Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 90-6 CUP 89-12 NE Alessandro Dr and Santa Ynez Ave CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPAR'IMENP OF CC M7NITY DE.VEDOPMENT TRANSMITTAL LETTER I. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II. REQUEST: Approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact and conditional use permit for an 11,537 square foot office project within an R-3 (4) zone located at the northeast corner of Alessandro Drive and Santa Ynez Avenue. III. APPLICANT: CJH Partners 41-910 Boardwalk, Suite B-3 Palm Desert, CA 92260 IV. CASE ND: CUP 89-12 V. DATE: January 11, 1990 VI. CONTENTS: A. Staff Reccomendation. B. Discussion. C. Draft Resolution No. D. Planning Canmission Minutes involving Case No. CUP 89-12. E. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1400. F. Planning Commission Staff Reports dated December 5 and 19, 1989. G. Related maps and/or exhibits. A. STAFF REQT44ENIDATION: Adopt Resolution No. approving CUP 89-12, subject to attached conditions. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED ✓ RECEIVE!) B. BACKGROUND: MEL 1) ADJACENT ZONING/LAND USE: ANT : a-uhi `WA Q za1J�n�tr e North: R-1/Single family --_— ' South: C-1/Restaurant �=�� _. �,-y�J ---- _ . . East: R-3 (4)/Two story apar lent Ir D West: R-3 (4)/One story aparninal on r_ ;.,�,; ; Clerk's Offi 2) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project site is within the area designated by the Commercial Core Area Specific Plan for rezoning fran R-3 (4) to R-3 to encourage one story garden apartments. The multifamily residential designation was the result of requests from other apartment owners along Alessandro. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CUP 89-12 JANUARY 11, 1990 In November of 1988 an application was filed by the Miraleste company for the change of zone and a 13 unit one-story apartment complex. After a lengthy hearing process, the planning commission denied the request finding that the higher density was incompatible with the adjacent single family use and that the site plan and architecture were unacceptable. On June 8 the city council denied an appeal by the applicant without prejudice. They felt the zoning was potentially acceptable with an appropriate plan. The current application filed by CJH is based upon the provision within the existing R-3 zone permitting offices as a conditional use when adjacent or across a street from C-1. The applicant has been in contact with the apartment property owner who originally requested the multi-family designation and has submitted a petition in support of the office use on the site. The proposed project would consist of two single story buildings with parking along the rear and through the center of the lot exiting onto Alessandro. PROJECT DATA Project Ordinance Site area 33,000 sq. ft. Building area: gross 11,537 sq. ft. net 10,096 sq. ft. Height 18 feet 18-24 feet* Setbacks: front 5-10 feet 5 feet* sides 10 feet 15 feet* rear 10 feet 9 feet* Parking 41 spaces 41 spaces Building coverage 28% 50% Landscaping 21% Paving 50% * As part of a conditional use permit varying setbacks may be approved to insure compatibility with adjacent uses. The applicant has proposed setbacks based upon the standards of three adjacent uses which include a restaurant, two story apartment and single family home. Along Alessandro facing the C-1 zone the C-1 setback would apply, adjacent to the apartments the R-3 standards would apply and adjacent to the single family sideyard the R-1 standards would apply. 2 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CUP 89-12 JANUARY 11, 1990 C. ANALYSIS: The application involves three issues: 1) Use - multifamily vs. professional offices; 2) Design - site plan and architecture; and 3) Potential narrowing of Alessandro Drive. 1) The use issue arises from the R-3 designation in the Cannercial Core Area Specific Plan. All of Alessandro was originally recommended for offices. This section of Alessandro was singled out to remain residential at the request of the existing property owners. Alessandro west of Cabrillo was designated O.P. The applicant has submitted evidence that those same property owners now are willing to support a single story office use on the site. Staff believes that either use could be made compatible with existing conditions. 2) The contemporary flat roofed design has received preliminary approval from the architectural commission. The two building site plan with access only to Alessandro is consistent with the intent of the Commercial Core Area Specific Plan to create a low rise transition between the Highway 111 commercial uses and the R-1 interior. 3) The Palma Village and Commercial Core Area Specific Plan recommended parking and office uses along the north side of Alessandro. The availability of parking on the north side was designed to encourage higher utilization of the Highway 111 frontage. The proposal to narrow Alessandro from 44 feet to 36 feet was designed to create a stronger connection between the Highway 111 frontage and the associated parking. Since the adoption of the plan no Highway ill property owner has expressed any desire to utilize Alessandro parking. Frank Goodman, owner of several Highway 111 buildings, has stated that the existing depth of Highway 111 storefronts are ideal at 70 feet and no expansion is likely or desirable. In addition, a strong demand is developing for small office buildings on the north side. As a result, the original objectives for the proposed narrowing appears to have evaporated. In connection with the proposed office project in the center of the block, the city engineer has made the following recamiendation: Reduction in the width of the Alessandro Drive travelway shall not be incorporated as a part of this development's approval. The type of development proposed for this area of Alessandro Drive indicates that the continuation of a program of travelway reduction would not be beneficial to either potential developers or the 3 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CUP 89-12 JANUARY 11, 1990 city at this time. The reductions which have been installed or have been approved at Deep Canyon/Alessandro and Portola/Alessandro serve to establish end-block control for this portion of Alessandro and thereby significantly reduces the need for further travelway modification. Although conditional use permit approvals are normally final at the planning commission unless appealed, the commission's action took the form of a unanimous recommendation of approval due to the council's specific past interest and policy direction in this particular area. The commission also voted unanimously to rend that the present 44 foot width of Alessandro be maintained. Prepared by: --,11/4-^-!� , Reviewed and Approved by: f S PD/tm 4 + vco�y104,. 