Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 01-59 Ord 988 PP 01-03 DA 01-01 at 42595 Cook Street Resolution No. 01-59 Ordinance No. 988 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT I. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II. REQUEST: Consideration of a request by Cook Street Associates LLC for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and a precise plan of design for a 16,000 square foot office/showroom building at the northwest corner of Sheryl Avenue and Cook Street, 42-595 Cook Street. Request also includes approval of a development agreement which will limit uses in the project to those with a parking requirement of two spaces per 1 ,000 square feet of floor area or less. III. APPLICANT: Cook Street Associates, LLC 42-620 Caroline Court, Suite 120 Palm Desert, CA 92211 IV. CASE NOS: PP 01 -03 and DA 01 -01 V. DATE: June 14, 2001 continued from May 10, 2001 VI. CONTENTS: A. Staff Recommendation B. Background C. Conclusion VII. ATTACHMENTS: A. Staff Report dated May 10, 2001 A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1 . That City Council adopt Resolution No. o1-59approving Case No. PP 01- 03. Resolution No. 01-59 Ordinance No. 988 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. PP 01-03 AND DA 01-01 JUNE 14, 2001 2. That City Council pass Ordinance No. 988 passing Case No. DA 01-01 to second reading. B. BACKGROUND: 1 . Project Issues: This matter was before City Council at its May 10, 2001 meeting and continued to June 14, 2001 to allow the applicant to address several issues which were raised by City Council. Issues raised by City Council were: a. The need to extend the easterly architectural treatment around to the north end of the building. b. The need to enhance the west side architecture - lessen the industrial look of the overhead doors. c. The need to better arrange and increase the amount of parking. d. Trash area should be designed to provide access from alley. e. Provide a bus pullout and pad for a shelter. The applicant has responded to the above issues by amending the plans and with a narrative response. Specifically the applicant has responded as follows: a. Extension of east architecture to north end. Response: The applicant has raised the building elevations to extend the metal roof section and other elements from the east around to the north side of the site. This is a significant improvement. b. Enhance west elevation/lessen industrial look of overhead doors. (G:\planning\wpdocs\tmonroe\sr\pp01-03.cc3) 2 , Resolution No. 01-59 Ordinance No. 988 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. PP 01-03 AND DA 01-01 JUNE 14, 2001 Response: The applicant has revised the west elevation to reduce the number of overhead doors from five to four. Additional architectural detailing has been added around the perimeter of the overhead doors and the doors will be finished in a color and texture to match the adjacent walls in order to lessen the industrial look. c. Parking: additional spaces and better arrangement. Response: The site plan has been revised to add five spaces and increase parking from 32 to a total of 37 onsite spaces (19 spaces in the rear (west) lot and 18 spaces in the front (east) lot). This increases the parking ratio to 2.31 per 1 ,000 gross square feet. The development agreement will strictly limit the permitted uses in the project to those which have been shown to operate effectively with two parking spaces per 1 ,000 square feet. d. Trash bins: should open to alley. Response: The site plan has revised the location of the trash bin to the center of the west driveway at the north end of the site. This was done to create additional parking spaces. Trash trucks will drive the full length of the driveway from Sheryl Avenue (200' +I-►, empty the bin without manually pulling the bin out by hand, then back out the same distance. Staff spoke to Waste Management who advised that they prefer this straight in approach where the driver can remain in the vehicle rather than pulling the bin out by hand. Having an alley pick up would require the driver to stop in the alley, exit the vehicle, pull the bin out by the hand, empty the bin, exit the vehicle, push the bin back into place and climb back into the vehicle. Basically, the location proposed by the applicant provides for easier pick up and results in three new parking spaces. e. Bus pull out and shelter. (G:\planning\wpdocs\tmonroe\sr\pp01-03.cc 3) 3 Resolution No. 01-59 Ordinance No. 988 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. PP 01-03 AND DA 01-01 JUNE 14, 2001 Response: The applicant talked with Sunline