation, I would respectfully submit Lot Vs 180 through 183,be held instead of Lot Vs 184 through 187, so we can close escrow on the above mentioned lots:. 4ke k you, Bolton Project Manager SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OFFICE — PARRAL OUNTRY CLUB 42555 Portola Avenue, Palm Desert, C lifornia 9 • Phone (714) 346.0673 P. O. Drawer 1856, Palm Desert, Califo 1 1 �. 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 June 16, 1980 REPORT OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION CASE NO: 169 MF APPLICANT: DAME CONSTRUCTION COMPANY NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT : Revision to site plan for Phases 3 & 4 of TT 13881. LOCATION : West side of Portola Avenue, north of Whitewater Storm Channel ZONE : PR-5 and O.S. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION : Upon reviewing the submitted plans and the presentations by the Staff and py the applicant , the Design Review Board approved this project , subject to revisions . Date of Action : June 10, 1980 Vote : 3-0 (An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert within fifteen ( 15 ) days of the date of the decision . ) STAFF COMMENTS : See attached Minutes. ,f MINUTES DESIGN R€VIEW BOARD JUNE 10, 1980 Page Five III. CASES (Continued) Ca�se 211 MF - JOHN MANDIC (Continued) On a motion by en, seconded_ by Martin, the Board moved to grant preliminary and final approval o is application, subject to the following conditions: 1. Curbs and gutters with tie-i ving shall be installed. 2. Proposed fencing along the east pr ty line shall match the existing fencing put up by the property owners to east. 3. Existing palm trees to be retained on the site landscaping purposes. 4. Additional landscaping including trees shall be prov' along westerly side of property. Carried 3-0 (Holden, Jackson, Martin). Case No. 169 MF DAME'. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY and S. KASSOVIC - revision to ina s ea an for Phases 3 and 4 of Tract 13881 on the west side of Portola Avenue, north of the Whitewater Storm Channel ; Mike Boulton was present. Staff provided background on the project indicating that Phases 3 and 4 of this Tract had not yet been recorded and necessitate .a new Tentative Tract Map. Additionally, the applicants had revised the site layout for Phases 3 and 4 eliminating 28 units. Staff indicated concerns as noted in the Staff Report. The applicant agreed to three revisions pertaining to site layout, 20 foot distance between units, and resubmission of the revised final working drawings for Phases 3 and 4 for Board review. Additionally, the landscaping plan was discussed with it being noted that landscaping along the patios of the units was required and is to be installed. On a motion by Holden, seconded by Martin, the Board moved to grant approval of the revised final site plan, subject to the following revisions: 1. Structure at the westerly end of Chaparral Drive to be eliminated or relocated to provide open area at that intersection. 2. Twenty foot distance between dwelling units .to be provided. 3. Prior to submission to Building and Safety Department, building and landsca- ping plans for Phases 3 and 4 to be submitted to the Design Review Board for approval . Carried 3-0 (Holden, Jackson, Martin) . IV. DISCUS 57 EMS Rick Holden presented sed final landscaping plan for the Hope Lutheran parking lot. This .landscaping complies with the previous wishes of the Board. Further, it was noted that oli ees adjacent to the entry on Porto la Avenue would be substituted with palm trees. s was determined acceptable by the Board. V. ADJOURNMENT - 4:25 p.m. STAN SAWA, ASSOCIATE PLANNER /dj ' 1 ENDA ITEM NO. III, B-5 DATE June 10, 1980 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CASE NO. 169 MF APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) Dame Construction Co. (P.O. Box 100, San Ramon, CA, 94583) and S. "Kassovic, AIA (79-910 Hwy 111, #B, Rancho Mirage) NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT Revision to site plan for phases 3 & 4 of TT 13881. LOCATION West side of Portola Ave. , N. of Whitewater Storm Channel . ZONE PR75 and O.S. The proposed project is Chapparel Country Club, which is presently under construction. At this time, only phases 1 and 2 have been recorded. The applicants time ran out on phases 3 and 4 and they have,::therefore, filed a new tentative tract map. In addition to filing a new map, they have revised the site plan layout. Essentially what they have done is modified the individual clusters. They have eliminated all of the clusters of five units and the majority of the four-unit clusters. The majority of the clusters now consist of 2 and 3 units. As a result of the revisions, there are 28. 1ess units than originally approved..'%­.At the present time, the only exhibit submitted has been the Tentative tract map,, which does not show individual units. The street layout and extent of unit development is the sameas previously approved. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff has 'reviewed the submitted plans and would offer the following comments: 1. During the orginal consideration, the original approval did not have any units at the westerly end of Chapparel Drive. The main reasons for this, .were to create a vista from the main drive and to also minimize Headlights shining into those units and vehicular traffic congestion:because of cars backing out of the driveway into an inter- section. Therefore, the three unit structure shown on the plans should .be relocated or eliminated. 2. The Municipal Code requires a 20 ft. distance between units. Because the submitted plans do not indicate unit configuration, it can not be ascertained whether this requirement will be complied with. 3. Because of the modification to the site plan layout, it will be necessary for the applicant to submit revised construction plans and landscaping plans to the Board prior to issuance of b6ilding permits for phases 2, 3, and .4. Based on the above comments and adopted development standards, the Board should review the revised site plan to determine acceptability. S. KASSOVIC, A.I.A. ARCHITECTS & PL ANNERS June 3 , 1980 Mr. Paul Williams , AICP Director of Environmental Service Planning Department 45275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert , California 92260 Dear Mr. Williams : We are herewith submitting drawings of Chaparral Country Club for revisions made to their Phases III and IV. The revised drawing reflect changes in the number of units overall in both phases and in the individual clusters , wherein we have eliminated all of the clusters of five units and the majority of the clusters of four units , thus reducing the total unit counts . You will find that the great majority of clusters now consist of two and three units . Enclosed is a colored site plan and nine folded prints of the revised drawings . Thank you for your consideration . C ally, Gordon E. Paulus Associate GEP/lh Enclosures 71-910 B HIGHWAY 111 RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA 92270 PHONE (714) 568-2665 550 CHESTNUT STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94133 PHONE (415) 981-2665 AUG 71979 ENVh UI hjLNI-AL SERVICES CITY OF PALM DESERT ' I I I .�� -i :'. . III \ � -.-� �. � �_• 7 / ... _, � pr 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE September 6 , 1979 APPLICANT Design Review Board-City of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert , California 92260 CASE NO. : 169 MF The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of CONTINUED TO DENIED X APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. . 527 PLACED ON THE AGENDA OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF FOR CONCURRENCE WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION. PLACED ON THE AGENDA OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF FOR PUBLIC HEARING. Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the Director of Environmental Services, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. PAUL A. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING CO.`L`aSSSION cc: Applicant C.V.C.W.D. MINUTES Page Three DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AUGUST 28, 1979 The question of signage for the motor inn was discussed extensively. Applicant indicated that they wished to keep the existing signs. The non-conformance of their existing signs and desire of the City to bring the signs into conformance with the present Sign Ordinance was in- dicated by Staff. Alternatives to removing all signs was discussed with no answer formulated. Alternatives for approving and/or denying this request were discussed. The Board generally felt that the dis- position of this signage was an important factor and would influence the exterior remodeling. After extensive discussion, it was determined that applicant should file a Planning Commission application to determine the disposition of a Sign Program for the building prior to con- sideration of any exterior remodeling. It was determined that the proper procedure at this time would be to deny this request and reconsider a new request after Planning Commission action on the Sign Program. On a motion by Cook, seconded by Holden, the Board denied this request. \ Carried 6-0-1 (JOHNSON, JACKSON, LEUNG, BARTON, HOLDEN, \\V COOK, WITH MARTIN ABSTAINING) . Case No. 169MF (DP 01-79) - Dame-Doty Development Company - Preliminary and Final approval for maintenance building in Chaparral Country Club; applicant was present. The Board discussed the additional driveway access requested by the applicant. Additionally the use and adequacy of the maintenance building for the project was discussed. Applicant felt that the size of the maintenance area was adequate for the project. The necessity for increasing the setback adjacent to the northerly property line was discussed by the Board who ultimately decided that the plan as drawn with a 5 ft. set- back was adequate. Mr. Crump clarified the procedure for obtaining approval of the extra driveway to Portola Avenue. Mr. Crump explained that Planning Commission approval of an amendment to the Development Plan was necessary. After reviewing submitted plans, the Board felt that the plan as submitted was adequate with the exception of the driveway which requires Planning Commission approval . On a motion by Holden, seconded by Johnson, the Board approved this item as submitted with the exception of the driveway which requires Planning Commission approval . Carried 6-1 (JOHNSON, JACKSON, BARTON, HOLDEN, COOK, MARTIN WITH LEUNG VOTING NO) . Mr. Barton left at this point in the meeting. Case No. 183MF (DP 03-79) - James E. Kaul Development - Approval of preliminary plans for 36 unit condominium project; applicant was present. Staff reviewed the changes formulated by the Design Review Board during the study session. Changes pertained to landscaping architecture of the units, relocation of the pool and tennis courts, and provision for additional guest parking. Mr. Crump presented a background on the case indicating that blowsand con- sideration and emergency access to the east or west were issues unresolved as of Planning Commission approval . .NDA ITEjM NO. III, C-1 - DATE August 28, 1979 DESIG`! REVIEU BOARD CASE NO. 169 MF (DP 01-79) APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) Dame-Doty Development Co. (P.O. Drawer 1856, Palm Desert, California 92260) NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT Preliminary and final approval for maintenance building. LOCATION West side of Portola Avenue, north of Whitewater Storm Channel . ZONE PR-5 The maintenance building will be located at the northeast corner of the site. Previous approvals only showed that .maintenance would be in this area. No plans for the building or development of the area have previously been reviewed. Applicant is asking for an additional driveway.onto Portola Avenue to service the maintenance area. In addition to this requested access there is also an approved emergency access at the southerly end of the maintenance area. The Department of Public Works and Environmental Services Department feel that there should not be an additional driveway onto Portola Avenue. Service vehicles should enter through the approved access points. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve preliminary and final plans and forward the Planning Commission with the following revisions: 1. Eliminate additional 16 ft. wide driveway access to Portola Avenue; or, seek approval of an amendment to Tract No. -13881 (more specifically Standard Condition No. 4.of City Council Resolution No. 79-45) relative to this additional access point, prior to requesting Board approval . 2. Maintain minimum 10 ft. setback between maintenance building and northerly property line. Y ! . r S, r .• s y s . Ys=. v _ S ' 1 i I" ♦K m f it w TV �/\\may\� � \ � : '���• � /f �:. �. � Z = -- � , Z zt ! l 8 , 7 1-77 Fo 1mm l r mE VF N i D { V F 1 , .w 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 REPORT OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION II CASE NO. 169MF LOCATION: West side of Portola Avenue, North of Whitewater Storm Channel ZONE: PR-5 APPLICANT: Dame-Doty Development Co. NATURE OF APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final construction drawings for clubhouse, maintenance building, entry building and entry sign. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION: Upon reviewing the submitted plans and the presentations by the staff and by the applicant , the Design Review Board approves this project , subject to revisions. . Date of Action : August 7 1979 Vote: q-p (An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. ) STAFF COMMENTS: See attached minutes. 1 MINUTES DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AUGUST .7, 1979 Page Three On a motion by Leung, seconded by Johnson, the Board moved to allow stone work on the walls as submitted. Carried 4-0 (JOHNSON, JACKSON, LEUNG, CRUMP) . Case No. 169MF - Oral request for approval of working drawin�ubhouse, maintenance building,. entry building, and entry sign; applicant was present. Applicant verbally asked for approval of working drawings for clubhouse, maintenance building, entry building, and .entry sign for the Chaparral Country Club Development on .the west side of Portola Avenue, north of the Whitewater Storm Channel . It was explained that the applicant had submitted his plans after the deadline for submission. Applicant explained that waiting till the next meeting would create a hardship. The Board discussed the project and previous actions by the Board. Applicant stated that the working drawings were ready for submission to the Building Dept. with the exception of a revision to the service area for the clubhouse. The Board discussed the possibility of deferring to Staff the approval of these working drawings. Mr. Leung felt that the Board should not give blanket deferrence of these items. On a motion by Jackson, seconded by Johnson, the Board moved to defer to Staff review of final working drawings for the above stated items with stipulation that Mr. Leung review the final working drawings prior to approval . Carried 4-0 (JOHNSON, JACKSON, LEUNG, CRUMP) . Case No. 90C - Bernard Leung - Request for time extension for a previously approved Design Review Board item. Staff explained that a letter requesting a one year time extension to prepare working drawings had been received. On a motion by Jackson, seconded by Johnson, the Board approved a one year time extension; said extension to run from expiration date. Carried 3-0-1 (JOHNSON, JACKSON, CRUMP WITH LEUNG ABSTAINING) . Pomona First Federal Savings & Loan - Proposed changes to parking lot; applicant was not present. Mr. Crump explained proposed changes to the bank building parking lot which is located at the corner of Portola Avenue and E1 Paseo. After reviewing the proposed changes to the parking lot, the Board indicated concurrence with the proposed changes. Additionally it was deemed desirable to attempt to . retain the Jacaranda Tree which must be moved. Staff will proceed with approving the proposed changes. 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 9226O TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 REPORT OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION CASE NO. : 169MF (DP 01-79) LOCATION: West side of Portola Avenue, north of Whitewater Storm Channel ZONE: PR-5 APPLICANT: Dame'-Doty Development Co. , P.O. Drawer 1856, Palm Desert, Calif. 92260 NATURE OF APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final Construction Drawings for first phase (187 units) of Chaparral Country Club. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION: Upon reviewing the submitted plans and the presentations by the staff and by the applicant , the Design Review Board approves this project , subject to revisions. Date of Action : July 24, 1979 Vote: 4-0 (An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. ) STAFF COMMENTS : See attached minutes. Minutes Design Review Board July 24 , 1979 Page Three On a motion by Leung, seconded by Jackson, this request was approved subject to the following revisions : 1. On plan "513" ,swing pedestrian door in garage out- ward. 2 . On plan "516" , provide inside clear dimension of 20 ' for width of garage. 3. On plan "518" , provide inside clear dimension of 20 ' for width of garage and swing pedestrian door in garage outward. 4 . On southerly boundary of tract provide 6 ' high block wall at applicant' s expense; applicant should work with neighbors to provide single wall. 5. Submit parking lot plan for Lot 23. 6. Provide inserts or other variation to 6 ' high wall adjacent to Portola Ave. 7 . Provide additional 24" box size trees and 5 gal. shrubs along Portola Ave. landscaping area. 8. On plan "513H" bring arch support,which runs into house, idown to ground. l 9 . Provide some side loading or swing-in garages where l practical. 10 . On plan "516D" eliminate horizontal wood and provide vertical wood garage door. 11. Change Bauhinia Barigata to Franinus Uhdei or equal. 12 . Change trees along Portola Ave . to Franinus Uhdei or equal . 13 . Avoid usage of shrubs that may be frost damaged. 14 . Change Magnolia to Franinus Uhdei or equal. 15. Provide variety of shrubs along Portola Ave. 16. Provide masonary or block wall with. rod iron gates in side yard areas utilizing varied set-backs and three to four styles of walls. Carried 4-0 (Johnson, Jackson, Barton, Leung) . Mr Barton left at this point of the meeting in order to keep Ill a pre-arranged appointment. At this point, Mr. Crump became member of the Board. Case No. 169 MF - DAME ' - DOTY DEVELOPMENT CO. - Final con- struction drawings for first phase (187 units) of the Chaparral Country Club on the west side of Portola Ave. , north of the Whitewater Storm Channel; applicant was present. The Board discussed proposed landscaping changes and archi- tectural drawings . The applicant provided clarification to Minutes Design Review Board July 24 , 1979 Page Four the Board on the proposed project. Changes in unit type for Lots 47 - 48 - 49 - 50 - 172 - 173 - 174 and 175 were pro- vided by the applicant. Applicant questioned several of the Staff' s recommended changes. On a motion by Jackson, seconded by Leung, the Board approved this request, subject to the following revisions : 1. Delete tree types T12 , T13 , T14 , T23, and T25 , and replace with acceptable alternatives; T19 to be used on a limited basis. 2. Increase size of slow-growing trees to 24" box with 15 gal. size acceptable for fast-growing trees. 3. Submit detailed plan for wall along Portola Ave. 4 . Provide turf in Whitewater Storm Channel with per- manent irrigation system adjacent to Phase 1 or provide an adequate alternative protection for Portola as approved by the Director of Public Works. 5. Submit Working Drawings for landscaping as completed. Carried 4-0 (Johnson, Jackson, Leung, Crump) . Case No. 125 MF - KINGS POINT C/O FRANK RADMACHER ASSOC. - Approval of landscaping plan for a portion of residential project presently under construction on the west side of Hwy. 74 , between Willow Street and Shadow Mountain Dr. ; applicant was not present. [ During Study Session, the Board made several recommended changes to the Staff Report. On a motion by Jackson, seconded by Crump, the Board approved this request subject to the following revisions : 1. Increase size of all slow-growing trees adjacent to Hwy. 74 to minimum 24" box size. 2. Provide groupings of Washingtonia Robusta (varying heights) throughout the project. 3. Show perimeter walls , if any on landscaping plan. 4 . Increase the following tree types to minimum 24" box size because of slow-growth patterns : (T7 , T10 , T15 , T21) . 5. Delete tree types T19 , T23 , and T26 and replace with acceptable alternatives . 6. Provide mounding in northern end of frontage road median. 7 . Increase size of Nerium Oleanders to minimum 5 gal. l size. 8 . Provide jute mesh or equal alternative in slope areas where there are shrubs and ground cover. Carried 4-0 (Johnson, Jackson, Leung, Crump) . IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS - None V. ADJOURNMENT - 4 : 30 P .M. SS ASAWA Assoc iate Planner Box 100 Tract 13881 Safi Ramon, CA 94583 <=U9f\ '05, Sequence Sheet 415/837-0544 7kA*(119 -ba July 23, 1979 pg. 1 5 Mlow Y 1vYj Notes: - R = Reversed ry Rlfjr_ CST DEP LOT PLAN • A D/ ADDRESS PERMIT 4 gCAtt3— M 1 u 1 A III R 7- 7 27 2 C III Z ZO 3 C III Z-O ZO 4 B III Zy Z`F 5 B III R 3Co Z 6 - C III 3 ZO 7 C III 3 Z6 8 B IIi 33 2 9 A III R 2g Z 10 C III 2 20 11 C III Z-Z z6 .12. B III ZS- Z 13 B III R ZS Z y 14 C III 26 2 0 •15 C" III tl Z0 16 A III 30 2 17 A III R 2 - i8 C III Z S 19 C III 20 B 21 B III R 2 / 22" C III (/ ZO /~ 23 C 24 A III 25 B III R Z�� \ . ,S Box 100 Tract 13881 Sin Ramon, CA 94583 Sequence Sheet 415/837-0544 July 23, 1979 Pg. 2 Notes: R a Reversed I'oT PLAN ELEV/ ADDRESS PER $ �N HAND SSG N1�t I 26 C III ZO 27 C III ZC� 28 B714 29 A III R Z 3 2 30 B III ZO Zv 3L B III R 32 C III Z a 33 C III 2 Zd 34 B III 2 2 35 A II R �� 3 36 C 37 C 38 B II s S7 39 B II R .40 C" II w Zd 41 _ C II ZU 42 B II . 43 A II R 0 3U 44 C II 27 27 45 C II 25- 25- 46 B 47 A I R 48 D I 31 49 D I 50 A AGENDA ITEM NO. III, C-3 DATE July 24, 1979 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CASE NO. i6q MF (nP ni-7gl APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) DAMF-DnTV DFvFLOPMFNT cD (P.O. Drawer 1856, Palm Desert. CA. 92260) NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT Final construction drawings for First phase (187 Units) of Chaparrel Country Club. LOCATION West side of Portola Ave. , north of Whitewater Storm Channel . ZONE PR-5 Preliminary approval of architectural plans for the residences was granted March 20, 1979 by the Board (See attached minutes). The Applicant has now submitted working drawings for the Phase I residences a Landscaping and Site Plan for Phase 1 . The Landscaping and Site Plan are still somewhat conceptual and lacking detail . (Specifics on landscaping types, locations , etc. and building setback dimensions). STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Continue request until the following items have been submitted: 1 . Submit detailed landscaping plan for Phase I , including Golf Course area. 2. Delete tree types T17, T19, and T23 and replace with acceptable alternatives. 3. Increase 50% of trees to 24" box size and 25% of trees to 36" box size. 4. Submit detailed plan for wall along Portola Avenue. 5. Increase 50% of 5-gallon size shrubs to 15-gallon size. 6. Provide turf in Whitewater Storm Channel with permanent irrigation system adjacent to Phase I area per TT 13881 condition (See attached). 7. Increase front setback or move buildings to relieve monotony of straight rows of buildings per plan in office of Environ- mental Services. Submit Revised Tentative Tract Map and- detailed and dimensioned site plan to reflect changes prior to issuance of any building permits. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 79-45 Page Five SPECIAL CONDITIONS TT 13881 1. A Final Tract Map for the subject site shall not be approved until the Design Review process has been completed. 2 . The area of this tract within the Whitewater Storm Channel shall ® be placed in turf and permanently maintained (except for approved impervious surfaces) , or provide an adequate alternative protection for Portola as approved by the Director of Public Works. 3. The Portola Avenue street cross section detail shall be revised to reflect an eight (8) foot wide meandering sidewalk, and pedestrian easement shall be granted to the City where the sidewalk meanders out of the public right-of-way. 4. A site boundary wall as required in DP 01-79 and as approved through the Design Review process shall be designated on the Final Map . 5. The subdivider shall make a $1 , 500 per acre contribution to the City of Palm Desert Drainage Fund; approximately 30 acres in the in the Whitewater Wash to be exempt . 6. Portola Avenue extension and improvements shall be as conditioned in DP 01-79 , and it is further noted that the subdivider shall be responsible for 50 ' half street improvements adjacent to this tract . 7 . The golf course shall be designed and utilized as a retention basin for drainage control as required and approved by the Director of Public Works . 8 . Safety street lighting shall be installed at the tract entrance, as required and approved by the Director of Public Works . A • Case No. 168 MF - S & J MANAGEMENT - Preliminary and final construction drawings for 12 single family dwellings , various locations within the Pa a Village Tract, Units 7, 10, 12, and 15. Applicant was present. Staff viewed with the Board six subject areas that needed revisions. The Boar determined that it would be appropriate for Staff to follow up with the a licant to see that these revisions were incorporated into the plans. Motion was made by Leung, seconded by Urrutia, to refer the matter to Staff for the fo owing revisions: A. Provide archit tural detailing for all sides of the dwellings, giving attentio to window treatments. B. Design and provide rchitecturally integrated patio covers for those dwellings wit west and south, rear exposures. C. Provide 20' by 20' inside clear garage area. Change door opening and washer/dryer/hot wa er heater locations where they encroach. D. Revise landscape plan to the following: 1 . Specify exact material 2. Provide alternatives for rub materials 3. Provide two box size trees i front yard (or as an alternative, one box size and one 15 gall fast growing tree). E. Provide concrete driveway, versus c shown. F. Specify whether existing, or propose new fencing, and give detail of location, material (exact) , and design. carried 4-0 (Johnson, Jackson, Urrutia, Leu g) . "- t/Case No. 169 MF (Reference: DP 01-79) - DAME'-DOTY DEVELOPMENT CO. - Approval of conceptual plans for a 653 unit condominium development located on the west side of Portola Avenue, north of the Whitewater Storm Channel . Applicant was present. The Board reviewed a conceptual site plan drawing, the related Tentative Tract Map exhibit, along with unit construction drawings , and colors and materials. Also evaluated was the concept plan for landscaping with blow-up details of three areas. Discussions with applicant = included the roof detail for the dwelling units, noting that the use of gabled roofs produced a saw-toothed design effect and that caution would need to be exercised in the number of these units which were placed in continuous rows. Also, there was a great deal of discussion concerning air conditioner unit location and trash enclosure facilities. Motion was made by Jackson, seconded by Urrutia, to approve the prel:iminary .plans. and Concept 5ubjec to the-folloa�i -rev�s;Bns.; , . 1 . Submit detailed site plan with construction drawings at 1 "=40' . 2. Provide detail landscape plans with final construction drawings (as specified on the Design Review application) . 3. Study location of air conditioning compressors and trash enclosure facilities. 4. Study relationship of gabled roof and its use. carried 4-0 (Jackson, Johnson, Urrutia, Leung) . Rev. 6/4 /79 DAME' -DOTY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PHASE SCHEDULE -.'CHAPARRAL COUNTRY CLUB SUMMARY Phase Acres Buildings Units 1979 VICES I . 58. 12 48 187 .SERT II 43. 78 38 144 I I I 46.04 44 172 fd� (can i Ys a S� * IV 61 .80 38 150 JUL 13 7979 209. 74 168 653 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY OF PALM DESERT _G "7 2-Unit 3-Unit 4-Unit 5-Unit Total Phase Acres Bldgs• Bldg/Unit Bldg/Unit Bldg/Unit Bldg/Unit Bldg/Unit I 58. 12 48 2/4 2/6 43/172 1/5 48/187 II 43.78 38 1/2 8/24 271108 2/10 38/144 III 46.04 44 112 5/15 35/140 3/15 44/172 IV 61 .80 38 1/2 4/12 29/116 4/20 38/150 209.74 168 5/10 19/57 134/536 10/50 168/653 * includes 33.97acres plus 30.69acres (wash) , less Driving Range (2.86) = 61 .80 acres Exhibit I-1 .f Rev. 5/24/79 CHAPARRAL COUNTRY CLUB Palm Desert, California Dame'-Doty pevelopment Co. Phase. Schedule/Mix - Detailed Breakdown PHASE UNITS/MIX UNIT COUNT TOTAL A B C D BLDGS/UNITS I 2/AB 2 2 2/4 3/ACB 2 2 2 - 2/6 4/ACCB 24 24 48 - 24/96 4/ACCA 4 4/ADDA 10 - 4 10 5/20 4/BCCB - 24 24 - 12/48 5/ACDCB 1 1 2 1 1/5 5/BCDCB - 0 0 0 0/0 43 53 80 11 48/187 II 2/AB 1 1 - - 1/2 3/ACB 8 8 8 - 8/24 4/ACCB 22 22 44 - 22/88 4/ACCA - - - _ 4/ADDA 10 - - 10 5/20 4/BCCB - - - - 5/ACDCB 1 1 2 1 1/5 5/BCDCB - 2 2 1 -1/5 42 34 56 12 38/144 SUB-TOTAL - I & II (85) (87) (136) (23) (86/331 ) III 2/AB 1 1 - - 1/2 3/ACB 5 5 5 - 5/15 4/ACCB 24 24 48 - 24/96 4/ACCA 2 - 2 - 1/4 4/ADDA 10 - - 10 5/20 4/BCCB - 10 10 - 5/20 5/ACDCB 2 2 4 2 2/10 5/BCDCB - 2 2 1 1/5 44 44 71 13 44/172 IV 2/AB 1 1 - - 1/2 3/ACB 4 4 4 - 4/12 4/ACCB 19 19 38 - 19/76 4/ACCA - - - - -/- 4/ADDA 10 - - 10 5/20 4/BCCB - 10 10 - 5/20 — 9,/ACDCB 3 3 6 3 3/15 5/BCDCB - 2 2 1 1/5 37 39 60 14 38%150 SUB-TOTAL - III & IV (81 ). (83) (131 ) (27) (82/322) GRAND TOTAL 166 170 . 267 50 168/653 Ilc', 5/24/ 19 CHAPARRAL ( )MITRY CLUB Palm De- rt, CA. DAME'-DOTY DE1 !.LOPMENT COMPANY Buildirul_Unit rlix Units/Bldg. Mix Bldp. Count Unit Count Max. Depth 2 A-B 5 10 99 1.3 3 A-C-B 19 57 1031 ` 4 A-C-C-B 89 356 103' 1] 4 A-C-C-A 3 12 103' � o 4 A-D-D-A 20 30 96' 4 B-C-C-B ; 22 IIII 103' 5 : :A-C-D-C-B 7 35 103' 5 B-C-D-C-B 3 15 103' x 168 653 A o B C D Den/BR/Bath Den/BR/Bath Den/BR/Bath Den/BR/Bath I' `ts/Bldg. Mix 112/2 1/2/3 11212 111/2 2 AB 5 5 3 � ACB 19 _ 19 19 _ 4 ACCB 89 89 178 _ .4 Q ACCA 6 _ 6 _ 4 ADDA 40 - 40 4 BCCB - 44 44 5 ACDCB 7 7 14 7 5 t1""-. BCDCB - 6 6 3 IOIALS IuG 17O l.01 50 IOIAI. UNITS 653 Exhibit II Rev. 5/24/79 CHAPARRAL COUNTRY CLUB Palm Desert; Ca. DAME' -DOTY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Phase Schedule/Mix - Summary . Building Type 2 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 Phase AB ACB ACCB ACCA ADDA BCCB ACDCB BCDCB TOTALS I Bldgs 2 2 24 2 5 12 1 0 48 Units, 4 6 96 8 20 48 5 0 187 II Bldgs 1 8 22 - 5 1 1 38 Units 2 24 88 - 20 - 5 5 144 III Bldgs 1 5 24 1 5 5 2 1 44 Units 2 15 96 4 20 20 10. 5 172 IV Bldgs 1 4 19 - 5 5 3 1 38 Units 2 12 76 - 20 20 15 5 150 Bldgs. 5 19 89 3 20 22 7 3 168 Units 10 57 356 12 80 88 35 15 653 May 21 , 1979 CHAPARRAL COUNTRY CLUB DESCRIPTION OF ELEVATIONS TYPE ROOF EXTERIOR COLOR CODE I HIP Stucco/Tudor Mfg. used Brick/Soldier Crse @ Top a II CABLE Stucco/8" Channel Bd Siding a 0 v T III HIP Stucco/Painted Common Brick -btP : -edit—rnertar, Soldier Crs IV DUTCH HIP Stucco/Tecate Brick v i .., a . Play 31 , 1979 CHAPARRAL COUNTRY CLUB SCHEDULE OF ELEVATIONS i PHASE I ELEVATION ELEVATION COLOR CODE LOTS TOTALS TYPE DESCRIPTION 1-34 34 III Hip 35-46 12 172-187 16 28 II Gable 47-62 16 157-171 15 31 I Hip 132-156 25 III Hip 120-131 12 63-74 12 24 II Gable 75-112 38 113-119 7 45 IV Dutch Hip Summary: I 31 lI 52 III 59 _ IV 45 Total 187 E` 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 May 15, 1979 Mr. Richard Doty Dame'-Doty Development Company P. 0. Box 100 San Ramon, CA 94583 Re: Chaparral Country Club (Case No. 169 MF) Dear Mr. Doty: It is our understanding that you wish to have your plans considered for final approval on May 22, 1979 by the Design Review Board. On March 20, 1979, the Board granted preliminary plan and concept approval subject to a number of revisions. Based on a review of the plans recently delivered, it appears that all revisions have not been submitted. Therefore, we will hold final review in abeyance until the required exhibits are filed. Attached are the Design Review Board minutes outlining the items required for a future submittal . You may contact Associate Planner, Mr. Stan Sawa, for further information and/or future meeting dates. er truly yours, \� Pau A: Williams, AICP Director of Environmental Services ss/pw/ss Attachment \ 'U II Q 0 Case No. 168 MF - S & J MANAGEMENT Preliminary and final construction drawings for 12 single family dwellings, various locations within the Pa a Village Tract, Units 7, 10, 12, and 15. Applicant was. present. Staff viewed with the Board six subject areas that needed revisions. The Boar determined that it would be appropriate for Staff to follow up with the a licant to see that these revisions were incorporated into the plans. Motion was made by Leung, seconded by Urrutia, to refer the matter to Staff for the fo owing revisions: A. Provide archit tural detailing for all sides of the dwellings, giving attentio to window treatments. B. Design and provide rchitecturally integrated patio covers for those dwellings wit west and south, rear exposures. C. Provide 20' by 20' inside clear garage area. Change door opening and washer/dryer/hot wa er heater locations where they encroach. D. Revise landscape plan to the following: 1 . Specify exact material 2. Provide alternatives for rub materials 3. Provide two box size trees 1 front yard (or as an alternative, one box size and one 15 gall fast growing tree). E. Provide concrete driveway, versus c shown. F. Specify whether existing, or propose new fencing, and give detail of location, material (exact) , and design. carried 4-0 (Johnson, Jackson, Urrutia, Leu g) . =Case No. 169 MF (Reference: DP 01 -79) - DAME'-DOTY DEVELOPMENT CO. - Approval of conceptual plans for a 653 unit condominium development located on the west side of Portola Avenue, north of the Whitewater Storm Channel . Applicant was present. The Board reviewed a conceptual site plan drawing, the related Tentative Tract Map exhibit, along with unit construction drawings, and colors and materials. Also evaluated was the concept plan for landscaping with blow-up details of three areas. Discussions with applicant included the roof detail for the dwelling units, noting that the use of gabled roofs produced a saw-toothed design effect and that caution would need to be exercised in the number of these units which were placed in continuous rows. Also, there was a great deal of discussion concerning air conditioner unit location and trash enclosure facilities. Motion was made by Jackson, seconded by Urrutia, to approve the preliminary plans and concept subject to the following revisions: 1 . Submit detailed site plan with construction drawings at 1 "=40' . 