1111 CU$' o� OO o 1—Ilan. ZD�br�IN�o ''•7te7VO' 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 December 22, 1989 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. CUP 89-12 • NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by CJH PARTNERS for approval of a i negative declaration of environmental Impact and conditional use permit for j 11,537 square foot single story office use within an R-3 (4) zone located at the northeast corner of Alessandro and Santa Ynez, also described as: APN 625-692-003, 004, 005 HH1HIHH 1-141i'.iikAl ♦ j4\ 1 1:- t. i i�A rCD- • I *NIA MAT 0. . r I 1 I 11�""1nOrdLi., s r , ' ISlp�ll_I limb ��.fillllM.,► � P.R.-5 t $AN rAAIMO WAY I.. 's� A �i- • lr1'CZ011=o� ,�1 E �l ... o S.P. iiIIHMEI,:i-1315112EIMPIIIYIE 13:1311 C-, lap.' ` C-, 8. . �� .. I B.P. • Y.lr Plitt: DIM,•O.IA _/ I HIGHWAY 111 t „ ��I[ ���o C Ohl 4Tr1! B.P UIII R-J a r�M4jàt♦ �T % ( . SAG LAMA S "VI • On .� MY ♦.r • SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, January 11, 1990, at 7:00 p.m. In the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are • • invited to attend and be heard. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the planning commission (or city council) at, or • prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk December 29, 1989 City of Palm Desert, California RF I,UI M O. 90-6 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN 11,537 SQUARE FOOT PROFESSIONAL OFFICE PROJECT WITHIN THE R-3 (4) ZONE LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ALESSANDRO DRIVE AND SANTA YNEZ AVENUE. CASE NO. CUP 89-12 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the llth day of January, 1990, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of CJH PARTNERS for approval of a negative declaration of environmental Impact and conditio nal use permit for an 11,537 square foot piufessional office project within the R-3 (4) zone located at the northeast corner of Alessandro Drive and Santa Ynez Avenue; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89, " in that the director of community development has determined that the project will not have an adverse impact on the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said city council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify the granting a recommendation of approval: 1. The proposed use and design of the project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Commercial Core Area Specific Plan and Palm Desert General Plan by creating a compatible transition between commercial and residential uses. 2. The project will therefore not depreciate values, restrict the lawful use of adjacent properties or threaten the public health, safety or general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the council in this case. 2. That a negative declaration of environmental impact Exhibit "A" and CUP 89-12 on file in the department of community development/planning is hereby approved, subject to conditions. RESOLUTION NO. 9 0-6 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held an this llth daY of January , 1990, by the following vote, to wit: AyEs BENSON, KELLY, SNYDER, WILSON, CRITES NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE BUFORD A. CRITES, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California PD/tm 2 RESOLUTION NO. 9 0-6 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE ND. CUP 89-12 Department of Cbmmuiity Development: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the department of community development, as modified by the following conditions. 2. 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 stated and fer1Pral statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 3. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval unless a time extension is granted, otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any uses contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Palm Desert Water and Services District Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5. Trash provisions shall be approved by applicable trash company and city prior to issuance of building permit. 6. Applicant shall pay school impact fees as arranged by the Desert Sands Unified School District. 7. Project shall be subject to Art in Public Places fee for Ordinance No. 473. 8. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to these conditions. Applicant shall enter into to an agreanexmt to maintain said landscapingfor o the life of theproject, which agreement shall be notarized and which agreement shall be recorded. It is the 3 V •.oe road STL44 LI4TM Pe3eToosse S3TULIed &ue 30 eouenssT 04 JoTad TeAo zdde pue 5uT}[Oego 303 S}{3oM oTTgnd 3o 3o oe3Tp eq4 04 Pe44TUgnS act TTets SUOT3e0T;TOedS pue sueTd 6uTpe36 e3elduoo 'LZ ae4degp eJ TedTOTLmW 43esea urted 43TM eouepao3oe ui •9 •A4To e Aq squawanazdurr eq4 3o ezue;deooe eta 03 aoT3d s}[3c t oTTgnd 3o 3oqOe.ITp eq4 'Aq penoadde pup '03 Pe44Tw4ns eq TTegs sueid „4TTnq-eV" •tpeoadde eAT3p paepue3s A4T0 pue uoT3ezn6T3uoo pue ezTs e3eT3doadde ue UT }{TeMaPTS e4e10Uoo '03 pe4TwTT eq 40u 4nq 'epnTr? TTegs s4ueueAoidwT Dons '4Twasd 6uTpe35 e 3o eouenssT oq 3oT3d s4ueuanazdwT 94Ts-33o pe3Tnbe3 Tie 3o L.OT4eTTe4suT eq3 ee3uexen5 03 pe4sod k.eins e pue sNaoM oTTgnd 3o 3ogoalTp eq4 Aq penazdde pus PemeTnea eq Tr ate sueid 3uausnoadurr e3Ts-330 Teoueumoo sT s3uewenoadwT Aue 3o uoT3on34suoo eio;eq Tenoadde pue 6uptoego 3o3 sNaom oTTgnd 3o 3o oe3Tp et. o3 pe4.4Tutins eq TTegs suoT3e3T;Toeds pue sueid 3ueusn03dWT eq.aIdWoo 'i7b'9Z Pus 017'9Z suoT3oeS 1-14TM eoueplooOe uT Pus '8Z'9Z uoT40eS ePoJ TedToTunW 4aesea oiled aepun pa3TnbeI sy •5 goacgns eq3 3o3 S3Soo UoT3Onl3suo0 pegewTfse eq3 04 Tenbe 3unowe Ue UT A3a1nS 'Keuzo43e A4T0 eq. 03 eTge3deooe uuo3 e uT 'I4T3 9(44 03 3Twgns -negs 3ueoTidde eq4 'aiqTseagun eq 03 Peu?uue3ep 3I •uoT3epuemooe3 s,3oT13sTP A3TIT3n eAT3oedse3 Lgoee xed punaz5.zapun peoeid eq TTegs seT4TIT3n 6uT3sTxe 'epo0 TeCITOTUTV 41eseQ lured aq4 3o fiV'9Z PUS 9T'ZT uoT30eS aapun pe3Tnbe3 s' 'V •sNaom oTTgnd 3o 4ueu}3edep etj. Aq penoadde pue peMeTAe3 sT 4e1.14 3eeUTBue TTATO peze3sT5e3 a 2q pexedezd cpn3s e5euTeap a u)dn 3Ue&uT3uo0 eq TTegs uoT3on.x3suo0 ureap 1L1o3s 4uy •8 •3Tuilad 5urpea5 a 3o eouenssT 03 3oT3d Pied eQ TT s 'SS-6L Pue LT-6L SON UOT3nTOseH a.3esea Urted 3o A3T) 44TM eouep3Oooe uT 'see; UoT3eZTTEU6TS •Z •3Twzed burpea5 a 3o eouenssT 03 3oT3d Pied eq TTegs 'epo0 TedToTunW 43asea urted eq . 