in an attempt to get the bus stop to remain where it is currently located at the Cook Street and Merle Avenue intersection 800 feet to the north. The applicant even offered to upgrade that bus shelter at his expense. Sunline was adamant that the bus stop be placed in front of this site before the intersection. The revised site plan shows a pad area for a shelter. Condition No. 13 of the draft resolution requires that the applicant design and install a bus shelter that complements the building architecture. The Transportation Engineer notes that at this time a bus would stop in the parking lane to serve this stop. In the not too distant future Cook Street will be three (3) travel lanes in each direction hence the need for a bus pullout. Condition No. 13 will be revised to require a bus pullout as well as the pad and shelter. C. CONCLUSION: The applicant has addressed many of the issues raised by City Council. Staff feels that these revisions have significantly improved the project, particularly when viewed from the north and west. Also, parking has been increased from 32 spaces to 37 spaces and a pad for a bus shelter has been added to the site plan. Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved: S�TEVE SMITH PHILIP D PLANNING MANAGER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R-A-w an.4. r• Revie��j ioncur: t~ / RICHARD OLKERS CARLOS L. ORTEGA ASSISTAN CITY MANAGER OF CITY MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES IG:\planning\wpdocs\tmonroe\sr\pp01-03.cc3) 4 CITY COUNCITION: APPROVED DENIED�---- pTHER RECEIVED -w L/I/l� MEETING DATE , , AYES: � , , NOES: � ABSENT: � . ABSTAIN: VERIFIED BY: erk*s Office Original on File with C Y PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 10, 2001 B. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST BY COOK STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC, FOR APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN FORA 16,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE/SHOWROOM BUILDING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SHERYL AVENUE AND COOK STREET, 42-595 COOK STREET; REQUEST ALSO INCLUDES APPROVAL OFADEVELOPMENTAGREEMENT, WHICH WILL LIMIT USES IN THE PROJECT TO THOSE WITH A PARKING REQUIREMENT OF TWO SPACES PER 1,000 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA OR LESS Case Nos. PP 01-03 and DA 01 -01 (Cook Street Associates, LLC, Applicant). Planning Manager Steve Smith reviewed the staff report in detail, noting that the project would be created with parking at two spaces per thousand square feet. The reduced parking would forever limit the uses in the building to those with the lower parking requirement. He said the applicant had provided five statements from nearby residents supporting the application. He said the project as proposed meets the parking requirements for the uses anticipated; in order to assure long-term that the building will continue to be in that use range, staff was suggesting the need for approval of a development agreement that would include that condition. Ma yor Ferguson declared the public hearing open and invited testimony from the applicant. MR_ SABBY JONATHAN,42-620 Caroline Court, Suite 102, Palm Desert, said the intent for this in-fill lot was to create an upscale retail showroom use, to enhance the area, and to provide an effective transition from Cook Street to the surrounding residential neighborhood. Councilman Crites asked if Mr. Jonathan had an opportunity to address the architectural concerns the two of them had discussed several days ago. Those concerns were as follows: 1) On the north side of the building, the roof line and architectural enhancements seen on the east side should be extended around so that the parking lot from the apartments does not face a blank wall; 2) The west side, which has the loading facilities, should have the architectural treatments extended around as well so that it is as attractive as the front of the building; 3) That a way be found to make the roll-up doors in the loading facilities no longer look like roll-up doors so that residents and people driving by are not faced with the industrial aspects of the building. 