2. Provide detail landscape plans with final construction drawings (as specified on the Design Review application) . 3. Study location of air conditioning compressors and trash enclosure facilities. 4. Study relationship of gabled roof and its use. carried 4-0 (Jackson, Johnson, Urrutia, Leung) . Minutes Rr Page Five 1alu,-=Desert Planning Commission April 3 , 1979 VI . D. (cont . ) Mr. Allen then asked if these mobile homes would be recessed, and Mr. Williams answered yes - - they would be comparable to Palm Desert Greens. F. X. MC DONALD, Jr. , Long Beach, stated that he owns 40 acres north of Palm Desert Estates, and last July, the City took 10 acres from his land for habitat of the Fringe-Toed Lizards . Mr. McDonald wondered why they have not done the same for the subject request ; shouldn't this be Open Space also. Shouldn' t other developers have to give up a quarter of their land to Open Space. Mr. Williams stated that the City has recently developed a Master Plan of Parks and Recreation, whereby they defined the Sand Dune Park as the area north of 42nd Avenue. With the adoption of that plan, the previous designation was deleted. Chairman Snyder stated that this property falls outside the jurisdiction of the park requirements of the General Plan. He sympathizes with the question and hopes that we can solve it some day. Chairman Snyder declared the Public Hearing closed, asking for the pleasure of the Commission. On a motion by Commissioner Kryder , seconded by Commissioner Berkey, Planning Commission Resolution No. 475 was approved with the deletion of the words "or any other zone deemed appropriate" where applicable; carried 3-0-1 (AYES : Berkey, Kryder, Snyder; ABSTAIN: Fleshman) . JII . OLD BUSINESS - None I VIII . NEW BUSINESS A. Coachella Valley County Water District Projects in the City of Palm Desert Mr. Williams reviewed the proposals, noting that that the request is to find the proposals in compliance with the adopted Palm Desert General Plan. Chairman Snyder commented that he hoped Public .Works will ' continue to have Coachella Valley County Water District put streets back in good condition at the conclusion of projects. On a motion by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Fleshman, Planning Commission Resolution No. 476 was approved as presented; carried unanimously (4-0) . B. Consideration of date change for May 1 , 1979, Planning Commission meeting Lan Mr. Williams explained that a conflict of dates would occuretween the May 1 meeting and the Planning Commissioners Conference in Diego for the Cal Chapter of APA. On a Minute Motion by Commissioner Kryder, the May 1, 1979 Planning Commission meeting was changed to May 3, 1979; carried unanimously (4-0) . . IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS Consideration of cases acted upon by the Design Review Board at their March 20, 1979 meeting Mr. Crump reviewed the three cases (108C; 111C; 69MF) the Design Review Board acted upon. Minutes Page Six Palm Desert Planning Commission April 3, 1979 IX. (cont . ) Chairman Snyder asked if any of the applicants wished to make a presentation. Mr. Dame' commented on Case No. 169 MF, referring to the recommendations of the Design Review Board regarding gabled roofs. .he noted that they plan to minimize the use of gabled roofs as much as possible, and will not use them at all on 5-unit buildings. On a motion by Commissioner Fleshman, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, the actions of the Design Review Board at their March 20, 1979 meeting were approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. 477, as presented; carried unanimously (4-0) . Mr. Williams related that the Planning Commission will be reviewing a change in the composition of the Design Review Board at their next Study Session meeting. X. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None XI . COMMENTS A. City Staff - None B. City Attorney - Not present C. Planning Commissioners - None [_ XII . ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8 :40 p.m. PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretary ATTEST: WALTER H. SNYDER, Chairman /ss i 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE April 4, 1979 APPLICANT Dam'-Doty Development Co. P. 0. Box 100 San Ramon, CA CASE NO. : 169 MF The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of April 3, 1979 CONTINUED TO DENIED % APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 417 PLACED ON THE AGENDA OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF - FOR CONCURRENCE WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION. PLACED ON THE AGENDA OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF FOR PUBLIC HEARING. Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the Director of Environmental Services, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. PAUL A. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSSION cc: Applicant C.V.C.W.D. File V =.y PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 477 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS AND APPROVING THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTIONS OF MARCH 20, 1979 . WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert , California, did review the Design Review Board actions of March 20, 1979, approving : Case No. 111C - Request for approval of preliminary, site plans, landscaping, architectural elevations, and signing program for commercial building (bank) for WELLS FARGO BANK; Case No. 108C - Request for approval of preliminary and construction plans for commercial building for S & J MANAGEMENT; Case No. 169MF - Request for approval of conceptual site plan and landscape plan; construction elevations and floor plans; and colors and materials for condominium develop- ment for DAME ' -DOTY DEVELOPMENT CO. WHEREAS, at this time, upon receiving and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Commission did find sufficient facts and reasons to exist to approve the Design Review Board actions of March 20, 1979. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert , California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby approve the Design Review Board actions of March 20, 1979. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 3rd day of April , 1979, by the following vote, to wit : AYES : BERKEY, FLESHMAN, KRYDER, SNYDER NOES : NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE WALTER H. SNYDER, Chairman ATTEST: PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretary /ss Case No. 168 MF - S & J MANAGEMENT - Preliminary and final construction drawings for 12 single family dwellings, various locations within the Palma Village Tract, Units 7, 10, 12, and 15. Applicant was. present. Staff reviewed with the Board six subject areas that needed revisions. The Board determined that it would be appropriate for Staff to follow up with the applicant to see that these revisions were incorporated into the plans. Motion was made by Leung, seconded by Urrutia, to refer the matter to Staff for the following revisions: A. Provide architectural detailing for all sides of the dwellings, giving attention to window treatments. B. Design and provide architecturally integrated patio covers for those dwellings with west and south, rear exposures. C. Provide 20' by 20' inside clear garage area. Change door opening and washer/dryer/hot water heater locations where they encroach. D. Revise landscape plan to do the following: 1 . Specify exact material 2. Provide alternatives for shrub materials 3. Provide two box size trees in front yard (or as an alternative, one box size and one 15 gallon, fast growing tree). E. Provide concrete driveway, versus a/c shown. F. Specify whether existing, or proposed new fencing, and give detail of location, material. (exact), and design. carried 4-0 (Johnson, Jackson, Urrutia, Leung) . Case No. 169 MF (Reference: DP 01-79) - DAME'-DOTY DEVELOPMENT CO. - Approval of conceptual plans for a 653 unit condominium development located on the west side of Portola Avenue, north of the Whitewater Storm Channel . Applicant was present. The Board reviewed a conceptual site plan drawing, the related Tentative Tract Map exhibit, along with unit construction drawings, and colors and materials. Also evaluated was the concept plan for landscaping with blow-up details of three areas. Discussions with applicant included the roof detail for the dwelling units, noting that the use of gabled roofs produced a saw-toothed design effect and that caution would need to be exercised in the number of these units which were placed in continuous rows. Also, there was a great deal of discussion concerning air conditioner unit location and trash enclosure facilities. Motion was made by Jackson, seconded by Urrutia, to approve the preliminary plans and concept subject to the following revisions: 1 . Submit detailed site plan with construction drawings at 1 "=40' . 2. Provide detail landscape plans with final construction drawings (as specified on the Design Review application). 3. Study location of air conditioning compressors and trash enclosure facilities. 4. Study relationship of gabled roof and its use. carried 4-0 (Jackson, Johnson, Urrutia, Leung) . AGENDA ITEM NO. III - 11 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DATE March 20, 1979 CASE NO. : 169 MF (Ref: DP 01-79) APPLICANT: Dame' -Doty Development Co. LOCATION: West side of Portola, north of the Whitewater Storm Channel ZONING: PR-5 The applicant requests conceptual approval of a site plan for 653 attached condominium units, with an 18 hole executive golf course. The Planning Commission granted a preliminary Development• Plan approval on February 14, 1979, subject to design modifica- tions being reflected in a revised site plan to accompany the Tentative Tract Map. The applicant has prepared a Tentative Map which the Planning Commission will. evaluate on April 3, 1979, in light of the conditions of approval . A site plan is being drafted to correspond to this Tentative Map exhibit, but at this point in time, it has not been submitted. The applicant requests that the administrative requirement to submit Design Review plot plans at 1 "=40' be waived, and that the Board use the 1 "=100' Tentative Map and site plan (a 'free-hand' version is now on file) , to preform. their 'concept' evaluation. A 100 scale plot plan is probably too small to view the fine details of plan features and precise building orientation, but may suffice for 'concept' overview. Also submitted is a conceptual landscape plan with blow-up illu- strations of a unit cluster, the club house, and Portola entry. Architectural elevations are at the level of construction drawings, and color/material exhibits have been provided. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Board has two apparent options with regard to approval action for the subject case: (1 ) Approve the site plan with construction drawings; or, (2) Require full plot plan details at 40' scale before passing to construction drawing stage. If the Board elects to take a 'conceptual ' approval action, the following revisions should be considered: 1 . Submit detailed site plan with construction drawings at (suggest minimum 1 "=40' ) scale. 2. Provide detailed landscape plans with final construction drawings (as specified on the Design Review application) . PLA2MNG OCAMISSIONN RESOLUTION NO. 458 SPECIAL CONDITIONS CASE NO. DP 01-79 1. Provide developer's fair share of the cost of alternative access to the site by entering into an agreement with the City for improvement of the west one-half of Portola Avenue, north to Hovely Lane, prior to development of the site. 2. Provide full improvements along Portola frontage and install ornamental parkway . landscaping. 3. Provide for a 6 foot high solid masonry wall (where one does not exist or is not presently planned by others, and except for perimeter street openings) along the north, east and west site boundaries; and, provide a 3-4 foot wall along the north side of the whitewater Storm Channel, to the rear of dwelling units, as approved through the Design Review process. 4. Provide revised site plan to accompany Tentative Tract Map, which addresses the following: A. Prepare alternative to long street segments using undulating or curvalinear design, giving special attention to perimeter private roadways. B. Define and provide conveniently located guest parking spaces, giving special attention to double-loaded .street. C. Design swimming pool areas to be more centrally located to dwelling unit clusters, and/or develop pedestrian access system. D. Open up vistas and orient dwelling unit clusters to .take advantage of the view amenity. E. . Accurately plot O.S. zone boundary line in relation to dwelling units, to insure that units are completely contained in the PR-5 zoned portion of the site. - - - - - - - -- - - - -- 1�9Rw- ° ' � :', ...� .'�`.'+:r'..:°y...--..ate .� 'e.x.,-v...`-. ..r.C'w � ;.�.:..-� .."1';,�xi�.ix+.r=. '.�.li>x'w�: .- 4� xiti--.:...., '. .'�..:.:• Yc �' _:.Y;:i . .?:" r� r\F°�".i1Y1,5. '1:4` .g4" MbrJJ�xlY CC r I�i �. \✓'_ r--fir-1(— —,r—,— � N —( 1 � a LJ Vv L_J 9 gg ell Lj rI ® t/ IIIh r C ` 1 .. .tea _� o ♦ I,+/.pG�y�j�-�}`�, �� o °� l - CITY . P UA...QE-ERT . CHAPARRAL COUNTRY CLU °E PALM DESERT CALIFORNIA @� DAME•OOTV E/.VyWe // tlevabpen NJ. CAME"CONSTRI-il N CO. builder CASE 40. `_ It EOMOREour.. O.ROBINSON pi gull couraa e�cM1i[ec[-IenC Plr[,en ` a \ A 575 rvN f 9 Gf�nQ�nIl C�c��� GIlnf� p�Il� D®ssc�ptl t 1� S .. <A!bRrit. Nam S* Mat s MIA , - -�-_ . �+.i1�lj�000E10 �[IDG1LlQ�f ��Llb �'r�]�Ciil �AT_Nfll1 . rr '.����i. �ifi����t�t�e : \�'I ,Y'i et•F^(I'/ n!i nS �e � � F r' •l .s, i1.\`'V�' ;��i �'a. r. '���!6 1��. ,,s�=:�x� � �')` I,.L ;..i1 .303;�` - .•,�:.•I-f.'..,. t�, nab ti' e! �- I 'may. `��� ♦. /l��`/r�ll� 9�� �p���-a/'�',// � �f(•�, .J� i _ �� _ '/ ,�� ��;� ,�^ -yj� ,• �`"t•-'•7i7'��•!e � V� 11� $ �;'���}f'�'. �• �' {d,7• S' �^ �Y I' ' a}� '^. ( ' 1{1•J �,��1�... �]- !'f//{�w � �1 . I � �. 'p �..�. 'i i. !t / j{ � n11 'aI f+1n� �/'�., ` d1?�d a =�•! -�nt a�t, � � QT I dot,.{.. !' ��e�,,,, � _ f �. � i% � •�} �{4� ++ . "sl . ;'p.'(�I!s"4 t � - "'�73�,a .�/ � . • s � ' �P•�," k ' , � i 6 — 6�o�»D Ccorulrr� (yIle6 G�iDra DD©� N `�h :eY =qT,/ (ad, Mann= 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE PALM DESERT CA. 92260 Cs�ZS'zS�2S�1szSZS �OzS�1 EPQ)mw ***DESIGN REVIEW BOARD*** DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION Dame'-Doty Development Company Applicant (oiea;e mm) P,.'O. Box 10o. - '415=837-0544 Mailing Address Telephone San-Ramon, Ca. 94583 City State Zip-Code REQUEST: (Describe specific nature of approval requested) Request approval of Unit re id n ial dev lonmenr together with golf course. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION : ,_See legal descriptiom attached. 621=350-0116J-6 621-200-020-5 %Ei21'=200-'032-6 621-350=017-7 629 -350=0'18-8 621.-200-033-7;' ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 6213501 023-2 EXISTING ZONING Pi R. - ri D�4Prop of}y Owner AUth0/ Ot10 THE UN OERSIGNED STATESrTMAT THEY!ARE THE OW NER(S)Or THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN AND HEREBY GIVE AUTNOR- / f1 Be A IZA JOIN R THE ILING OF THIS APP lIC/A/TION. ��^� C I���F• �/ �—� �pl �/ , CX��'✓ Oct. 20, 1978 /' I ISIGN,ATU RE� DATE AGNE EME NT ARSOLV ING THE CITY OF PALM DESERT CF ALL LIABILITIES RELATIVE TO ANY GEED RESTRICTIONS. 1 DO BY MY SIGNATURE ON THIS AGREEMENT, ABSOLVE THE CITY OF PALM DESERT OF ALL LIABILITIES REGARoInG ANY DEED RES- TRICTIONS THAT MAY BE APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN. Dame'3p t �v opme /�'_ 11 �� Oct. 20, 1978 '— DATE Applicant's Signature ;Dame'- t y Devel pen 'Co ) By,- J Oct. 20, 1978 SIGNATURE DATE (FOR STAFF USE ONLY) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS ACCEPTED BAle- 0 MINISTERIAL ACT E.A. No. �� /� �� ❑ CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION _ IC/� C E n 1 O, ❑ NEGATIVE DECLARATION - lV/'-1JL AS ?_r G o J� p ❑ "'HER REFERENCE GASE f10. • ��06 J CITY OF PALM DESERT APPLICATION FORM DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PROCESS Design Review of: CASE NO. Chaparral Countr Club (PUD) PE TY OF PROJECT Dame'-Doty Development Company APPLICANT Agreement of compliance to be signed by those applying for review. I hereby acknowledge that I have read and agree, to comply with all the following requirements , and understand that the Department of Building and Safety will not issue a building permit or allow occupancy on the use permitted until this signed confirmation has been received by the Department of Environmental Services. The development of this project shall conform substantially to all development plans submitted in behalf of this case, and as revised according to the Design Review Board process. Any minor change requires approval by the Director of Envi- ronmental Services. Any substantial change requires ap- proval by the Design Review Board. All requirements of any law, ordinance, or regulation of the State, City, and any other applicable government entity shall be complied with as part of the development process. This approval is applicable, subject to the development of this project, commencing within one year from approval date and being promptly completed. Landscaping (with irrigation system) shall be installed prior to final inspection and receiving certificate of occupancy. Curb, gutter, curb cuts, and tie-in paving shall be provided along the full frontage of the lot by means of installation prior to final inspection or other provisions as approved by the City Engineer. Construction shall conform to City Stan- dards and all requirements of the City Engineer. DAME '-D TY D VE PMENT 0 P NY By : / March 14, 1979 h 'ure (Date) Department of Environmental Services Form l "'i• CASE NO . < DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CHECKLIST INITIAL PLAN REVIEW NOTE: Planning Division Staff are required to reject applications if any applicable exhibits are not received and checked . I . Completed Application Form (one (1) copy) y I Address labels for project sponsors RUB (two (2) copies, gummed labels & typed list ) Not required for a single-family dwelling application , or staff approved signs. III . Detailed Plot Plan A. Design Review Board and Commission ��/ Review/ Approval A. ► yr �ot3��Jsutt/ _ Three (3) full size (one (1 ) of which is to be colored)4,4 I,Ibcf � � ✓ One (1) reduced copy (8z or 13" ) B. Staff Approval B. - Three (3) full size _TZ TV-L- IV. Information Sheet and/or Plan Block ( �F�n V. Site Analysis & Preliminary Drainage and C/ Grading Plan (Three (3) copies, may be com- bined, where appropriate, with plot plan) 3c-orl" VI . Architectural Elevations (all sides of the S�► A. Deng(s) )A. Design Review Board and Commission Review/ A Approval / - Three (3) full - size. (one (1) of which is to be color keyed) ( - One (1 ) reduced copy (8z"xll" or 13" ) B. Staff Approval B. Three (3) full size I r. DRB Checklist Page Two ** VII . Sign Program (elevation(s) .and details, if applicable) - Three (3 ) copies to scale N0�f}f1 �S T_E--- VIII . Color and Material Exhibits Color and Materials written description y YV (one (1 ) copy) C{-IK&hA/&, Color and Materials sample board (max. 8"x1311 , 3/8"thick) IX. Floor and Roof Plans Sf V, 016jVS —Three (3 ) copies to scale * X. Landscape Plan (3 copies, 1 colored), P,P �erz - Plant List , (1 copy) !� / * XI . Exterior Lighting Plan (3 copies) (/ XII . Filing Fee A. Commission Review/Approval ($50. 00) A. B. Staff approval , single-family dwellings ($15. 00) B• l� C. Sign Program Only ($15. 00 DRB or C. L—_J $10. 00 Staff ) * Items X and XI may be combined. ** Sign Program only - submit items IIIB, VI , VII , VIII , and Sign Fee . Initial Plan Exhibits . 2 Received and Checked by: P ng . Div. Sta FINAL CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS I . Three (3 ) copies of drawings to be submitted for plan check. Drawings must reflect all Conditions of Approval . Final Construction Drawings Received by : / Ping . Div . Staff. Date r"SIGN REVIEW BOARD PROCESS Required Submittal Detail NOTE: Applications will not be processed until the application and all required materials are found to be complete. INITIAL PLAN REVIEW I . APPLICATION FORM: One (1 ) copy. Fill out completely and secure all signatures. Attach a sheet listing parties directly involved in representing the project (such as architect , engineer , etc . ) and their addresses and tele- phone numbers. , II . LABELS FOR PROJECT (Application) SPONSORS : One (1) set of gummed address labels shall be typed and submitted with R MTO the name and address of all persons to whom the Planning Commission action is to be sent (owner , architect , engineer , etc . ) . NOT required for a single-family residence on an individual lot , or staff approval of signs. III . DETAILED PLOT PLAN: A. Items to be reviewed and approved by the Design Review . Board and Planning Commission require the plot plan submittal described below. 1 . Three (3) full size plans completely dimensioned and at a scale not smaller than 1 inch = 40 feet , showing the following data: - Scale - North arrow - Property lines - Lot dimensions - Public rights-of-way with existing and proposed dimensions ( include street names) - Existing or proposed curb lines - Any and all easements - All utility line locations (gas, electric , cable, water , and sewer) - Adjacent property uses (showing approximate loca- tion of structures and other pertinent features) �aNSaA% - Major vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian access points to and from site (use arrows of different widths to show direction and intensity of use) - Setback areas All existing and proposed structures Interior vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian circula- tion patterns ( if applicable) - Off-street parking (to include spaces , regulatory devices, "provisions for accessory vehicle storage where applicable, etc . ) Parking areas for bicycles and carts ( if applicable) - Service areas and facilities to include: 1 ) trash storage areas mail delivery boxes loading areas. DRB Process Fl � Page Two III . _ DETAILED PLOT PLAN: (Cont . ) A. 1. (Cont . ) fG Perimeter fencing and screening - Proposed sign locations (if applicable) - Project phasing, showing the stages of construc- tion for the entire development i/Ji�GI��SUvI - One (1 ) copy of the plot plan multi-colored in- dicating open space/landscaping, buildings , park- ing, and driveways. Where more than one height of building is proposed , show each in a different l j color . DO NOT MOUNT THIS COPY ON A BOARD. q 2 . One (1 ) copy of the plot plan containing all of the - � general information described above, except that it is to be drafted or photographically reduced to an 812"xll" or 13" size sheet . (All . lettering to be legible; include graphic scale) . B. Items to be reviewed and approved by Planning Division Staff only require three (3) full size copies of the plot plan described above. (i . e. single-family dwelling and signs valued under $1 , 000. ) t IV. INFORMATION SHEET AND/OR PLAN BLOCK: As appropriate , include an attached sheet to the application and/or specify directly on the plans, in an information block, the following data : - Owner ' s name, address, and phone number - Designer ' s name, address, and phone number - Any special information or conditions pertaining to the site or to the plans - Acreage and square footage calcualations - Ratio of structures to total land area - Ratio of parking spaces to building square footage - Parking requirements provided - Ratio of landscaping to total land area - Any specific information of special conditions particularly relevant to the project V. SITE ANALYSIS & PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE AND GRADING PLAN: Three (3) copies of a plan indicating the data described below ( in- formation may be incorporated into the plot plan where detail is not obscurred or prepared as a separate exhibit) : /// - Vicinity map showing major street names , other reference points and landmarks (no scale) Uv - North arrow - Scale - General drainage pattern of area to include site and adja- cent properties within 100 , (use arrows to show drainage flow to and from site) . - Existing contour lines including property corners - Proposed locations of structures and drives - Elevations of pads and finished floors - Finished grades - Elevations of existing street centerline - Retaining walls (where applicable) -' Perimeter walls and fences which ai'fect drai.na�e `k DRB Process Page Three ' + VI . ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS (all sides of all buildings) : A. Items to be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission require the architectural ele- vation submittal described below. i . j 1 . Three (3 ) full size drawings (one ('1) of which is to be color keyed -- see "Color and Material Exhibits, " Item No . VILI ) . Detailed drawings must include : - Scaled drawings of all sides of all buildings, with dimensions indicating proposed height (also show proposed sign locations) . - Roof mounted air conditioning equipment or other equipment mounted on either the exterior walls or the roof must be shown if visible in elevation view. - Complete street elevations including all buildings, fencing/walls, landscaping and screening; and, peri- meter treatment on non-street sides. 2. One (1 ) copy of the elevation drawing(s) containing all of the general information above, except that it is to be drafted or photographically reduced to an 82""xll" or 13" size sheet . (All lettering to be legible; include graphic scale. ) B. Items to be reviewed and approved by Planning Division Staff only require three (3 ) full size copies of the building elevations, with other information as requested. VII . SIGN PROGRAM ( if applicable) : Three (3) copies of drawings to scale representing all proposed signs, containing the fol- lowing information : - Scale used - Sign shape - Dimensions and sign area - All graphics and lettering to appear on the sign Q SUh - Style of lettering to be used and width of strokes VVV - Proposed method of illumination ( if appropriate) - Method of attachement to any structure, or support if _ placed on the ground - Proposed colors and materials (see Item No. VIII ) - Proposed location ( see Item No. III) - Illustration of sign integration in architectural design ( see Item No . VI ) _ VIII . COLORS AND MATERIAL EXHIBITS : Exhibits are to be submitted for architectural elevations, walls, paving materials, signs, etc. , as follows : Detailed written description ( 1 copy) in addition to actual color and material samples of all exterior (and sign) colors and materials to be used. An example of this would be as -J� follows: I - r. DRB Process Page Four VIII . COLORS AND MATERIAL EXHIBITS : (Cont . ) Building Walls Roof Trim Material : Sand Finish Mission Barrel Ruff Sawn Redwood Stucco Tile Color : Ameritone No. 112 , Candle Red (Clay Olympic Stain Glow Tone) Dark Oak Wall Signs Materials: Sandblasted/Routed Redwood Color : Background - oak stain, Letters - white or . Materials: Metal sign cabinet , plexiglass face Color : Background - ivory, Letters and Frame - dark brown - One (1) file copy color and material sample board (maximum size 8x13 inches by 3/8 inches thick containing precise color swatches and photographs (which may be clipped from NLV) suppliers ' brochures) of materials which are too large to attach. One (1) copy of the architectural and/or sign elevations colored to represent the selected color combinations, with �jsymbols keyed to the written description. You may list vlsdvl the colors and materials in a corner of the elevation draw- ing or on a separate sheet . Renderings are not required unless specifically requested by the reviewing body. (See Item- No. VI ) . IX. FLOOR AND ROOF PLANS: Three (3) copies of plans of all struc- tures (to scale) with dimensions. Floor plans should be labeled with the use of each room. Roof plans should indicate changes in roof heights, and illustrate any mechanical equipment . Roof detail could possibly be incorporated in the plot plan . X. LANDSCAPE PLAN: Three (3) copies of a landscape development plan at a min . scale of 1" = 20 ft . (1" = 40 feet allowable / if tree plan is on separate sheet from shrub and ground cover plan) , showing the following :" - Location of all trees, shrubs, plants, and ground cover in those areas subject to public view - Botanical name and size of all plant material (labeled) - One (1) copy of plan to have individual trees and major shrub forms color-coded by species so that the distribu- tion may be easily distinguished - Perimeter treatment of property ( fences, walls, vegetation screens, etc . ) Street furniture and ornamentation ( if applicable) to include : - rock outcroppings - benches - fountains - water scape plan - statues - newspaper stands - Type of irrigation system to be used ( in note form only; . _ , _ _ ___-- _ .,...... ._.,_i. .: ,,, -t ,� .,? i i }, nn cl rnr.tinn drawinCs) Mi ' DRB Process Page Five EXTERIOR LIGHTING PLAN: Three (3 ) copies at the same scale, � or combined with the landscape plan ; to show all exterior lighting, its location, and type of fixtures for illumination of areas such as driveways, parking lots, storage areas, land- scape planters, tennis courts, and the building . XII. APPLICATION FILING FEE: Provide a check payable to the City of Palm Desert in the specified amount. A. Applications requiring Design Review Board and Planning Commission review/approval , fifty dollars ($50. 00) . B. Applications that may receive administrative approval from the Director of Environmental Services (or his appointed Staff ) , including single-family dwellings, fifteen dollars ($15. 00) . C. Sign Program Only - Less than $100 in value, $0 - Staff Review, $10. 00 - Design Review Board and Planning Commission review $15. 00 FINAL CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS In the final application for a building permit phase, three (3 ) copies of construction drawings shall be submitted for items Reviewed/Approved by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission . Plans must pre- cisely conform to any Conditions of Approvu.l required by Planning Com- mission action. Construction drawings shall include the exhibits des- cribed in the Initial Review, plus any conditioned revisions or addi- tions, detailed in final form. NOTE: All. plans (except colored exhibits) are to be folded to a maximum size Of 8'2"xJ:3" , prior to i submitting g with an application . . }f i T CITY OF PALM DESERT + k DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ' PLANNING DIVISION APPLICANTS' GUIDE TO PROCEDURES I. FILING PROCEDURE: Prior to submittal the applicant shall discuss his pro- posal with the Planning staff to determine whether or not the proposal is in conformance with the General Plan and to determine zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance, or other requirements. II . GENERAL INFORMATION: A. Meetings : 1 ) City Council meetings are held on the second and fourth Thursday of each month, at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers in the City Hall , 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane. 2) Planning Commission meetings are held on Tuesday, nine (9) days prior to the first Council meeting of the month, also at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers and Wednesday, eight (8) days prior to the second Council meeting of the month, at 1 :00 PM in the Council Chambers. 3) The Design Review Board convenes on Tues- day, a week before the Planning Commission, at 2 : 30 PF1 in the Council Chambers. B. Public Hearing: Public hearings are held when the City considers re- quests for a change of zone, variance, conditional use permit, general plan amendment, etc. Legal notices for these hearings are published in the Palm Desert Post at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing. Public hearing items before the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency are published in the Desert Sun. C. A eals: Where the Zoning Ordinance provides for appeal to the City Council or Planning Commission, the appeal shall be made within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision by filing an application of appeal with the Director of Environmental Services. D. Fees : All required fees are listed in the Fee Schedule, as approved by the City Council , and specifically noted for this application. E. Building Permits : Building permits are issued by the Department of Building and Safety and are required before any new construction , re- construction, plumbing, mechanical work is commenced. F. Business License: Prior to engaging in an enterprise for profit, zoning and building code clearance for the proposed use is required and a city business license obtained. Application should be made to the Code Er{- forcement Supervisor. G. Private Deed Restrictions : Many parcels of land in the City of Palm Desert are subject to private covenants, conditions , and deed restrictions which may conflict with the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance. The applicant is responsible for resolving conflicts with deed restriction requirements. �- ���� �IYr.OG�4 ��� /��a-� � ����Lf� 9��. �/ �; ..inutes Page .Three 7 r , Palm Desert PlannirQ Commission $� February 14, 1979 VI . A. (cont . ) Commissioner Berkey commented that Mr. Iiousley is within his rights to split his property into three parcels, as it is within the present zoning law. In fact , .this split is less than what is required. He also stated that he was not convinced by arguments against the proposal that it would be detrimental to nearby property owners. On a motion by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, the Tentative Parcel Map No. 14163 was approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. 