3o 6r9Z U0T4049S 1-13TM eouepi000e uT 'see; e5euTe3Q •T :s pr 4 3mpd 3o queurpedou •seurT 143edoid 3See pue g4aou &late TTEM Aauosew 3003 XTS e 3Onx3SUOO TTegs queoTTddV '0T •spaepue3s eeaq 30T SuTNaed s,AT0 03 wLzo3uoo TTegs U5Td •ueTd edeospuei O3UT seT60T0Ugoe3 uOT3e6T.IZT Poe STST3e3ew 4.ueld 6uTnzes J o 3a4eM pue ;Ue3sTse.I 3g6nozp ezTseqdwe TTegs 4ueoTTddi '6 •su6Tsse pue s.osseoons PuTq pus PusT eq4 L.j3TM una 3Ueuea36e pue uoT .TPU00 ST1-3 3eL4 seT33ed 8144 30 3Ue3uT oThTOada 9-06 'ON NOI OS33d •uoT;eoT;Tpow feMTeA2.14 aagl.an; ao; peau ago aonpaa AT4ueoTgTuBTs Agaaagq. pup oapupssaTv 3o uoTlaod sTgg Jo; TOTluco Tq-Pue gsTTge;sa oq anzas oapuesseTV/eTo.aod pup olpuessaTv/uoAue3 daac 4e penoadde ueeq eneg ao peTTe;suT ueeq eneg 4OT4i suoT4onpea aqs, •eurr. s744 42 A4To aqg ao saadoieAep TeT4ue30d aeg3Ta o4 TeT0T3aueq eq ;au PTnl uoTponpea A2MTanea4 ;o ureT6oJd e ;o uoTPenuT4uoo ago 42144 e;eoTpur eATaQ oapuesse go pale sT144 ao; pesodoad 4ueuloleAep ;o edA4 aqs, •Tenoadde 4uewdoTanep sTg3 ;o gaed e ss pe;eaodaoouT eq 4ou TTegs AeMTanpa3 anTaQ oapuessary agl. go 43PTM 244 uT uoTlonpej '9T •uoT22naTe gam go dog anoge ;ea; aaag3 ueq4 aaq&Tu ou eq TTpgs „8TBueTa1 345Ts aeeTO„ ; ;-0T7 e uT4TM s4uauenoadurr a3Ts aag3o pup STTBM 'BuTdeospue7 'ST 'epop TedToTunN q.aeseQ urted 2144 go GZ uoT330S 44TM eouepa000e UT UOT32OT;Tpow pue MOTnaa o4 ;oeCgns ale ueTd a;Ts pesodoad egg uo umegs se suoT3eneTe ped BuTPTTnq pesodold 'VT •saT4aadoad ;oeCgns egg 4suT262 squeussesse ALTO Aue ;o luawuol poddeaa 10 3Io-A2d aq3 ao4 apTnoad aa43Ta TTpgs 3.ueoTTdde 0144 'sseooad dew Taoapd ;o aanTeM eq3 ;o gaed sy •pepaooaa pup penoadde BuTaq 4saT3 dew Taoaed ;o aaiTeM eq3 o3 ;oeCgns eq TTpgs eouenssT ;Tw ed &rrpeaj '8T •A_aadoad sr ezaes oq pe1oTTe eq o. goeoadde AeManTap auo ATuo g3TM s3{acM oTTgnd ;o ;ueugaedep agl. ;o uoT;eoT;Toeds aq4 04 aq TTeqs sJ2ManTap ;o uoT3eooT pup aegwnu 'azTS 'ZT •4Tuized BuTpeaE e ;o aoupnssT eqg 04. aoTad s'{aoM oTTgnd ;o ;ueu4aedep egg Aq penoadde pue 04 Pe44Twgns eq TTeUs 'aaeuTbua sTTos peaa3sTbea 2 Aq pe;onpuoo 'uoT4efT4sanuT STTos AzpuTwTTaad e3eldwoo V 'TT •s){aoM oTTgnd 3o ;ueugiedep ago Aq s;Tuned ;uawgoeoaoue pTTen ;o eouenssT egg pup supTd ;o Tenoadde aq3 Aq pepeoead aq TTpgs s3ueuranoadurr a4Ts-;;o TTe pup Auy '0T •3Twzad BuTp2aB e ;o eOU5fSST 04 10T1d PT d eq TTeqs ee; uoT3oedsur p.zepue;s e pup 3uaugaedap BuTaaauTBua aq4 Aq pa;oedsuT eq TTpgs S4oT BuTmaed pup sAeMargap e;enTad ITV '6 •sp.zepue;s A4To eTgeoTTdde 43TM eouppa000e uT PaTTe3suT eq TTpgs 'epop TedToTunN 4aeseou urted aq; ;o vt'9Z pue 0T'9Z suoT3aas Aq pelTnbaa Sp 's3uawenoadurr oTTgnd TT 3 '8 •aeuto A4aadoad aq3 3o A4TTTgTsuodsaa egg aq TTpgs anuanv zauA p4ues pup eATaG oapueSSeW uo aoueua;uTew burdeospue7 •L 9-0 6 'ON t'UIJXflOSeI RESOLUTION NO. 9 0-6 Riverside County Fire Department: 1. Provide, or show there exists, a water system capable of providing a potential fire flow of 3000 gpm and the actual fire flow available fiun any one hydrant connected to any given water main shall be 1500 gpm for 2 hours duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure. 2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 2 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 3. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrant(s) (6" x 4" x 2-1/2" x 2-1/2" ), located not less than 25' nor more than 150' fLun any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways. Hydrants installed below 3000' elevation shall be of the "wet barrel" type. 4. The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point in the permit process to reflect changes in design, construction type, area separations, or built-in fire protection measures. 5. Prior to the application for a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original and two copies of the water system plan to the County Fire Department for review. No building permit shall be issued until the water system plan has been approved by the County Fire Chief. Upon approval, the original will be returned. One copy will be sent to the responsible inspecting authority. 6. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer and may be signed by the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." 7. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front, not less than 25-' from the building and within 50' of an approved hydrant. 8. Install a fire alarm (waterflow) as required by the Uniform Building Code, 3803, for sprinkler system. Requires minimum of two bells per building 1 front and 1 rear. 9. Install tamper alarm on supply valve for sprinkler systems. Must also ring building water flaw alarm. System must be monitored. 10. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. 6 RESOLUTION NO. 9 0-6 11. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall be not less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is allowed, the roadway shall be 36' wide with parking on both sides, 32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn-around (55' in industrial developments). 12. Whenever access into private property is conLiulled through use of gates, barriers, guard houses or similar means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the fire department. All conLLolled access devices that are power operated shall have a radio-conLwlled over-ride system capable of opening the gate when activated by a special transmitter located in emergency vehicles. Devices shall be equipped with backup power facilities to operate in the event of power failure. All conLiolled access devices that are not power operated shall also be approved by the fire department. Minimum opening width shall be 12' , with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6". 13. Suitable fire department turnaround required at end of parking lot. May require loss of two parking stalls. Alternate solution would be to provide emergency through access to Santa Ynez Avenue with suitable opening and gate approved by the fire department. 14. Contact the fire department for a final inspection prior to occupancy. PD/tm 7 RESOLUTION ND. 90-6 EXHIBIT "A" Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 7, Section 15083, of the California Administrative Code. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: CUP 89-12 APPLICANr/PROJECT SPONSOR: CJH Partners 41-910 Boardwalk, Suite B-3 Palm Desert, CA 92260 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: An 11,537 square foot prof---sional office project within the R-3 (4) zone located at the northeast corner of Alessandro Drive and Santa Ynez Avenue. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. RAMON A. DIAZ DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PD/tm 8 MINIKES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 1989 Commissioner Richards agreed with Commissioner Jonathan. He indicated that while he did not have a strong feeling on this, he didn't feel that the city should have to accommodate developers. He didn't know what the minimum lot size should be, but was willing to go along with Commissioner Jonathan's point of view that 8,000 square feet was stretching it. He felt the real problem was the five acre parcels and indicated this was the best use of the five acre parcel. Chairperson Whitlock did not feel this was the project to penalize because of the 20 foot drainage easement and the lots being 150 feet deep and on a cul-de-sac. She did not feel this particular project Should have that restriction invoked upon it. Commissioner Erwood agreed since it was a matter of only a 200 square foot difference. Commissioner Jonathan felt that was valid, but indicated that each person has their own breaking point and if the next project coming along has 7,600 square feet and it's