21 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 10, 2001 MR. JONATHAN responded that the concerns had been addressed, explaining that the roof lines would be extended to the opposite side of the building. Additionally, he said there would be a cut-out around each door, as well as a shade structure; his architect indicated that could be enhanced with more of a bisque and trellis-type structure to surround, in addition to the landscaping discussed. As far as the doors, he said they would be painted to match the wall; they were not aware of any other materials for the doors (industrial doors were unlike garage doors made of wood) but offered to continue to pursue them, adding that he was open to such modification and wanted to reach the City's objectives. Mayor Ferguson invited testimony in FAVOR of or OPPOSED to this project. With no testimony offered, he declared the public hearing closed. Mayor Pro-Tern Kelly said he felt there should be enough parking provided to take care of the development regardless of whether or not the development agreement is followed. He also felt that eventually there might be a tenant that does not fit the development agreement, and someone will have to go out there and tell the tenant he or she has to close the business. He said he did not feel the City should set itself up for that kind of situation. With regard to the trash bins, he said he felt they should be faced out to the alley so that trash trucks can get into and out of the alley without having to back up the whole distance. He added that he felt there should be a condition for provision of a bus shelter and turnout on the east side. He said at this time, he did not feel the project fit the location. Councilman Crites agreed with Mayor Pro-Tern Kelly and said this project would have the absolute minimum parking for its requirements. He said he was not comfortable with having the absolute minimum on something where there may be issues where a tenant might or might not fit. He added that he would like to see a better parking arrangement. He said he would also like to see what the architecture would look like when it is carried around to the back area. Councilmember Benson shared concerns raised about people having to look at the delivery doors. She agreed the uses were right for the area and that the project would blend well with the office professional along Cook Street. She said she did not have any problems with it being at this location if it is designed so that it does complement the area. Councilman Spiegel agreed with Councilmember Benson. He said Cook Street is really the only industrial street in the City of Palm Desert. He said he was not suggesting that the Council should not review the architecture as 22 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 10, 2001 suggested by Councilman Crites, but he felt the project would be an asset to Cook Street rather than a detriment. He said at an appropriate time, he would make a motion to continue this matter to allow the developer time to come back with more specific information. Mayor Ferguson concurred with Councilmen Crites and Kelly. He said he felt this was a challenging corner to develop. He said what started out as an industrial area had become a mixed-use retail, office professional area rather than industrial. He added that in recognition of that fact, he felt the developer was rightly putting something there that is more akin to what is already out there; however, to then revert to standards that are industrial to approve the project did not make sense to him. Mayor Pro-Tem Kelly noted a stipulation from staff relative to a bus shelter, and he asked that specifics about a bus shelter be included when this matter is brought back to Council. Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, continue this matter for 30 days, requesting that upon its return, the cases should include more specifics regarding conditions for a bus shelter, trash enclosure, and the number of tenants. Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by unanimous vote. C. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF THE SALE OF LOT NUMBERS 30 (APN 622-351-030-8), 128 (APN 622-351-128-4), 130 (APN 622-351-130-5), AND 139 (APN 622-351-139-4) LOCATED AT 43-155 PORTOLA AVENUE (PORTOLA PALMS MOBILE HOME PARK) AT FAIR MARKET VALUE (JOINT CONSIDERATION WITH THE PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY). Mr. Ortega noted the staff report in the packets and offered to answer any questions. Upon question by Councilrnember/Member Benson, Ms. La Rocca responded that this would leave one lot for sale and one that was being held for future ingress and egress to the park on Magnesia Falls. She added that there were also five or six lots that were currently leased. Mayor/Chairman Ferguson declared the public hearing open and invited testimony in FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to this request. With no testimony offered, he declared the public hearing closed. Councilman/Member Benson moved to: 1) Waive further reading and adopt City Council Resolution No. 01-60, authorizing the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency to sell 23 COOK STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC RESPONSE TO COUNCIL CONCERNS JUNE 14, 2001 1 . ENHANCED WEST SIDE OF BUILDING (REAR OF BUILDING): A. Eliminated one roll-up door (now down to four). B. Roll-up doors will be painted to match wall. C. Enhanced framing and shading elements around doors. D. Enhanced landscaping to shield doors and wall (see line of site section). 