457; carried unanimously (5-0) . B. Continued Case No. DP 01-79 - DAME'-DOTY DEVELOPMENT CO. , Applicant Request for approval of a Residential Development Plan ,i to allow 683 attached single-family multi-family units and golf course on approximately 210 acres located west of Portola, northerly of the Whitewater Storm Channel. Chairman Kelly indicated that she did go out to the project site to review the area in question, at the request of the applican . She also noted that although Commissioner Fleshman did have to leave after most of the presentation had been made at the last meeting, he did listen to the tapes prior to this meeting. Mr. Williams .stated that this case was continued to allow the applicant to prepare revised plans, addressing those concerns expressed by the Commission at the last meeting. He noted that the revised site plan was received from the applicant after the Staff Report had been . written. Mr. Williams then reviewed the Staff Report , enumerating the concerns of the Commission and the manner in which they were addressed by the applicant. Those concerns included: number of units per building; relocation of swimming pools; attempt to jog streets to eliminate row effect ; and relocation of maintenance facility and recrea- tional vehicle storage area. He then stated that , although the revised site plan does meet all requirements., the applicant has not addressed the overall design concern as to being innovative and compatible to the PR zone as it was intended. Therefore, Staff recommends denial of this development plan. There were no questions or comments from the Commissioners at this point ; Chairman Kelly asked for the applicant ' s presentation. RICHARD DOTY, 43 Barcelona, Rancho Mirage. Mr. Doty reiterated the concerns of the Commission.,,and how they had .been addressed in the revised- site plan. He noted that the revised plan has reduced the number of units by 16; they have attempted to bring the pools into the clusters of units for more convenience; have shifted street to eliminate row effect ; maintenance facility and recreational vehicle storage area have been relocated to increase shielding. He also pointed out that, contrary to Staff Report , the proposed golf course design was not arbitrary at all . They have purposely created this; it was one of their original design constraints. He also mentioned that the golf course has been widened. Mr. Doty then asked Mr. Ted Robinson to testify as to the technical capability of revised plan. Mr . Robinson simply reiterated Mr. Doty' s previous statements. Commissioner Berkey posed the question of guest parking. Y Minutes Page Four : 1 �; • ., Palm Desert Plannin, Commission j February 14, 1979 VI . B. (cont . ) �y Mr. Robinson answered that he felt that could be easily salved ; if there is a concern for additional bay parking, it can be : provided without any difficulty. Mr. Doty mentioned that the clubhouse parking is up to 102 ' spaces; they have also provided parking for the driving range, Chairman Kelly asked if there were any questions. There being none, she declared the Public Hearing open, asking if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION of this proposal . The following persons spoke in FAVOR of proposal : HARVEY DOYTCH, 73141 44th Avenue. � + CHARLES E. HOLEMAN, 73500 Encelia ,�JIM SHARPE, 74725 Joanie Drive. MARGE NIESTRUM, 46265 Burroweed Lane. • '� �,l� JAC STRUM, Sunrise Company. Voiced his concern over raising e*yS = houses 41 , stating he felt there would be some very serious \ concerns about other units being built at a different level . 's Mr. Robinson assured him 'that pads adjacent to. Monterey Country Club will not be raised 4' . Raised elevation will only occur in the center of the project , not the perimeter. This gives much more protection when units are looking down on golf course_ It will. be done in a compatible way with the other units. Chairman Kelly declared the Public Hearing closed. MR. -DAME'_., with-,regard to the _concern over raising of uses, stated that they do not necessarily have to do b this,. ut would prefer to. Chairman Kelly then asked if the Commission had any questions or comments. Commissioner Fleshman expressed his concern over ,the adaptation of the project with the intent and purpose of the PR zone, . and stated he would feel more comfortable supporting the project if Staff felt that the developer was in conformance with zone as intended. Commissioner Snyder noted that it is apparent there is a difference of opinion between Staff and developer ; but it would seem there is still room for them to achieve agreement . Commissioner Berkey indicated that he was satisfied with the plan, accepting it as strictly schematic, but that it also needs to have a great deal. of attention at the Design Review process. He would expect the developer to work closely with Staff and the Design Review Board. Objectionable features of the plan can be mitigated at that point , including guest parking, landscaping plan, elimination of row effect , and pad elevation. Commissioner Kryder agreed with Commissioner Berkey' s state- ments, stating that while there are still certain objectionable issues of the plan , they are not sufficiently damaging to require the denial of the project at this time. Design Review Board activity can handle it , with Staff and developer working together. Chairman Kelly commended applicant for changes made to this point , and feels the problems can be worked out at the Design Review Board level . Mr. Williams suggested that, if the development plan is approved, a 10-minute recess should be called to allow the developer to review the conditions of approval. He stated that they do embody a procedure that would allow the Planning Commission to have answers to concerns such as setbacks, etc. . � ; 4' IFNI Minutes Page Five Palm Desert Planning Commission February 14, 1979 t , VI . B. (cont. ) Recess was called at 2 : 05 p.m. for 10 minutes to allow applA cant to review conditions. ` Meeting was reconvened at 2: 15, at which time Mr . Williams stated that the applicant has seen the draft of conditions of approv 1 . Mr. Doty then reviewed each condition with the Commission and Staff , enumerating those he felt needed clarification or deletion. .The conditions were amended, with all in agreement . There was then some discussion as to whether to continue this case or to approve the development plan at this time, with amended conditions. Commissioner Snyder suggested approval of this case to the- Tentative Tract stage, wherein any- further- problems could be addressed. . On a motion by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner Berkey, Development Plan 01-79 was approved by Planning .Commission Resolution No. 458, subject to conditions; carried 4-1 (AYES: Berkey, Kryder, Snyder, Kelly; NOES: Fleshman) . C. Continued Public Hearing -- Palm Valley Stormwater Channel Area Specific Plan Mr. Williams presented for discussion and review 12 issues which summarize the comments from property owners, interested citizens and other agencies received through conferences, correspondence or the . January 17, 1979 Public Hearing on the subject. He also presented the . recommended action to resolve each issue. i Following the presentation of the 12 issues, Mr . Williams commented on .additional correspondence received. fie indicated that copies of this correspondence, as well as all correspondence received, would appear in the Appendix of the subject study. He then stated that Staff hoped to obtain sufficient direction at this meeting to provide a recommendation to the City Council for adoption of the plan. Chairman Kelly then opened the Public Hearing to take testimony in FAVOR or OPPOSITION of the plan. G. GEORGE FOX, Fox Farms, 1512 .Jarvis, Chicago Illinois. Mr. Fox ' s comments were related primarily to the development of the property he owns in the study area. He indicated that the physical development of the land is as important as the structure. He indicated further that improvements such as roads are the responsibility of the individual landowner . Fox said he was interested in quality development , and has hired the firm of Perkins and Will to do a financial feasi- bility study for development of his property. To clarify his position and intent in this matter, he prepared for presentation to the Planning Commission a letter , which he read for the record. A copy of the letter appears in the Appendix of the subject study. I -" 0. R. HOMME, 261 Cordoba Way. Mr . Homme wished to reiterate his concerns for the subject study and his property. He indicated that he was in no hurry to develop his property, and there were certain physical barriers which would preclude such development . He recommended that a crossing be provided to the study area via Thrush Road. He also suggested that the Planning Commission consider increasing the density on the flatter portions of the project area from 2 to 3 to 5 dwelling units per acre. This recommendation . was based on the McKueon project on the east side of the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel and the cost in- volved with providing ..the bridge, crossings of .the Channel. 4 ^ 'Minutes j r .. Page Six Palm Desert Planni Commission February 14, 1979 VI . C. (cont . ) CHARLES MARTIN, 73744 Highway 111. Mr. Martin suggested that up to 3 dwelling units per acre in the 5-acre parcel portion of the study area be considered. He also re- commended that the matter of sewage disposal. be .left to the Riverside County Department of Health. He suggested the continued use of at grade crossings rather than bridge crossings; he does not want to see the small - landowner financially tied by the improvements proposed . Mr. Martin also stated his position on structure design and the need for structures to be compatible with land forms, particularly in this unique area. DICK WILLBERG, Perkins and Will, Chicago, Illinois. Mr. Willbert indicated- that he had been employed by G. George Fox to prepare a. financial feasibility analysis for the Fox property and to prepare alternative conceptual development plans; He reiterated the concerns of his client and his firm' s in the preparation of the conceptual plans. The Public Hearing .was then closed. The Commissioners recapitulated the concerns raised and made the following recommendations: 1. Use .a less definitive .delineation of zoning lines on the proposed zoning map and pay closer attention to the existing property lines. 2. Increase the density in the flatter portions of the study area to PR-3. 3. Eliminate all but .one bridge crossing and continue maintenance of at grade crossings and other access points The Commission then suggested, and the Staff concurred, that a draft resolution addressing possible changes to the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel Area Specific Plan be prepared for consideration , on February 27, 1979. On a motion by Commissioner Snyder, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, the matter was continued to February 27, 1979; carried unanimously (5-0) . VIZ . OLD BUSINESS - None VIII . NEW BUSINESS A. On a motion by Commissioner Snyder, seconded by Commissioner Fleshman, Planning Commission Resolution No. 459 was adopted as presented, announcing its appreciation to Ralph J. Cipriani. Ix. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS A. Consideration of cases acted on by the Design Review Board at their meeting of February 6, 1979. Commissioner Fleshman had a conflict of interest with regard to Case No. 164 1IF, and left the room while it was being discussed. Mr. Crump presented the cases (164 MF; 107 C; and 42 C) to the Commission. _. - J SUNRISC COMPANY 41.500 MONTEREY AVENUE PALM DESERT,CALIF.92250 TELEPHONE(714)328-9945 September 13 , 1979 Mr. Paul Williams Director Of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickley Pear Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Paul : I have had numerous conversations with you regarding the eleva- tion of the property known as Chapparel Country Club adjacent to the southerly property line of Tract 11454 , Monterey Country Club. As the owners and developers of that tract our concern is over grading at Chapparel which has raised the property immediately adjacent to Monterey Country Club some 2 to 22-feet and in some instances even more. Their grading plan shows that contiguous to the Monterey Country Club property line is an approximate 6-foot strip of land (which we assume is to be landscaped) and adjacent to that a 32-foot perimeter street. The building pads adjacent to the southerly side of the street are of course at even higher elevations than the street itself. This means that the approximate 6-foot wall we built on our property becomes 32-feet to 4-feet on their side and that residents on the Monterey Country Club side will be forced to look at Chapparel moving traffic and parked automobiles. Obviously, the security previously afforded by a 6-foot wall has been significantly diminished. It also means that they must contend with slopes from their curb to our property line of from approximately 2.4 to 1 to 3 to 1. We are concerned as to how such a slope is to be maintained and landscaped and what will happen to the irriga- tion water. Naturally, storm water is a further concern. September 13 , 1979 Page 2 Mr. Paul Williams Director Of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert we were vitally interested as to the finished grade of the Chapparel project as was evidenced in the Planning Commission meeting of February 14 , 1979 where we registered our concern over the fact that their pads were to be raised 4-feet. Their representatives indicated this would occur in the center of the project, not the perimeter. (I have enclosed a copy of the minutes of that meeting for your convenience and the tape recording in your files is even more descriptive) . We believed that the developer ' s intentions were not to raise the grade next to Monterey Country Club. Certainly we did not believe that any grading plan would ever be approved which would raise grades as was subsequently done. You can imagine our surprise and consternation when the grading commenced. We are appealing to you, the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Committee to place requirements on the developer 's final landscape plans as it affects this area to mitigate the visual injustice caused by the height of their perimeter road and its adjacent pads, and to require engineering evidence that the slope from their road to our property will sufficiently retain their road and carry away irrigation or flood water which could damage our property. Such consideration could include: (1) a retaining wall , if necessary; (2) any engineered 6-foot wall on their property line; (3) speciman landscaping which would block the objection- able views their traffic will create; (4) a drainage plan. All of the -above assumes that the City will not require them to adjust their grades, which of course, would be our first choice. I am assuming you will circulate this letter to the Planning Commission and any other appropriate persons. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely yours, ack M. Conlon President /rms Encl. Four photographs taken September 5, 1979. cc : Gary Berger Jack Dahlstrum 5 U�NNI' . _5 E COMPANY 42-000 BOB HOPE DRIVE RANCHO MIRAGE. CALIF. 92270 - - TELEPHONE (714) 328-8945 _ September 28, 1979 Honorable Noel Brush Council Chambers City of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Re: Council Meeting September 27, 1979 Expanded Agenda Item VIII F Dear Councilman Brush: By virtue of our abiding interest in the development of Chaparral Country Club which abuts two boundries of Monterey Country Club, and disputes which have arisen between the developers of Chaparral and ourselves, I was in attendance at the above referenced meeting, in an auditing capacity, and viewed with great interest the dis- cussion and your ensuing motion and the adopted resolution in respect to the gross grade differentiation which is apparently going to occur between the Homme property and Brown Way, on the . one hand and Portola on the other, unless some corrective action is taken. While I did not feel it was appropriate at the meeting to speak to the issue I shall hereafter discuss until the resolution . under consideration was passed, I now hasten, by this letter, to call to your attention that there is, indeed, another discrepancy in the matter of grades at this same point which should also be addressed. On February 14 , 1979 at a regular session of the Planning Commis- sion, I was in attendance, again in an auditing capacity, when Mr. Richard Doty made reference to the fact that some building pads at Chaparral would be elevated by as much as four feet over existing grade. At the time of this reference Mr. Doty was ap- pearing with several others as representatives of the developer of Chaparral and was seeking approval of their preliminary plan. In r^_sponse to that statement I voiced concern as to whether any such raised building pads would be on the perimeter of their pro- ject adjacent to our existing wall and project. September 28, 1979 Honorable Noel Brush page 2. One of the developer' s representatives responded to my concern and assured the commission and the undersigned that "pads adja- cent to Monterey Country Club will not be raised four feet. Raised elevation will only occur in the center of the project, not the perimeter. " In reliance on that representation we ceased to be concerned with that problem until August 23 , 1979. On that date we discovered substantial grading taking place im- mediately adjacent to our property and my letter of August 23, 1979 (copy "attached) was written. Following that letter, Mr. Bolton' s letter of August 28, 1979 was received. A meeting bet- ween the parties at City Hall was arranged at which time it was agreed that each party would have their respective . engineers check our established grade to test Mr. Bolton' s contentions. Mr. Beebe was absent but this meeting was attended by Paul. Williams and Jack Campbell. It was further agreed that the parties would then meet with Mr. Beebe the following week and evidence regarding the factual dispute about our grade would be submitted and the problem would be further discussed. Instead, the Doty-Dame people met un- ilaterally with Clyde Beebe, presented no evidence and broke off all direct communication with us. I met Mr. Beebe with our engineer and furnished. a copy of our engineer.'s certification that our property was graded exactly in conformance with our approved tract map (copy attached) . At that time, Mr. Beebe compared the two approved tract maps and discovered that he had approved a plan for Chaparral which allowed raised building pads on the perimeter (as well as a street) some two and one half plus (2z+) feet higher than our completed adja- cent street. No resolution was suggested by Mr. Beebe nor was there any indi- cation that one would be forthcoming. Hence, Jack Conlon' s letter of September 13 , 1979 and Mr. William' s response of Sep- tember 24, 1979 . The matter remains in limbo. As with Mr. Homme and Portola, this reduces the effective height of our existing six foot perimeter wall to three and one half (33-,) feet. September 28, 1979 Honorable Noel Brush page 3. You will see therefore, that at the point where Brown Way, Portola and the Chaparral property meet there are not two, but three dif- ferent grades. We shall appreciate your consideration in reviewing these aspects of the grade differentiations at the time you con- sider the Portola-Homme problem. Please note the enclosed photo taken from our street level showing the writer standing at the sub-grade (dirt) level of Chaparral in- dicating rather graphically, the destruction of the effectiveness of our wall. Very truly. yours, SUNRISE COMPANY lVie k A. Dahlstrum President and Secretary JA Encl. cc: Clyde Beebe Paul Williams Jack Conlon William Bone Alexis Newbrander Edward Mullins James McPherson Roy Wilson f: f 1: E11IGIRIEE H1JI's SERVICE C0RP0� R.T 10R7 l_ � �:� CONSULTANTS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING E LAND PLANNING August 31, 1979 Mr, Clyde Beebe, Director of Public Works Re: Tr. 11454 - Grades City of Palm Desert Our W. O, 2100-1 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, California 92260 Dear Clyde: Our survey party has checked the road grades on Sierra Madre South and the building pad grades adjoining Sierra Madre South in the Monterey Country Club development. The information the survey party obtained clearly supports our contention that the grade of all improvements has been constructed in accordance with the grading plan approved and signed by yourself. Enclosed are copies of the curb grade sheets that were used by the con- tractor for the construction of the curbs. The grade of the curbs, as shown on the curb sheets, were taken directly from the approved grad- ing plan. In view of evidence obtained by the field party and that evidence confirm- ed by the curb grade sheets enclosed herewith, I certify to you that the grade of the curbs and other improvements on Sierra Madre South and the adjoining building pads have been done in accordance with the approved plans. Sincerely, L. FREDIRICK PACK, P.E, LFP/ps Enclosures (4) cc: Jack Conlon Gary Berger / Jack Dahlstrom./ Bob Sims Paul Williams Jack Campbell 71-537 HIGHWAY 111 RANCHO MIRAGE, CAUPORINA 92270 TELEPHONE 714 563-5997 I - 1 t � COMPANY 42-000 BOB HOPE DRIVE RANCHO MIRAGE. CALIF. 92270 TELEPHONE (714) 328-8945 August 23, 1979 Doty-Dame Development Company Dame Construction Company Chaparral Country Club 42-555 Portola Avenue Palm Desert, CA 92260 Attention: Mike Bolton Re: Perimeter Wall - Sierra Madre South Dear Mike- We are extrememly concerned in respect to the grade which is being established adjacent to our perimeter wall on Sierra Madre South. As of four o' clock this afternoon it appeared that your grade was approaching three feet over the grade on our side. . It is obvious that a sub- stantial lateral surcharge is going to be placed,..00inst that wall which is a garden wall and is not designed with any retaining capability. Additionally, it would appear that this grade and any units that may be built thereon directly violates repre- sentations made by Air. Ted Robinson at the Palm Desert Planning Commission Hearing of February 14 , 1979 when concern was voiced by the undersigned as to whether there would be any elevation of building pads adjacent to the Perimeter units of our project. I am immediately commencing an investigation into this matter and what might be done to avert what appears to be an imminent structural and aesthetic disaster. Very tzuly yours, AJ ck A. Dahlstrum V.ce President and Secretary � c. City of Palm Desert Clyde Beebe Paul Williams JAD/cw -- 1 HOMES By DAME r 0�v2 CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.INC. R. O. BOX 100 SAN RA ON. CALIFORNIA 9-533 August 28, 1979 (4151 237-05-6 Mr. Jack Dahlstrum vice President and Secretary Sunrise Company 42-000 Bob Hope Drive Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Re: Your letter dated August 23, 1979 (Perimeter Wall) Dear Jack: In reference to your letter of August 23, it is obvious that there is a grade difference between our two projects, but as far as 'there being any surcharge against your wall. on Sierra Madre South, I believe you are mistaken. If you will notice, we have taken great steps to insure that no fill is placed against your wall. Our fill actually starts at the top of the footing (your wall) and raises at a 2: 1 away from your wall, thus eliminating any surcharge. Secondly, in building Phases 12 through 15 including Sierra Madre South, you extended your grading operation over your property line onto our property in order to utilize all of your property. So if we were to have left our property anywhere close to existing grade and graded to our property line, the slough from your property would have drifted onto our property, thus undermining your wall and possibly causing colapse. During the grading operation of Monterey Country Club, it was discovered that the grading plan was approximately 200, 000 C.Y. short of balancing, so a grading arm was established. This grading arm consisted of lowering the area midway through Phase 6 and encompassed Phases 18, 19 and all the fairways up to the model complex. Also, the entire east end of Monterey Country Club was lowered, including Phases 10 , 11, 12, 13, 14 , and 15, and all streets and fairways and the Brown and Homme lots. J RECEIVED AUG 29 'im SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OFFICE - CHAPARRAL COUNTRY CLUB P.O. Drawer 1856, Palm Desert, California 92260 Phone (714) 346-0673 i z?, Mr. Jack Dahlstrom« Page Two August 28, 1979 So, in effect, you have created your own elevation difference, because Webb Engineering checked the approved grading plan of Monterey Country Club (the only approved plan) and designed our project accordingly. Therefore, I feel, as do my engineers, that the blame for any elevation difference is yours. Your friend, Mike Bolton Project Manager DAME' CONSTRUCTION CO. , INC. MB/ss cc: Paul A. Williams, City of Palm Desert L. Clyde Beebe, City of Palm Desert f r- JJ: '1X COMPANY 41 5W MONTEREY AVENUE - PALM DESERT.CALIF.92260 - - TELEPRONE(714)328-8945 - September 13 , 1979 Mr. Paul Williams Director Of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickley Pear Lane Palm Desert, CA .92260 Dear Paul: I have had numerous conversations with you regarding the eleva- tion of the property known as Chapparel Country Club adjacent to the southerly property line of Tract 11454 , Monterey Country Club. As the owners and developers of that tract our concern is over grading at Chapparel which has raised the property immediately adjacent to Monterey Country Club some 2 to 2,-feet and in some instances even more. Their grading plan shows that contiguous to the Monterey Country Club property line is an approximate 6-foot strip of land (which we assume is to be landscaped) and adjacent to that a 32-foot perimeter street. The building pads adjacent to the southerly side of the street are of course at even higher elevations than the street itself. This means that the approximate 6-foot wall we built on our property becomes 3,-feet to 4-feet on their side and that residents on the Monterey Country Club side. will be forced to look at Chapparel moving traffic and parked automobiles. Obviously, the security previously afforded by a 6-foot wall has been significantly diminished. It also means that they must contend with slopes from their curb to our property line of from approximately 2 . 4 to 1 to 3 to 1. We are concerned as to how such a slope is to be maintained and landscaped and what will happen to the irriga- tion water. Naturally, storm water is a further concern. CITY OF PALM DESERT STAFF REPORT - UPDATE To: Planning Commission Report on: Development Plan Applicant: DAME'-DOTY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, P. 0. Box 100, San Ramon, CA Case No: DP 01-79 Date: February 14, 1979 (Continued from January 30, 1979) I. REQUEST (AS AMENDED) : Approval of a Development Plan Residential to allow 666 attached single- family/multi-family. units and golf course on approximately 210 acres located west of Portola, northerly of the Whitewater Storm Channel . 14 ®p ®I-79 Io as 3M R M 'S, S.P. ' P.R.-/. S.P. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The proposed Development Plan, and subsequent minor changes, are not found to be in conformance with the intent and purpose of the Planned Residential zone; therefore, based on the justification contained in the Resolution: Deny Case No. DP 01-79, by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. III. DISCUSSION: The subject case was continued from the January 30, 1979, Planning Commission meeting to allow the applicant to prepare revised plans. Plan revisions were not available at the time this report was prepared; therefore, it is based on the applicant's verbal description of changes. The original Staff Report presented to the Commission contained an overview of major site design concerns, which would involve a total restudy of the site. Staff observed that it was possible to take existing golf course/condominium design and fit it on a site satisfying Ordinance minimums, but the question of whether the minimum "numbers" had been met, did not go to the heart of the issue. The proposed development was perceived to need a total restudy, which would produce a plan especially designed for the subject site, satisfying the intent and purpose of the Planned Residential zone. The proposed design was found to be arbitrarily applied to the site to produce an 18-hole golf course with a standard module fairway oriented dwelling unit. The Staff's summary concluded that too much was trying to .be achieved on the site and all design flexibility had been lost; resulting in both golf course and unit design problems. Staff Report Page Two Dame' -Doty Development Co. February 14, 1979 III. (cont. ) Verbally described revisions to the proposed project consist of only minor changes which avoid the serious deviations from the intent and purpose of the Planned Residential zone. The revisions include: -- The number of five unit buildings has been decreased and the number of four unit buildings has been increased (also, there are some additional two and three unit buildings). As a result of shifting:.from five to four unit buildings, a few units were lost, but nothing was done to change from the regimented rows of buildings. The design was so inflexible that to eliminate access from the major access street, the units were dropped. The dwelling unit count is now proposed at 666 units in 173 buildings, versus 683 units in 166 buildings. No recognizable design advantage has been gained. -- One additional pool and spa has been added to the project, but the pool areas have not been reoriented to unit clusters; they still occur predominantly at the ends of long rows, only conveniently .relating to a few surrounding units. -- Approximately a five to ten foot jog is planned for the exterior loop street, which could only be considered a minimum effort, considering the magnitude of building row/unit orientation/driveway/street scene, .design problem. -- The maintenance building was shifted from the southeast area of the site plan to the northeast corner; and the location of the well site and recreational vehicle storage lot were reversed. Past experience would offer a point of reference to evaluate this plan. The Commission has previously expressed concern for golf course develop- ments such as in the discussions regarding the similarities of the Seigal development with Monterey Country Club, and the similarities of Monterey Country Club to Rancho Las Palmas. The design that has been characterized as an example of "tightness" is, of course, the Sunrise Country Club. The role of the City (and more specifically the Commission) to guide the overall development of the community, should be the focus point from which individual projects are viewed. To repeat the same plan on every parcel large enough to contain it is not perceived to be the objective; particularly, as in this case, if it cannot be successfully accomplished. This issue has nothing to do with the quality of previously approved projects. Other developments of this type have used the Storm Channel to accommodate a portion of the golf course, and the projects have been designed with a much higher open space percentage. It would now be appropriate to analyze the individual design element of the subject proposal , along with specific site characteristics. The issues noted in the following have cumulatively contributed to the problems observed in the previous Staff Report. A. SITE CHARACTERISTICS: By virtue of the Planned Residential zone open space requirement, developments have the opportunity to create an internal focal amenity. In this particular case, design of the development should have also taken into consideration the advantagious vi.ew of the mountains to the south. The only concession this distinctive site characteristic was given in the arbitrary forced design of the site was to double load one long street to "fence-in" the project. The result of only providing design "lip serve" to this major site characteristic introduced new problems (i.e. guest parking for the units along the double-loaded street, but more importantly a rigid long row of buildings) . If a reviewer went no further in the site plan analysis, it would be obvious that the proposal does not comply with the objectives of the P.R. zone, and that it is an attempt to force a design on this site. Staff Report Page Three Dame' -Doty Development Co. February 14, 1979 III. (cont. ) B. DWELLING UNIT CHARACTERISTICS: Most of the proposed dwelling units are contained in four unit buildings with a single rear exposure. The units (lined up side by side) are then lined up side-by-side with the next unit building. The effect is one long row of building blocks repeated over and over again; granted, the ordinance minimum of 20 feet will be observed between buildings, but certainly, the P.R. zone does not intend this minimum number to be the maximum that a project is designed to meet. It would be more appro- priate to view this minimum in the context of "where dwelling units have occasion to be located in close proximity to other units, a minimum of 20 feet should be provided for separation", rather than "design all dwelling unit buildings in close rows side by side in all projects, but provide no less than 20 feet between". This would be the second point the reviewer would find the proposed design at total variance with the intent of the zone. The "row effect" of the proposed design is particularly apparent along the private streets. With few exceptions, the rows of garages produce a street scene which consist of one driveway after another. With buildings fixed in rigid sequence, all other design solutions are lost. Only a very few five unit corner buildings had radial (side entry) driveways, and it has not been indicated that any further attempt will be made to correct this situation in the revised plan. C. OPEN SPACE UTILIZATION: ., ,The fact that required,project':open--space was almost entirely,consumed by-the golf course was discussed at-length inn the original report, but again, it needs to be emphasized that open space utilization is a basis on which PR zone compliance is determined. Judgement is not merely made on whether a proposal satisfies the minimum percentage required, but rather on how effectively the open space is used to create a unique and innovative development plan. The proposed plan was apparently conceived based on the objective of having a specified total length of golf course, with units lining every fairway, and thus the "row effect". Units lined up row after row would almost suggest that any creative orientation of buildings would have to be an after- thought. If the required open space is not used to enhance unit arrangement and site design (but only frustrates i.t) as in the subject design, then a person reviewing the project could only conclude for the third time, that the project is not consistent with the intent and objectives of the Planned Residential zone. To compound tfiis-situation, the project has failed to fully utilize a very obvious open space resource on the site, the Stormwater Channel . D. DISCUSSION SUMMARY: The application before the Planning Commission requires a discretionary evaluation of compliance with the objectives of the Planned Residential zone. It is not a ministerial action which only requires a check against a .list of minimum requirements without the exercise of independent judgement, primary tenants of the Planned Residential zone have not been observed in the proposed application. The proposed plan is characterized as an arbitrary, forced design which does not respect the subject site characteristics, provide for innovative and imaginative building siting, or one utilizes open space to enhance the project design. r, Staff Report ATTACHMENT Dame'-Doty Development Co. February 14, 1979 BACKGROUND UPDATE: A. ADJACENT'.ZONING/LAND USE: North - PR-5, Planned Residential Developments South - PR-4, Planned Residential Developments,; and R-m, Mobile Home East - R-M, Mobile Home Subdivision, and PR-5, Vacant West - PR-5, Planned Residential Development B. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential , 5-7 d.u./ac. ; and C.O.D. Specific Plan (Whitewater Channel ) - O.S. , Open Space. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The Director of Environmental Services has determined that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been prepared. D. PREVIOUS PERTINENT CASES: Annexation Area. No. 5(containing the subject property), proceedings concluded January, 1979. E. ACREAGE CALCULATION: (Note. - All calculations are based on rough': estimates; source data has not been confirmed through survey. ) 1 . Acreage by zone - PR-5 +181 .34 O.S. ± 28.92 t210.26 acres 2. Net site - Gross site (PR-5) T181 .34 Public streets (minus) - 1 .34 -180.00 acres 3. Density - 666 units 1 181 .34 ac. = 3.67 d.u./ac. 4. Open Space (PR-5 zone) Required (50% of net site area) = 90 acres Originally proposed (58.7% of net site area) = 106,58 acres Revised (Not calculated) F. DWELLING UNIT DEFINITION: 1. Unit sizes (revised proposal ) 160-A -- 2-bedroom and den - 1922 sq. ft. 165-B -- 2-bedroom and den .- 2035 sq. ft. 288-C -- 2-bedroom and den - 1803 sq. ft. 53-D -- 1-bedroom and den - 1520 sq. ft. 666 Total units 2. Unit/Building groups Orig. Orig. Rev. # bldgs _ # units 1f_#_bl.dgs, / # Units 2 unit bldgs 6 12 8 16 3 unit bldgs 10 30 19 57 4 unit bldgs 109 436 137 548 5 unit bldgs 41 205 9 45 166 683 173 666 3. Dwelling unit height -- 1 story, t17 ft. Staff Report ATTACHMENT/2 Dame' -Doty Development Co. February 14, 1979 G. RECREATION AMENITIES: -- Golf course - 18 holes -- Club house - 10,000 to 12,000 sq. ft. -- Swimming pools and spas - 18 -- Tennis courts - 6 (lighted) , 8 - revised 1 . Major club house uses: - .Dining room - 2,160 sq. ft. - Banquet room - 812 sq. ft. - Kitchen - 1 ,353 sq. ft. - Cocktail lounge - 1 ,170 sq. ft. - Pro shop - 1 ,365 sq. ft. H. PARKING ANALYSIS: 1 . Required -- 2 covered spaces per unit, plus 0.5 guest spaces per unit (1025 total.) -- Club house (based on uses per Ordinance standards) -- Golf course, 5 spaces per hole (90 total ) -- Driving range„ l per tee -- Tennis courts, 3 per court (18 total ) 2. Proposed -- 2 covered spaces per unit, street .parking on one side (if minimum 32-foot width is maintained) . -- Recreation vehicle storage lot (parking for an undetermined number of vehicles) -- Parking for all other uses - 91 spaces in club house parking lot -- Bay parking 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE 2/7/79 APPLICANT DAME—DORY DEVELOP= CO. CASE NO. : DP 01-79 The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of January 30, 1979 X CONTINUED TO February 14 1979 DENIED APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PLACED ON THE AGENDA OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF FOR CONCURRENCE WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION. PLACED ON THE AGENDA OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF FOR PUBLIC HEARING. Y Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the Director of Environmental Services, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. PAUL A. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSSION cc: Applicant C.V.CW D. File ✓ ti { 114 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (7I4) 346-0611 February 15, 1979 Orange Coast Title Company P. 0. Box 11825 �OF Santa Ana, CA 92711 Attn: George Doumanian Dear Mr. Doumanian: For your information, the subject property as indicated on your map is zoned PR-5 .(Planned Residential , 5 dwelling units/acre) , and surrounding zoning as noted: North - PR-5 South - PR-4 and R-M East - PR-5 and R-M West - PR-5 If there is further information required, please contact the Staff of the Department of Environmental Services. truly yours, Paul A. Williams Zoning Administrator lm/pw/ss Enclosure (map) I;J Nfain'.;t� .,: i Cw 7 / / CHANGE CpA.ST TITLE COMPANY 714 t558,2836 February 8, 1979 Planning Department City Hall 45275 Prickly Order No. Palm Desert, California 92660 Subdivision See attached Map 687 Condos Gentlemen: Enclosed is a map showing the location of subdivision Would you please provide this office with a letter stating the zoning of the project and the adjacent property for the benefit of the Department of .Real Estate. /G/©'er "4 Very truly yours, Orange Coast Title Company 1( *vl'u mldillo ow�l/ Subdivi_ion Title Officer George Doumanian EnclosuresCIE „R i EN`�tR4Nh1 pAGM UE9ER4 UtY OF k � I ' e I • PALM DESERT ggg GREENS p F COUNTRY CLUB OR I NOVELY LAN E MomrERE� GOUwTRV 'CLUB . 4 ! ... ... ..... 0 tr y = CLANCY LNR , a sr .fir,.. co m f PSOP <:::r..:^::. w »r V r PROJECT AREA 4 r r RhMCVA0 LAS FALMAS COUNrRY ( . C LU B 'i I COLLEGE OF . a THE DESERT 0.m O tt � . � - ° w � a AVE 44 ti w i � w O Li Lj ` N y I LM DESERT " SL'ALE 1N MILES 11z I Exhibit C r INTERO;FFI'CE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert TO: Director of Environmental Services FROM: Director of Public Works SUBJECT: DP 01-79 DATE: January 19, 1979 1 . It should be noted that this subdivision will probably be required to improve the westerly one-half of Portola Avenue, 660 feet northerly from this subdivision. 2. It appears that two of the cul-de-sacs exceed the length requirements, according to the City of Palm Desert Subdivision Ordinance. 3. It is recommended that the streets be staggered so as not to create a 4-way intersection through the center of the property. 4. It is recommended that heavy landscaping be provided for sandblow protec- tion on the northerly and westerly boundaries of this development. l September 13 , 19'. Page 2 Mr. Paul Williams Director Of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert We were vitally interested as to the finished grade of the Chapparel project as was evidenced in the. Planning Commission. meeting of February 14, 1979 where we registered our concern over the fact that their pads were to be raised 4-feet. Their representatives indicated this would occur in the center of the. `. project, not the perimeter. (I have enclosed a copy of the minutes of that meeting for, your convenience and the tape recording in your files is even more descriptive) . We believed that the developer' s intentions were not to raise the grade next to Monterey Country Club. Certainly we did not believe that any grading plan would ever . be approved which would raise grades as was subsequently done. You can imagine our surprise and consternation when the grading commenced. We are appealing to you, the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Committee to place requirements on the developer's final landscape plans as it affects this area to mitigate the visual injustice caused by the height of their perimeter road and its adjacent pads, and to require engineering evidence that the slope from their road to our property will sufficiently retain their road and carry away irrigation or flood water which could damage our property. Such .consideration could include: (1) a retaining wall; if necessary; (2) an engineered 6-foot wall on their property line; (3) speciman landscaping which would block the objection- able views their traffic will create; (4) a drainage plan. All of the above assumes that the City will not require them to adjust their grades, which of course, would be our first choice. I am assuming you will circulate this letter to the Planning Commission and any other appropriate persons. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely yours, b Jack M. Conlon President /rms Encl. Four photographs taken September 5 , 1979, CC: Gary Berger Jack Dahlstrum bcc W. Bone __.. _. ._. _.. .. 1 •tJv. �: 4 0 .% �. � 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92200 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 September 24 , 1979 Mr. Jack M . Conlon President Sunrise Company 41 -500 Monterey Avenue Palm Desert, California 92260 Dear Jack : I am in receipt of your letter regarding the matter of the Chapparel Country Club ' s grading . Before pursuing your request , I have forwarded a copy to the Director of Public Works for a response . In addition , I have been assured by the Director of Public Works that refine- ments of the grading which is in the process of occurring at Chapparel Country may resolve your concern in terms of the pad heights along your common property line . Once I receive Mr. Beebe ' s responses , perhaps tie should sit dorm and discuss the matter again . Sincerely , Paul A . Williams , AICP Director Environmental Services 1 .,1 I 7M, 1J �� ~qm� ,��`td,�iy-/ r ).t` SF*�i.�./L(�'•yf L/y'.1—Ye. Y•1 Lia��. ' ; �.t�i F,{ F .K ,c.' SF� LY W yi�e did :�v?R..,�.. S ,✓5� +�iy<?'"ha y. ��yi +a� �{.4 - �• L � w�'ifL t r� 'P • Y"Ir"m a�i� ' ; v �: • K * `' i r` +`�. Sty i ,.I "frN rrr t 1 .♦t #Y a y"�`yr ♦♦ti<_ y s'�'v�. r 5 -j " y °Y.S•t+1�1�d�`�"�'T �+ �+"t^'-7ae.. �,�� nt'�.�.�»e..,.. . Y -- .�- c ' - •rz.� ''- , -C�St� HA�7 i. 1w., 1s,.,�N5""•'_':'L.US�:i ' + r 41 �= at' Y ,r'✓r-:-�a'" .+<, M `�.^.'�. ' ..srY�'1`v :i*^irv,, 'y�_?ia• . y ♦ c1 _ 'S�a- �"�S t- .fit � i a• . v-'n.�'F,'..'s2.�{'a•+$'<YJ t `�. iSh y i'S v� °� r\`` t .� a. a�'S��i.+..• ' 4.s.s^a..d�;.S�.�(1v:u -`W Yt � •Al a.l�,y aat.r a.�n f+'r i•��.. ay;7 _ s it r� l ._.... i i JIM VOMES BY DAME DAME CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. P. O. BOX 100 SAN RAMON. CALIFORNIA 94583 AllgllSt 28, 1979 (415) 837-0544 RECEIVED AUG 2 9 1979 Mr. Jack Dahlstrum ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Vice President and Secretary CITY OF PALM DESERT Sunrise Company 42-000 Bob Hope Drive Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Re: Your letter dated August 23, 1979 (Perimeter wall) Dear Jack: In reference to your letter of August 23, it is obvious that there is a grade difference between our two projects, but as far as there being any surcharge against your wall on Sierra Madre South, I believe you are mistaken. If you will notice, we have taken great steps to insure that no fill is placed against your wall. Our fill actually starts at the top of the footing (your wall) and raises at a 2:1 away- from your wall, thus eliminating any surcharge. Secondly, in building Phases 12 through 15 including Sierra Madre South, you extended your grading operation over your property line onto our property in order to utilize all of your property. So if we were to have left our property anywhere close to existing grade and graded to our property line, the slough from your property would have drifted onto our property, thus undermining your wall and possibly causing colapse. During the grading operation of Monterey Country Club, it was discovered that the grading plan was approximately 200,000 C.Y. . short of balancing, so a grading arm was established. This grading arm consisted of lowering the area midway through Phase 6 and encompassed Phases 18, 19 and all the fairways up to the model complex. Also, the entire east end of Monterey Country Club was lowered, including Phases 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15, and all streets and fairways and the Brown and Homme lots. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OFFICE - CHAPARRAL COUNTRY CLUB P.O. Drawer 1856, Palm Desert, California 92260 Phone (714) 346-0673 Mr. Jack Dahlstrum Page Two August 28, 1979 So, in effect, you have created your own elevation difference, because Webb Engineering checked the approved grading plan of Monterey Country Club (the only approved plan) and designed our project accordingly. Therefore, I feel, as do my engineers, that the blame for any elevation difference is yours. Your friend, { ' &, Mike Bolton Project Manager DAME ' CONSTRUCTION CO. , INC. MB/ss / cc: Paul A. Williams, City of Palm Desert V cc: L. Clyde Beebe, City of Palm Desert BE CIE IVED AU S��ll�IM E SE E 2 L SERVICES S COMPANY CITY OF PALM DESERT 42-000 BOB HOPE DRIVE RANCHO MIRAGE. CALIF. M70 TELEPHONE (714) 32M945 August 29, 1979 Dame'Construction Company Inc. P.O. Drawer 1586' Southern California. Office },.. Chaparral Country Club -;Y Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Attention: . Mike Bolton Dear Mr'. Bolton". I shall respond to yours of August 28, 1979 , paragraph by paragraph. Certainly neither 'of us is naive- enough to believe the dirt is going to- stay where it now sits. We both know it will slough .off of your 2:-1. and end up against the wall. Addition- ally, the 2:1 starts- from a point up the wall invvarying de- grees in various . locations already. I: neither follow your reasoning nor .concur with what might have happened if you had done something other than what you have done. Our final grade in the subject area conforms precisely with the approved and filed grading plan. That being so, and if Webb checked it, they misdesigned your grade and thus created the problem we are now confronted with. Very tr yours, Ja k A. Dahlstrum Vi e President and Secretary JAD cw cc: Paul A. Williams, City of Palm Desert L. Clyde Beebe, City of Palm Desert 0. HOMES BY DAME DAME CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. P. O. BOX 100 SAN RAMON. CALIFORNIA 94583 August 28 , 1979 (415) 837-0544 +� �Gl FED Mr. Jack Dahlstrum AUG 2 9 197a Vice President and Secretary Sunrise Company E VIR OF P CAL DESERTS 42-000 Bob Hope Drive Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Re: Your letter dated August 23, 1979 (Perimeter Wall) Dear Jack: In reference to your letter of August 23, it is obvious that there is a grade difference between our two projects, but as far as there being any surcharge against your wall on Sierra Madre South, I believe you are mistaken. If you will notice, we have taken great steps to insure that no fill is placed against your wall. Our fill actually starts at the top of the footing (your wall) and raises at a 2:1 away from your wall, thus eliminating any surcharge. Secondly, in building Phases 12 through 15 including Sierra Madre South, you extended your grading operation over your property line onto our property in order to utilize all of your property. So if we were to have left our property anywhere close to existing grade and graded to our property line, the slough from your property would have drifted onto our property, thus undermining your wall and possibly causing colapse. During the grading operation of Monterey Country Club, it was discovered that the grading plan, was approximately 200,000 C.Y. short of balancing, so a grading arm was established. This grading arm consisted of lowering the area midway through Phase 6 and encompassed Phases 18, 19 and all the fairways up to the model complex. Also, the entire east end of Monterey Country Club was lowered, including Phases 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15, and all streets and fairways and the Brown and Homme lots. RECEIVED AUG 2 9 1979 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OFFICE — CHAPARRAL COUNTRY CLUB P.O.Drawer 1856, Palm Desert, California 92260 Phone (714) 346-0673 Mr. Jack Dahlstrum Page Two August 28, 1979 So, in effect, you have created your own elevation difference, because Webb Engineering checked the approved grading plan of Monterey Country Club (the only approved plan) and designed our project accordingly. Therefore, I feel, as do my engineers, that the blame for any elevation difference is yours. Your / friend, Mike Bolton Project Manager DAME' CONSTRUCTION CO. , INC. MB/ss cc: Paul A. Williams, City of Palm Desert L. Clyde Beebe, City of Palm Desert T a. t INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert TO: PAUL WILLIAMS AND CLYDE BEEBE FROM: MARTIN J. BOUMAN, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: CHAPARRAL VS MONTEREY COUNTRY CLUB DATE: October 22 , 1979 Would you two please collaborate on a concise letter in answer to Mr. Homme' s letter of October 16th and Mr. Dahlstrum' s letter of September 28th. One letter will do (send it to one; include a last paragraph with "by copy of this letter to Mr. Take the points in their letters one by one and answer them briefly. Both of you should sign it with copies to me, Mayor and Council, Jack Conlon, and William Bone . I don' t know how I got into this , but I ' ll appreciate your getting me out . Thanks . MARTY 7 /srg `� RECEIVED COMPANY AUG 241979 42-000 BOB HOPE DRIVE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIF. 92270 CITY OF PALM DESERT TELEPHONE )714) 328-8945 August 23 , 1979 Doty-Dame Development Company Dame Construction Company Chaparral Country Club 42-555 Portola Avenue Palm Desert, CA 92260 Attention: Mike Bolton Re: Perimeter Wall - Sierra Madre South Dear Mike: We are extrememly concerned in respect to the grade which is being established adjacent to our perimeter wall on Sierra Madre South. As of four o'clock this afternoon it appeared that your grade was approaching three feet over the grade on our side. It is obvious that a sub- stantial lateral surcharge is going to be placedr-aga:inst that wall which is a garden wall and is not designed with any retaining capability. Additionally, it would appear that this grade and any units that may be built thereon directly violates repre- sentations made by Mr. Ted Robinson at the Palm Desert Planning Commission Hearing of February 14 , 1979 when concern was voiced by the undersigned as to whether there would be any elevation of building pads adjacent to the perimeter units of our project. I am immediately commencing an investigation into this matter and what might be done to avert what appears to be an imminent structural and aesthetic disaster. Very yfuly yours, J ck A. Dahlstrum 1 . V --ce President and Secretary I , c. City of Palm Desert Clyde Beebe Paul Williams JAD/cw ,s?; 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 August 20, 1979 Richard P. Doty Chaparral Country Club 42-555 Portola Avenue Palm Desert, California 92260 Dear Mr. Doty: On June 27, 1979, you did foreward to me an inquiry as to the quality of the construction related to the perimeter wall for the Monterey Country Club. Apparently in the areas where said wall was constructed on the common propertyline with your project, the joints were not raked on the sides abutting your project. In response to your inquiry, staff has reviewed the plans and made an on-site inspection. The result of this review is that the existing condition of the wall is in conformance with the preliminary approvals. I would suggest that you consider meeting with the Sunrise Company to obtain permission to modify the exterior of the wall . If you can obtain this approval , I believe that a number of options are available ranging from raking the joints to stuccoing the wall . Since the wall as it presently exists does conform to the City's approval , the City is not prepared to pursue this matter. truly yours, Paul A. Williams, AICP Director of Environmental Services PAW/cam cc: Sunrise Company ut:Q�zr c2 ff 21�)Mn-nmi 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 Dame Construction Company, Inc. P.O. Box 100 San Ramon, CA 94583 Attn: Mr. Richard E. Doty Re: Your letter dated May 14, 1979; Chaparral Country Club Dear Mr. Doty: Please be advised, relative to the referenced letter, that the proper method of requesting a restaurant use in the subject development is by means of an 'Amended' Development Plan application (enclosed). The filing fee is $50; and, tt would be a Public Hearing item before the Planning Commission. You may file this application, along with exhibits, the first working Monday of the month, after a prefiling conference. Considerations for action on an amendment request would, of course, include provision of required parking. For this purpose you may find the following schedule helpful . - Restaurants, cocktail lounges, snack bars, etc. ; 15 spaces per 1000 sq.ft. of gross floor area - Tennis facility; 3 spaces per court. - Golf course; 5 spaces per hole. - Pro shop (or other retail sales) ; 1 space for each 250 sq.ft. of gross floor area. Planning Commission approval should be sought before you proceed with plans to operate a restaurant in the development. .If you need further assistance, or have questions, prior to arranging a prefiling conference, please feel free to contact this office. Very truly yours, Murrel Crump Principal Planner MC/lr Enclosure ® HOMES BY DAME DAME CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. P.O. BOX 100 SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 (415) 837-0544 May 14, 1979 Mr. Paul Williams, AIP Director of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, California 92260 Re: CHAPARRAL COUNTRY CLUB Tract No. 13881 Dear Mr. Williams: As discussed last week, please find our revised plan for operating the Club House. Also enclosed please find my updated versions of the Quantitative Data originally submitted with our development plan application on December 21 , 1978 and revised on March 16, 1979. The information contained herein reflects the current development plan as approved by the Planning Commission and also reflects the Approved Tentative Tract Map. I might point out the area calculations are still approximate. Thank you for your cooperation. Please call if there are any questions. Sincerely, c �X Richard E. Doty /ab Encl . cc: Webb Engineering IRIFGEIVEI MAY 17 1979' CNVIRONMENTAL SERVICES QI7V OF PALM DESERT w + v SECTION VI REV. ;,- 3/16/79 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION CHAPARRAL COUNTRY CLUB Legal Description - See Exhibit A attached hereto. ( 1) Present owner of record: Dame' Construction Company Inc. p r (2) Holding title in trust for Dame'-Doty Development Company, a Joint Venture., (b) Planning Objectives The developer has reviewed the current general plan , zoning , access , neighborhood, avya:i_lable,'utilities and gafleral 'terrain features affecting o O ` the subject property. Current economic conditions, present and future market trends and the life-styles of persons residing and desiring to reside in Palm Desert were also considered. After reviewing these and other factors, it was apparent that the subject property should be devel- oped so. as to provide primary and second home buyers with a residence having all the conveniences of their primary or former home including major emphasis on the conveniences and features to be provided for the guests of the home buyers. The size of each individual residence proposed for the subject property is therefore slightly above average for the Palm Desert area. Each unit will feature two baths with cultured marble tubs equipped with therapy jets and some units will have a third bath as well . All kitchens will have range top barbeques,. Each individual residence is designed .to appeal to active ''empty nesters'', retired persons , families and single persons. We feel the typical active home buyer attracted to a e -30- community such as we propose will prefer single story residences . So as to prevent a repetition of front .elevation and roof lines , care will be exercised in land planning and grading to create a variety of street scenes. The land plan proposed for the subject property is one in which major emphasis is placed on amenities for the use of the home owner and his guests with reduced emphasis for non-resident and non-guest usage. The golf course will be more than the usual "executive" course and will meet the challenge desired by the expert golfer as well as the occasional player. Grading of the property will emphasize grade differences of up to 8 feet between building pads and fairways so as to increase the interest of the golf couts , enhagce the views, fhom the residences , and offer a 0 variety of street scenes. The club house facilities will be designed to serve the home owners and their guests as well as the public on an open basis . The rationale here is that the food and beverage operation will be enhanced so as to provide a better quality of service for the home owners as well as a service to the community. The club house will also be designed to handle day to day snacks and occasional private affairs. Tennis courts will be provided together with one arranged for tournament play, as well as the courts being lighted for night play. Pools and therapy pools will be strategically located throughout the community. - 31 - Concrete golf cart paths approximately 4000 yards in length by 6' in width will be strategically located so as to, be convenient for golfers as well as people using their private golf carts for transportation within the project. All residences will have garages designed to accommodate golf carts as well as two full size cars. 0 The landscaping and architecture of the community will suggest Spanish- Mexican influence and will include attractive surroundings of green belts, rustic posts, and wrought iron details . Security will be emphasized with; perimeter walling-fenci.pg and a security gate facility at the main entrance on IPortola Avenue. We anticipate making arrangements to deed all amenities , open space, etc. to the homeowners over a period of years. (c) Preliminary Development Schedule The phasing program is anticipated as follows : Phase Approx. Acres Approx. No. of Units Date 1 54.5 187 4-79 2 43.8 144 10-79 3 46.1 171 4-80 4 65.0 151 10-80 209.4 653 With the exception of Phase 1 , each phase should be completed 6 months. from starting date. . Phase 1 will include grading of the entire site, commencement of construction of the golf course, club house, entry street, entry and major utility service and should be completed 9 months from commencement. - 32 - See enclosed plan marked Exhibit B outlining the above described areas. Quantitive Data (1 ) Dwelling Units The development will consist of 653 dwelling units , attached in 2, 3, 4, and 5 unit buildings. All dwelling units will be single %tory. No. of No. of Buildings Units 2 unit buildings 5 10 3 unit buildings 19 57 4 unit buildings 134 536 5 unit buildings 10 50 653 (2) Parcel Size (approximate areas) Total Parcel Size: 209.40 Acres North of Wash 177.95 Acres South of Wash 3.00 Acres Wash 28.45 Acres (3) Proposed Lot Coverage of Buildings and Structures. Acres Percent Residential Buildings 41 .17 Entry Building .01 Club House (Cart Storage Under) .27 Maint. Bldg. .09 Land Coverage, Bldgs. 41 .54 19.83% (4) ' Residential Densities Gross - (including areas in streets) 653 D.U. 's/209.40 Acres = 3.12 D.U. ' s Acre Net - (after deducting areas .in streets - 18.81 Acres) 653 D.U. '.s/190.59 Acres = 3.43 D.U. 's Acre. - 33 - (5) Total Amount of Open Sapce (a) Total Open Space Total Land Area: 209.40± Less : Buildings 41 .54 Res. Drives 5.84 Res. Walks 4.93 Club House Parking 1 .10 Well Sites .86 Maint. Yard .22 St. Imp. (private) 17.34 St. Imp. (public) 1 .47 73.30 Total Open Space 136.10 65.00% (b) Total Useable Open Space 1 . Golf Course 37.36 :-; Lakes, . 2.60 3. Putting Green .11 4. Driving Range 3.27 5. Pools (19) 2.61 6. Tennis Courts 1 .32 7. Club House .27 8. Cart Paths 1 .65 9. Other Open Space 86.76 Total 135.95 *Less "Net Wash" 25.18 Useable Open 11O.77 52.90% .(c) Private Open Space (patios & attriums) average per unit 377 sq. ft. The above ancillary buildings are required for the proper operation of a private, security-oriented golf course facility, and will meet reasonable standards of the City. (d) Water District letter is attached as Exhibit C *Wash 28.45 Acres Driving Range 3.27 Acres "Net Wash" 25.18 Acres 34 - I Minutes Page Three Palm Desert Planning Commission February 14, 1979 VI . A. (cont . ) Commissioner Berkey commented that Mr. Housley is within his rights to split his property into three parcels, as it is within the present zoning law. In fact , this split is less than what is required. He also stated that he was not convinced by arguments against the proposal that it would be detrimental to nearby property owners. On a motion by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, the Tentative Parcel Map No. 14163 was approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. 457; carried unanimously (5-0) . V B. Continued Case N=DP01-79DAME' -DOTY DEVELOPMENT CO. , Applicant Request for approval of a Residential Development Plan to allow 683 attached single-family multi-family units and golf course on approximately 210 acres located west of Portola, northerly of the Whitewater Storm Channel . Chairman Kelly indicated that she did go out to the project site to review the area in question, at the request of the applicant . She also noted that although Commissioner Fleshman did have to leave after most of the presentation had been made at the last meeting, he did listen to the tapes prior to this meeting. Mr. Williams stated that this case was continued to allow the applicant to prepare revised plans, addressing those concerns expressed by the Commission at the last meeting. He noted that the revised site plan was received from the applicant after the Staff Report had been written. Mr . Williams then reviewed the Staff Report , enumerating the concerns of the Commission and the manner in which they were addressed by the applicant . . Those concerns included : . number of units per building; relocation of swimming pools; attempt to jog streets to eliminate row effect ; and relocation of maintenance facility and recrea- tional vehicle storage area. He then stated that , although the revised site plan does meet all requirements, the applicant has not addressed the overall design concern as to being innovative and compatible to the PR zone as it was intended. Therefore, Staff recommends denial of this development plan. There were no questions or comments from the Commissioners at this point ; Chairman Kelly asked for the applicant ' s presentation. RICHARD DOTY, 43 Barcelona, Rancho Mirage. Mr . Doty reiterated the concerns of the Commission and how they had been addressed in the revised- site plan. He noted that the revised plan has reduced the number of units by 16; they have attempted to bring the pools into the clusters of units for more convenience; have shifted street to eliminate row effect ; maintenance facility and recreational vehicle storage area have been relocated to increase shielding. He also pointed out that , contrary to Staff Report , the proposed golf course design was not arbitrary at all . They have purposely created . this; it was one of their original design constraints. He also mentioned that the golf course has been widened. Mr. Doty then asked Mr. Ted Robinson to testify as to the technical capability of revised plan. Mr. Robinson simply reiterated Mr. Doty' s previous statements. Commissioner Berkey posed the question of guest parking. 1 Minutes Page Four Palm Desert Planning Commission February 14 , 1979 VI . B. (cont . ) Mr . Robinson answered that he felt that could be easily solved; if there is a concern for additional bay parking, it can be provided without any difficulty. Mr. Doty mentioned that the clubhouse parking is up to 102 spaces; they have also provided parking for the driving range. Chairman Kelly asked if there were any questions. There being none, she declared the Public Hearing open, asking if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION of this proposal . The following persons spoke in FAVOR of proposal : HARVEY DOYTCH, 73141 44th Avenue. CHARLES E. HOLEMAN, 73500 Encelia JIM SHARPE, 74725 Joanie Drive. MARGE NIESTRUM, 46265 Burroweed Lane. JACK DULSTRUM, Sunrise Company. Voiced his concern over raising of houses 41 , stating he felt there would be some very serious concerns about other units being built at a different level . Mr . Robinson assured him that pads adjacent to .Monterey Country Club will not be raised 41 . Raised elevation will only occur in the center of the project , not the perimeter . This gives much more protection when units are looking down on golf course. It will be done in a compatible way with the other units. C Chairman Kelly declared the Public Hearing closed. MR. DAME' , with-;regard to the -concern over raising of houses, stated that they do not necessarily have to do this, but would prefer to. Chairman Kelly then asked if the Commission had any questions or comments. Commissioner Fleshman expressed his concern over the adaptation of the project with the intent and purpose of the PR zone, and stated he would feel more comfortable supporting the project if Staff felt that the developer was in conformance with zone as intended. Commissioner Snyder noted that it is apparent there is a difference of opinion between Staff and developer ; but it would seem there is still room for them to achieve agreement . Commissioner Berkey indicated that he was satisfied with the plan, accepting it as strictly schematic, but that it also needs to have a great deal of attention at the Design Review process. He would expect the developer to work closely with Staff and the Design Review Board. Objectionable features of the plan can be mitigated at that point , including guest parking, landscaping plan , elimination of row effect , and pad elevation. Commissioner Kryder agreed with Commissioner Berkey' s state- ments, stating that while there are still certain objectionable issues of the plan, they are not sufficiently damaging to require the denial of the project at this time. Design Review Board activity can handle it , with Staff and developer working together. Chairman Kelly commended applicant for changes made to this point , and feels the problems can be worked out at the Design Review Board level. Mr . Williams suggested that , if the development plan is approved, a 10-minute recess should be called to allow the developer to review the conditions of approval . He stated that they do embody a procedure that would allow the Planning Commission to have answers to concerns i� such as setbacks, etc. Minutes Page Five Palm Desert Planning Commission February 14, 1979 VI . B. (cont . ) Recess was called at 2 : 05 p.m. for 10 minutes to allow appli- cant to review conditions. Meeting was reconvened at 2 : 15, at which time Mr . Williams stated that the applicant has seen the draft of conditions of approval . Mr. Doty then reviewed each condition with the Commission and Staff , enumerating those he felt needed clarification or deletion. The conditions were amended, with all in agreement . There was then some discussion as to whether to continue this case or to approve the development plan at this time, with amended conditions. Commissioner Snyder suggested approval of this case to the Tentative Tract stage, wherein any further problems could be addressed. - On a motion by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner Berkey, Development Plan 01-79 was approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. 