pointed out that it is only a difference of 200 feet, at sane point it has to be said that enough is enough--there should be a stopping point and he did not want that trend to continue. He indicated that the challenge of the five acre parcel was great enough and when driving down Hovley there were just rows of houses and straight cul-de-sacs. He felt that residential was appropriate for the area and otherwise felt this was a fine project. He stated that he would like an attempt to be made at doing something else. Action: Moved by Commissioner Erwood, seconded by Commissioner Dams, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 3-2 (Commissioners Jonathan and Richards voted no). Moved by Commissioner Erwood, seconded by Commissioner Downs, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1399, approving TT 25373, subject to conditions. Carried 3-2 (Commissioners Jonathan and Richards noted no). B. Case No. CUP 89-12 - CJH PARTNERS, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit and negative declaration of environmental impact for a1ip37 square foot office project within an R- 3 (4) zone located at the northeast corner of Alessandro Drive and Santa Ynez Avenue. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECMBER 5, 1989 Mr. Drell noted that the building size was 11,537 square feet. He outlined the salient points of the staff report, noting that the project received preliminary architectural commission approval, and stated that some petitions had been received from residents and the preschool down the street and one signature from a Mr. Jack Dayton in support. He recommended that the use be recommended for approval to city council after further discussion on the issue of whether Alessandro should be narrow or wide. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. CHPRLES MARTIN, 40-840 Thunderbird Road in Rancho Mirage, architect for the project, stated that they were not interested in narrowing the street and did not understand why the narrowing would be advantageous unless more square footage was desired for the project. He indicated that if the road were narrowed, the developer would have to narrow the whole city block, which he was not interested in doing. Mr. Martin informed commission that the lot coverage was only 28 percent. He felt that Alessandro seemed to be cleaning up with the addition of the office/commercial use as opposed to residential being built on it. He described the architecture of the building and indicated that the parapet height would vary depending on where the air conditioning units had to be placed on the roof. He stated that they felt an ingress/egress on Santa Ynez seemed to provide a natural traffic flow through the project, but staff dissuaded them from doing that. He indicated that the developer would like to have that but it was not mandatory. Commissioner Richards indicated that he did not have a large problem with what the project was trying to accomplish, but did have a serious problem with the intent of Alessandro. He suggested that having the road narrow and wide might be good for a change and might slow traffic speed. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR of the project. MS. JANE JOHNSON, a real estate broker in Palm Desert representing the applicant, stated that before the applicant started on this project, she and her partner canvassed the area and talked to most of the homeowners and some apartment owners in the area and showed them pictures taken of completed projects in Palm Desert. She indicated that overall response was good. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECIIMBER 5, 1989 She distributed pictures to the ccni fission and wanted them to know that they had done their homework. MR. DENNIS GOEDECKE, 44-875 Deep Canyon in Palm Desert, spoke in favor of the project. He stated that he owned a commercial building on the corner of Deep Canyon and Alessandro. He expressed one concern noting that as a condition on his project the street was narrowed at the east end of Alessandro, and felt that since both ends of the street have been developed, the issue of what to do in the middle should be decided. He felt that no parking on Alessandro should be allowed and the extra space for additional landscaping and setbacks would enhance the property value and no parking on the street would give a clean look. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone present wished to speak in OPPOSITION. MS. ABBY FLEMMING, 44-836 Santa Ynez in Palm Desert, asked how many driveways there would be, Mr. Drell stated the plan shows one driveway on Alessandro; she asked if there would be a block wall separating her house f um the back, Mr. Drell replied yes, on the east and north sides at a height of six feet; Ms. Flemming asked about the height of the building, Mr. Drell replied 16 feet with 18 feet on the corner to screen the roof equipment; she stated that she would prefer an eight foot wall. Commissioner Richards informed her that in terms of space and line- of-sight, an eight foot wall would block out all visibility for views; with a six foot wall she would still have views of the mountains and noted there would be no windows looking into her house. He did not feel it would be in her best interest to build an eight foot block wall. He noted that the businesses would probably operate between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Ms. Flemming stated that they had been planning to put up a wall that was eight feet; Mr. Drell informed her that the code for single family residential zone was only six feet and Commissioner Richards indicated that Ms. Flemming could plant oleanders because there was a height limit on than of 12 feet. Ms. Flemming stated that her main concern was having no entrance onto Santa Ynez, which staff had confirmed was on Alessandro. Chairperson Whitlock closed the public testimony. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANTING COMMLISSION DECEMBER 5, 1989 Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Dawns, approving the findings as presented by staff. Cccmmissioner Jonathan requested clarification on the recommendation from Mr. Folkers for a continuance. Mr. Drell stated that it could take a form of a commission recommendation on the road to city council. Mr. Folkers stated that it was the same dilemma commission was trying to decide and staff did not have the opportunity to present all the information they intended, but had no problem with the commission's action. Commissioner Richards noted that in most places in the city there was an attempt to create uniformity. He asked what basic safety problem there would be if the streets were irregular in width. Mr. Folkers indicated that the one concern they had, specifically with the Goedecke project where the street was narrow and where the street was 44 feet wide, was that there could be parking on both sides; he stated that one problem was a need for parking in certain areas; the uniformity aspect