2. ENHANCED NORTH SIDE OF BUILDING (SIDE FACING APARTMENTS): A. Roofing feature now wrapped around from front. B. Added frame elements along length of wall. C. Enhanced landscaping to soften appearance. 3. CREATED ADDITIONAL PARKING: A. Re-aligned waste bins (adding 3 spaces). B. Re-aligned turnaround area (adding 2 spaces). C. Net requirement: 28 spaces Total Provided: 42 spaces (37 on-site, 5 off-site) 4. ADDED A BUS SHELTER: A. Specific design to be developed with City of Palm Desert sub-committee. B. Art in Public Places fee to be applied towards cost of bus shelter, at discretion of applicant, and subject to staff approval. 1 ' , l'' 7 0 I> 0 r 5, r T , 3 E.) 0 3 in-- • 2 ° A U 3 : i> (P „,(P A lijoilef 1 A • A 0 0) 0 ,_11 (1 Z 0) 0 r M 0 ... I> m a) 1> m i 0 0 it Z A 0 0 0 0 ri r 0) —1 W cp m (P m A,Ak• 4 ' , C M 0 k • , <.3 -1 • J , IJ M ......a. 0 i— 1..> •,..1.11" I . _ .., . _. ,, 111111 4. . Iv — = . 0 _ 0 r.f, ! 111111 'lb, ... ' ' i . = -, 11„; = i V,A,..' li 4 ,.,,,,,., = .e, . 1 wirm ...7. , . t Lelliii...: „, W ".".1 "UMW ''''.1111- I :=.1 ... 111111, , I. .:Mq. 1 - jUir iik. P:95/ nor f k 1 . ."H" d1411,111111 Winaak iria-irrrr: i arm 411IP1 INV ili 1 MUM '; I 0111 SIMOV k .''.A k ••••• ..., ii om,ti ..... ,,, i .11 M IMF: • = .... - ...... _ IIII,0 II:i.:i ., i.r ' :li r V ANN jai k _....... 11 , ....1, ICA-iN. 11, .... I • I%I ., 0..... slpi 3 , , a m.„ 1 .., . ,ril 01 saw vollommi MOINIesses.e e..*h.:,,,, 0 > mu ir 0 r to III e" A-CO ii: i v .: .11I INV, xr. . or zr 0 . ,s' ior • tiro ..P. E 1 • 3 c; 33 2 ri) 0 I.. ..• TYP 4 rji m_, Eh 1 -<EP--f2 33 Irin r 300 3m MI0 My 0 ' - g r � m m • . 0 0Z (p 0r , , Si bie (p I. m - „` . -i ik 000 o < m "' _ "4 1 n rm I : m r 1111.1 m - to to 0 �I �_ N to r Z �, ` 0 rt , 6 r ,a Il z I r 11 414.41- 1 I-a- • ' li III ii NI ill rat ' t„a .,'1 q ',,,1 i, ii t• ■ u ,,, Ii ' �, .rI I ( ' I UM mil iuu (I N � lt 411 11110111 tt o� rtr- 4 r-.s . aro Zs a c i—rn �Z r' __i 14r,d1 ,t, 0 -t P z�� Z� o�m i =a.-a BITE PLAN GENERAL NOTE S LFOAL D CRiPT10.N PARKING REQUIREMENT; LOT I OF♦eL OF CC I (_LW w-LAJAA No.I M NaAO.r .P-I WC R R I!TPI RG 6 M PN1Qq WOWED RETAL APACE A ORD PARCEL NO. 1p„r O IF Ry=NT SF.• AN 63.-t,2-00LCO2 L®1���.�,A UALLOp. -, SANB0 PROJECT DATA TOTAL!AC®REOURID 26 ROPOED EWE F MOM RAP•OR P ON ARC H IT EC l I.o Mail a ROOM/.LAN DRPm..roN P ARaaff YP 22o'TA-EI Ne CED CIVIL ENGINE] NracAP rAcs 2 LAW $LIRVE CONSYNOCPIOI TYPE-TYPE WI I. AREA CALCULATIONS TOTAL PACESPRDVtJlD y P SANG STE AREA ,67NO SF IDpx MOOS MIA, N26,SP. NWArICNrflOr NNSCAPE NEA '20216 6F. SAX G2T I�!AYC�' IO LAMYCAPfaA AMA: O.'G7 8F 20x PALM (SPRIN .CAA. • P TPA TAs IY8-1 I I .. yr J I ` "L I I O ONNJEN ...� I iy4 v l (>7 7Y I I :z°Osro c'AA ''cT ELATE AO 11 I I PALM DESERT.CA.a R �O L l�.I'JYY�)) ,-1-5 } .�^�)(f/.^i .!• ;1 -- 56 FAO{Ma frFPOR u / y 5•-- V_\__ / �� _ f V`•'-7 I I I , �niRAL CONTRACT v1 i l,/f/ff/�����-� ..J./' 0IC) # L� _..__.. , i I 6O�h pp�q 1 S '.-------.1._„, -A.1I H AAAAN +� AA AA1 1 . ' TEL ITP01 E -.13'l 1 � i, PA%RP01 8Po-66Y C e I R I meMen �, _ s ,� -x' C 1 PO 0 R I I 1 D e • r 1 �/' e a 1 I.-.I a I 1 e - ,1' • °� Z • F--N r,-�, • 1 , I REVISIONS 1' mrw re�RroNo -C _...... ..L...+TA 1 r • • • `L�,✓ (J.r- .YVYY..Y'�_Y d s9 I I EPx s 1I I CW �TIIIT H , r ,."."'-) [-.1 a - N.R.._.P..R t' 1 ' 1 V • rRDJECT TITLE. OrFlCi-I eirria . !WILDING for = COOK$T. P * 1 II x , I o a R s r ! CO A860CIATE9.Li_ 9 ....., _I 1 37 t. � f.�l ), t,;l' _-- 3.--w-7/1 echo matie Site ..._._ -= / �wc was ----- - .. . _. .__ f I [ O .a deft NAV 1 _ «', _ M u.)'Aa1 .WA I '�J• I 1 J O S�G'QYL RD. ! rl. _ __ ___.-._..._. • \• I - — PIS.r GTE M x A. R r e It 1---- -?,5 MK MI 1J{ `--,e 7�l ,, 1 I i- -rdi iio. • _ A u Sohomltic SItR Plan Ir © .- : yam Y.