458 , subject to conditions; carried 4-1 (AYES : Berkey, Kryder, Snyder , Kelly; NOES : Fleshman) . v ',. .'C. Continued Public Hearing -- Palm Valley Stormwater Channel Area Specific Plan Mr. Williams presented for discussion and review 12 issues which summarize the comments from property owners, interested citizens and other agencies received through conferences, correspondence or the January 17, 1979 Public Hearing on the subject . He also presented the recommended action to resolve each issue. Following the presentation of the 12 issues, Mr . Williams commented on additional correspondence received. He indicated that copies of this correspondence, as well as all correspondence received, would appear in the Appendix of the subject study. He then stated that Staff hoped to obtain sufficient direction at this meeting to, provide a recommendation to the City Council for adoption of the plan. Chairman Kelly then opened the Public Hearing to take testimony in FAVOR or OPPOSITION of the plan. G. GEORGE FOX, Fox Farms, 1512 Jarvis, Chicago Illinois. Mr. Fox' s comments were related primarily to the development of the property he owns in the study area. He indicated that the physical development of the land is as important as the structure. He indicated further that improvements such as roads are the responsibility of the individual landowner . Fox said he was interested in quality development , and has hired the firm of Perkins and Will to do a financial feasi- bility study for development of his property. To clarify his position and intent in this matter, he prepared for presentation to the Planning Commission a letter , which he read for the record. A copy of the letter appears in the Appendix of the subject study. O. R. HOMME, 261 Cordoba Way. Mr . Homme wished to reiterate his concerns for the subject study and his property. He indicated that he was in no hurry to develop his property, and there were certain physical barriers which would preclude such development . He recommended that a crossing be provided to the study area via Thrush Road. He also suggested that the Planning Commission consider increasing the density on the flatter portions of the project area from 2 to 3 to.. 5 dwelling units per acre. This recommendation was based on the McKueon project on the east side of the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel and the cost in- volved with providing the bridggEij s.UM)ef the Channel . Minutes Page Five Palm Desert Plann- Commission January 30, 1979 VI . (cont . ) E. (cont . ) Mrs. Williams said that on previous discussions, it was indicated that the money would be used toward major drainage. Commissioner Snyder thinks it is rather unfair to ask developer to pay into drainage fund and then assume the additional obligation of the bridge. Discussion ensued regarding this question. A suggestion was made that Special Condition No. 7 could be modified to leave out specific mention of the bridge, and leave that issue up to the City Council . Mr . Crump offered alternative wording as follows : "Sub- divider shall provide for improvements as required by City Council to extend Magnesia Falls Drive to cross 100' drainage channel . " That would leave the decision on the issue up to City Council . Betty Williams did not agree with putting the issue in limbo. Mr. Crump stated that the issue would need to be addressed by the Council . Chairman Kelly declared the Public Hearing open , asking if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION of the proposals. Being none, she declared the Public Hearing closed . On a motion by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner Berkey, Planning Commission Resolution No. 453 was approved as amended (amendment below) , and Resolution No. 454 was approved as presented. 1 . Special Condition No. 7 will now read : "Subdivider shall provide for improvements as required by City Council to extend Magnesia Falls Drive to cross the 100' drainage channel adjacent to northerly side of subdivision. " carried unanimously (5-0) . COMMISSIONE FLESHMAN WAS EXCUSED FROM THE MEETING AT THIS TIME . mii U ES AMENDED Case No. DP 01-79 - DAME ' -DOTY DEVELOPMENT CO. , Applicant 7, Request for approval of a Residential Development Plan to allow 683 attached single-family/multi-family units and golf course on approximately 210 acres located west of Portola, northerly of the Whitewater Storm Channel . Mr . Williams presented the Staff Report , describing the back- ground of the project ,surrounding uses and zoning, open space and elements of the project , type and number of units proposed and the amenities to be in the development . He also reviewed the site plan, noting the design concerns of Staff , which were contained in the written report to the Commission. He then reviewed the related project exhibits which detailed the specific elements of the proposal . Mr. Williams concluded by reviewing the alternatives for Planning Commission action in this matter . Following the Staff recommendations, it was suggested that the project needed restudy to resolve a number of basic design problems. Chairman Kelly asked if the Commissioners had any questions or comments at this time. There were none forthcoming , so she asked if the Applicant would care to make a statement . RICHARD DOTY, 43 Barcelona, Rancho Mirage, introduced his company, and gave a short description of the history of the land of the Chapparal Country Club. Stated that he and Mr. Dame ' had hired experts in all fields of development . Mr . Doty noted that at their meeting of January 23, 1979, the Design Review Board felt that the project was well thought out and endorsed it . Their recommendations have been taken under advisement , and have been agreed to. Mr. Doty also met with Clyde Beebe and discussed ramifica- tions of a drainage fund that h;r . Beebe has expressed an interest in their committing to. Mr . Doty also agreed on a preliminary basis to pay into the improvement of Portola Avenue, on a "i':hat ever Is fair" basis . Minutes Page Six Palm Desert Planning Commission January 30, 1979 VI . (cont . ) F. (cont . ) Mr. Doty wished to point out that all City ordinances have been met , as pointed out by Mr . Williams. He also wanted to clarify that the area referred to as recreational vehicle storage is actually south of the wash, and feels that this is probably the most appropriate place for it as it is not visible, and is clear of the wash. Mr. Doty then addressed some of the Staff recommendations as follows: No. 1 -- They will agree to the tree screen protection as required . No. 3 -- They will agree to this item. It is their intent that the clubhouse will be for the use of the homeowners only; however, building is designed for owners to use as banquet facilities. They feel that the parking requirement will be met with that thought in mind. No. 6 -- They feel there is no alternative to this arrange- ment . The project will include automatic openers so that owners will be encouraged to use garages. They feel the streets will be attractive. No. 8 -- They have agreed on a preliminary basis to add two more pools and to relocate a few. Have added the two onto the wash side of the property to block that up considerably. Feels that pool at entrance can be made to be attractive. A pool is located conveniently to every unit on the property; about 34 units to a pool . No. 7 -- They feel they have more than enough on-street parking . spaces for guests; they will make arrange- ments for parking bays. They prefer to have more landscaping. No. 9 -- Referred to presentation. Can show a 10' offset on straight streets. Feels that offset will be adequate to break up straight streets. They have also agreed to add two tennis courts; they now have eight . Mr. Doty also noted that they, are now prepared to commit to 673 units instead of 683. Regarding Recommendation #2 from Clyde Beebe; they have agreed to provide emergency access off the end of cul-de- sacs, with special paving. Recommendation #3 ; they do not feel that the traffic will be typical , and see no problem here. Recommendation #4; they do not see any blowsand problem; they will be downwind from Monterey Country Club. Mr. Doty then introduced their expert on the design of the golf course: c D�� SES A�h� c TED ROBINSON Westlake Village, stated that this project is 71 patterned after Marrakesh. Feels it has been very success- there; they have used exactly the same or greater criteria as the Monterey Country Club. Minutes Page Seven Palm Desert Planning Commission January 30, 1979 VI . (cont . ) F. (cont . ) Mr. Robinson does not see any problem with the screening; by depressing the golf course below surrounding area so that condos are looking down, and extensive landscaping in critical areas should take care of that . " !N.1JT,=SAke,U.,w 0 al f/ 7q He stated that it has been found that units ofYthe._g,olf course are in the greatest demand; people are willing to pay the price. Regarding straight streets - these units are the ones in the greatest demand, as there is half the traffic and parking. Regarding swimming pools - feels that land plan is adequate. Have used the same specifics as Monterey Country Club. Does not see any problem with safety. Regarding entrance to development - feels it will be one of the finest entranceways in the desert . Feels there was no benefit to anyone to eliminate units on entrance. FRANK RADIMAKER, 17722 Irvine Blvd, has designed many projects in this area. Mr. Radimaker reviewed the land- �� scaping plans; feels it will be outstanding. He explained the concept of the entrance to the project . The main feature is very wide with two major water features. Mr . Doty noted at this time that they intend to convey the title to the golf course and banquet facilities to the homeowners eventually. They will commit themselves that it will not be a commercial operation. Mr. Radimaker then reviewed the tennis court area and land- scaping of project . Feels that with proper use of trees, buildings and streets can be complemented. Regarding Tamarisk trees - Mr. Radimaker feels that to save those trees to the detriment of the rest of the project -- there should be another solution; perhaps to use a tree that is not quite so messy or brittle . CARL DAME'was introduced by Mr . Doty as the man who con- ceived project together with experts. He has designed these homes specifically for this piece of property. Mr. Dame' wished to note that the largest unit is 2, 050 sq. ft . (from 1, 520 sq. ft . ) . Mr . Doty suggested at this point that it would be_ appro- priate for Staff to have an updated version of the design ( plan , and would like to have the matter continued for L two weeks. Chairman Kelly declared the Public Hearing open, asking if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION of this proposal . Being none, she declared the Public Hearing closed, and asked for any Commission or Staff comments. Mr . Williams stated that he feels each project should be innovative and designed to fit the site; this project does not , irregardless of similaries to other projects in area. Minutes Page Eight Palm Desert Planning Commission January 30, 1979 VI . (cont . ) P:11iV�t. tS AMENDEC F. (cont . ) �_ �/y 7 Commissioner Berkey stated he felt that the blowsand should be redesigned. However , he did feel that applicant is approaching Staff concerns in a way that will solve the problem. Commissioner Kryder ' s only comment was that the driveway exiting onto main entry road may be a problem. He also mentioned the fact that it is not such a bad thing to design after successful projects, and it is a bit late at this point to try to be innovative. Commissioner Snyder was concerned about the land- scaping with the large groups of five solid units; no open space at all . It was recommended to accept the proposal to continue this case to the February meeting. Chairman Kelly commended the applicant for attempting to approach problems. Finds concern with the main- tenance and recreational vehicle area, feels it should not be right off Portola. She also expressed concern over the solid line of units; would like to see more of a 2-duplex type building. Commissioner Berkey moved that this matter be continued to February 14. After some discussion, it was seconded by Commissioner Kryder; carried unanimously (4-0) . RECESS WAS CALLED AT 9: 35. MEETING RECONVENED AT 9:45. VII . OLD BUSINESS - None VIII . NEW BUSINESS A. Consideration of Planning Commission Initiated Preannexation Zoning -- Annexation Area No. 11 . Mr . Williams reviewed Staff Report , which recommended initiation of a Change of Zone from ' S' to PR-6, U.A. On a motion by Commissioner Kryder , seconded by Commissioner Berkey, Planning Commission Resolution No. 455 was adopted as presented. IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS Consideration of the cases reviewed by the Design Review Board at their regularly scheduled meeting of January 23, 1979. Design Review Board items were reviewed in the Study Session by the Commissioners. On a motion by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, Planning Commission Resolution No. 456 was adopted, with the following modifications: Case No. 59C - Applicant must comply with ordinance regarding the 10' landscaped buffer required along the south property line, or obtain relief of said ordinance. Case No. 162 MF - Garage doors are required on the carports and overhead storage must be provided. carried unanimously 4-0. �ouNry ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC ICY ��STRIGt COACHELLA VALLEY COUNTY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (714)398-2651 DIRECTORS OFFICERS RAYMOND R. RUMMONDS, PRESIDENT LOWELL O. WEEKS, GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER TELLIS CODEKAS,VICE PRESIDENT OLE J. NORDLAND, SECRETARY C. J. FROST March 9, 1979 DENNIS M. HACKETT, AUDITOR WILLIAM B. GARDNER REDWINE AND SHERRILL, ATTORNEYS STEVE D.BUXTON File: o163. 11 0421 . 1 0721 . 1 Department of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert P. 0. Box 1977 Palm Desert , California 92260 Re: P.D. Case No. DP-01-79 NEB, Sec. 17, T5S, RISE Gentlemen: This area is protected from stormwater flows by the Whitewater River Stormwater Channel and may be considered safe from stormwater flows except in rare instances. The District will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to said area in accordance with the currently prevailing regulations of this District. This area shall be annexed to Improvement District No. 54 & 80 of the Coachella Valley County Water District for sanitation service. Very trully yours; i ' f' Lowell 0. Weeks General Manager-Chief Engineer KEH:je r.�.. cc: Riverside County Dept. of Public Health 46-209 Oasis Street Indio, California 92201 C-,y 1p Attention: Lloyd Rogers 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE 2/15/79 APPLICANT DAME'D7PY DEVELOPMENT 00. CASE NO. : DP 01-79 The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of February 14, 1979 CONTINUED TO - . DENIED x APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 458 PLACED ON THE AGENDA OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF FOR CONCURRENCE WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION. PLACED ON THE AGENDA OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF FOR PUBLIC HEARING. Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the Director of Environmental Services, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. � �\z PAUL A. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSSION cc: Applicant C.V.C.W.D. File ✓ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 458 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO ALLOW 666 ATTACHED SINGLE-FAMILY CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND GOLF COURSE ON APPROXIMATELY 210 ACRES LOCATED WEST OF PORTOLA AVENUE, NORTHERLY OF THE WHITEWATER STORM CHANNEL. � .- WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert , California, did hold a duly noticed Public Hearing on January 30, 1979, and continued Hearing on February 14 , 1979, to consider a request by Dame ' -Doty Development Company to allow 683 residential condominium units (Amended to 666 units) and related golf course on approximately 210 acres, within the PR-5 (Planned Residential , max. 5 d.u. /ac . ) and O. S. (Open Space) zones on the west side of Portola Avenue, northerly of the Whitewater Storm Channel , more particularly described as : APN 621-350-016-6 621-200-020-5 621-350-017-7 621-350-018-8 621-350-023-2 621-200-032-6 621-200-083-7 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, the Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify the denial of the subject Development Plan : 1 . The proposed development is consistent with the City ' s adopted General Plan. 2. The proposed use is similar to and compatible with those contemplated on nearby properties. 3 . The design or improvement of the proposed development will be consistent with the Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance. 4. The site is physically suited for both the type of develop- ment proposed and the proposed density. 5. The design of the development and the proposed improve- ments are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or have a serious effect on the public health, safety, or general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert , California, as follows : 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and consti- tute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case. 2 . That the Planning Commission does hereby approve Development Plan 01-79, subject to conditions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission held on this 14tb day of February, 1979, by the following vote, to wit : - AYES : BERKEY, KELLY, KRYDER, SNYDER NOES : FLESHMAN ABSENT : NONE ABSTAIN: NONE GLORIA KELLY, Chairman ATTEST: ecre ary PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLDTION NO. 458 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. DP 01-79 ' Standard Conditions: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with Exhibit A Revised. (Case No. DP 01-79) on file with the Department of Environmental Services, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any uses contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first complete all the procedural requirements of the City which includes, but not limited to, amended Development Plan for the condominium area, Design Review Subdivision process, and building permit procedures. 3. Construction of the total development may be done in phases; however, each individual phase shall meet or exceed all Municipal Code requirements to the degree that the City could consider each phase as a single project. 4. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of Design Review approval; otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. Further, the total project shall be completed by January 1, 1985. After said date, this approval shall automatically expire for those remaining undeveloped portions of the subject property. 5. Prior to the issuance of any City permits for the commencement of construction on said project, the applicant shall agree in writing to these Conditions of Approval. 6. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and State and Federal Statutes now in .force, or which hereafter may be in force. 7. All existing electrical distribution lines, telephone, cable antenna television, and similar service wires or cables, which are adjacent to the property being developed shall be installed underground as a part of development from the nearest existing pole not on the property being developed. 8. All requirements of the City Fire Marshal-. shall be met as part of the develop- ment of this project, per attached letter dated January 17, 1979. 9. Construction plans shall be submitted for approval to the City Fire Marshal prior to issuance of building permits. All conditions shall be made a part of con- struction and no certificate of occupancy shall be issued until completed. 10. Traffic control provisions shall be provided as required by the Director of Public Works. 11. Curb, gutter, sidewalk or approved pathways, and tie-in paving shall be provided in conformance with City Standards and/or as required by the Director of Public Works. 12. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Riverside County Department of Health Palm Desert Design Review Board Process City Fire Marshal Coachella Valley County Water District Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the Department of Building and Safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 13. No development shall occur on the subject property prior to the recordation of a tract map. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 458 SPECIAL CONDITIONS CASE NO. DP 01-79 1. Provide developer's fair share of the cost of alternative access to the site by entering into an agreement with the City for improvement of the west one-half of Portola Avenue, north to Hovely Lane, prior to development of the site. 2. Provide full improvements along Portola frontage and install ornamental parkway landscaping. 3. Provide for a 6 foot high solid masonry wall (where one does not exist or is not presently planned by others, .and except for perimeter street openings) along the north, east and west site boundaries; and, provide a 3-4 foot wall along the north side of the Whitewater Storm Channel, to the rear of dwelling units, as approved through the Design Review process. 4. Provide revised site plan to accompany Tentative Tract Map, which addresses the following: A. Prepare alternative to long street segments using undulating or curvalinear design, giving special attention to perimeter private roadways. B. Define and provide conveniently located guest parking spaces, giving special attention to double-loaded street. C. Design swimming pool areas to be more centrally located to dwelling unit clusters, and/or develop pedestrian access system. D. Open up vistas and orient dwelling unit clusters to take advantage of the view amenity. E. Accurately plot O.S. zone boundary line in relation to dwelling units, to insure that units are completely contained in the PR-5 zoned portion of the site. RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT k UAI TY IN COOPERATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY 111V RS1 DAVID L. FLAKE COUNTY FIRE WARDEN 210 WEST SAN JACINTO STREET January 17, 1979 PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 9237 TELEPHONE (714) 657-3183 Paul A. Williams Director of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: Case No. DIP 01-79 Dear Mr. Williams: Prior to construction of any of the proposed buildings, the following conditions must be met: 1. Install a water system capable of delivering 2500 GPM fire flow for a two (2) hour duration in addition to domestic or other supply. The computation stall be based upon a minimum of 20 psi residual operating pressure in the supply main from which the flow is measured at the time of measurement. 2. Install Riverside County super fire hydrants so that no point of any building is more than 250 feet from a fire hydrant measured along approved vehicular travel ways. A. Hydrants stall not be located closer than 25 feet to �any building. B. Exterior surfaces of hydrant barrels and heads shall be painted chrome yellow, and the tops and nozzle caps shall be painted green. C. Curbs (if installed) , shall be painted red 15 feet in either direction from each hydrant. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original and three (3) copies of the water system plan to the Fire Marshal for review. Upon approval, one copy will be sent to the Building Department, and the original will be returned to the developer. 4. The water system plan shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, and approved by the water company, with the following certification; "I certify that the desigi of the water system in Case Number DP 01-79 is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Fire Marshal." - Continued d 41 V Paul A. Williams January 17, 197c Director of Environmental Services Page 2. 5. Prior to delivery of combustible materials to the building site, the required water system shall be installed, operating and delivering the required flow. Very truly yours, DAVID I. FLAKE Fire Chief n � David J. Ortegel Fire Marshal vld a -- ---- --- --- L s CITY OF PALM DESERT STAFF REPORT To: Planning Commission Report on: Development Plan Applicant: DAME'-DOTY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Case No. : DP 01-79 Date: January 30, 1979 I. REQUEST: Approval of a Development Plan Residential to allow 683 attached single-family/multi-family units and golf course on approximately 210 acres located west of Portola, northerly of the Whitewater Storm Channel . LOCATIONAL MAP: II. BACKGROUND: A. .ADJACENT ZONING/LAND USE: North - PR-5, Planned Residential Developments South - PR-4, Planned Residential Developments, and R-M, Mobile Home East - R-M, Mobile Home Subdivision, and PR-5, vacant West - PR-5, Planned Residential Development B. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential , 5-7 du/ac; and C.O.D. Specific Plan (Whitewater Channel ) - O.S. , Open Space. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: -_TheiDirector of-:Environmental Services has determined that the proposed Jproject will not have a significant adverse"impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been prepared. D. PREVIOUS PERTINENT CASES: Annexation Area No. 5 (containing the subject property) , proceedings concluded January, 1979. E. ACREAGE CALCULATION: (note - All calculations are based on rough estimates, source data has not been confirmed through survey. ) R Page 2 E. (cont. ) 1 . Acreage by zone - PR-5 +181 .34 O.S. +, 28.92 Total gross site ±210 26 acres 2. Net site - Gross site (PR-5) +181 .34 Public Streets (minus) +i 1 .34 +180.00 acres 3. Density - 683 units : 181 .34 ac. = 3.76 du/ac. 4. Open Space (PR-5 zone) Required (50% of net site area) -= 90 .acres : . Proposed (58.7%'of net site area)= = 106.58 acres F. DWELLING UNIT DEFINITION: 1 . Unit sizes 162-A - 2-bedroom and den - 1922 sq. ft. 170-B - 2-bedroom and den - 2035 sq. ft. 298-C - 2-bedroom and. den - 1803 sq. ft. 53-D - 1-bedroom and den - 1520 sq. ft. 683 total units 2. Unit/Building groups No. of bldgs: ., : No. of units 2 unit buildings 6 12 3 unit buildings 10 30 4 unit buildings 109 436 5 unit buildings 41 205 166 683 3. Dwelling unit height -- 1 story, v{17 ft. G. RECREATION AMENITIES: -- Golf course - 18 holes -- Club house - 10,000 to 12,000 sq. ft. -- Swimming pools and spas - 17 -- Tennis courts - 6 (lighted) H. PARKING ANALYSIS: 1 . Required -- 2 covered spaces per unit, plus 0.5 guest spaces per unit (1025 total) -- Club house (based on uses per .Ordinance standards) -- Golf course, 5 spaces per hole (90 total ) -- Driving range, 1 per tee -- Tennis courts, 3 per court (18 total ) 2. Proposed -- 2 covered. spaces per unit, street parking on one side (if minimum 32-foot width is maintained) -- Recreation vehicle storage lot (parking for an undetermined number of vehicles) -- Parking for all other uses - 91 spaces in Club House parking lot Page '� III. DISCUSSION: The two major design components of the project proposal are; (a) the golf course (with club house and tennis facilities); and (b) the condominium units (and private street system). The proposed development will be described under these two major headings followed by a staff commentary on design elements. Other relevant subjects and considerations will be covered in sections that follow. A. GOLF COURSE: The proposed 18-hole golf course is laid out in a predominantly single fairway "executive" design. Fairways range in length from 145 to 340 yards. Most fairways are designed in a virtually straight line, with a slight dogleg used in some instances. The overall design appears to be a modified and adapted form of the basic returning nine. Staff Commentary - Single fairway designs consume the greatest amount of land area. Although they permit the maximum of fairway unit sites, they present the greatest danger of golf balls flying into outdoor living areas. To provide some measure of safety, single fairways should be at least 100 yards wide in the landing area, which extends from 150 to 250 yards from the tee. This width may-be reduced slightly if a protective screen of trees is provided in the landing area. Most of the proposed fairways have a width of less than 100 yards at the. beginning of the landing area. _ The width of .the landing area becomes important on longer fairways when less accurate wood clubs are used. Staff realizes - that the tendency on shorter "Executive" design fairways is to use ' irons' which allow greater control over shot placement, but notes that the fairways in this proposal need to be individually evaluated for safety of design. Normally, golf course devel.dp- ments are required to grade fairways lower than building pads to retain nuisance waters. A depressed fairway may also ,aid 'design safety, with the exception. of balls that are hit in an arc. In most instances, dwelling units roughly parallel the fairways. The incorporation of well designed doglegs (using water, sand traps, and trees) allows curving or even undulating unit and roadway placement, with a maximum degree of safety and protection. A double fairway approach (which was not selected in this pro- posal ) allows a curved building line and saves land area by requiring less buffer zone around tees and greens. A double fairway can be as narrow as 100 yards combining tees and greens at either end. If the adjacent buildings are curved to fit this pattern, it will result in a further savings of land, reduced area to maintain, and potentially from the housing point of view, a more interesting development. In either the single or double fairway approach, there are recognized design techniques (such as those mentioned) which aid safety, land savings, and unit arrangement. Also proposed in the development is a club house and tennis facility. No major commercial concession (such as a public restaurant) is requested in the club house. Six tennis courts have initially been proposed and the applicant is studying the inclusion of two additional courts. A parking lot has been provided for this facility containing approximately 91 spaces. Staff Commentary - The exact list of uses for the club house building should be established as a part of any approval . Tennis court design will be the subject of closer evaluation at the Design Review level . The parking lot only appears to be a suggestion of how it might be laid out, because at the scale represented, it does not appear that minimum isle widths have been provided. The number of stalls illustrated is less than the ordinance requirement. . If golf cart access to the facility were enhanced a 10%,reduction in the number of required spaces maybe justified. Page 4 B. CONDOMINIUM DESIGN: The project is served by a controlled entrance on Portola Avenue. A median island private entry road leads to the centrally located club house and connects with a perimeter loop street system. Cul-de-sac private streets and minor loops run off of this system. Dwelling unit buildings generally parallel the private streets. Spacing between buildings will be designed to meet the minimum require- ment of 20 feet. Unit garages are located adjacent to the street connected by driveways. Pool and- spa areas are generally located- at - either end of dwelling unit rows, or in a turn=around island. Staff Commentary - The PR (Planned Residential ) zone cites in the text section titled "Purpose", the position of the City with regard to encouraging creative and imaginative design, and assures reasonable consideration of innovative and unique land development techniques. These statements, along with other authorities, would seem to very directly involve the City in a determination of design appropriateness and acceptability. The PR zone also requires that 50% of the net site area be used for common open space purposes. Staff perceives the utilization of this open space to be necessary to achieve imaginative unit arrangement, as well consolidated in larger area to provide for active and passive recreation. Most of the open space in the subject proposal is consumed by the golf course, which allows little flexibility for unit arrangement. A preponderance of unit buildings are laid out in 'long uninter- rupted rows with minimum separation between buildings; this is especially noticable along the perimeter loop streets. The street scene consists of continuous garage doors and driveways, which on the double loaded streets (units fronting on both sides) , presents a problem for locating convenient guest parking spaces. Driveway access to units has also been placed on .the major entrance roadway; which is not considered the best design approach. The general swimming pool area orientation does not appear to maximize exposure and access; particularly those areas at'-the ends of .building rows, which only seem to relate to a few adja- cent units. The relationship of the. pool's_to dwelling-un-its_ is a product of this design approach. C. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS: A portion of the project area is in the O.S. (Open Space) zone applied to the Whitewater Channel . Minor use of the channel bottom is made by a golf practice range, and in the southeast corner of the project, a recreational vehicle storage lot is illustrated. There is some concern that the southern row of dwelling units do not encroach into the O.S. zone. This may be resolved by an accurate plotting of buildings in relation to the zone boundary line. At present, the project site is only served by Por.tola crossing the Whitewater Channel . In the event of large storm volumes, access would be cut off; therefore, consideration for improvement of Portola to Hovely Lane is necessary as an alternate access. A row of Tamerisk trees exist along the western boundary of the site. The City required as a condition of approval for Monterey Country Club that the trees be left as a wind break. Even if the subject property is developed, there-would be value in maintaining an established win&: break to benefit .both properties. Therefore, an accurate plotting of trees needs to be accomplished to determine if the proposed plan accommodates them. -- Page 5 D. OTHER EXHIBITS: In addition to site plan information, the applicants have submitted other details of the proposal ; these include a rendering of a building unit, club house plans, and general landscaping with 'blow-ups' of specific areas. It appears that the applicants spent a great deal of time considering the micro details of the project, such as amenities to be provided within the dwelling units, sizing of the club house kitchen, the appearance of the entry gate, etc. These exhibits will be discussed with the Commission, but of course, the primary focus of the Development Plan review is the site plan design. [E. DISCUSSION SUMMARY: The design commentary provided in this report has been discussed with the applicant at various stages of pre and formal application filing. The applicant maintains that the proposal substantially conforms (or will be adjusted so that it does) to all zoning ordinance minimums; and that the total design of the project reflects the applicant's desired product. Staff underscores that by the very nature of the Planned -Residential zone, the City has reserved the authority to exercise descretion over project design. The'Design Review Board was given an opportunity to view the complete application submittal at their January .23, 1979,:•meeting; at which time, Staff presented the list of concerns contained in this report, and the applicant made a presentation giving a detailed explanation of the rationale behind the product approach. The item. was on the agenda for discussion purposes only, and no official action was called for, or required. As a summary commentary, Staff suggests that the proposed project has not taken advantage of design opportunities and techniques which tend to produce an imaginative and creatiJe development. Also, that golf course and dwelling unit arrangement have both suffered because too much is trying to be achieved on the site. i c: Page 6, IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: There are three obvious alternatives for Planning Commission; each is examined in the following: A. APPROVE THE PROJECT AS SUBMITTED. This action "would have to be reconciled with the intent of the zone observing the quantity of possible design improvements indicated; or B. DENY THE PROJECT. This action may not be warranted because basic density and development standards have been observed; or C. CONTINUE THE PROJECT FOR REDESIGN. The effect of this action would be to continue consideration of the matter and direct the applicant to prepare design alternatives, specifically addressing the. points which the Commission considers significant. Staff recommends that the Commission select alternative 'C' , and direct the applicant to prepare an alternative site plan(s) to address the following: 1 -- Increase fairway landing area width, or design special tree screen protection. -- Vary fairway designs to allow other than straight row unit orientation. 3 -- Reconcile list of club house and recreation uses with not less than 90% of Ordinance required parking, and redesign parking lot to accommodate that number, plus golf cart parking. �. -- Use open space to provide increased unit separation and flexibility in orientation. y;-- Eliminate dwelling unit access to major entry road. �'-- Provide alternatives to continuous straight garage driveway access, employing radial drives and other techniques. -- Define and provide conveniently located guest parking spaces in open bays. �• -- Design swimming pool" areas to be more centrally located to dwelling groups, and developi':pedestrian access system. A,-- Prepare alternatives to long straight street segments with continuous rows of dwelling units, giving special attention to perimeter roadways. o . -- Plot existing Tamerisk trees along western boundary of the site and incorporate as a windscreen. -- Provide accurate illustration of O.S. zone line in relation to dwelling units. Incorporate all other design matters of specific concern to the Commission, and continue Case No. DP 01-79, to the Planning Commission meeting of February 27, 1979. I "TOM NEI WE a a fr,ad! sv a SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA [N COMPANY 3700 CENTRAL AVENUE • RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA Mailing Address P.O. BOX 2200, RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92516 January 17, 1979 Location of Plearest Gas Plain: Zircon Circle E/ Portola Ave. City of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: DP 01-79 This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project; but only as an information service. Its intent is to notify you that t;-fe Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above named project is proposed. Gas service to t'r.e project could be provided from an existing main without any significant impact on the environment. The service would be in accor'dance with the Company's poi cieS and extension rules on file With the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made. The availability (if natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory pGlicips. As a public utility, the Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. We can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any actihon d c f.Cis ya supply or t;, „ rl under idirich service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions. We have developed several programs which are available, upon request, to provide assistance in Selecting the most effective_ applications of energy conservation techniques for a particular project.. If you desire further information on any oP out, energy conservation programs , please contact this office for assistance. ��SV1R��UcVt'i+r'`'v Distribution Planning Supervisor • ouer ._. ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC A T 1 �JST RIGt' COACHELLA VALLEY COUNTY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058 COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (714)398-2651 DIRECTORS OFFICERS RAYMOND R. RUMMONDS, PREMONT 1. O 1')l" LOWELL O. WEEKS,GER ER AL MANAG -OIIO EMOIN EII TELLIS CODEKAS, YIQ PRFSID.T r 2;I, E ENOLE J. NORDUND,SEO,EAAY C. J. FROST DENNIS M. HACKETT. AUDITOR WILLIAM R. GARDNER REDWINE AND SHERRILL.ATTO"M STEVE D.RURTON Irrl I►� File: 0163. 11 VVEBB FENGINELR;,lr o421 . 1 .a 0721 . 1 Webb Engineering, Inc. 600 E: Tahquitz-McCallum Way _ - Palm Springs, CA. 92262 Attention: Jack Saunders Re: Tract 13881 S} of Section 8, & N} of Section 17 T5S, RISE Gentlemen: l4,_..... This area is protected from stormwater flows by the Whitewater River Stormwater Channel and may be considered safe from stormwater flows except in rare instances. - The District will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to said area in accordance with the currently prevailing regulations of this District. Very truly yours, • f Lowell 0 Weeks _ 7 ^ �} Genera l Maneger-Chief Engineer _ .- c-i�r. 4'_ _ _ • 1. 7 ... - � i� 17' C SUNRISE COMPANY jjWh11 0 `;a; 42-000 BOB HOPE DRIVE RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIF. 92270 I ONMENTAL SERVICES TELEPHONE (714) 326-9945 06JMPWTAL WES 1 OF PALM DESERT January 19, 1979 Mr. Paul Williams Director Of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert P. 0. Box 1648 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Paul : Thank you for sending me the Preliminary Grading Plan on Chapparel Country Club. Naturally, it is hard to get a feel for the total overall development based upon the Preliminary Grading Plan, but it does give us a basis for making certain comments. We are very much concerned that this development, which abutts honterey Country Club to the east, does not destroy or damage the Tamarisk trees which separates our property from theirs. You may recall that the City made it a Condi- tion Of Approval of Monterey Country Club that all the Tamarisk trees be left as a windbreak and we are extremely concerned that nothing happens to any of these trees. I would presume that you will make it a condition of their development that any of the Tamarisk trees on the perimeter of the property are not removed. We also assume that Portola is going to be improved all the way through at least to Hovely Lane. As I understand it, Portola, Cook and Monterey are the main feeder streets to the City of Palm Desert and that any improvement along Portola would require that that street be fully improved. As they get further along with the development I am certain that we will have other comments that we would like to make. Thank you again. Sincerely, Jack M. Conlon President /rms cc : William Bone CITY OF PALM DESERT 12-21 -78 DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION CHAPARRAL COUNTRY CLUB 1. (a) Legal Description - See Exhibit A attached hereto. (1) Present owner of record: Ted Weiner Oil Properties Trust as to Parcels 1, 3, 4 and 5; Ted Weiner, a married man, as to parcel 2. .(2) Proposed ownership: Dame' Construction Company, Inc. holding title in trust for Dame'-Doty Development Company, a Joint Venture. (b) Planning Objectives The developer has reviewed the current general plan, zoning, access, neighborhood, available utilities and general terrain features affecting the subject property. Current economic conditions, present and future market trends and the life-styles of persons residing and desiring to reside in Palm Desert were also considered. After reviewing these and other .factors, it was apparent that the subject property should be devel- oped so as to provide primary and second home buyers with a residence having all the conveniences of their .primary or former home including major emphasis on the conveniences and features to be provided for the guests of the home buyers. The size of each individual residence proposed for the subject property is therefore slightly above average for the Palm Desert area. Each unit will feature two baths with cultured marble tubs equip- ped with therapy jets and some units will have a third bath as well . All kitchens will have range top barbeques. Each individual residence is designed to appeal to active "empty nesters", retired persons , families and single persons. We feel the typical active home buyer attracted to a community such as we propose will prefer single story residences. So as to prevent a -2- repetition of front elevation and roof lines, care will be exercised in land planning and grading to create a variety of street scenes. The land plan proposed for the subject property is one in which major emphasis is placed on amenities for the use of the home owner and his guests with re- duced emphasis for non-resident and non-guest usage. The golf course will be more than the usual "executive" course and will meet the challenge desired by the expert golfer as well as the occasional player. Grading of the property will emphasize grade differences of up to 8 feet between building pads and fairways so as to increase the interest of the, golf course, enhance the views from the residences, and offer a variety of street scenes. The club house facilities will be designed to serve the home owners and their guests and will not be designed to serve the public on an open basis. The rationale here is that many of the home owners will prefer to enter- tain either in their homes or dine out in the increasingly available restaurants nearby. The club house will , however, be designed to handle day to day snacks, beverage service and occasional private affairs. Tennis courts will be provided together with one arranged for tournament play, as well as there being a number of lighted courts for night play. Pools and therapy pools will be strategically located throughout the community. -3- Concrete golf cart paths approximately 4000 yards in length by 61 in width will be strategically located so as to be convenient for golfers as well as people using their private golf carts for transportation within the project . All residences will have garages designed to accommodate golf carts as well as two full size cars. The landscaping .and architecture of the community will suggest Spanish-Mexican influence and will include attractive surroundings of green belts, rustic posts, and wrought iron details. Security . will be emphasized with perimeter walling-fencing and a security gate facility at the main entrance on Portola Avenue. We anticipate making arrangements to deed all amenities, open space, etc. to the homeowners over a period of years. (c) Preliminary Development Schedule The phasing program is anticipated as follows : Phase Approx.Acres Approx. 7No. of Units Date 247 141 10-79 3 59 227 4-8o 4 64 139 10-80 210 683 With the exception of Phase 1 , each phase should be completed 6 months from starting date. Phase 1 will include grading of the entire .site, commencement of construction of the golf course, club house, entry street, entry and major utility service and should be completed 9 months from commencement . -4— See enclosed plan marked Exhibit B outlining the above described areas. (d) Quantitative Date ( 1 ). Dwelling Units The development will consist of 683 dwelling units, attached in 2, 3, 4, and 5 unit buildings.. All dwelling units will be single story. No. of No. of Buildings Units 2 unit buildings 6 72 3 unit buildings 10 30 4 unit buildings 109 436 5 unit buildings 41 205 166 683 (2) Parcel Size Total Parcel Size: 210. 26 Acres North of Wash 180.49 Acres South of. Wash 3.04 Acres Wash 26.73 (3) Proposed Lot Coverage of Buildings and Structures Acres Percent Residential Buildings 42.68 Entry Building .01 Club House (Cart Storage Under ) . 23 Maint . Bldg. .09 Land Coverage, Bldgs. 43.01 Acres 20.45% (4) Residential Densities Gross - ( including areas in streets) 683 D. U. ' s/210. 26 Acres = 3. 25 D.U. ' s/Acre Net - (after deducting areas in streets - 17.09 Acres) 683 D.U. ' s/193. 17 Acres = 3. 53 D.U. ' s/Acre -5_ (5) Total Amount of Open Space (a) Total Open pace Total Land Area: 210. 26 Less : Buildings 43 . 01 Res .Drives 6 . 02 Res . Walks 5 . 12 Club house Parking 1 . 10 Well. Sites . 86 Maint . Yard. . 22 St . Imp . (private)17 . 09 St . Imp . (public) 1 . 47 74 . 89 Total Open Space 135 . 37 64 . 38% (b) Total Useable Open Space 1 . Golf Course 37 . 36 2 . Lakes 2 . 60 3 . Putting Green . 11 4 . Driving Range 3 . 27 5 . Pools 2 . 20 6 . Tennis Courts 1 . 20 7 . Clubhouse . 23 8 . Cart Paths 1 . 65 9. Other Open Space 86 . 56 Total 135 . 18 *Less "Net Wash" 24 .43 Useable OpenSpace 110. 75 52 . 67 % (c) Private Open Space (patios & attr.iums) average per unit . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377 sq . ft . The above ancillary buildings are required for the proper operation of a private , security-oriented golf course facility , and will meet reasonable standards of the City. (e) Water District letter is attached as Exhibit C * Wash 26 . 73 Acres Driving Range 2 . 30 Acres "Net Wash" 24 . 43 Acres 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Pursuant to Title 14 , Div. 6, Article 7, Sec. 15083 , of the California Administra- tive Code) Case No. : DP O1-79 (Common Project Chaparral Country Club Name, if any) Applicant/Project Sponsor : Dame-Doty Development Company Project Description/Location : Approval of a Development Plan Residential to allow 683 attached Single-Family/Multi-Family units and golf,course on approximately 210 acres located west of Portola, northerly of the Whitewater Storm Channel, The Director of the Dept . of Environmental Services, City of Palm Desert , California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment . A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid poten- tially significant effects, may also be found attached. Paul A. Williams, AIP / Date Dir . of Environmental Services 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 January 29, 1979 Dame' -Doty Development Co. P. 0. Box 100 San Ramone, CA 94583 Re: Case No. DP 01 -79 West side of Portola, north of the Whitewater Channel Dear Mr. Doty: Pursuant to our office conversation on Thursday, January 18, 1979, I would like to follow up on our conversation by indicating the subject areas discussed. Three major subject areas were reviewed with you; those include: the golf course and its design; the residential condominium development design; and, zoning considera- tions. GOLF COURSE Item one of our conversation involved the normal sizing of golf courses , noting that an 18-hole golf course would usually be accommodated on a 110-acre minimum site, and to provide for a safe .course, the acreage would be increased to 180 acres. We realize that your proposal is for an "executive" type of playing course, but this does give us some relationship to size of area to be devoted to a golf course. We also noted that in this proposal , the total open space available is approximately 106 acres. Item two - Single fairways have been used in this design, and while they allow for the maximum unit frontage, they do present the greatest danger from golf balls. The minimum width of landing area should be 100 yards wide. The landing area would begin 150-200 yards from the tee. We've noted that in all but a couple of fair- ways, this minimum rule of thumb design standard for safety has not been used and the sizing on fairway widths and landing areas are down to a couple of hundred feet. Also noted, relative to the design approach taken in the single fairways, was the advantage of the double fairway system, requiring smaller safety margin for slice4balls. In this type of design, you can achieve the safety width using only 150 yards total ; also, a curving of the building line saves even more width. By use of well designed doglegs in a single fairway design, adjacent units and streets can be curved, or even undulated if a lake is placed between the units and doglegged - -- �3•,cam',,. I r e Dame' -Doty Development Co. Page 2 January 29, 1979 fairway. The club-house facility for the golf course has 91 parking spaces shown. A comparison with Ordinance requirements would indicate that 90 spaces are required for the golf course, 18 for the tennis courts, plus spaces for any other use oitfacility within the clubhouse. I understand from our meeting that the clubhouse would not have a restaurant facility open to the public or something of that nature. We would still maintain that the clubhouse parking facilities should reflect an accommodation of code requirements, but some adjustment in this total may seem logical based on your design for golf cart access to the facility. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN In our discussion of the purpose of the Planned Residential zone, we touched on some of the features which are encouraged, such as the need to provide for flexibility in development, and creative and imaginative design. The zoning ordinance text actually goes on to say that the zone is established to give a land developer assurances that innovative and unique land development techniques will be given reasonable consideration. The PR zone, as we discussed, requires 50% open space, intending it to be used to enhance the unit arrangement; with some portion of that area collected in large common open space uses. We've noted that almost all of the PR zone open space in this project is devoted to the golf course, which somewhat inhibits the unit arrangement, facilitating a design with the open space used between unit clusters. Item two - We noted that a preponderance of units are laid out in long continuous straight segments with minimum or less distance separation between buildings. This was a subject of our original consideration$ and pre-filing discussions. The continuous street segments offer little design relief. We understand from the con- versation that ordinance minimums regarding building separation distances will be observed in the final plotting of buildings. Item three - We observed that the street scene involves continuous garage doors and driveways coming from the private streets, and this] plus the double frontage situation leaves little opportunity to satisfy the 0.5 guest space requirement. Commonly the drive- ways-to garages are not used to satisfy the additional guest space requirement. Also noted were the minimum standards for private streets - 32 feet for parking on one side, and 40 feet for parking on both sides. Our original design discussion also included techniques for parallel guest bays as well as perpendicular bays coming off the private streets. Item four - Access to units from the major project entrance is not found to be desirable, and you should give consideration to eliminating unit access. This is also one of the original subjects discussed. Dame' -Doty Development Co. Page 3 January 29, 1979 Item five - We perceive the swimming pool areas to generally only relate to a few adjacent units, versus an exposure and orientation that would maximize access. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS A portion of the project area is an O.S. zone (the Whitewater Channel ) . An accurate survey of the property will be needed to determine where the zoning line falls in relation to the southern row of units. From a simple scaling of the zoning map and your western property line, it would appear that units do fall in the O.S. zone. From our discussion, you assured us that any conflict with the zoning line would be corrected. Other miscellaneous items discussed were additional access points and saving the Tamarisk trees along the west property line. You've indicated your position on both subjects, proposing that the emer- gency access shown at the northeast corner of the property be accepted as sufficient. You indicated that where trees along the west property line worked into your design scheme, they would be saved, and that there would be new tree planing. May we request that there be some plotting of trees, simply so that questions regarding whether or not they are incorporated into the project could be answered. In closing, I again note that these are the types of considerations that will be expressed to the Planning Commission in the Staff Report prepared for the January 30, 1979 meeting. Ver�urs, Murrel Crump Principal Planner 1 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 January 12, 1979 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT PLAN RESIDENTIAL TO ALLOW 683 ATTACHED SINGLE-FAMILY/MULTI-FAMILY UNITS AND GOLF COURSE ON APPROXIMATELY 210 ACRES LOCATED WEST OF PORTOLA, NORTHERLY OF THE WHITEWATER STORM CHANNEL. . CASE NO. DP 01-79 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by DAME-DOTY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, for approval of Development Plan Residential to allow 683 attached single-family/multi-family dwelling units within the PR-5 (Planned Residential , 5 d.u./acr. max. ) and O.S. (Open Space District) zones on approximately 210 acres located .west of Portola Avenue and. northerly. of the Whitewater Storm Channel , more particularly described as: APN 621-350-016-6 621 -200-020-5 621-350-017-7 621 -350-018-8 621-350-023-2 621 -200-032-6 621-200-033-7 �14 14 P.R.-5 O.S. ' M. �L 1V OYTC F,ILVEII O11VE YEI1L[ PIVf s £ 6 S.P. _ - P.R.-4, S.P. I R-M SAID Public Hearing will be held on Tuesday, January 30, 1979 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the Palm Desert City Hall , 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are in- vited to attend and be heard. PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission PUBLISH: Palm Desert Post January 17, 1979 Minutes Page 3 Palm Desert Design Review Board January 23, 1979 III. (cont. ) Case No. 48 C - ROGER MEYER - Sign Program for a commercial structure to be located on the north side of Highway 111, west of DeAnza. Applicant was not present. The Board reviewed the application submittal, noting Ordinance requirements and deficiencies in detail. On a motion by Jackson, seconded by Barton, the Board continued the subject case to allow the applicant to respond to the following: 1. Letter style for proposed sign for Charles Haver supplied to the Board (should match the lettering proposed for other signs). 2. Dimensioned and scaled drawings provided so that the Board can determine whether the program complies with minimum requirements of the City's Sign Ordinance, 3. Reduce the number of signs proposed to comply with the City's require- ment within the Sign Ordinance; namely, one sign per business. 4. Supply color samples and indicate the location of colors on the proposed sign as required by the City's Design Review applications. Carried 3-0-1 (AYES: Johnson, Jackson, Barton; ABSTAIN: Leung). *** Chairman Johnson was excused from the meeting at 3:05 p.m. and turned the chair over to Board Member Jackson.*** IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Review of Special .Street Paving for Tract 9363. The Board viewed a .special masonary paving sample and accompanying literature for the tract entrance paving. The Board felt that the material was quite acceptable, and noted that a color other than gray. should be used so that it would stand out from asphalt. / y B. Case No. DP 01-79, Dame'-Doty Development Co. , 683 unit golf course/ condominium project. Staff presented a list of design concerns to the Board at the Study Session (Member Leung, absent). Project representatives and applicants reviewed the rationale behind their proposal with the Board at the end of the meeting (Chairman Johnson, absent). No official action was taken, as the matter was only a discussion item. V. Acting Chairman Jackson adjourned the meeting at 4;40 p.m.. Murrel Crump„ incipal Planne mc/ss ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC A(a_...;Y COACHELLA VALLEY COUNTY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058 COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (714)398-2651 DIRECTORS OFFIMRS RAYMOND R. RUMMONDS, PRESIDENT LOWELL O. WEEKS,GENERAL MANAGER-0116 ENGINEER TELLIS CODEKAS, VICE PRESIDENT 01P J. NORDLAND, SECRETARY C. 1, FROST DENNIS M. HAO ETT, AUDITOR WILLIAM B. GARDNER REDWINE AND SHERRILL, ATTORNEYS SIEVE D.BUXTON December 29, 1978 File: o163. 11 0421 . 1 0721 . 1 Department of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert P. 0. Box 1977 Palm Desert, CA. 92260 Re; P.D. Case No. CUP 10-78 and 143 MF SE4, Section 21 , T5S, RISE Gentlemen: This area is protected from stormwater flows by a system of channels and dikes. This area may be considered safe from stormwater flows except in rare instances. The District will furnish (domestic water and sanitation service) to said area in accordance with the currently prevailing regulations of this District. This area shall be annexed to Improvement District Nos. 54 and 80 of the Coachella Valley County Water District for sanitation service. There may be conflicts with existing Distric facilities. We request the appropriate public agency to withhold the issuance of a building permit until arrangements have been made with the Distict for the relocation of these facilities. Very truly yours, IZ� 4 Lowel 0. Weeks General Manager-Chief Engineer KEH:dm RECEIVED JAN ) 1971 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY OF PALM DESERT PROOF OF PUBLICATION (20109 2015 .5 CCP) PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF LEGAL NOTICE DP 17-78 1 am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid : I am over the age of eighteen yearss and not a party to or interested in the 7 CITYpLEGAL OFPALO DESERT above entitled matter. I am the R ���}SPOP LAONTOPROVIDEFOR50CIONDOMINIUMUNI S. principal clerk of the printer ON APPROXIMATELY IO ACRES WITHIN THE PR-5 ZONE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HOVELY LANE, EAST OF MON- of PALM DESERT POST, a newpaper Of TEREY AVENUE. CASE NO. DP 17.78 general circulation, printed NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a and published daily in the reauest by PRO-CON DEVELOPMENT for approval OfaResi- dential Development Plan to provide for 50 condominium units city o f Riversides County n L o f on a proximateiv 10 acres within the PR-5 zone on the north side y of Hovels Lane, east Of Monterey Avenue, more particulariv Riverside, and which newspaper aescrI as: APN 621-19M54 has been adjudged a newspaper of APN 621-190-055 general circulation by the =1i + Superior Court of the County of _ Riverside, State of California, N under date of October 59 1964, II• ' 1 t� Case number 83658: that the + oPl7.71j i IPa notice, of which the annexed is _. a printed copy, has been published in each regular and entire issue $ I r of said newspaper and not .in anyi —� i supplement thereof on the following dates, to—wit* SAID Public Hearind will be held on Tuesdov, December 5 1978, at 7:00 pp m. In the Council Chambers In the Palm OeseA City Hall, IS- Prickly Pear Lane, Palm Desert,California,at 11123 91978 which time and place 01 Interested persons are Invited to attend :and be heard. PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretory Palm Desert Planning Commission PDP41/22t1 I Certify (or declare) under, penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.. Dated November 23, 1978 at Riverside , California -- �4, a'---- ---------- CITY OF PALI DESERT r� C PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2010s 2015.5 CCP) PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF CASE NO. OP 01-79 DP 01-79 - — - -` - �— CITY OF PALM DESERT red trr3}!w OAIYIE-DOTY pEVELOPME NT' CqN PAMV, fdr d[L LEGAL NOTICE orova o Devc ooment Plan Residential to o low 683 aHachetl T am a citizen Of -the United REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT PLAN single-family/multi-family dwelling units within the PR=S RESIDENTIAL TO ALLOW 683 ATTACHED SINGLE-FAM- (Planned Residential, 5 d.u./ocr. max.) zone on anproximoto4v States and a resident of the ILY/MULTI FAMILY UNITS AND GOLF COURSE ON AP- 210 acres, located west of Portolo Avenue and port eriv of.tbe White Water Storm Channel, more oarticulary described aq:- PROXIMATELY ACRES LOCATED WEST OF nm County aforesaid ; T I am over the NORTHERLY OF THE WHITE WATER STORM CHANNEL. qpN 621-350-016fi 621-20(402015 CASE NO. DP 01 79 621-350-017-7 621-35( 0188 age of eighteen years, and not NOTICE t5 HEREBY aim De GIVEN that a Commission Hearing will be 621-350-023.2 621-200-037.6 held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a 621-20"33-7 " ^" a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I an the principal clerk of the printer +. +1 of PALM DESERT POST* a newpaper of = IQ n:v general circulation! printed ®� O.A.�� �� and published daily in the � e ;;..•, city of Riversides County of PA.-6 oe. Riversideq and which newspaper ^^'" has been adjudged a newspaper of P ' I general circulation by the " Superior Court of the County of Riversides State of California, `^ under date of October 5s 1964s Case number 83658; that the s T notices of which the annexed is = `Q R M . a printed copy, has been published 1 in each regular and entire issue ; as. ; '• Hr'r of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof" on the following dates, 'to—wit: r P.P.-., S.P. M M `~:��`, CC 01/18 91979 mnr. 7 SAID Public Hearing will be held On Tuesdav,January 30.19791 PAUL A. WILLIAMS of 7:00 a.m. In the Council Chambers In the Palm Desert Cltvf Secretary - H I, 45-275 Prickly Poor Lane Palm Desert, Colifornl0 at Palm Oeseri di w�i1ch time antl Place all Pr Persons are Invited t0 a.... Planni0o Commission 17 P- -tiB f and be heard. PD. r 11 I Certify (or declare) under - — penalty of perjury that the foregoing .is true and correct. Dated January 18s 1979 at Riversides California CITY OF PALM DESERT 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 January 12, 1979 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT PLAN RESIDENTIAL TO ALLOW 683 ATTACHED SINGLE-FAMILY/MULTI-FAMILY UNITS AND GOLF COURSE ON APPROXIMATELY 210 ACRES LOCATED WEST OF PORTOLA, NORTHERLY OF THE WHITEWATER STORM CHANNEL. CASE NO. DP 01-79 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by DAME-DOTY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, for approval of Development Plan Residential to allow 683 attached single-family/multi-family dwelling units within the PR-5 (Planned Residential , 5 d.u./acr. max. ) and O. S. (Open Space District) zones on approximately 210 acres located west of Portola Avenue and northerly of the Whitewater Storm Channel , more particularly described as: APN 621-350-016-6 621 -200-020-5 621 -350-017-7 621 -350-018-8 621-350-023-2 621-200-032-6 621-200-033-7 I ®P 00 J Ie RRr7 O.S. S -S. S.P. P.R.-4. S.P. R-M SAID Public Hearing will be held on Tuesday, January 30, 1979 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the Palm Desert City Hall , 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are in- vited to attend and be heard. PAUL .A. WILLIAMS, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission PUBLISH: Palm Desert Post January 17, 1979 F - C�${F.� a JAN I 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 CA 11F TELEPHONE(7I4) 346-0611 \ 3 ,,A ;bb �, Elmer E. m & Virginia L. G sely) R 260 Braw Avenue °p/a;Aso Thermal CA. 92274 ti doss tlt O/li I. 1,7 1�'i;1 i. S? �r�'� 17 Moved, left no address /y'scn\� FED No such number Moved, not foreterdable ri Addressee unkncw0 �� NOTICE OF DETERMINATION (Negative Declaration) TO: (x� Office of the County Clerk From: City of Palm Desert County of Riverside 45-275 Prickly Pear Ln. 4050 Main Street Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Riverside, Ca. 92501 ( ) Secretary for Resources 1416 Ninth St. , Room 1311 Sacramento, Ca. 95814 SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 15083(f) of the State EIR Guidelines. Project Title/Common Name Case No. DP 01-79 Chaparral Country Club State Clearinghouse Number if submitted to State Clearinghouse n/a Contact Person Telephone Number Area Code (714) 346-0611 Mr. Murrel Crump, Principal Planner Project Location West of Portola, northerly of the Whitewater Storm Channel Project Description Request for approval of a Development Plan Residential to allow 683 attached Single-Family/Multi-Family units and golf course on approximately 210 acres. This is to advise that the City of Palm Desert has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. The project has been approved by the City; 2. The project ( ) will M will not have a significant effect on the environment; 3. An Environmental Impact Report was not prepared in connection with this project; and 4. A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. A copy of the Negative Declaration may be examined at the above City Hall address . Date Received for Filing Dated: e 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - INITIAL STUDY Case No. DP 01-79, Dame-Doty Devel Co. Item No. 1 -- Environmental Evaluation Checklist Item No. 2 -- Checklist Explanations & Comments Item No. 3 -- Environmental Assessment (Applicant) Form Item No. 4 -- Plan for Services, Annexation No. 5 CASE NO. O/- a:4 IT�'M o 1 ENVPRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPT. INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST NOTE: The availability of. data necessary to address the topics listed below shall form the basis of a decision as to whether the application is considered complete for purposes of environmental assessment. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers, possible mitigation measures and comments are provided on attached sheets). Yes Maybe No 1 . Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions , displacements, compaction, or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X _ d. The destruction, covering., or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? _ 2. Yes Maybe No 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? _ _ b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? X, e. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? f. Reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public water supplies? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, and crops)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, or insects)? — b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing wildlife habitat? 3. Yes Maybe No 6. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? _ _ X b. Depletion of any non-renewable natural resource? -7. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Demand upon existing sources of energy, or re- quire the development of new sources of energy? 8. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, pesticides, oil , chemicals, or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? — 9. Economic Loss. Will the proposal result in: a. A change in the value of property and improvements endangered by flooding? — — b. A change in the value of property and improvements exposed to geologic hazards beyond accepted community risk standards? 10. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels to the point at which accepted community noise and vibration levels are exceeded? — — 11. Land Use. Will the proposal result in the a tteration of the present developed or planned land use of an area? — 12. Open Space. Will the proposal lead to a decrease in the amount of designated open space? j 13. Population. Will the proposal result in: a. Alteration of the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of the City? — b. Change in the population distribution by age, income, religion, racial , or ethnic group, occupational class, household type? _ - x 4. Yes Maybe No 14. Employment. Will the proposal result in additional new long-term jobs provided, or a change in the number and per cent employed, unemployed, and underemployed? 15. Housing. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in number and per cent of housing units by type (price or rent range, zoning category, owner-occupied and rental , etc. ) relative to demand or to number of families in various income classes in the City? b. Impacts on existing housing or creation of a demand for additional housing? 16. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? _ _ X. c. Impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? _ e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? _ _ 17. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for, new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? X _ b. Police protection? X _ c. Schools? _ d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities , including roads? f. Other governmental services? _ 5. Yes Maybe No 18. Public Fiscal Balance. Will the proposal result in e net change in government fiscal flow (revenues less operating expenditures and annualized capital expenditures)? 19. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? Y-1 b. Communications system? _ �) c. Water? �( — d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? _ J f. Solid waste and disposal? 20. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? b. A change in the level of community health care provided? — ,� 21. Social Services. Will the proposal result in an increased demand for provision of general social services? — 22. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in: a. Obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? _ X c. Lessening of the overall neighborhood (or area) attractiveness, pleasantness, and uniqueness? _ 23. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? 24. Arch�eoloyiiacgl/Historical . Will the proposal result in an a te�l ration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object, or building? S , 6. Yes ?LaLbe No 25. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment or to curtail the diversity in the environment? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future. ) - — c. Does the project have impacts which are indi- vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small , but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant. ) _ — d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Initial Study Prepared By: �E� COmMENI S lam No. Z DP Environmental Evaluation Checklist Explanation of "Yes" and "Maybe" answers and comments on evaluation subjects. 1 . EARTH c. The proposal will result in a change in the natural topography by virtue of grading activities associated with development. * e. The proposal may result in temporary construction impacts related to wind errosion of soils, but City requirements for watering during grading activities should reduce any impact to an insignif- icant level . Development of the site would tend to stabilize soils to eliminate future wind errosion oR blowing sand. * 2. AIR The proposal will involve the use of motor vehicles by project residents, but the proposal will not, of itself, breach any State or Federal Air Quality Standards, or significantly damage valley air quality. * 3. WATER The proposal will pose an incremental increase for domestic water supply, but will not result in an over-draft condition. b. The proposal will result in a change in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface water runoff by virtue of development. Project waters are proposed to be contained within the site by dire'c!tii'n'g�sheet flow t'o_ tt�p fairways-. off J25vgoK, 4v{cyu. __ �%t[a-N�wC Lfc�o�csy�Esr�l%fVw�cw� �O'Guth G'G�R6r.L-" L(J�'L�4Q.,�I/�a. * 4. PLANT LIFE The proposal will replace the existing natural vegetative cover with ornamental landscaping and ground covers. No preceived adverse environ- mental effect will occur. * 5. ANIMAL LIFE The proposal may involve maintaining domestic animals by project occupants. Existing mammals and rodents and reptiles on the site will probably be displaced. Landscaping on the site will probably provide a new habitat for birds and insects. b. & d. The proposal is within the habitat range of the Fringe-Toed Lizard (a potentially threatened species). Over 200 sq. miles of habitat range would continue to exist after implementation of this proposal . The Palm Desert General Plan makes specific provision for maintanance of a defined natural habitat area (Sand Dunes Park) as a partial mitigation of the impact of urbanized uses. * 6. NATURAL RESOURC. The proposal will use natural resources in the construction of the project, some of which may not be renewable. The proposal will also involve the continued use of petroleum products by project occupants. The demands of this project are considered to be incremental and are not considered to present a significant adverse impact. * 7. ENERGY Energy efficient standards within the Palm Desert Building Code (adopted version of the Uniform Building Code) will be applied to this project. Motor fuel considerations are discussed in 6, above. * 8. RISK OF UPSET The proposal will not involve, the use of hazardous substances. * 9. ECONOMIC LOSS a & b. The proposal site is not endangered by flooding, but will be subject to strong ground motion in the event of an earth- quake. Palm Desert Building Codes provide for lateral seismic loading to mitigate damage from ground shaking. *10. NOISE The proposal itself will not involve the creation of new adverse noise, other than that associated with urban uses. The residential develop- ment will be enclosed by a solid masonry wall to act as a sound barrier to perimeter street noises. *11 . LAND USE The proposal is generally consistent with the planned land use of the area. The density of the project represents a decrease in the number of units allowed under existing zoning. *12. OPEN SPACE The proposal involves the use of a designated open space and recrea- tion area. Over 50% of the project site will be used for private open space. *13. POPULATION a & b. The proposal will result in approximately 1366 more persons in the immediate area (based on 2 persons per household) . The population increase is planned as a part of the Palm Desert General Plan, but if rapidly implemented it could be considered a tem- porary increase in the general area of human population density. The proposal will probably be owner-occupied, high income households. The proposed number of households . (dwelling units) is less than anticipated in the environmental analysis of the area annexation.. *14. EMPLOYMENT The golf course/club house portion of the proposal may result in a minor number of new long term jobs; the number of new jobs is esti- mated to be 12 on the longest shift. *15. HOUSING a. The proposal will result in 683 condominium units in attached buildings. Units will probably be owner-occupied (partially on a seasonal basis), and may serve as a second house, or short term rental in some instances. Units would .probably be offered at prevailing market rates for upper-high income consumers. *16. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION a. The proposal will result in the generation of additional vehicular movements as follows: Residential Development and Golf Course: 2,732 vehicle trips per day depending on seasonal occupancy fluctuations and resident characteristics, plus non-resident recreation users. (factor of 4 trips/du) The proposal site is served by arterial and major highways (thoroughfares) which are adequate in design capacity to handle the anticipated traffic volumes. *17. PUBLIC SERVICE (See Public Services Plan Annexation Area No. 5) *18. PUBLIC FISCAL BALANCE (See Public Services Plan Annexation Area No. 5) *19. UTILITIES (See Public Services Plan Annexation Area No. 5) The:. proposal' site is within the planned service area of all utility companies and will not require new systems to be established. The proposal will place a minor incremental demand on the provision of public utilities. *20. HUMAN HEALTH The proposal will not pose any specific health hazards or effect the level of community health care. Project occupants will become health care consumers, but it is noted that the doctor to patient ratio within the valley area is more than adequate to accommodate population increases. 21 . SOCIAL SERVICES The proposal is not anticipated to place significant demands for social services, based on projected occupant profile. 22. AESTHETICS The proposal does not involve obstruction of scenic vistas, or creation of an aesthetically offensive site; it will establish a neighborhood character of its ownjwhose attractiveness, pleasantness, and uniqueness will be the subject of the City Design Review process. 23. LIGHT AND GLARE The proposal will not involve the significant use of night lighting. Lighting that is to be established for parking areas will be maintained at low levels and other lighting for facilities such as tennis courts will be closely re- viewed to minimize light "spillage" and glare. 24. ARCHEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL The proposal will not effect any known or recorded archeological or historic resources. 25. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The proposal is not found to have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. The proposal will not impare archievement of long term environ- mental goals. The proposal involves minor incremental impacts which are not considered to be cumulatively considerable when viewed in the planned per- psective of City development. The proposal does not pose any adverse environmental impacts on human beings. IOc 7K - ^7 CASE N0. O/- . ofl IF811LI= IT Z5►tit No. 3 Environmental Assessment Form TO THE APPLICANT: Your cooperation in completing this form and supplying the information requested will expedite City review of your application pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. The City is required to make an environmental assessment on all projects which it exercises discretionary approval over. Applications submitted will not be considered complete until all information necessary to make the environmental assessment is complete. Please submit this form with your completed application to the Information and Permit Center Building Division). GENERAL INFORMATION: 1 1 . Name, address, and telephone number of owner, applicant or. project sponsor: Dame' -Doty Development Company 2070 San Ramon Valley Blvd. , P.O. Box 100 San Ramon Ca. 94583 (415-837-0544) 2. Name, address and telephone number of person to be contacted con- cerning the project (such as architect, engineer, or other repre= sentative) : Webb Engineering, Attn : Jack Saunders, 600 East Tahquitz-McCallum Way, Suite D, Palm Springs, Ca. 92262 (714-325-2245) 3. Common name of project (if any) : Chaparral Country Club 4. Project location (street address or general location) : 42555 Portola Ave. , Palm Desert, Ca. 5. Precise legal description of property (lot and tract number, or meets & bounds) : Assessors Parcels 621 -350-016-6, 621 -350-017-79 621 -200-020-Sp 621-3 0-018-8 621 =-350-023-2 621 -200-032-69 621-200-033-7 (Tract No. 13 81 ) 6. Proposed use of the site (project for which the form is filed; describe the total undertaking, not just the current application approval being sought) : 18 hole golf course and 683 unit EUD single family residential develolment , including swimming pools tennis courts clubhouse - 7. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects (describe how this project relates to other activities, phases, and develop- ments planned, or now underway) : N/A 8. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, to go forward, including those required by the City, Regional , State and Federal agencies (indicate sub- sequent approval agency name, and type of approval required) : City of Palm Desert Development Plan, Tentative Tract Map, Design Review and Final Tract Map. EXISTING CONDITIONS: 9. Project site area: Approximately 210 acres. (Size of property in sq. ft. or acreage) 10. Present zoning: P. R.-5 (Proposed zoning) : P. R.-5 11 . General Plan land use designation: Medium Density 5-7 du/ac 12. Existing use of the project site: Unimproved, small palm grove 13. Existing use on adjacent properties: (Example - North, Shopping Center; South, Single Family Dwellings; East, Vacant, etc. ). North - Monterey Country Club; West Monterey Country Club; South - Mbnterey Country Club, White Water Wash and Mobile Home Park; East - vacant land and Mobile Home Park 14. Site topography (describe): Flat 15. Are there any natural or manmade drainage channels through or adjacent to the property? NO YES X White Water Wash 16. Grading (estimate number of cubic yards of dirt being moved) : 500,000 cubic yards 17. List the number, size and type of trees being removed: Some tamarisk trees near north and east boundary to be removed. Palms on property to be transplanted. 18. Describe any cultural , historic, or scenic aspects of the project site: none • i H 19. Residential Project (if not residential do NOT answer) A. Number and type of dwelling units (Specify no. of bedrooms) : A — 2 bdrm & den — 162 B — 2 bdrm & den 170 C — 2 bdrm & 'den — 298 D — 1 bdrm & den — 53 B. Schedule of unit sizes: A — 1922 sq.ft. ; 8 — 2035 sq.ft. ; C — 1803 sq.ft. ; D — 1520 sq.ft. C. Number of stories 1 Height 171 feet. D. Largest single building (sq. ft. ) 2035 (hgt• ) 17± E. Type of household size expected (population projection for the project) : 2 5 per dwelling unit F. Describe the number and type of recreational facilities : 17 swimming pools, 17' spas, 6 tennis courts, 4000 yard 18 hole golf course recreational vehicle parking G. Is there any night lighting of the project: yes — tennis courts, rec. vehi,cae .and club house parking; low decorative ligrrting H. Range of sales prices or rents : $ 115.000 to $ 150,000 I. Percent of total project devoted to: Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Paving, including streets. . . . . . . . . . . 15 Landscaping, Open, Recreation Area . . . . . . 65 % 20. Commercial , Industrial , Institutional or Other Project: A. Type of use(s) and major function(s) (if offices, specify type & number) : Golf Course — Tennis Club House Maintenance Bldg,. B. Number of square feet in total building area: 10,000 to 12,000 sq. ft. in club house 4 000± sq.ft. in Maintenance Bldg. C. Number of stories 2 Height eoxcee8 30 feet. 10,000 to D. Largest single building (Sq. Ft. ) » nnn s� t. ) not to exceed 30' �`� Club House — 200 sq.ft. E. Number of square feet in outdoor storage area: Mai nt.Bldg. — 8000 sq.ft. F. Total number of required parking spaces 70 , number provided 80 G. Hours of operation: 7 :00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. H. Maximum number of clients, patrons , shoppers, etc. , at one time: 200 I . Maximum number of employees at one time: 12 J. If patron seating is involved, state the number: 200 K. Is there any night lighting of the project: Yes X No Parking Areas; low decorative lighting L. Percent of total project devoted to: See previous page. Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paving, including streets. . . . . . . . . Y Landscaping and Open Space (Recreation). . f Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects : Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). YES NO 21 . Change in existing features, of hillsides , or substantial alteration of ground contours. X 22. Change in the dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in the project vicinity. X 23. Subject to or resulting in soil errosion by wind or flooding. X 24. Change in ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. X 25. Change in existing noise or vibration level in the vicinity. Subject to roadway or airport noise (has the required acoustical report been submitted?) X 26. Involves the use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives. X 27. Involves the use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy. X 28. Changes the demand for municipal services (police, fire, sewage, etc. ) X 29. Changes the demand for utility services, beyond those presently available or planned in the near future. X 30. Significantly affects any unique or natural features, including mature trees. X 31 . Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public land or public roads. X 32. Results in the dislocation of people. X YES NO 33. Generates controversy based on aesthetics or other features of the project. X [ ] Additional explanation of "yes" answers attached. CERTIFICA TION: I herebycertify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation, to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Carl ' D. Dame# aMd Richard E_ Doty Dame'—Doty Development Company Name (PriA or Type For JZg Signature v Date INITIAL STUDY FEE: $30. 00 (Make check payable to the City of Palm Desert and sub- mit with this form. ) � t CITY OF PALM DESERT TRANSMITTAL LETTER TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council SUBJECT: Plan for Services for Palm Desert Annexation No. 5 I . INTRODUCTION: Pursuant to Section 35102 of the State Government Code, the City is required to file with any new Annexations effective January 1, 1978, a plan outlining the method by which services will be provided in the area to be annexed. This report represents the required plan for services for Proposed Annexation No. 5. The City of Palm Desert, being a contract City, must rely on many other agencies to provide for services both in the community and areas sub- sequently annexed. In addition, many services provided such as water and sewer, electricity, gas, are provided without regard to city limit lines. Therefore, the area proposed to be annexed is presently served or has the capability of being served by many of these agencies. The fact is substantial by the letters received from responsible agencies as a part of the review births responsible agencies during the Environmental Review process. The major emphasis of this report is to address those services provided directly by the City either through City Staff or direct contract with the City by other agencies. In addition, wherever possible, this report will address the methods by which other service agencies would provide needed facilities in the area. II . DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES: The utilities which would be extended into the area proposed to be annexed would be as part of actual development and they would consist of the services of the Coachella Valley County Water District in the area of water and sewer, Southern California Edison Company in the area of electricity, Southern California Gas Company in the area of gas, and Able Cable in the area of cable television. The services provided by this City directly would be in planning and building, public works, parks, administration and code enforcement services. By contract the City would also provide for trash disposal , police and fire services. Public transportation would be provided by the Sunline Agency. The major road improvements would include the widening of Monterey Avenue, Country Club Drive, Hovely Lane and Cook Street. Road extensions would include Portola Avenue from the Whitewater Storm Channel to Country Club Drive; Hovely Lane from Portola Avenue extended to Cook Street; and the extension of a new road from Hovely Lane northerly to Country Club Drive approximately midway between Monterey Avenue and Portola Avenue (extended) . The creation of any local streets would be on the basis of specific projects and would be the responsibility of the developer. A majority of the public parks needs in the area to be annexed will be met by the propsed Sand Dune Park which totals approximately 120 acres of which approximately 60 acres is included in the area proposed to the annexed. Approximately 17 acres of said parks area would be given to the City as a part of development under the City's subdivision ordinance. The remainder would be aquired by the City with revenues generated from the City's new construction . tax. At ultimate development there will be a need for bridges at the Cook Street crossing of the Whitewater Storm Channel and possibly to the Portola Avenue Whitewater Channel . Said facilities would be constructed with a combination of federal grants and.local participation very similar to existing bridges in the valley. If Monterey Avenue ultimately becomes an extension of State High- way 74, a bridge would also be required at its crossing of the Whitewater Channel , which is not in the area to be annexed but would serve said area. The funding for said facility would be the same as the other proposed bridges. Page Two Transmittal Letter III . LEVEL AND RANGE OF SERVICES: The level and range of services provided would include sufficient sized water and sewer, gas, and electrical facilities to service development proposed for the area. Planning and building, public works , and code enforce- ment services as provided by the City directly, would be on the basis of need. Police and fire services capability exist to meet the need of the area at its present stage of development and are proposed to be expanded to meet the needs of subsequent development in the area. Public transportation would be provided by the expansion of the existing system to serve the area. Subsequent development will result in the need for the City to add an addi- tional police vehicle and the need for an additional fire station in the vicinty of Country Club Drive. Since fire services are provided on a volunteer basis in conjuntion with the County of Riverside and State Department of Forestry, the City would be required to provide for a facility in the area which would be manned by these agencies. A fire station has been planned for in the City's General Plan in this area and will be provided at the time it is needed. In addition said area will be served by a proposed fire station at 44th Avenue and San Pablo (Civic Center Complex) , which is tentatively proposed for construction in 1980/91 budget year. In the meantime, the area would be served by the existing Palm Desert Station at E1 Paseo and Highway 74 with backup being provided by the Rancho Mirage, Thousand Palms and Bermuda Dunes stations. The basic administration services of Planning, Building, Public Works, and Code enforcement would be provided by existing City Staff. IV. TIMING FOR SERVICE EXTENSIONS: Basic utility services would occur as a part of development. The City has on file letters from the various utilities assuring us that these services would be available. The City services would be available immediately in the area of planning, building and code enforcement, public works, and police and fire. Road improvements would occur as a part of new development. The construction of the new fire station near Country Club Drive would result from the City's new construction tax which would be accrued from the new development in the area, which would be 20¢ per square foot of new construc- tion. Parks would be developed in the area under the City' s Subdivision Ordinance which provides for the dedication of land for community facilities and would provide for sites for the fire station and parks. A majority of the proposed residential development contemplated for the area is planned residential which would include a majority of necessary recreational facilities to serve the ultimately residents of the area. V. REQUIREMENTS OF NEW DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCING: New development would be required to extend roads throughout the area and to provide for needed sites for fire, parks and other related municipal facilities provided through the City's Subdivision Ordinance. The new Construction Tax of 20Q per square feet would provide for construction and additional acquisition .of these facilities. The provision of planning and building services would be provided through the fees generated from new development. On-going maintenance of roads, created in the area, would be provided through State Gas Taxes generated as a result of population within the area. Police services and parks maintenance would be provided on the basis of Sales Tax generated from commercial facilities in the area. In summary it is felt that development of this area would result in a balance between needed services and the revenues to provide said services. �\,✓.�'.,���-'��-��)n w` --Ir--ter-_� _—Ir--�r __'___I' r/ X f l } vll� a � � ' �°p(✓ /// dry{ B \�� aa e � � 1 C \ � v0• b a Z I , y l Da r Ilk / L 10 a CHAPARRAL COUNTRY CLUB PALM DESERT CALIFORNIADAME DOTY vvloPer' _ � THE DREG.ROBINSON gv11 tourve eKAICeeC Ivntl plennel' l i 1 iK 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A "DRAFT"NEGATIVE DECLARATION The Director of Environmental Services has determined that the following listed projects will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and that a Negative Declaration should be adopted: CABE'- ,_01�7 Request for approval of a Development Plan Residential to allow 683 attached single-family/multi-family units and golf course on approximately 210 acres located west of Portola, northerly of the Whitewater Storm Channel. CASE NO. PM 14163 Request for approval of a Tentative Parcel Map to divide one parcel into three parcels, located at the southwest corner of San Jose and Catalina Way. e -2- An appeal from this determination may be made to the Planning Commission within eight (8) days of the date of posting of this public notice by filing an appeal in accordance with Resolution 78-32, with the Department of Environmental Services located at 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane, Palm Desert, California 92260. If no appeal is filed within the said time, this determination shall became final. PAUL A. WILLIAMS, AIP Director of Environmental Services Date of Public Notice Date Appeal Period Expires METHOD OF NOTICIIC: �Q Posting mailing to owners of property within 300' Publication in newspaper Other mailing (agencies and other persons requesting notice) HOMES BY DAME DAME CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. P.O. BOX 100 _ SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 City of Palm Desert Mr. Murrel Crump, Principal Planner 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, Ca, 92260 u v� CERTIFIED PROPERTY OWNERS' LIST AFFIDAVIT CID STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ` AN ENCITM N MENTAL OF PALti DCSFRTS CITY OF PALM DESERT ) hereby Y certify that the attached list contains the names and addresses of all persons to whom all property is assessed as they appear on the latest available assess- ment role of the County within the area described on the attached application and for a distance of three hundred (300) feet from the exterior boundaries of the property described on the attached application. I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. (signed) (date) C 0 MrORANGE COAST TITLE COMPANY OF RIVERSIDE William Bone-Sunrise Om>parly 42-000 Bob Hope Drive Rancho Mirage, Ca 92270 oonsolidated land Investrrent Oo. / c% Schlesinger ✓ P.O. Box 1906 Palm Springs, Ca 92262 Ira L. Reed 621-200-010-6 c/o SPNB Tr21-1-03293-0 Trust R E Tax 2-68 P.O. Box 60802 Term Annex, Los Angeles, Ca 90060 Hidden Acres / 621-200-011-7 P.O. Box 654 Rancho Mirage, Ca 92270 University Plaza Inc. 621-240-001-2 Frank W. Clark Jr. Tr. / C/o Floyd M. Lewis 333 S. Hope Street 27th Floor Ins Angeles, Ca 90071 Charles S. Gibbs and June C. Gibbs 621-240-003-4 (OMIT) - 70673 Oroville Circle Rancho Mirage, Ca 92270 F.X. McDonald Jr. 'T 621-240-004-5 1900 E. Ocean Blvd Apt 1410 Long Beach, Ca 90802 Harvey S. Morse 621-350-005-6 c/o Msryanov, Madsen Gordon & CaiTpbell 621-350-006-7 500 South Palm Canyon Drive Palm Springs, Ca 92262 Elmer E. Pluml and Virginia L.. PlUTI 621-350-008-9 260 Brawley Avenue Thermal, Ca 92274 y' Sun King Homeowner Assn 621-400-016-0 c/o Marie Lauwriesmith 42510 Granite Place palm Desert, Ca 92260 Portola Golf Ranchos Ltd, Pt / 621-400-018 2 c/o Jack H. Bennett \(/ 621-571-004-8 130 E. 17th Street Suite K Costa Mesa, Ca 92677 I 7 I + POST OFFICE BOX 1326 • RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 • (714) 781.6500 ZENITH 7.6500 • aQ�rORANGE COAST TITLE COMPANY OF RIVERSIDE United California Bank 621-400-019-3 c/o Hillis Isreal / 707 Wilshire Blvd ✓ Los Angeles, Ca 90017 West Coast Properties 621-400-019-3 1816 Belmont Road NW Washington, DC 20009 William H. Phillips and Lillian M. Phillips 621-571-002-6 P.O. Box 577 Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 ✓ John H. Mtlor and Lillian K. Milor / 621-571-003-7 8 Santa Bella Road j Rolling Hills Estates, Ca 9027 Raul Fernandez 621-601-001-7 1206 Myra Avenue- Los Angeles, Ca 90029 Maurice J. Gibson and M. Madeline Moon ✓ 621-601-002-8 2925 Artesia Torranon, Ca 90504 Clinton W. Root and Lena R. Root 621-601-003-9 22908 Uose Street Canoga Park, Ca 91307 Patricia Aude, Judy Burch, Paul E. Burch and Lisa Burch 621-601-004-0 309 Avenue H. Apt C Redondo Beach, Ca 90277 Barbara E. Hutcheson f 621-601-005-1 24 Fairy Avenue Huntsville, Ontario, Canada Ronald L. Burton 621-601-006-2 8535 Artesia Bellflower, Ca 90706 Sunking Homeowner Assn. , c/o Sunking 11661 San Vincente Blvd. , #1000 Los Angeles, Ca. 90049 621-571-001 West Coast Properties Inc. 1816 Belmont Rd. N.W. Washington D. C. 20009 621-400-022 POST OFFICE BOX 1326 a RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 a (714) 781-6500 ZENITH 7-6500 kORANGE COAST TITLE COMPANY OF RIVERSIDE William Bone-Sunrise Clonpany ' C 42-000 Bob Hope Drive Rancho Mirage, Ca 92270 JA.Af 2 - 19i.q c/o SConsolidated chlesingeeand Investment Cb. - ECITY OF ENTAL Sts,ICES P.O. Box 1906 pALhi DESERT - Palm Springs, Ca 92262 Ira L. Reed 621-200-010-6 C/o SPNB Tr21-1-03293-0 Trust R E Tax 2-68 P,,O. Box 60802 'Term Annex, Los Angeles, Ca 90060 Hidden Acres - 621-200-011-7 P.O. Box 654 Rancho Mirage, Ca 92270 University Plaza Inc. 621-240-001-2 Frank W. Clark Jr. Tr. c/o Floyd M. Lewis 333 S. Hope Street 27th Floor Los Angeles, Ca 90071 Charles S. Gibbs and June C. Gibbs 621-240-003-4 (OMIT) - 70673 Oroville Circle Rancho Mirage, Ca. 92270 F.X. McIbnald Jr. 621-240-004-5 1900 E. Ocean Blvd Apt 1410 Long.Beach, Ca 90802 Harvey S. Morse 621-350-005-6 c/o Maryanov Madsen Gordon & Carrpbell 621-350-006-7 500 South Palm Canyon Drive Palm Springs, Ca 92262 E11rer E. Plum and Virginia L. Plum 621-350-008-9 260 Brawley Avenue Thermal, Ca 92274 S King HcmcwneZP!3sn 621-400-016-0 c/ Ls �iesmi — ' 42510 Plate Pa serf, Ca 260 Po Golf Ranchos,Ltd, Pt /� 621-400-018 2 c/o Jack H. ett // 621-571-004-8 130 E. 17th S.tre�`ilite K Costa�s 92677 POST OFFICE BOX 1326 • RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 • (714) 781-6500 ZENITH 7-6500 - I Y y C` 1j.^, OPiAPiGE COAST TITLE COMPANY OF RIVERSIDE Ih>ited California Bank 621-400-019-3 C/o Hillis Isreal 707 Wilshire Blvd Los Angeles, Ca 90017 West Oust Properties 621-400-019-3 1816 Belmont Road NW Washington, DC 20009 William H. Phillips and Lillian M. Phillips 621-571-002-6 P.O. Box 577 Palm Desert; Ca 92260 John H. Milor and Lillian K. Milor 621-571-003-7 8 Santa Bella Road Rolling Hills Estates, Ca 9027 Raul Fernandez 621-601-061-7 1206 Myra Avenue Las -Angeles, Ca 90029 Maur re J. Gibson and M. Nlsdeline Moon 621-601-002-8 2925 Artesia Torrance, Ca 90504 Clinton W. Root and Lena R. Root 621-601-003-9 22908 Vose Street Canoga Park, Ca 91307 Patricia Aude, Judy Burch, Paul E. Burch and Lisa Burch 621-601-004-0 309 Avenue H. Apt C Redondo Beach, Ca 90277 Barbara E. Hutcheson 621-601-005-1 24 Fairy Avenue Huntsville, Ontario, Canada Ronald L. Burton 621-601-006-2 8535 Artesia Bellflower, Ca 90706 Sunking Homeowner Assn. , c/o Sunking 11661 San Vincente Blvd. , #1000 Los Angeles, Ca. 90049 621-571-001 West Coast Properties Inc. 1816 . Belmont .Rd. N.W. Washington D. C. 20009 621-400-022 POST OFFICE BOX 1326 • RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 a (714) 781-6.500 ZENITH 7.6500 ® HOMES BY DAME DAME CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. P.0.BOX 100 SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 (415)837-0544 January 1 , 1979 RF, CEIVED City of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane J A N Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 ENVIRONMENTAL sr7 l=Es CITY OF FALId DESERT Attention : Murrel Crump Re: Chaparral Country Club, Palm Desert Development Plan, Residential- Gentlemen : Enclosed herewith are the documents required for sub- mission in connection with your application for the Development Plan, Residential as discussed in our preliminary meeting December 21 , 1978• At that meeting we submitted our Environmental Assessment Form together with the required filing fee of $30.00; Also enclosed herewith is the required Development Plan application fee made payable to the City of Palm Desert in the amount of $1 ,000.00. Please advise immediately if there is any further information you require to complete the referenced application. Si cerely, -�o1�=Ri-ec,3 i v cc: Jack Saunders Ted Robinson Frank Radmacher 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Case No. : DP 01-79 Project: Development Plan Applicant: DAME-DOTY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Enclosed please find materials describing a project for which the following is being requested: Approval of a Development Plan Residential to allow 683 attached Single Family/Multi Family units and golf course on approximately 210 acres located west of Portola, northerly of the Whitewater Storm Channel . The attached data was prepared by the applicant and is being forwarded to you for comments and recommended Conditions of Approval . The City is interested in the probable impacts on the natural environment (e.g. water and air pollution) and on public resources (e.g. demand for schools, hospitals, parks, power generation, sewage treatment, etc. ) Your comments and recommended conditions of approval must be received by this office prior to 5:00 p.m. January 19 , 1979 , in order to be discussed by the Land Division Committee at their meeting of January 30 - The Land Division Committee (comprised of Director of Environmental Services, City Building Official , City Engineer, Fire Marshal and a representative of CVCWD) will discuss the comments and recommended conditions of approval and will forward them to the Planning Commission through the staff report. Any information received by this office after the receipt deadline will not be discussed by the Land Division Com- mittee nor will it be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consid- eration. Very truly yours, Paul A. Williams Director of Environmental Services PAW/ks PLEASE RETURN MAP WITH COMMENTS 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 January 12, 1979 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE . REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT PLAN RESIDENTIAL TO ALLOW 683 ATTACHED SINGLE-FAMILY/MULTI-FAMILY UNITS AND GOLF COURSE ON APPROXIMATELY 210 ACRES LOCATED WEST OF PORTOLA, NORTHERLY OF THE WHITEWATER STORM CHANNEL. . CASE NO. DP 01-79 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by DAME-DOTY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, for approval of Development Plan Residential to allow 683 attached single-family/multi-family dwellina units within the PR-5 (Planned Residential , 5 d.u./acr. max. ) and O.S. (Open Space District) zones on approximately 210 acres located west of Portola Avenue and northerly of the Whitewater Storm Channel , more particularly described as: APN 621-350-016-6 621 -200-020-5 621-350-017-7 621 -350-018-8 621-350-023-2 621 -200-032-6 621 -200--033-7 le DP OffAir P.RrS O.S. -M �lt S V ](y ' ``'�� GVIL R]ILVER `ORI VE uERL[ IVC S.P. P.R.