had advantages and disadvantages—they ag ag they had been wrestling with what major problems would arise. He stated that within the last two months there was a study done to determine if there was a need for four-way stops, but at this time there was no need to change the traffic control; he noted there was a by-pass to the frontage road at Highway 111. They did not think the varying would be hazardous, but they were trying to come up with a trial plan with more parking taking place on the north side, which did not seem to be happening. The trial indicated that with a different land development taking place, the street width would not necessarily need to be reduced. At the east end and west ends off-street parking was provided and because of the development pattern the street could be narrowed. Commissioner Richards indicated that this dilemma was rot a problem and was more inclined to hold down major development when possible on that street because of the residents in the Las Palmas Plan area. Commissioner Richards asked what direction staff was looking for besides the adoption of the resolution. Mr. Drell indicated that the project needed to be conditioned at least adjacent to this development that he narrow it and he felt conformity within each block was important. Commissioner Richards agreed that uniformity Should be within each block. Mr. Drell indicated that if it was done for this development, then the city or someone has to take responsibility for doing it for the rest of the block to the east. He also stated that the decision not to narrow the street was not irrevocable. Commissioner Richards asked if it was possible to pass 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBIIt 5, 1989 the resolution for the development as presented and then discuss the subject of Alessandro at the end of the meeting. Staff replied affirmatively. Commissioner Jonathan asked why there was no Santa Ynez access, since that was preferable to the applicant. Mr. Drell stated that when there was an opportunity to get access onto a commercial street, staff felt more traffic could be kept out of the residential areas. Chairperson Whitlock called for the vote. Notion carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1400, recommending to city council approval of CUP 89-12. Carried 5-0. C. C'aSO Nub. CUP 89-14, VAR 89-7 - MICHAEL CASTELLI, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit and zero front setback variance to permit a 600 square foot expansion of an existing restaurant (Adreino's) by enclosing an outdoor patio with an openable glassed greenhouse structure at 73-098 Highway 111. Mr. Drell outlined the salient points of the staff report. He indicated that the issues were the expansion to the edge of the planter and the expansion of the restaurant floor area without additional parking. He noted that the applicant insisted that he would only serve dinner and had submitted an agreement to lease a parking lot next door to use as valet parking for the evening hours. He added condition no. 9 stating that the starting hour of operation shall not begin before 5:00 p.m. Staff recommended approval. Commissioner Jonathan indicated a concern that if condition no. 9 were added, what would happen if the applicant left and the next tenant wanted to serve lunch. Mr. Drell stated that they were subject to this condition and would have to demonstrate that they could provide the additional parking at lunch and the conditional use permit would run with the property. Commissioner Richards asked if the owner of the business was the owner of the property and Mr. Drell replied no, but indicated the owner was present. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. 8 • MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING CCMMIISSION DECE MBER 19, 1989 Commissioner Richards informed commission that he would be abstaining from the vote since he did not feel the project was good or bad. Commissioner Erwood indicated he had no comments. Commissioner Downs indicated that he did not see anything different from the prior proposal. Action: Moved by Commission Downs to approve the findings as presented by staff. Motion died due to a lack of a second. After further discussion commission determined that no significant changes had been made (i.e. unresolved driveway connections and drainage issues) and indicated that until there were iron-clad worked out, too many problems and unresolved issues existed. Action: Moved by Commissioner Erwood, seconded by Conunissioner Downs, reaffirming the August 1, 1989 action to deny the project by minute motion. Carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Richards abaained). VIII. MISCELLANEOUS A. Roadway Width for Alcooandto Drive. Mr. Drell reviewed the history of this matter and indic ' that he had spoken to Mr. Frank Goodman, who expressed oppo tign to the narrowing of Alessandro. He noted that public works was reccmding to city council that Alessandro not be narrowed. 8, , Chairperson Whitlock was in favor of the recommendation. She rspteety that the line-of-sight behind SmDkey's Restaurant was dangerous. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Chairperson Whitlock, endorsing by minute motion the city engineer's recatrnendation to city council. Carried 4-0. IX. OPAL CCMM]NIC7ATICNS MR. DAN EHRLER, 74-431 Driftwood Street in Palm Desert, expressed to commission as a citizen of Palm Desert, his appreciation for their service to the community. 11 PLANNING COMi4IISSICN RESOLUTION ND. 1400 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, REC]NNENIDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN 11,537 SQUARE FOOT PROFESSIONAL OFFICE PROJECT WITHIN THE R-3 (4) ZONE LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ALESSANDRO DRIVE AND SANTA YNEZ AVENUE. CASE NO. CUP 89-12 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 5th day of December, 1989, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of CJH PARTNERS for approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact and conditional use permit for an 11,537 square foot professional office project within the R-3 (4) zone located at the northeast corner of Alessandro Drive and Santa Ynez Avenue; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89, " in that the director of community development has determined that the project will not have an adverse impact on the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify the granting a recommendation of approval: 1. The proposed use and design of the project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Commercial Core Area Specific Plan and Palm Desert General Plan by creating a compatible transition between commercial and residential uses. 2. The project will therefore not depreciate values, restrict the lawful use of adjacent properties or threaten 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 constitute the findings of the omission in this case. 2. That a negative declaration of environmental impact Exhibit "A" and CUP 89-12 on file in the department of community development/planning is hereby recommended for approval, subject to conditions. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1400 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Cc mission, held on this 5th day of December, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: DOWNS, ERWOOD, JONATHAN, RICHARDS, AND WHITLOCK NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE CAROL WHITLOCK, Chairperson ATTEST: RAMDN A. DIAZ, Secretary PD/tm 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLITPION NO. 1400 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE M). CUP 89-12 Department of Community Development: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the department of p community development, as modified by the following conditions. 2. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and stated and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 3. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval unless a time extension is granted, otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any uses contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance frau the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Palm Desert Water and Services District Evidence of said permit or clearance faun the above agencies shall be presented to the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5. Trash provisions shall be approved by applicable trash company and city prior to issuance of building permit. 6. Applicant shall pay school impact fees as arranged by the Desert Sands Unified School District. 7. PLvject shall be subject to Art in Public Places fee for Ordinance No. 473. 8. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to these conditions. Applicant shall enter into an agreement to maintain said landscaping for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which agreement shall be recorded. It is the 3 PLANNING CCMMIISSICN RESOLUTION M). 1400 specific intent of the parties that this condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. 9. Applicant shall emphasize drought resistant and water conserving plant materials and irrigation technologies into landscape plan. Plan shall conform to city's parking lot tree standards. 10. Applicant shall construct a six foot masonry wall along north and east property lines. PD/tm 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1400 EXENIBIT "A" Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 7, Section 15083, of the California Administrative Code. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: CUP 89-12 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: CJH Partners 41-910 Boardwalk, Suite B-3 Palm Desert, CA 92260 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: An 11,537 square foot professional office project within the R-3 (4) zone located at the northeast corner of Alessandro Drive and Santa Ynez Avenue. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. RAMON A. DIAZ DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - PD/tm 5 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT NP OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: December 5, 1989 CASE NO: CUP 89-12 REQUEST: Approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact and conditional use permit for 0537 square foot office project within an R-3 (4) zone located at the northeast corner of Alessandro Drive and Santa Ynez Avenue. APPLICANT: CJH Partners 41-910 Boardwalk, Suite B-3 Palm Desert, CA 92260 I. BACKGROUND: A. ADJACENT ZONING/LAND USE: North: R-1/Single family South: C-1/Restaurant East: R-3 (4)/Two story apartment West: R-3 (4)/One story apartment B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project site is within the area designated by the Commercial Core Area Specific Plan for rezoning fium R-3 (4) to R-3 to encourage one story garden apartments. The multifamily residential designation was the result of requests from other apartment owners along Alessandro. In November of 1988 an application was filed by the Miraleste company for the change of zone and a 13 unit one-story apartment complex. After a lengthy hearing process, the planning commission denied the request finding that the higher density was incompatible with the adjacent single family use and that the site plan and architecture were unacceptable. On June 8 the city council denied an appeal by the applicant without prejudice. They felt the zoning was potentially acceptable with an appropriate plan. The current application filed by CJH is based upon the provision within the R-3 zone permitting offices as a conditional use when adjacent or across a street fium C-1. The applicant has been in contact with the surrounding property owners who originally requested the multi-family designation and has submitted a petition in support of the office use on the site. STAFF REPORT CUP 89-12 DEC EMBER BER 5, 1989 The proposed project would consist of two single story buildings with parking along the rear and through the center of the lot exiting onto Alessandro. As part of a conditional use permit, the planning cannission may apply varying setbacks to insure oompatibility with adjacent uses. The applicant has proposed setbacks based upon the standards of three adjacent uses which include a restaurant, two story apartment and single family hone. Along Alessandro facing the C-i zone the C-1 setback would apply, adjacent to the apartments the R-3 standards would apply and adjacent to the single family sideyard the R-1 standards would apply. PROJECT DATA Project Ordinance Site area 33,000 sq. ft. Building area: gross 11,537 sq. ft. net 10,096 sq. ft. Height 16-23 feet 18-24 feet* Setbacks: fiviit 5-10 feet 10 feet* sides 15 feet 15 feet* rear 10 feet 10 feet* Parking 41 spaces 41 spaces Building coverage 28% 50% Landscaping 21% Paving 50% *See analysis II. ANALYSIS: The application involves two issues: 1) Use - multifamily vs. professional offices; 2) Design - site plan and architecture. 1) The use issue arises fiun the R-3 designation in the CaTmercial Core Area Specific Plan. All of Alessandro was originally recommended for offices. This section of Alessandro was singled out to remain residential at the request of the existing property owners. Alessandro west of Cabrillo was designated O.P. The applicant has submitted evidence that those same property owners now are willing to support a single story office use on the site. Staff believes that either use could be made compatible with existing conditions. 