\ Al. 1 1�W p .1 I.2u IJR . SIE NOTES LLESA OT W• DESRIPTION IO N.LA•E NOI PARKIN• REOUIREAJENTILA E, EA►AO P•.OA%IEC.N TIE INC IS l PA •AONC 60./E5/ F,AL SPACE I its OI.PARCEL NO yO GA a YI,N CON.G 22r,F• -S SANBORN p]A-] OI OO] �E ' CDwT.pt A)tw/ •+_OwNCE -5 PROJECT DATA TOT.,PACES IIEGMEG ]A MONIED E1 CE.PPM.LOD.OE DM ARCHITECTURE *MOM MOVOIED ET.2CMU I OEPE N-PLAN 3NATC.. IEDILM K ao'PACES 35 CIVIL ENGINEERING s.c® LAND 8URVEYINQ_, co••TECRON TWA-'TM T-I M AREA CALCULATION° TOM PACES PROVIDED Y I i I SANBOR:14g INC. g a AMA AET]C I' 'CO. ALLENA ALA. I111LGN AMA n]O+5.5. MU AtI D T)I'r TEAL NNmICY•AMA IS.,..H. AON RVMa.I.I N°14�a 6pEIA�� C LN°I C ACII AMA O)IO Se. PAN 'A TE NEEEM PAX POO a25-I330 I ) COO"IT AMOQATEI LI_C I! TeL_ F om SW-0En c :r' Y='- A w T ( t! aTrr _ —x.. °- i x - - IZS' 8 A -n roae®"o.o- a a '/ , .., i 8 , ::::::=::=7:::: o . ° .. a — x g • 4`, .. ° T �m,Js i3OPflCE-INDUSTRIAL - ........... R r IILOPI('tar c V .• � r / Palm CIATE Ca. ` �f,.' • x )y'�. I �--- Schematic ET TITLE- _ ) :._ __ • Site Plan r 111. . aemeF qe . I wait w0 ...-AA0 NWT x.M I. SA-ERYL RD. I MITT are 1No acaT °° I Svat i Mgr, OM 1 Vx a -• r I _ I INa5U I WiTE �Tb 1 Bahama tie Site Plan _ -- _ --__IbI�S�.41, A1.0 --- --------- COOK STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC RESPONSE TO COUNCIL CONCERNS JUNE 14, 2001 1. ENHANCED WEST SIDE OF BUILDING (REAR OF BUILDING): A. Eliminated one roll-up door (now down to four). B. Roll-up doors will be painted to match wall. C. Enhanced framing and shading elements around doors. D. Enhanced landscaping to shield doors and wall (see line of site section). 2. ENHANCED NORTH SIDE OF BUILDING (SIDE FACING APARTMENTS) A. Roofing feature now wrapped around from front. B. Added frame elements along length of wall. C. Enhanced landscaping to soften appearance. 3. CREATED ADDITIONAL PARKING: A. Re-aligned waste bins (adding 3 spaces). B. Re-aligned turnaround area (adding 2 spaces). C. Net requirement: 28 spaces Total Provided: 42 spaces (37 on-site. 5 off-site) 4. ADDED A BUS SHELTER: A. Specific design to be developed with City of Palm Desert sub-committee. B. Art in Public Places fee to be applied towards cost of bus shelter, at discretion of applicant, and subject to staff approval. ! 0 I> 0 r 5, r 1 0 A m 0 ° A U 3 frilli, M 0 M ... fi A A ; 0— 1 -I 0 -I 0) 0 r I> - m i , ...t, 0 -I 1 , r , _ , 01 -I f. Z r cp m 0) III .4 PI 111 to C_ III r 4i 1 '‹ per, •.gos Mt. 1,3 M I> • = _ r < P pilliff. 0 i . I> la ti * _. !', M Z 0 _ C.) Z minor " NNW , ,, rt.4. .._,- il k" II kk.'1,1... it, ii. = • i 1 i ...•, t t 46 • --k j ''''''''. ', f , 1.=t,, ....., r _ .. ,..... .......7, . • ,,„„,6 ...__ i ....... , - ilikAi .r.:11 „ ,r-mx •1 1 f ". ' •-,. / 1 ::1114::111.111: •1/1. .....- E all..4 ....... a ov,sr ,simm —E.-- rA ‘ d'''V4 „,sk ititipt, ,, .... „,,,,x,.. II ..", .... , ,. •rt ,. •MIME q 1 /MN tiF,,. AN ON ' SIMS -'4'1'. i _ . -"INF — i • • ' 1.". , :„ te P 1 : . , "4, li r 1141 4 .. :-.t ar,—. ,), 11• t ..,..1.,,, 111.. !•?...,, In) , -.ow= gm h, ie illi 'e: 0 ... g \V:, 111111.1 '..'" ,41/4' '‘ , lig, .._(1) io- - 6 2 E 2271 se t .2m °3 ,.. • Tqq-4 r1,42 0 321!!!191 . ' P. .i._ A. ,..---— .... .-. .... ,. ___ a - i SE In I NORTH ELEVATION • - — y i�r k, Ac, lasi.. * r ,A. 7,- iMeif )f. `.,Slp.'4'7; .. s T'n4 WEST ELEVATION SCHEMATIC ELEVATIONS .,t 1, PmALM DESERT, CAL IPORNIA SANBORN SCALES 1/8.4-0' COO(. ST. 4SSOG 114TES, L.L.C.— a/z"° ARCHITECTURECIVL .C. ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING42-b2m GAROLINQ COURT, SUITE I102 o2PtCil y� **.- PALM DraiSERT, GALIFORN I A 2122Il '" ' ' ttra�o t— SITE PLAN GENERAL NOTES LSOAL DIRCRIPTION PARKIN., RIOUIREMRNTR -- LOT IS.a rl CF Oon•ME cab w✓rAG NI,I MAL aQ P0.9-11 MC.16 TS ROE A AM IMMO,AROUAR> PETAE PFACE A OR9 PARCEL MO. 1 2...,5001P A112ySF,. .J y ty42-ppt 002 LEM 19t CO tVN AREA ALLOWANLE -5 S A N B O PROJECT DATA TOTAL TACES 1ECUNED 26 E0,5052101000 NARTFA ROW-of NDrP PAw•d PROMISEDARCHITECT _ TOFFS A ORRAL PLAN DIFEFMTcT WAS-AS II%2O'IEA[ES y CIVIL ENGINEC1 HANDICAPIPAC6 2 LAIC SURVE 1 CvCI9CTICN TYPE-ME V-1 ES AREA CALCULATION! TOTAL•ArlR TTW40 m SANBORN A/I RITE AREA �6J10 RP lop% ALLEN EA 11.4,16091 • RULlNT ARA r G>SP. UN A1CNR£GT NAN9CAPE AREA 'SCL'LM S.F. AA% 123T l C yjft. LAPOOL`AMFb APEA 9,227 RF. 20% PALM-ROOT 92Yi FAX I7R01 312, y J �1 I I 1----- _..— �' T� J I l I I ! p OWTE��/�p—qA • I• 1,t • 11 v S / I I 7771'.ORCLK C r -- ., CA.O r.,•.^ih• 1 S] 1] 1 I q 9M-•ASa•N .f_i M1 �__ ''jt •'� C 1 . om r1Y-b 2. I �t U �t L`••• I �•RiML CONTINCI 3 ' Qw�I au-DeR9 ! I _�-•� .YVWVYI., L J I 1 1P- "RPMP,W!L. D. ! )t, I A A ) A A1r.Ph.Y G� A A A A 1 1 + 4 E bB�I +� _ - , �'�., I PAR robot abo_sca • �`. '' 11 "� wAlvstlz �, .. 1` ° I�r ii11 �! k. •�_: R L, t1 I Ty ° � � !� e ° 8 •J . �} I I t AEvironlR (t i _1 0 • t• L • ♦ ( C • uervw ` t,.J J"r,-r�rvMti.yvYC tl s f-- SWAT In R e , 1I igvr-Nr lea- ! "y�I = aO �f s j I T s,.1._,_ ( . 1) • I _ I IR R i 35 • g . , ...„....P.F.04..""'"70...."=.6........7.