-4 , S.P. SAID Public Hearing will be held on Tuesday, January 30, 1979 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the Palm Desert City Hall , 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are in- vited to attend and be heard. PAUL .A. WILLIAMS, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission PUBLISH: Palm Desert Post January 17, 1979 CIRCULATION LIST FOR ALL CASES Circulation of Tentative Maps, Parcel Maps, CUP'S, GPA's, etc: ® A p REVIEW COMMITTEE: (I 1. ,0ealm Desert Director of Environmental Services - Paul Williams 2. Palm Desert Director of Building & Safety - Jim Hill 3. ,00rPalm Desert Director of Public Works - L. Clyde Beebe 4. S Palm Desert Fire Marshall - Dave Ortegel 5. Robert P. Brock Office of Road Commissioner and County Surveyor Administration Office Building, Room 313 46-209 Oasis Street Indio, California 92201 (Phone: 347-8511, ext 267) 6, M. A. Ferguson Imperial Irrigation Dist. ,Power Div. P. 0. Box 248 Coachella, CA 92236 398-2211 7. Lowell 0. Weeks ��VJJJ���JJJ General Manager - Chief Engineer Coachella Valley County Water District (C.V.C.W.D. ) P. 0. Box 1058 Coachella, California 92236 (Phone: (714) 398-2651) 8. R. J. Lowry Project Development Services California Uepartment of Transportation P. 0. Box 231 San Bernardino, California 92403 (Phone: (714) 383-4671 ) 9. _ Director of Planning and Building City of Indian Wells 45-300 Club Drive Indian Wells, California 92260 (Phone: 345-2831) 10. Director of Planning City of Rancho Mirage 69-825 Highway 111 Rancho Mirage, California 92270 (Phone : 328-8871) 11.�Kermit Martin Southern California Edison Company P. 0. Box 203 Palm Desert, California 92260 (Phone: 346-8660) 12. Chuck Morris r' General Telephone Company 62-147 Desertaire Road Joshua Tree, California 92252 (Phone: 366-8389) 13. d R. W. Riddell Engineering Department Southern California Gas Company P. 0. Box 2200 Riverside, California 92506 (Phone: 327-8531, ask for Riverside extension 214) Circulation List for All Cases Page Two 14. Roger Harlow Director - Pupil Personnel Service Desert Sands Unified School District 83-049 Avenue 46 Indio, California 92201 (Phone: 347-4071) 15. Jim Langdon Palm Desert Disposal Services, Inc. 36-711 Cathedral Canyon Drive P. 0. Drawer LL Cathedral City, California 92234 (Phone: 328-2585 or 328-4687) 16. Stanley Sayles President, Palm Desert Community Services District 44-500 Portola Avenue Palm Desert, California 92260 (Phone: 346-6338) 17. Regional Water Quality Control Board 73-271 Highway 111 , Suite 21 Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 (Phone: ) 18. Harold Horsley Foreman/Mails U. S. Post Office Palm Desert, California 92260 (Phone: 346-3864) i 19. Joe Benes Vice President & General Manager Coachella Valley Television P. 0. Box 368 Palm Desert, California 92260 (Phone: 346-8157) 20. Don McNeely President - Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce P. 0. Box 908 Palm Desert, California 92260 (Phone: 346-6111) 21. Kevin Manning Senior Planner Riverside County Planning Commission County Administration Building, Room 304 46-209 Oasis Street Indio, California 92201 (Phone: 347-8511, ext. 277, 278, & 279) 22. James Whitehead Superintendent - District 6 State Parks and Recreation 1350 Front Street, Room 6054 San Diego, California 92101 (Phone: (714) 236-7411) 23. Les Pricer Redevelopment Agency 73-677 Highway 111 Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 (Phone: 346-6920 24. Robert I. Pitchford, Chairman Architectural Committee of the Palm Desert Property Owners Assoc. 73-833 El Paseo Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 C Ea IV �.� JAM 2 1919 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT CA. 92260 _ gmVIRON,411MVAL =VICES **DEVELOPMENT PL ** DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES RESIDENTIAL PLANNING DIVISION Dame'-Doty Development CO. . Applicant (Please wme) P.O. Box 100 415-837-0544 Mailing Address TrlophOne San Ramon, _Ca. 94583 City State Zip-Code REQUEST: (Describe specific nature of approval requested) Request approval of 683 unit residential development i-ngai-her with golf rnl(rsP. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: See legal description attached. 621 -350-01'6-6 -621 =200-020-5 621 -200-032-6 621 -350-017-7 621 -350-'018=8 621-200-033-7. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 621 3592� 2 - EXISTING ZONING P.. R. - 5 Property Owner Authorization THE UNDERSIGNED STATES THAT THEY ARE THE OWNER(5)OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN AND HEREBY GIVE AUTHOR- IZATION FOR THE FILING Of THIS APPLICATION. AGi / ��'`t�t Omit. 2O.E 1978 - � SIGNATURE � pAl' AGREEMENT ABSOLVING THE CITY OF PALM DESFHT OF ALL LIABILITIES RELATIVE TO ANY DEED RESTRICTIONS. I DO BY MY SIGNATURE ON THIS AGREEMENT, ABSOLVE THE CITY OF PALM DESERT OF ALL LIABILITIES REGARDING ANY DEED RES- TRICTIONS THAT MAY BE APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN. Dame'- 9ty�Deve�lopmer C. _By : ii ,. �1 /� Oct . 20, 1978 SI Ai DATE � r Applicants Signature Dame'G DevZaCBy : Oct. 202 1978 SIGNATURE DATE (FOR STAFF USE ONLY) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS ACCEPTED BY ❑ MINISTERIAL ACT E.A. No. ❑ CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION❑ CASE C JL C O. NEGATIVE DECLARATION N ❑ OTHER REFERENCE CASE NO. CASE NO. DEVELOPMENT PLAN CHECKLIST NOTE : Planning Division Staff are required to reject applications if any appli- cable exhibits are not received and checked at the time of filing. Complete : I . Completed Application Form (one (1) copy) (/ II . Written Documents (one copy typed) - Legal Description/Ownership L - Statement of Planning Objectives L/ - Preliminary Development Schedule L - Quantitative Data - Water District Letter (� III . Property Owners Information - Typed listing of owners, Assessor ' s Parcel Numbers (two (2) copies) y - Assessor ' s Parcel Map(s) (one set ) - Gummed mailing labels (two (2) sets) IV. Address labels for project sponsors (three (3) sets) L/ * V. Site Plan - Six (6) full size (one of which is to be / colored) L/ - Fifteen (15) reduced copies (812"xll" , or 1311 ) t/ * VI . General Landscape Plan - Three (3 ) copies full size, or may be incor- porated into Site Plan y * VII . Preliminary Grading Plan Three (3) copies full size, or may be incor- pora ted into Site Plan, where appropriate Development Plan Checklist Page Two VIII . Architectural Renderings Three (3 ) copies full size (one of which is to be colored; DO NOT DISPLAY THIS COPY ON A BOARD) - Fifteen (15) reduced copies (82"xll" , or 1311 ) IX. Environmental Assessment Form (received by Plan- ning Division two weeks prior to formal filing of application) X. Application Filing Fee: - With Change of Zone Request , $450 + $2/du - $1000 maximum or , - No Change of Zone Request , $325 + $2/du - $1000 maximum XI . Optional plans and exhibits, as required by the Dept . of Environmental Services - Aerial Photo(s) of site L� - Other Exhibits ( ) specify * Items V, VI , and VII may be combined . Development Plan Exhibits �j� Received and Checked by : Ping. Div. St f a e ( LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON THE TED WEINER PROPERTY (1) The land referred to in this Report is situated in the State of California, County of RIVERSIDE UNINCORPORATED AREA and is described as follows: PARCEL 140 . l : THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF TIIE SOUTHEAST QUARTER AND THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER AND THE SOUTHERLY 17 FEET OF THE EASTERLY 396 . 35 FEET OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER , ALL IN SECTION 8 , TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 6 FAST, SAN BERTIARDIT40 BASE AND MERIDIAN. I EXCEPTING FROM SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER THE FOLLOWING (DESCRIBED PARCELS : i PARCEL A : BEGINNING IAT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTH!•!EST 'QUARTER ; THENCE NORTH 890 45 ' 28" EAST ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER, 924 . 66 FEET ; THE1ICE SOUTH 00 05 ' 35" EAST, A DISTANCEi OF 941 . 43 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 890 54 , 25" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 926'. 49 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00 08 ' 27" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 939 . 03 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING . PARCEL B : ' CO1-i1iEi1CI11G1 AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUT11'.!EST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8 AS SHOWN BY NAP ON FILE III BOOK 37 , PAGE 7, RECORDS OF SURVEY , RIVERSIDE COUNTY RECC!RDS ; THENCE SOUTH 00 08 ' 27" l-1EST 930 . 03 FEET�i TO THE TRUE. 1'lt:� :rI OF BEGItI?' ::; THENCE i10RT1I 890 54 ' 25" EAST, 928 . 49 FL;ET ; THE`ICE SO1";' ' 00 05 ' 35" -AST, _)21 . 33 FEET ; THENCE SOUTII 890 54 ' �5" PEST, 929 . ( !i FEET ; ^• iI'_" Si?�1i1 00 0(i ' 27" EAST, 281 . 33 FEET TO THE POI! piiIl,"I'II'7G I I I i i I i . I � m No.754.2 (2) PARCEL C : v`` ' COMMENCING AT THE NORTIFPIL' ST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF Till-, 17 ' SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8 , AS SHOWN BY TIAP ON FILE IN BOOK 37 , PAGE 7 , RECORDS OF SURVEY , RIVERSIDE COUNTY RECORDS ; THENCE SOUTH 00. 08 , 27" WEST, 1220 . 36 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING ; THENCE NORTH 690 54 ' 25" EAST, 929 . 64 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00 05 ' 35" EAST, 101 . 71 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 8 ; THENCE SOUTH 190 54 ' 25" WEST, 930 . 57 FEET, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTI N 8 , TO A POINT THAT BEARS SOUTH 00 08 ' 27" WEST FRO14 THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING ; THENCE NORTH 00 08 ' 27" EAST, 1o4 . 33 FEET TO THEITRUE POINT OF BEGINNING . i PARCEL NO. 2 : ALL THAT PORTION OF THE 1'IEST HALF OF THE TORTHEAST QUARTER AND THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 17 , TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH , RANGE 6 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, AS SHOWN BY UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT' SURVEY WHICH LIES NORTHERLY OF TIIE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LIM: i BEGINNING AT A POINT OTd THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST HALF! OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION , 7911 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHIJEST CORNER THEREOF ; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ON A STRAIGHT LINE TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION , 1282 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION ; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY Old A STRAIGHT LINE TO A POINT ON THEEAST LINE OF THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION , 1626 FEET SOUTH OF THE 110RTHEAST CORNER-, OF THE '.BEST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 17 . E'l.CF,PTING TIIER ROI,1 TIIE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCELS : PAI'CEL A CO] E;ICI;1G AT Ti1'.% IIOBT11':.'EST CORNER OF TIIE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE E:OI,J`rI1'aEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8, TO'.-I11S'.'IP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 6 EAST, °',A:1 BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, AS SHMP; DY PAP ON FILE IN BOOK 37 PACE 7 , RECOP.Df> OR SURVEY , RIVJ711SIDE COiiI?'rY R,]?CORDS ; '1'NEIdCE ;;OUTU 00 08 ' 37" 'NEST, TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINF. OF SECTICII 8 , 2 ' THENCE SOUTH 0° 04 ' 09" IIES'I'. I?C . 64 FEET TO THE TRUE 13�= 1 . 69 FILET ; TH�. ., , POI'.I`_^ Or BECI INTNG ; THE?ICE NORTTI 890 54 ' 25" EAST, 930 . 57 FEET ; THENCE SOUTH 00 05 ' 35' EAST, 280 . 73 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 890 514 ' 25" '.'?EST, 931 . 36 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00 04 ' 09" EAST, 2n0 . 73 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING . 1d0 (;ORNER !'I'!AS,T OIJA', i. T> r � OUII i ST QUA1- 1 . , 0 ' I I SECTION 8 )',II] IIII' 5 SOUTH, RAMC,., r �.� -EAST,, )A11 BT T ,.... r) I AND MERIDIf i1 , AS S1I04!N BY MAP ON ' II,E IN BOOK 37 , PAGE 7 - RECOTI11: ! OF SURVEY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY RECORDS : THENCE SOUTH 00 08 ' 27" 'EST, 1324 . 69 FEET TO A POINT 014 THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 8 ; `S.HENCE SOUTH 00 04 ' 09" WEST, 457 . 37 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING ; THENCE NORTH 890 511 ' 25" EAST 931 . 36 FEET ; THENCE SOUTbr 00 05 ' 35" EAST, 385 . 511 FEET TO A POINT 0;1 ' A CURVE WHICH IS THE 1101111 RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE COACHELLA VALLEY COUNTY WATER DISTRICT FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL KNOT^!N AS THE WHITEWATER RIVER CHANNEL: THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG A CURVE OF THE SAID CHANNEL RIGHT OF WAY, 110 TANGENT TO THE PRECEDING COURSE, CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST , HAVING�A RADIUS OF 10 , 500 . 00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 50 111 10" , Ali ARC LENGTH OF 950 . 41 FEET ; THENCE NORTH 00 04 ' 09" FAST, 200 .79 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING . I PARCEL C : C011MENCING AT THE NORTIIb1�ST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER ,OF SAID SECTION 8 , TOIIIQSIlIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE Ili BOOK 37 PAGE 7 , RECORDS OF SURVEY , RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ; THENCE SOUTH 00 08 ' 37" WEST, TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SECTION 8, 1324 . 69 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00 04 ' 09" WEST, 176 . 64 FEET; THENCE NORTH 890 54 ' 25" EAST, 930 . 57 FEET; THENCE NORTH o° 05 ' 35" WEST, 179 . 26 FEET TO THE SOUTH- LINE OF SAID SECTION 8 : THENCE SOUTH 890 54 ' 25" WEST, 930 . 57 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 8 , TO THE POINT OF BEGINIING . SAID PROPERTY IS ALSO SHOWN BY RECORD OF SURVEY 017 FILE IN BOOK 37 , PAGE 7 OF MAPS , RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY , CALIFORNIA . PARCEL D: THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 17 , TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 6 EAST , SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS : COIDIENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 17 , AS SHOWN PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 37 , PAGE 7 RECORDS OF SURVEYS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID RIVERSIDE COUNTY , STATE OF CALIFORNIA; THENCE NORTH 89' RECO _ , r ' ION 17 A DISTANCE OF 49 95 EAST, ALONG Ti.L NORTH LINE O. SAID SECTION , 1325. 15 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0° 04 ' 09" WEST , A DISTANCE OF 658 . 16 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF COACHELLA VALLEY COUNTY WATER DISTRICT FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL KNOWN AS THE WIIITLWATER RIVER CHANNEL WHICH IS TILE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING ; TIIE14CE CONTINUING SOUTH 00 04 ' 09" WEST, A DISTALNCE OF 135. 84 FEET: THENCE SOUTH 70' 01 ' 06" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 992. 64 FEET: THENCE NORTH 0° 05 ' 35" NEST, A DISTANCE• OF 291 . 80 FEET TO A POINT 011 SAID NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF TIIE IiIIITEI;AT ER RIVER CHANNEL; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG A CURVE OF SAID CHANNEL RIGHT OF PLAY; NOT TANGENT TO THE PRECFDING COURSE , CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 10 ,500. 00 FEET , THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 50 11' 10" AND ARC LENGTH OF 950. 41 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. p (4) PARCEL NO. 3 : I , THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 6 EAST, SIN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN; EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PORTION : BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE WESTERLY ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST OT'ARTFR, 1327 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE NORTHERLY ON THE F7ESTF.RLY LINE. OF SAID FAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, 864 .45 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY IN A DIRECT LINE TO A POINT IN THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, 395 FEET NORTHERLY FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TIIE NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE SOUTHERLY ON THE EASTERLY LINE .OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, 395 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING . PARCEL NO. 4 : THE SOUTH HALF OF THE (SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 8 , TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH , RANGE 6 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN . PARCEL NO. 5 : THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 8 , TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 6 EAST, SAN BERNAP.DINO BASE AND MERIDIAN . i i (80%) SPECIAL INFORMATION Unless shown in the body of this preliminary report there appears of record no transfers or agree- ments to transfer the land described herein recorded during the period of six months prior to the dale of this report, except as follows: NONE. Form Nn.n f.' e 6E. I C 1 29 O .� o S -F MAP. 2/ P� ® S , O: FE MAP 22 ,., ' I ,'3 vI ' --------------- /N .I vt R/s Ja/Je J7/J9 Hill r, c. A. sa:,7 os , — N -' SEC. /7 I: 5S. P. EE. _SKI 22 ( -- 20 I _ 3.92 Ac. 7 r ,.Jr.... - G �. 2 I EE CDT I - - -'- - - P - �4752Ac'c 1I - Oi • \ i \ /J 57 Ac c I • la/Fi - rr/r _. ' HOMES BY DAME - - DAME CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. . P. O. BOX 100 SAN RAMON. CALIFORNIA 94593 (415) 837-0544 - December 8, 1978 Mr . Tom Levy Coachella Valley County Water District P. 0. Box 1058 Coachella, Ca. 92236 Re: Chaparral Country Club, Palm Desert . Dear Tom: As discussed . in our meeting on Wednesday , enclosed tJ is our check for the amount of $1 , .114.00 ($100.00 plus $1 . 50 per residential lot ) . Please issue the letter required by the City of Palm Desert for water and sewer service and flood control . Thank you. r� Sincerely, ichard E. D t RED : rc cc : Jack Saunders K is i' CIVIL ENGINEERING 600 E.TAHOUITZ-McCALLUM WAY SUITE D IF�y, fy�Tr ,n{ 'p+ tq� PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA 92262 69E8� EII G�I7LEII�II G,IfIC. TELEPHONE 714.325-2245 MEMO DATE: November 30, 1978 TO: Dale Bohnenberger C.V.C.W.D. FROM: Jack Saunders Webb Engineering, Inc. RE: Tract No. 13881 Dame' - Doty Development , Dale: Please furnish us with a service letter for both sewer and water and also flood control requirements. Tom Levy has a plot plan of project. Naturally we need it A.S.A.P. for City of Palm Desert. / r C A. . 7326 2T5 S. .� ,,I�, , / rc.:;a. �isis SEC. B r.5S. R.6E. C �fA � C�I. �� 7546 L c' ; f/��T�I�T/ a(N/uirs W r1/IIV �w Q . 1 Y`. � r• f� rr 1 •f 7� j t •2L '' .. - I �t / Q7/^�' ry7 :.�t [j�}/13 "•"�.t t4'�a ��• 't t1 •r '! '+•,�. ( t, } ,1•+}"'15'�.i )� ,,, { ` ram, t I' ,, •NQV lI' { '••" GJ "rj4' 'f'" .,.+a,: •,. 4 ro"� t., -. " • `. '�,t) a!'�.,jl ti..`,r } ..r -, -1.9 _ ° y� , 1 n• •�r if d' t t f �, i a•.� r - ii.at,�j�r * 't'� Y �;• r t4V, ,{ L r •r ,r • „ r Iyj��/�.. ° '� "S, "'� .ti: ;_ SS.f..s•F.•ttirJ6D"-` �,�•� d [ •!. ►`. ,t'�r.} y.f•'tt Ct"/;•{:(ta ti,_aF�"�.h � ' f} r •r'\ .i.'+ 1 ,,/ /"fL. Gt7'�.•• ( • _4�,"4 I► ���y.,�•. tr•���• �.11,(t $':. 11. 1`�'.l`�•, y. y.t i•: r y(L : r.•�•,: r. •. r r , � !tre�'A ♦ `., t �r' ..-, 1„ ti>� '` �•�� +' .s "':'N Sr ,'�,} �",v i�:9 f .� e+ c�'?r'•"...� } In }tg'S''?S,�1°i*r^t • �♦t•'�� Sr!t �: :�� t 'a .�_ ty T {�` ,� " ?`' �<.d'`r `ia�f �{y�, •4 w.P-4 1'it[ i - �i w���. r+jfit 1g3qf_t, �E,•i y 7•.•,}Si �•r_' J7:� Z r,; t t" +. t}i'l.�i �,.e, . ii- Sp �4- ftQ:>C. a.. +_�.tia A-•�.f• I, r C '•' Y J 1- � - - _ •��;"ii..,S�Z..•"S ,� .f. ti .t' r i -S r r� �;,ft'' •, tf`, t r 4 F rf,,a�i 4tyc � .r , �', j-, t - /� /� '� �/q /�/� �. �`. )R•5�:�� t-'1r. 1[?•�• �. t•7 `V'tt','4f , .'}'. }:.�YK .���•':t.:.r .ffi�+,-{�'t 4�"�`.��r^.,�,• F;V.$ '•• •�.' n,. • - : L��s2 A'�"'I,r�'�A ��I f.•-�� -dN� � - ' r�, fS ♦' �4 tN �c s3 �� 4�r tit t, '� •a,�i. f Y' �T "/ 4� �. :i�' M V �.y ".�`12 :n�: a <R t.!' #!% 4;'`�t- ,�• ,♦ �. � ;C{:Ct, 'Jq _ r,;:�K+♦� a \i 1L.;.�Ij/�a , a 'i I, • �^i,� t ` ♦ .�{{•�� /� {r[3 ti,M•.r v ��:'•�-__x Zj '��' T{ ,Sr 1.��^ '. �f4 a. .y L+t Fi-(+1f '„[. ,'r '.S k/,t l../�, •'r { ,.rt .•„ `Z - - 1 , y�•'\�O r - 1 1A 10, h� �is F •• : z t.'"^ .a �' {i,o.S�{;.•t S••;3., r. O- _ 44r.11tr rJ 1 v l�.l , ��r� � f lab ;' ,�� . �T '� �} + . fit o n 4e re'y A-, a ri•r�x i:'Z�.•� ti3?Ze}t�t. 4{i' a.'r, ..,� ,., rr. > ,�r I '� I� Tract N- ►1454 .S u n r -� TJti, ��, Y� :rl 'tx� �'" Sy;; - GOn So Ila�poa . . fj2 I ^ Ca -Qil 4". w'{.r:er ,z t+w t'.3 "i, ft ,t. r�. +r wrm pone- _ 3) - - f `4{7777. v s ? + 'J k: Y���/�t+x. t.�,• t i} ►kr tt}�;`<t�i a> c ♦� x Or CO 1 '♦ a J'��."'�•." wr. .G, 1* ��rt•, �`4/i`�-[H r sr �~.� " t. .�.?t t .�r * •• _ _ _ - - __ - _ _ trT•r3 .TJyY:.rti t )'�°rd l+_S 11 �a ' 1A 1 -�U:�czrr-''F {(� f, •rt .f. Zt 'Z=�( 'I)4 �•;z C+: �s•:Ut �,. r x`fn. 3i,"F�.:j/7�• •'1`t.�i�•.tit ,.��. 1{., �Z� a !'r:'.r L •-+,y r t' ^ t,.•- - I _. „�r'fY,�ih" ,¢•.7 fl. •�f,�dC��`i o"r=! ,13.,t '-�di" tr -.Yip. � rr- k�1,w !o-. �.-' tt'J �}T.. ,'\ t > 1. •.. a.� .3 ����� T. ;.:,!-�Y?"�f..ir fj �';rn- S w�, �iw���'�, ,•t.+.:r;. Y'� ,! Cy-t� ''{t 'i'{'�y yS:p� .1�: v; 6 `.. � ,. � - w �•�i , s s� ���i�,it' , �X� � jam , c �, n, v v:':` 1 . � „i•- ['�`•` ; ! AC' �4)�' i�jR �.,�,•`� � '1'K`r ��+�r?h�♦„ ,,.r 4t:•C♦8' �F y .r;_ t• Fj- va .•.1 R � �fi «'.hs'�d,", ��-c•"f:•..+.. 'Y,•.,s�. il'7-:` •,r•.1ys±<t,'�•�'.�•f1;1��.a� a J•:.�_ i. .r .tb It -4•. si'rS` •.t• ,` nks: ,};,nr. f.':'.f t:., 1 J ♦y+A• ,+ a ;cidl•r, i` , -s • ",.,r t ,� 7••.,>,; d ,/�/� t 3 kt -N:y t: f. r;_`y-'� .y��� r.. .F�i.:.`:. tick:. .•t, er. .,y: :1\ Z r ,/.i5 } !' j't Yr t�•.�✓. ,..1 �'' S}• °,�" p. F. '1 _ 1 i-�^'OV".T O�' 14 l�20 200-032-� u: ,...`- -., •:`C�' ='L•'[�Gf •-;ate ty•:.ft`� m:'�.L.' }`. Trd�•�•'+'Z y,•:'� �..'�-�,L 't",.:75 t 4. r Z-+{1..��•r f•5•' _La v 7� •'• t�{ s- s•• 1 /� /, L - 'y• l t ' 1_ �%ti� -,� fa•{.�•'M� ,}' ,r_f,. ,�v �.. ,�, ,�y�.,. t.r .t�:tS •t„ s i` � 3.' ;Iv-' _ 20 A4 ��7•� V1.7 O / :.��, iL'r 3^ { {,•:• S*V: C ,�� •: tt:Tv,�. edi.sF f' l'".`1Y'Fv l.• :1:^j,"'1•ti �".� `t'ri,?}.,1•. Il..t t'j t4":.' , r.�`,�� _, � ..�.•) i if. ,� M C' V[] 1 G 1 "'{ u ,1�/.. i� }c}.It�t .:?•,�^;;> r. Xx a.•t,.+c=,1' .ttl`"� °�' .�;r ..y�� .*�,, `7� :••G,r. ..S" y;<S .�i� + f{'aj.. ��kjJ:' '!. �•1'' j "t rl t •� �;••r`- _ Fr vx✓•` Y. r .i i<.. , r4 - •J .1 ;... ,1•,.. r'i i•).• ti t :y •'`" .`.r-s�'_rY .. �... . ,; s.lJ� rRA (rC ��',-..'f't! •/J,`fY f, '•, 1f„,�1t.'+'t; •..�. '4• !`-' •!•'• ,'�t IT 1011 .. ` - :'.�+jl•r3 ..j.) l,,v 1•.N.y ..�;,• 4 t.y t �. �,,, i�n'2�•. ,t:� , 4 ,' tT; ♦ 1. . r•s �., !.•f'- �E, - a�t yav, r q, rrj•.�i`Yj1 "a'!q �i� ��,�',. .>,u ,1,� •'�:"r 'r �t �, • t� , a. $ �( ' 1 •` , Rr4 lLY � [�� ;�,�••:"1�:±7ir+`: • � + �',•.1{'3 ` . , y .',1.,r✓: .a(,�.-'r�Tri, �i�i `t �S�y�,�F-�fi• ...y r "f •.r ,. -IO J7.tT N, �j�'�`' .t;, F.i. ' ):: �' ,�: �,t•� •"F9�+i*i.l,"i•;Sj:y .{ ;,�r.F �i. ;)'�.,��yJ�O i'. �?K,1:7'4r:lj'4.r r ;�:'arYti, L-;t 3 tlN,f. r,t �j�S:`i; I t-, •.It`. C�_�Y}f 1 {{ t 1' 'l,e.a t �p, t , 3 1':fiYyr 1J 7. M., y E - r�i( •r•Y.. {,,�•!.': r C+ �:'� tpq.�it!a':.,-+: ;•.•I..}r- y�•.��Py'.�ti .5.��`t, I�.. ,,.!,. +.• • - I '>� -tt :P�,'Y ti. , -1 +, [P.:,Y �.. "�},,,,fT,v�'� ,} t �Rr,� '�S„r s.,i, k• ; ��i '1,' P {� :7!Zj♦ 4 .•,7 :.`.:`K� 1, '�. 4` +�' V: ..F. •' .�, �1 'y�' �4.°4f�J' �r i'.S• j. 1 T..� - •�•� ^•�: of _ H, „A4�_ �r.i-r;..{.t 4.s7/{jb',�q ;.�". yt�'a,���X�t� y ., !'�..�rx�`,L �a'� '�5�. t'.�jf":'. �1 j" 1i'�-.(Jl7 �7.7� I R + �'= v F.�a�`x 4. vd''" ,In,,.• ;.�,, s..:, ,,c,�t4,t(.�.�ti q ,.5: 1'�r+.:.X^ ' +.:•�? :i�3'.`ij '!:_- -,r ,,1 vs�' y3'S_w ",:w. ,,3fa 1 '•.t , �� �: ,t� t,�t�. �r.,, a�(#nti;,��v.. ,�i„� •+�, •t, � >ti �:..L >�[[1.� k>'"�"! �', t _ �: �• �r � �`, ,x�r . . t r i ..,. i•,M; y.. �: h7 .'L; "t y` ' -rj• -•y y <1`.• q; ti(S +.�i :`t .� 1 t t y�rYrt['. 1.4? /Q ,. t''Y:�h°. 7',N 'a t'F'D,''L'„r Lt�r:�--(1f.:;,:5 y,7'p }M/Ny�!�!�n�,r , ;, ::.fih Y�' : M. .t iJ„,,.\_� '�;• y.eiv4Y(1�-�. J�^kR �('t�.i ,. .. a• ® 2 V 04C fJ ,T. .. /,`1 ,J. t':;}. ",�.,,�'S, .#- ,:r.� �•"' -S'.7.Ir: "i ,;.: '•r :l' t �.:" ^,a yCH!},.�:n�,-•M al ?• 300 a } !SZ%�-,¢!� jf fi. Y �V+,• -, g•,r. t 1 Y e ,��33I >r, 1� 7� �r'-`+ ��+•� ' {�- .J.�1 ! -�,,•. �y�} N.fcJi k�t jy r�.a �n'�•'t+ i /1 fip,�,,r �', ! 7, i7'£/ t i. tonr. I• '.a,,` r!�Z :S 1 '+S�'_ u'l 7�!� ?C} T' ! ,�Q.; j.tt) S ),�; .y SI•�1cC'•i. 4 1 L�+. , �•a J. r 'a. -I t•.- ,S'♦:���, d�i .�, )+ r ►: �„j'' �j., i �' �, 6�rt IS '�. ',Z[• .s `a" , .;�r. , Y ,: _ ;,�K��. � fwa� ,,._,•"" mid .•w;-• �. ,•s �'�. ,".�sr �� :,,R�. , t �c.�Fe r�i ��'�.r � ;�i,�!, / �/► � c'9' "74..f..•�r- wa._♦h� ":..+.t ,c�•f��'�. .., �.. ,�t�.s.,1„".•yyL►�,.N�t7 ' `-t Jt �-• �.if:r•'�': :.•t1... i�e.�.,Ftiss 1' 1:.�,t';�'4:•�,i,-Q�A'S :�.ti.• l'i v� b,.�iF.1%'- s�w-Of_'"`�' T �, ;/ .tA-��,� w r{r.' YV,I1x '"•.' A % tILZ- v 1 '� t `• i. t r , X} }.. r `5 ^r9 A� _ L - , �� �,.."� , {•� +''G J' r.s: .It. t �. . {, lr } E..�► _ r r�.r {1.; •1 'pk st•_ ; 'wl•J /.i 'f4'Yx°1••[. 'r., 1 :, :.." ,r� �.. 't♦. + b l.'i. ,•1L�•L :tZ�a•a ,fl , ..►b [' 3>� - atS.i /B !/S 9to.S1 !c't7 re, - _ �' 1 �~^��,,(y$ 3.623 C. ht 7 Itf'.S Ud, o Z l4 \wV �Q `Yj0 t i.► ATt A9.! O H �6t /Y• i ` ___ I _ /� !B ._ ---- 621 350•-66 1 - L 6 21 -3 U-016-8 5 t 9$B ACC (oz e 2.52.A �•6.24 Ihl CB(as veal) and U.lest �o �'rop� Owk,S {aCc, 31 12.32 A c ---- 9 AC • wwmo . ,• ,.,µ ,�T� i 18 1 5a 5B 4620Ac t. " 1 EX�1�b(�' `4 l t92� r rt.to4kT 2p , 6� dO 5s Morsel - _ .- O\ b2 I-4U 0-416 o S sroq,�u ,Ki n9 1 'aii K•QTER b21 DSO-008 .. 1 .0 12./1Ac -Q7 - F rr Plum t•t ae 162�-4 G^aa 1'�yU �' /° - "- WeS 5 t ' o.73 Ae.- ,sn S7 ]tc 9t i rr 0.23Ac.! GA7A A/S 20/J8 4 J 7/7 ASStSSO R'S MAP BK 621 Pv RIVERSIDE COU'vey,, CALF f SEPT+B67 -,.- , r . a it. K': •.•.:::.. .. ::? ;:r rr..+wrt ,, .., .'"... - < 4 ` , ,.. ,y:. ..y ,.' �.. .,� .a.r '•, {F � �� `P tn� •l M1,.�i ��.4L �,'�r i . �•n .� tl ., t', d 3 Qf4 { 3i , .. ., u. ... _ ..:._ ',-._., „r., -_...: :,h.,.�& -a , � ,. �Y 9..�_},•. , a,. . 3 i '♦ � � p F .S. to � rk + ., • � . i A - f "P".. wl., x r. �� \ i, ____ - PHOTO MAP Prepared by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation Dis- trict. Map compiled by photogrommetric methods from orthophotogrophy dated July 18, 1975 Photo imagery transferred by simple projection 7.5 times from original aerial negative. Images of objects not at ground level may be displaced. Horizontal survey data and 1000' grid are based on the California Coordinate System Zone VI. Vertical data is based on the U. S. National Oceanic Survey System l USC&GSI . Ground Control by Riverside County Surveyor MAPPING *9=-0° 04e 55.. ANGLE * Cale. at center of section. c rr A l c 1. )Ann CONTOUR INTERVAL 4 FEET DATUM IS MEAN SEA L EVEL THIS MAP COMPLIES WITH NATIONAL MAP A r, r2,iev S AND RDS r - SECTION 18 S B B & ilNl►- PLOT: J. LITTON ZONE � • ` r DRAWN: F.BRZYTWA Ct i SHEET INDEX 6 5 `:� 3 Z' I 7 8. 9 10 11 12 18 17 16 15 14 13 19 20 21 22 23124 30 29 2E- 27 26 '25 31, 32 33 3f 35 36 REFERENCES F. B. 2005 HOLT -- - _•_..-. �a ._„ .x mac.. _ _..Y,:1.:. . -. t� I 1UPUIGU Vr IIIG 1\IVU131Uc '-Vulltr I IVVU %'V1IIIVI UIIU ♦1 ulcl ty VtlJG1 ♦ullVll YI>- a V n L I- 1 . L•TVv trict. Map compiled by photogrammetric methods from orthophotography o zoo ,00 eoo eoo i000 FEET dated July 18, 1975 Photo imagery transferred by simple projection 7.5 times from original aerial negative. Images of objects not at ground level MAPPING I *8= -00 03' 46 �— -- ---- ---- may be displaced. Horizontal survey data and 1000' grid are based on the qv —nNc�E ^-- CONTOUR INTERVAL 4 FEET California Coordinate System Zone VI. Vertical data is based on the U. S. �n ' DATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL National Oceanic Survey System (USC&GS). ^ THIS MAP COMPLIES WITH NATIONAL MAP Ground Control by Riverside County Surveyor ACCURACY STANDARDS OR F. B. 2005 SECTION 16 T. 5 S ., R . 6 E. S B B & IM► CcIc. at center of section. 6 5 i 4 3 2 1 1 8 1 9 10 11 12 18 17 16 15 1 14 ! 13 19 20 21 22 23 24 30 29 128 127 26 125 31 32 ! 33 34 35 36 PLOT: J. LITTON ZONE DRAWN: F BRZYTWA - - nucr srcn unl T ' ,r r.. 4, M..a: XF�1`, : Yar, .wt.+., +t ;:5'.} •� �,:. .: iiF .N ,:. :.. `b++ - �-.. �o V f�h`K',� ffi.F'„ s�C m �a g. �-. ..:�; ,'f� i'•!: , ._: r ,:+`.. '' sri=.� ; „�•a:'�`�$'",%t,,�.r �e ,�' .:'Frew, sP,•°'"ky z+Ct} •''�'v`�Aw ,:�, mot,, �'-'.t .fl y +5.3;; �=.' •, s. : •v-. _ _ _ .,.e..:„a, ... I. ,_-. _ - �.: .., _._. - ...� x .. .n _.� .. .�.. .:'�}'«' a'. .. .r, tee{{y,.,,•.ya,.... 1'}rTl�/gr i, I IMF • y �1 j •It' -,N .t•' -+..ram e - /a• w, KdW �' • _ _ j i �� -.� �/' i � � _ ■ � � ice"' �,� � .� � �� `_ _ / 9 r i 0 +�`'�: � 3 • !+ yam` ��' �j� %� : � � �L7 '��� _ , - lb �' ri • - " ii IRV OF IMMER2, 'Ok `..►ti.L_r ; " �� it , v . y _�� / •••,..�.�.� ��Elm, 1 IN � �'�... ! .III► ,• �• b ,�. �� •' � � � - •� 4�► s ' 66. Fri Ave z ; �� ,�; �.� .'''�,. .,� �, ' � Viz• � r y)� • .i��/yr •• I �� 1 , �► � . , � yam- r + ��` w•� ,�U \ � - "sue-_ �' /fj. ., �►�/r►� = �:.:r t _ �� ..1 ' \� � v + •�=-v�� ��-w`�� _ _ "tom+ � , F �L- ! � t � �,,._:.,•„ �_�_' �A! r /�►� Y 4'`'�`-roc, ��� rti a # � _ r Crab w . �. M1_+ - f;•._ ♦ �� F ail! 7 •. • � � , ` � r � . s ' .'` � -•�I'•- � - - . a�\' �. mar.\�ia�i �•:.�.���::_�c+� �%�t.�► - -RN it loot Nw �•Rt A b i rR r�i n �1 a tom'•"'ar'^��'atiZ.,� � � ■r+• p •, t i� �' � s � � ./ ! - -_ - r - • _ �� - . ' �� i,^-�+'"n•a-r'� l�I i� � °r.._ ..A It f.•ILA '.\,�, far +�� '•'"'"..-'_ �•�" �+� ' , �lr.• - vow or 5 { . A ► !�� +'� ,•�•�;• � ...�,�,'_,,.....•.. - ,� � �1: �. " �`' .''ice - - � `- ��\, - - --sy- - _ � S. � --•� '' =:a:�` �,� � ��r . . , , Via.. � , � a. - � — � � -. -:" , � �a �/�j iY�•�r .lr .�N »� �r � +ram, � ll.�e - r 3 A. ay • I .: �" �! _ -►vim•, i � � r � � ■ f,�,� } �►� .` •'w . , ..�� ;' ^�:. :.. � �, .ear„ ++'•►a1 . a: !r{� � �r � � �� � 1- _ fiw � E� u� � r a 1► fir` �trjt ����'-`• �'' "♦ ' r` r �� .•.`'► a ^vi � � �: � � A•� r}' i► t �,,t�'r�� s f�}c" � _ ►/ _ "'�; mow' • �/ - --.. � y _ � = • �.-. �► e. r _ s��• •-.• i. 7 ���� i�, a k. ! ey�L•�'A%!;. _ �. a ` � `_ � w MWO WE WA L- `.r ! fir- � • + A • r - 1 •. r• ,� • • Y7 1 • ,+t � �„ �� T/ i *�; � � -�' -'� /�1999MMTIMFMI`tea •. _ - .. k - • � _— .tea- __ •r•'� �• � •_ 41 �. OwN is �+ :� ,+�• _ � � . ..•/!''��i�, .1r a j! - � _ .1 - 1�"" .� � �' r �[�• � . a,. '�• - � f a ' f T .��, r.c. � � «• {_ Ott_ ( �'+'`�, �' '-9 . � ✓ • _ is p:► •A,y �. '� -_::. � , _ l��'tT � " ., �i.. �. � -- � - ja,�y� l�k���� `.� � :. ` / .. .4 • 1a. s f3 i�, w ,� ..,� � a`r::^ ,ate o ; �, f�� ./ ►1► .Il .' � ♦ +�,i a omw - .'ra: �,: - ,. .� .• i _.•.� " "�!� �`.� •� `�',� -,, �t '. Ti Yea, .r�q r�� i /��\ �:` ���11r a al r Mo mal I - , R •�11. !' ®4 le � ! a , II E i■e l ! .. :� - � • Via. •. • _- ._ . ..�: - � �. � ems. ..� : • `- .,,,,.. - , .,,,, �•• r ` + . .... rr • P. �.., .. :h �.+.. •' -' ... K.., �► ! ♦ .. �,,, ��.�� .. , S���.Y/LY�T"iCi� IL���iie�/r. �.- ..• . ;A�$ 'iit��t'IAI�!/Utll�lE„ ti u.111..:ri f, U%�V�� Diu � ;,�,. - •. J r is � ♦ � k � • :., '-. +sr _. �� �� !i-`��• L.1 l� .. - - ���� ����� _ ,�!a. ate" �i/' .,...,�r�»r - ' - — .:., ... _ , . • ,., ._ - _ ,>,.... Wit. , , ...777 .. ... ,. W ,."all. . e _,. . , t _,fir ., . .,k.. <'r' 3F .,tip.; a '?' - ~r ks, m: � s d n � ,< . ._ ,: _,. _ ., :... x ., .... ,. ...> ... ., ._. .... :.. � ,. .�.. a. ,. .. x.- .. .. 4. .. ,.. ,.., .. .. . ...;.: ,. .,_ ,., , _.t. , ., ..,.: ,... .. .:. ,. ;. ... ._ w «: _. ;. _ ,'� i.Ono z x, i ,. :.. ,,. � v< :.s ... .. .<... ... .:' , .. ',. _ IF l 1r7 . . ....... Fill PALSE T O DAME DOTE developer DAME" CONSTRUCTION CO, builder THEODORE G. RCIE31IMSON golf course architect oland planner Whit,avve'te, Chen nel 777 ., �ft L 'IN Prepared by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water conservation UIs- `' ^ ` ' ' `~w trict. Map compiled by photogrommetric methods from orthophotography o 200 400 100 Boo 1000 FEET dated July 18, 1975 Photo imagery transferred by simple projection 7.5 times from original aerial negative. Images of objects not at ground level MAPPING '9= -00 04' 20" — — — - --_ - - may be displace Horizontal survey data and 1000' grid are based on the ANGLE CONTOUR INTERVAL MEANSEA FEET DATUM IS MEAN SEA � EVEL California Coordinate System Zone VI. Vertical data is based on the U. S. National Oceanic Survey System (USC&GS) . THIS MAP COMPUES,WIfiH NA ZONAL MAP Ground Control b Riverside County Surveyor ACCURACY-STANDARpS F.B. 2006 SECTION 17 T- 5 S., R.6 Es SBB & M o y * CoIc. at center of section. PLOT: J. LITTON ZONE I DRAWN: F. BRZYTWA 61544 7 j 8 1 3 2 1 9 10 11 12 18 17 16 ; 15 14 13 19 20 21 1 22 23 24 30 129 28 27 26 25 31 32 33 34 1 35 36