2 STAFF REPORT CUP 89-12 DECEMBER 5, 1989 2) The contemporary flat roofed design has received preliminary approval fiun the architectural commission. The two building site plan with access only to Alessandro is consistent with the intent of the Commercial Core Area Specific Plan to create a low rise transition between the Highway 111 commercial uses and the R-1 interior. Given the apparent change of attitude of other multifamily owners on the street and the difficulties involved in developing a compatible high density multifamily project the proposal represents an acceptable conditional use for the site. Due to the city council's past interest and involvement in this area, the planning commission's action should take the form of a recommendation. III. REX 1TENDATION: Approve findings and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. recommending to the city council approval of CUP 89-12, subject to conditions. IV. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft resolution. B. Legal notice. C. Comments fzun city departments and other agencies. D. Plans and exhibits. Prepared by Jk b�.--"\----_ Reviewed and Approved by PD/tm 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NJ. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN 11,537 SQUARE FOOT PROFESSIONAL OFFICE PROJECT WITHIN THE R-3 (4) ZONE LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ALESSANDRO DRIVE AND SANTA YNEZ AVENUE. CASE NO. CUP 89-12 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 5th day of December, 1989, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of CJH PARTNERS for approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact and conditional use permit for an 11,537 square foot professional office project within the R-3 (4) zone located at the northeast corner of Alessandro Drive and Santa Ynez Avenue; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89, " in that the director of community development has determined that the project will not have an adverse impact on the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said planning cannission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify the granting a recammendation of approval: 1. The proposed use and design of the project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Commercial Core Area Specific Plan and Palm Desert General Plan by creating a compatible transition between commercial and residential uses. 2. The project will therefore not depreciate values, restrict the lawful use of adjacent properties or threaten 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 constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2. That a negative declaration of environmental impact Exhibit "A" and CUP 89-12 on file in the department of community development/planning is hereby recommended for approval, subject to conditions. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION rO. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 5th day of December, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CAROL WHITLOCK, Chairperson ATTEST: RAMDN A. DIAZ, Secretary PD/tm 2 E au3 sT 31 •pepaooea eq TTegs 3ueuaea6e 4oTuM pup pezTae3ou aq TTeITS weuaeibe goTgt ' Goad au3 3o a3TI au3 ao3 butdeospueT pies uTe;uTe1u 03 3uauaaabe ue oluT aa3ue TTegs 3ueoTTddv •suoT3Tpuoo esau3 03 3uunsand PaTTessuT eq o3 paaTnbaa bcdeospuuT au3 uTe3uTew o3 saaabe 3ueoTlddV 'e •oN aoueuTpac 1o3 ea; saoe Td oTTgnd uT 3a`d o3 boa Cgns eq T Tegs 3oa rO1d 'L '30T14STO IOc PS PeT;Tun spueS 3aas9G au3 !q pefueaae Se see; 3DedBT 'cog-Ds fed TTegs 3ueoTTddV '9 '4Tauad BuTPTTng 3o aouenssT o3 aoTad 13T0 pue Auedioo user e geoTTdde Jq peioadde aq TTegs suoTsTnoad useay 'S '143Tmeaaq pe.eidus3uoo rill au3 ao3 4Twaad BUTpUnq e 30 eouenssT 3o eurr3 au3 3e A4ages pue buTPTTnq 3o 3ui4xedep ei o4 paquesaid aq TTeus seTouabe anoge au3 um; eoueaeaTo ao 3Tuuad pies 3o eouepTnq 3DTa3sTU saOTnzaS pue aa;eM 3.aasec wiled TeusaeW aaT3 23TJ uDTssTuiuoJ TaIn oe4Tgoald 3aeseu urted 3°TT1STO aa3eM JaTTel1 eTTe eOJ :saTouebe buTMoTTo3 aup. um; aoueaeeio ao/pue s3Tuuad uTe3go 3saT3 TTeus 3ueoTTdde eq . 'Tenoadde sT143 Aq Pa4eTcluawoo sash Aue 3o uoT3onz4suoo .103 ;Twaad bu PTTnq e 3o eouenSST 91-13 03 JeTId 'T7 •aana0s3e4M 30833a ou 3o pue pTon 'TTnu ewooeq 'Tugs Tenoadde pTes esTMaau;o 'pa3ueab sT uoTsue xa eurr3 e ssaTun Tenazdde TeUT3 3o e.ep au3 u>loa3 ape! euo UT1-13TM eouaunioo 'Tel.'s 3oa Cazd pTes 3o uoT4 Iod e 30 u0T3ona4sugj •S •aoao3 uT aq !eu1 ae33eaaaq 4CT4M a0 'eoao3 uT Mou Se4nLeJs Tezepa3 pue pe4p4s pue saoueuTpao TedToTunui tie 04 uoT3Wpe uT aae uoTum uTaaau g4.1o3 3es suoT3e3TurrT pue suoT3oTa3saa eq4 o3 3oe qns aq TTegs uTaaau pegTaosep Aqaadoad 843 3o 3ueudolanap euy 'Z 'suoT3TPuoo buTMJITo3 eq4 Aq PeT;TPA se '3uaudolanap AlTunuii o 3o 3ueuq zedep eq . 1-13TM arc; uo s3TgTqxa 1.13TM ATIeT3ue4sgns uuo3uoo Ileus Aaadoad eq4 3o 3uaudoianap e a 'T :41JaudoTanac k3Tino 3o 3Q ZT-68 drip '(N 35VJ T'1N iddV 30 SNOLLIO D 'ON NOLU iOS3H NOISSI D SNINNVId PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. specific intent of the parties that this condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. 9. Applicant shall emphasize drought resistent and water conserving plant materials and irrigation technologies into landscape plan. Plan shall conform to city's parking lot tree standards. 10. Applicant shall construct a six foot masonry wall along north and east property lines. PD/tm 4 PLANNING COMMiISSION RESOLLTTION NO. EXHIBIT "A" Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 7, Section 15083, of the California Administrative Code. DATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: CUP 89-12 APPLICANT/PROJECT' SPONSOR: CJH Partners 41-910 Boardwalk, Suite B-3 Palm Desert, CA 92260 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: An 11,537 square foot professional office project within the R-3 (4) zone located at the northeast corner of Alessandro Drive and Santa Ynez Avenue. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. RAMJN A. DIAZ DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PD/tim 5 ,- _l J , , . . - ..Js. , „"„„, ,,,,...„,‘,, }A. k - 1. C�at[tV oV j2)2U L D e e[i] ;st. ,i ..,- 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 INITIAL STUDY AL CHECKLIST I. Background , 1. Date ��1`'r1 y1 i� ( � `1 Y r) 2. Case No. l_;l3 -s)c) _ 1 Z 3. Applicant c 0 ?wt`-'mS II. Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) Yes Maybe No 1. Barth. 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? 