= _ S, I 1 a F �__-- P i PROJECT TITLE: • rarl��'p'tt Il OFFICE-IDUBTItl •.- p o BUILDING for U,. COOK SF. ! o o b o p _ I jt ASSOCIATES LL, Ce /�, "ti - - 4 1 a'- ,. .. 6 rr OP __ F,�A� iI I Film Wrrlq. c.:,.., •sue g A �•N I 0 6N[lT nrLO C T _... Schematic 91U p I.w o4OT Nan 1 - all mt .,.. ��• ---- 0 C M SI-ERYL R . I • _ -_.-- \!R• PANT TAT! WE • .. f._ _ ... ! R 1 KALE ...., �_ L ..— I r _ - p..._� WI _ __ PATH i ,r1 1 / DNC R! F-' -rai iie. soh.m°tlo Sit*P "1DA^ I -�_: A Al. . , - _ _ - --- - ----- ---___—_ - SITE PLAN GENERAL NOTES LI•AL DE 01 CUEPA■KIM• R•DYIR•N,GMT6 NW▪ O,•D•. CG le T RO V SA*AES ND.1 e.NONG.4EnIffD �_ NW a.•.V•NG r TEL Y•SSA*M PET,SPACE II R IE O ,.ARc.L Na 0 b SAE EE•n , . SANBORN 02A-DAD-006002 LEPV'S%CO.tio%A.Fw A.oAA.+G- -5 I P•OJECT DATA to '° `PEoXm -a Aw. ARCHITECTURE IIOPC®p06'NAM.OO► -OS non . 3 PROTOSO I CIVIL ENGINEERING ECKBITID 2Q`• IG 6 DBQAL.L PLAT.DESIONAIip1, 6EOU_AR V K 20 SPACES 35 00.0CA•SPAe3 I LAND SURVEYING CCNETN,C•ICN TYPE-'Pe 6.-1 M Al IA CAL CDL ATION• TO•A/SPACES PSOv0ED v i SAN00RN A/E INC I YAp{ L%N06C•1!OClf 1BAS MGA F A.7 E• A I WaNti.{:::::71:17fs E!cDuL AL.C4. IJ � I 1701 TEL,I0N].fees!M IF ] Nb XP FOX EFR W]aX W I: • VAX 1100I ITV-Mae g - I rr"r�L ee.ax iT-na ro,,.,I u,.. 4i Rttg'sSa- . t I-� A ,l ,r _ 'mil _ .F.nw aw-iaw • —_J I • • t so -r nor uar ro ee J•w,o ;��.w �" 4.. -1—. -�-�- -` I + y v. e .ram, . I ti is J w- , • cur,. U IppFICE-INDUSTRIAL P IILDHC for COOK ST. I; el e e o e Q-o E _1 ASSOCIATES,LL.Ci];1' -- Palm Dined,Ca. 1 /k >'•,••••" ='� nwffeT PIT • _. _.._.. • D Slt• Plan �-vL w�A1D+nsr XwaTe•T Ira XI _ w __OIL ti xw AwT son -- --. _.._ _ - ... _ SMERYL RD. QE` _ - ME WI wo 10,311. N. RILE rile-r '' RATS LOVE f� CHIDED Na- --- CM. !"' J I FATE ODIN ,Al.0 GENERAL IT NOTES ___.__ ____ iiiE LEGALDEIC.IPTIOM •AEKIM• IeOYII{MUMT• iLOT0.P0.OPICMRTL N •4%A MOI PA►AQ M P•t�L Y Ti Nu M l u ° "s� D I TETAL SPACE D.a.AeCELMO IPPSOOauNCA1 AREA -s SANBORN 02A-2A2.0 T OCa LEES'3M COAe.•OM AREA ALLOWANCE -! P R O J e C T DATA TOTAL a.ACES IE0S 2e ARCHITECTURE n21r�ONCE,r I 0 soc-of SCOT •Aaaw P.O+DfO CIVIL @JEERING EOEy81Kl ZONING 100ERAL F..M.DETTON.ICA MOIL 3 9'x 70'SPACES 35 ...CA.'PACES 2 LAND SURVEYING C0•TICt0N tT7E-"'.9E v314* _ _ SANBOR ARIA CALCULATIONS TO'AL pox:.PeWDE6 Y N r.AA//11Ea INC. VI AMA ••PESO•P. VON ALLEN^11CNAlECT.A.LA 114300 AMM Y'V SP. MN I p2T a 6I I 41 A IIIY TPA MAeaKAP•AMA YI10•s. ACM PALL..9Ha 151 QA LA1pCAPPIa AMA 0110•P. 2AM L ITea i2-0..lw PAa lI061 Y1Y600 zz t`i -. -- I I _...% •.�-� I C mo CA L 'A.e C1- LLZ: v •AALLAII 0eu I �. I ! TEL n Pr.u.wan _ T ea a.reese I FAX ITSOl TT9-•a]• 1 •ry • `tQTlIE:CONTIlAC10R c __. F I' _ I I .OARTEL eua.DEPs • ^,�_;. � e..T1-s�lP.lw9.w u•. , , PA%O.0 aa6-{39 ., i I — _ I I' 'n ti/ T. i 20 a • I .�: n_ . , n j • R T._.I v ) • aTra ' I _p a_iJ''' P IS i 6 P • ..i D-71,7`. _ g I pact MLE — P OFFICE-INDUSTRIAL ESA • BULLING for -ES RR---- E COOK 8T. y- e a D :__ p--e-�.+ o6 P T ASSOCIATES.LLG L ,' i L hln Desert.Ca. 4- It >r • 1 _ 9..LIET TIC& 1 �_........,... ==-� �t-. ---� I_ _ ---- — 86hemaNa 8110 Plan P. w SF.ERYL RD. 1I _ -._. rIIII wn 1,A6 j oaM 0 [sc..' ITNe4 .�-.-.1 II _.. SATE I401.0 oaaw INS •we Pal I•ten • A1.0 Schema So Sit.Plan . COOK STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC RESPONSE TO COUNCIL CONCERNS JUNE 14, 2001 1. ENHANCED WEST SIDE OF BUILDING (REAR OF BUILDING): A. Eliminated one roll-up door (now down to four). B. Roll-up doors will be painted to match wall. C. Enhanced framing and shading elements around doors. D. Enhanced landscaping to shield doors and wall (see line of site section). 2. ENHANCED NORTH SIDE OF BUILDING (SIDE FACING APARTMENTS): A. Roofing feature now wrapped around from front. B. Added frame elements along length of wall. C. Enhanced landscaping to soften appearance. 3. CREATED ADDITIONAL PARKING: A. Re-aligned waste bins (adding 3 spaces). B. Re-aligned turnaround area (adding 2 spaces). C. Net requirement: 28 spaces Total Provided: 42 spaces (37 on-site, 5 off-site) 4. ADDED A BUS SHELTER: A. Specific design to be developed with City of Palm Desert sub-committee. B. Art in Public Places fee to be applied towards cost of bus shelter, at discretion of applicant, and subject to staff approval. r.s.leeral,"41. 11 Z ZS 'V I Nred0 1-1•crC ".1.-blaganc:1 1..1-Pcrcmi :.YO'SWANS.11,1 1 MITAVa WOO 11 ICC Zoi sling '.I.'ainoc mNI-10.tei'VC c27 Z 9-ZIP A3AiNIS ONV1 432/410N3 11A10 " "1"-1 "SE105947 110311Na1V totiueo ElOgNVS '`'-'1"•gil' iv" vir•atiow-moc '.1.-allasscs 1.4-mod 3 wins-. SNOIIVASIM 1.1.4vil...4Mi-1ca 7v.•••••••• NOIIVAN-1M 'le lAatini-49 .-............ _ _.