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? f f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Yes Maybe No 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? J,. b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of di- rection of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pat- terns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? c. Alterations to the course or low of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water re- lated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or num- ber of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? Yes Maybe No n of an y Reductionof the umbers unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenish- ment of existing species? i d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or num- bers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shell- fish, benthic organisms 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 migra- tion or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? - 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub- stantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? v 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? ✓ Yes Maybe No b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing hous- ing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing transpor- tation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered gov- ernmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? Yes Maybe No b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? y 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? L- c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ✓ d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? u 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, re- duce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate Yes Maybe No important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 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 rela- tively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively con- siderable? (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? III. Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE • PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 0 \J Date Signature For 11` .: 0. 1, ©NT CA 17m1huo De--seu `':o",e'' 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 I TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. CUP 89-12 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Dc.:urt PIannii .. Goiruniion to consider a request by CJH Partners for approval of a negative riacl.,ration of environmental impact and Conditional Use Permit for I1 .787 ;quire foot office usr. within an R--3 (4) zone located at the norther, t corner of Alesandro and S.Jrita Yn z. also de;r_ribed as: A.P.N. 625-692-003.004.005 HH1H 1 HJ IJI'fYLi" V\ R1 VIIIrr ;ANLA WAY ��,� I I 1 J 1_ !c i—I I W''s-I_ r r'' ,l $AN YARINo WAY �► _��' P.R.-5 I r Firm =Inral C sisooN • = • . B.P. .. ntI Is���o ISERI T RE Intl 'P.C. 4 ��,� �� DRIv c 111 I I III C1-1I 18)2. III B.P. r•k• OMIT rtAut■+zeta HIGHWAY 111 tj jDyx J,I- �C-1 80. , ■_oo 1 8.P..o C-1R_ S.P.' ._ _ — ,C AAIiM� .■ J 1 Z • ':' -,, ■All �■ t liglimpotalln• �� m � -trill 'Ow R-3 ,, . ..�,� 1;111 ..','—TLAII(Tr'1 S • O(2S:1:11 ( - (W s A` U N ^ — , e SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday. December 5, 1989, at 7:00 p.m. in the C uuIci I (.h.nnber at the Palm Desert City Hall, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert. California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. If you challenge the proposed actions In court. you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the city council (or planning commission) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary November 24. 1989 Palm Desert Planning Commission STAFF REPORT Department of Community Development City of Paim Desert TO: Planning Commission FROM: Phil Drell . Senior Planner DATE: December 19, 1989 SUBJECT: Roadway Width for Alessandro Drive I . DISCUSSION: The Palma Village and Commercial Core Area Specific Plan recommended parking and office uses along the north side of Alessandro. The availability of parking on the north side was designed to encourage higner utilization of the Highway 111 frontage. The proposal to narrow Alessandro from 44 feet to 36 feet was to create a stronger association between the Highway 111 frontage and the associated parking. Since the adoption of the plan no Highway III property owner has expressed any desire to utilize Alessandro parking. Frank Goodman, owner of several Highway Ill buildings, has stated that the existing depth of Highway 111 storefronts are ideal at 70 feet and no expansion is likely or desirable. In addition a strong demand is developing for small office buildings on the north side. As a result, the original objectives for the proposed narrowing appears to have evaporated. In connection with the proposed office project in the center of the block, the city engineer has made the following recommendation: Reduction in the width of the Alessandro Drive travelway shall not be incorporated as a part of this development's approval . The type of development proposed for this area of Alessandro Drive indicates that the continuation of a program of travelway reduction would not be beneficial to either potential developers or the city at this time. The reductions which have been installed or have been approved at Deep Canyon/Alessandro and Portola/Alessandro serve to establish end-block control for this portion of Alessandro and thereby significantly reduces the need for further travelway modification. II . RECOMMENDATION: By minute motion endorse city engineer's recommendation and pass to city council . Nsik I l Phil Drell , Senior Planner /tm f The undersigned petition the City of Palm Desert to change the zoning on Alessandro from R-3 , 4000 to Office Professional (OP) to permit a one story office building on the northeast corner of Alessandro and Santa Ynez. Print Name Signature Address p�Q L,P Al l.S \ 6 r ct•2 C /( s �1A,' ` `'' .' .42.. /c ' " O /ST A, Q e �+ -- / rl .a PO 0 L13 P / j- /l/76: //7/) 1 (q t// /)/ ' i 3 1 74-,0),<-: Cif,)- p D I ' d L/-1/2GI-S /9✓i 2— - 7 y 5/<Q / 1cil , A, ANA vt /r,OVNNAEP ryri8�r `11-, Li1n tiW i)\3 11\ , .0 `2 &}7 f' X _ ^l / / 7 L/ -() c/(ry/// �/), ..,'Ipt 0 i< '- , 1)ili I-L(4 'r- < e(L 'If dc, . ill /7 2-2( ,l'ic 11 ---\Th6 1----T--. 11\11,1, -)1\1 c--- )..q / 1.- 0-,' L'' 10 420 7 //_1 (.:)- ,Ot_ - Fri- �� 7c `/Lo y/ 7/ . ,, e,�f�rcP ,,,_( 25 /fir_ kr; � �� Z.,e y er' . . -- / I 1 �,• _. • _ _ ! ..�. M 7 '-5izo /any/f/ i). A/tAria ?-i-lia0 fitel illi-1 Ail= A at 1 d 5 E5cob\ dr, P5 ' p,-t.016 Mtki2.1 f!E-4./.61ii MAW li,1 F/4--i-faoill \ , Pb• L. g-,,tfka 0 ' (c)/ gee ° ,/ •••.).,t-/C----1-- 7Y- D 5'0 -Au?, /(/ - -P ;12 ayAnA .1. A h ewe 74 o tv ii 1 PP, 2y 6? _ /-,_e1 `. 1,- I° The undersigned petition the City of Palm Desert to change the zoning on Alessandro from R-3 , 4000 to Office Professional (OP) to permit a one story office building on the northets0 rrier3 of Alessandro and Santa Ynez. 1989 Print Name Signature Address Jo �. FI �.,r., ^� �t 4 3 t fit i + Ult } n@ 1I ' j\ J 0 uQ (Df II©n 44-911 Cabrillo, Palm Desert, CA 92260 (619) 340-1535 November 14 , 1989 City of Palm Desert Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 To Whom It May Concern; We, the owners and operators and the Families of The Education Station Preschool, are not opposed to the proposed office building to be constructed on the northeast corner of Alessandro and Santa Ynez . We are in fact looking forward to a more professional ap- pearance to our street, in addition to the safer atmosphere it can bring to our neighborhood. The current low-income housing in the surrounding areas could use upgrading which may occur if the zoning was changed to Office Professional (OP) . Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Geraldine Apra Director/Owner/Operator