__ --____--,--,.. .... --- ./.., v--,"' ., ''' SIIINSlgllPalMielrW . . ,..4,,:=_• =am= -1= ,a,e - , ., .' -row nopille. q i, , E.... _ • ,,, • 4. \ .. 7 .- . . A4- .1:. - , ' 'i. . hman= —r..._. -•=1 _,___E- ki:, .4..;- .41 .0 . Vsk.. " -,.• 'o r s.,"IiYi.' - - 147" IA' - . • - .:.„.":„.4%*10!•:-.1 •V --• 111141111.!11' 111111E, dir. -111"91Wqt — =-... --" ---.- ,;, .v..- .... • •., ..• q.r.`:•• , •i .---,- -.•1.--.-,,,z4--,--kr,„w-::::--:-.----7,1, --: —-----,,--.-- *0.• , , --,..„,„,..... ,,, \ ,. -' e• ." :1)....• - . ...• .-',6.. . k .. ,, ... , NO I IVAMIM .19 >10(71 . -.....•••.mo......-.--................-.1.11•011..."-- ,....M.,AISMO! ....-..- _ ......r_-......m.••- _7... ....n. --7.—...r. — ---..----1 1,-211Th a. - [.......,y,,,,. • ,.-.1. rclitiar4.. k:-.' ''., ' .-.-_-_ I 41111111111114wwIllv. -=.- ,.I ii ): 1111170'Millallin 11101101.ION.PPP, at'titz ' . ''' . lip - iiiiii sa 'isiiiiiimei& r*Iga 4 I b =VII . =II INNIME I N ..k;;-..I.e. -Ilvi • . 'r.--'1 M 6' ''' - .... Ile. IiiiiP/FIVI: 1‘11:::: .'" Alt 411011111111MilifillIL,,.. • !Ili' II I Iiiiii III_ Iiibm,_!!!!!-. ...1.419.t.. i ;;°V,itillialliiMellilliglillIMIIIIIIII :-. ..'f'.,. or s __...... ..____wir,''' , 'i'' -'''' ''., ';: •-:- . : - 1.: •:—. - '.' ' 1 .' ----' '' - ' ' - . - . vilie - - '. ''' -.7‘)4Cli• ' y j _ _. NORTH-I ELEv.4T ION - r z _ os,„ .- ill a i�c�'-As II ,`"". tom■ —�_= �a `..--All ., `i -ma-- _=.. �■ Id' L.i.!'.- WEST ELEVATION SGH T'1.4TIG ELEVATIONS E, PALM OeeeRT, CAL!PORN IA SANBORN SCA.L I, •-f-O' 5i24/01 ARCHITECTURE COO< ST. �SSOG 1.4TES, L.L.C. CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING 42-4�2m CAROL INN COURT, sumo 1m2 ENT aatqLypGMw'YIN PALM DESERT, CAL IFORN IA 9 "2211 ' PAX MOW aaa-x+o SITE PLAN GENERAL NOTES Li•AL DiFCRIPTION PARKIN• R!OVIRtMENTF LOT 0.♦•L OFOOvt*Rr Ou•w....•moo -- Ma 40.F•.9-R IOC.k TEERFI IS 3.M IARQA RFOWIED - 1 RITA.VALE •i f It FORT PARCEL MO. I EN1500!f•U4AREAA - SANB0 ROa-JappDL 002 LEw!t CO.AgH AREA ALLONAIILE -7 PROJECT DATA TOTAL!AC®MOWED 21 'IoPERED ,NAIFFIL EDP•ORS' mkt.*�,� ARCHITECT TT..x0•011 a OWE./FLAN DF••rMTION Fev&.AR••c 20.nAce ae CIVIL ENGINE NWOOCN.VACS 2 LAND SURVE Cc•RnE CTIQ4 1Y.E-TOE V.,R, AREA CALCVLATIO%• TOTAL PACER PROVIDED Y ' SANBORN A/I •lE ARES AA>,p V CCC ALL6J M.F r•c7 APcFr MD**ARIA 425•7 II. aIN r��I�!� NINDlCAIF AREAao2,e FF. M% I227 i nnTi Yg. LAJOILR/pa AMA •,727 IF. 20% PALM SPRINGS CA. SA:TI R/M Y,!-' lL1 '— nin '� f I I DWrJER AFipQ� '-'""F i I I!'i iI v I ) )`' I I O ire90 GROLKC I #ABM p*4t -.-._.. _ r I • T.CA.0 a lir 1 HD-- I}.}� �� I - ` ♦ �� IHf1� Re�r ! 2 �•RAL I ._ CL I ERR.Fu DtRs r .,_��- �wvr.•v�-T •‘'�"- .i. V T-s� •r.R�Rlwv L. I .L A A- A x,P IOW(RA, A ell.D n w w _ EWE 8b'df bS�eg ' Y IAx neln aeo-AAw �yj I lawxt D �� I JyJi I TIT I 404 • [-'- ‘.: 1 ...: , e b _..__._._ 7 I 1 1 rsS. I I O-,,, • - 1 F UII I L 1 =VIFKM• s rJ� 1 • _TI —.... .. .. T. ral (!`r•-ivrv..�'vY I NM"' I ! CJ a Al I ,COPTRRWT .ram _ �f4 f�+/v�^.r...F-,AA }.� ,N1 JD ! ��r ) ! = �_ f/ IA.J' ,- 1' 'ePt ' ' ` �- its• IIIJ Vi- r ♦V'"( I IPD--�'"I� F 1 ij I. 3.1 PROJECT TITLE: At , *� I. Orna-rowTS1 •t.. p o - ! COOK ivr • '• �� r • F • I co ASSOCIATES.IL (:;) , Me IN!!T TITLE �� x 6,17112T:u>z t !� Saha St*ric 81t• tiv --* - \L ^ / \1 .T- ---- Salt cum me 001E9 •wwut Nan -- I _ ( -- O B CS xw Nen AAw -_ '�� --- o SFRYL R . ° — - — MT OM wD • x SCALE r —. — ©_ _J 1� \ I I Deem . MTh I IIFAlT i1D. Sola Site Pan i — _ - „� 1_ - �A� '�, SITE PLAN GENERAL NOTES LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARKIN• Rt OYIR•M■MTt LOT W•OtA CCX .W IS SIE NO '. ift Aq M M NC LI US.CLOG I IA PARN"D gQGIED ETA.PACE Oat P""`°`NO 'OGO P"'A'"' -, SANBORN w.-2.2oa Oc� tow COAT.ON AMA ALLGwANCE -, • PROJECT DATA TOTAL PACER MOWED N xOCIED E 5,MUMS LOG-GE CON PAaaN m a.Ro o ARCHI�TvE�C�TcURE ERSTX3 IONf&We.,PL0.DE9CNATOT. a•LLAR t'R DO'SPACES A 33 CIVIL LJ RalaUul�G NYxA.SPACESLAND SURVEYING 1 CA CO>CT0C-04 T.P!-'.>!v-I.e I ---- -- - AREA CALCULATIONS TOT..LIA® W PROED Y SANBORN Ap/E INC. I I RE awes. ALlJO tR Cox TOTAL ALLW�ct::WVr nJ/• N.aD0C MLA 14Y Y.. ]Ex car G OMpEb�.,(1 Rnl I LAA•8CY6 AMA Nab to 40x PA T[L IT101sj]�>-W°1t1 LANIXCNK AREA O>LO Sr �JH PAR ROG 806-330 lt`_ — OWPC!---- - 1 : i armI° w°°OA iT11.CA.0• Aann ' —.. PAY T= iata1 ,e-ry 77.....,I , `QF.�NIL-2bJT114[TOIE • 011118ULDEPB _ r _\...-r L `,' ...... __r- T 6X�aia w"ro.u.u,,. J SRN D. n ,.o.>,.T . FAR clap V.PSS ao I —_ i D • — —" + *_.. L • • I si F ` . iy , r_ ..._ • as ' �f-,, Irg J q� tar a n jJ` I I _R __. LOTUG TO lJRTWHD-� _._, ..M Ie �F.' I ' �_ — v I.. 2 r__. , . Bans. D • I I •00.TROO _ I1,119— g . , R 'OFFICE-INDUSTRIAL 1i. ° ^R� SUILOf1C for JJ ._ z 'COOK BT. ° '. • D e D O • i ,\ 'ASSOCIATES,LL.G h _ i i —_M_ �� ° -- -.. - i Palm Wont Ca. 7. 010T TRW o a Ca'c..+v ASV c..-zv I .M.>T•T I..., __ Co... xMJTmt aLM _ __-.. ___ _— • _.. SF,ERYL RD. PRm as Iwo ao-m . I e4E I[.2E-0 ..^.y.,-.4 _ _.. __.. _ • ° _— DOTI LOE T /01 mit ^- j N.WSWWSW .. _� t PAIN 06C. • � A1.0ItQT Na 1. . Schematic Sits Plan *-...I .1 .- K 2' __JAI .... ___._.... _._ t COOK STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC RESPONSE TO COUNCIL CONCERNS JUNE 14, 2001 1 . ENHANCED WEST SIDE OF BUILDING (REAR OF BUILDING): A. Eliminated one roll-up door (now down to four). B. Roll-up doors will be painted to match wall. C. Enhanced framing and shading elements around doors. D. Enhanced landscaping to shield doors and wall (see line of site section). 2. ENHANCED NORTH SIDE OF BUILDING (SIDE FACING APARTMENTS): A. Roofing feature now wrapped around from front. B. Added frame elements along length of wall. C. Enhanced landscaping to soften appearance. 3. CREATED ADDITIONAL PARKING: A. Re-aligned waste bins (adding 3 spaces). B. Re-aligned turnaround area (adding 2 spaces). C. Net requirement: 28 spaces Total Provided: 42 spaces (37 on-site, 5 off-site) 4. ADDED A BUS SHELTER: A. Specific design to be developed with City of Palm Desert sub-committee. B. Art in Public Places fee to be applied towards cost of bus shelter, at discretion of applicant, and subject to staff approval. •'.- t' -,- 'k a.•. .. 'N .i 1 v'+. +SAY► • •/i .y �jI{{l p � � r • R # L A= ` f ' , " i i�p� I s18� kl�l � 6I1 ,�,J y• i \�!����%_ �:x!. i.r ;; tiL 1� COOK ST. ELEvAT I ON _ . 4-1 ... s SHEiRYL ST. ELEVATION E SCi-IEMATIC ELEVATIONS .Ian PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA SANBOR SCALE,1/e,r-0' 03/21/01 ARCHITECT'. COOK ST. ASSOC I t4TES, I...1..C. CIVIL ENGINEEF LAND SURVEY 42-62m CAROLINE COURT, SUITE Im2 t227.. N!R[•CIIYT PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA S2211 PALM V!MO. %Mt 2'ail •r 11!-- , r I - - '... i 1 .r +.g ,r�. _ 111 f NORTH ELEv.4TION • 1 ./r il� ''L'SR:A AS: - e _ : .si _ ""' mrir.si 1 MONA-. { uJEST ELEvATION SCHEMATIC ELEv.4TIONS f54LM DESERT, CAL PORN IA S.A� ,,a..,•_o. SANBORN 5/24/01 ARCHITECTURE COO< ST. 4.SSOC I .TES, L.L.C. CIVIL ENGINEERING -.2-620 CAROLINE COURT, SUITOR ICI WI a SURVEYING a RALM A E DESERT, CLIFORNIA S2211 '" ".url «° "NI 11001 fX-r130 ' r BITE PLAN --- GENERAL NOTES LEGAL D1$CRIPTION 1 LOT U O cubAW •♦US OF CNTRT r...LANE NoI PARKIN• RlOVIRl MINT! - M • .PS.►-A WC.I Tn.SCSI 00 Ra a M P 0*MUM • A ORI PARCEL NO. ' AL SAGE atit p 5 SF•DN • -a SA N BO 6,by?4001,002 LEG 99 l 12 e%CCAANON ME A ALLOWANCE -3 PROJECT DATA TOTAL PACES SECURED CS NRSD®aRY[E.RG41 .au4.04 NTr rAHdoNrowta ARCHITECT !In.)zoNNa a osa•.L.LAN ceRCN..TION qaa..♦e 20'!FACES a, CIVIL ENGINE HANDICAP IPACEL ! LAND SURVE I m�TWCCTICN TYPE-nre v-I,r . ARIA CALCULATION! TOTAL a'ACES PROVIDED Y r SANBORN A/I STE AREA ♦a.'30 RF rfpu ILLS**ARA: .iLLBJ SECT NARD,CAPE MEA 90236 6F. mY. =T a C PALM AIEA 0,227.F. 20% .,reo, -F.IT8DI 32a- y J )E I �.! I I I._.._ p F v�J I 2 I I I fl DW1EA I r ) i 1 I J�lppA I1 t ' ,w &In Ms I L T.CA R s • (.rwh ///\^�J �_• I l S] TEL naq am-ease 55 I ♦ ... V } L , Y �J C I I FAA 17001 ¢2R �rii !^'��...% C Li �.._ C' jf m�nll�une� Y.. r v-v.•vrw.l `L` J I ,iW"-R�sp,oRP,mCpl�w L. t LI , __ ,\ A A S A •1' A AA A I I I 1 /x 9 TIAIIeAt,� C T.--` ..: • '1' �u �iJ nD N1 . • , �lS. I i�I J p __ a• �C) .t, I • 9 e , , REVIgONR - I L.�I ii. i \ :, i ..baAaO_ p1i 0)7 • r y ,... f/-/wvb`'1-vis I SLOW x I cD- -N T -Ilan En a\ ; r_Rr 32-, , f• I � oI..;r, I ^ t .tti,.,ri,�-^4 , • • f • SI R ^ I orrla-wusrin _ BUILDING frT � z , COOK ST. • ° I 1 ) v v 6 I • cc s. ASSOCIATES.LL i n I' 1 rRIRI D•rl C,. 5•11EET TITLE _s{-- 1 TrLr i I O 1 // �. r� .k it t• Bahamatk Bits ear=IMO q/PN! •I — O 4 o4lt Nap 1 et Al.Yaot .wa © -�_ 0 O SFRYL RD. • - �..-... !a'1 -- _.. ---- • \as , I INT OAT! iaa[ r • i. DOI • 5 / 1 OWE IRO I Sohamatlo Slta Pan , .;. eI I, Al. L amm.SITE P L A N GENERAL NOTES T SCP CRIE TI DM PARKIN• R■OYIRfMf MTt _ M►DA AO.PO..-A.■C M na COVERT W A A�NO.1 R,amM.REFOUNDPETAL SPACE E ORS PARCEL NO. IN.,*DO SP..■]CT SP.• JJ I}Nil gN�i.20O1002 LE CDA.ION AREA AILQCO -1 SANBORN PROJECT DATA TOTAL EASE MOVED 211 ARCHITECTURE I IRo.c■D■RNJi,rourRTL LTC-OE Dan PA■eND PRO.'OW CIVIL ENGINEERING EETTAQ Zee 1 OVE AL PLAN DEDONA r. NFE<M P S 70'W.sat JS C „......p SPACES 2 LAND SURVEYING CO.■Tec*a.T.PE-TYRE•-r I I1 AREA CALCULATION■ TOTAL wAOES PROVDED JT I SANBORN rA•q/1EN INC. we AREA J515C SP COx ALLSN AMKHr.IOAr..AMA. W LCrf NSA LAMER. Jex 122T a.caA[(TAsITfTT'MAIL MPOSCME ARCH NJ5r,ER JOx eNbbl a CA.W2OA LAPOCCAPTO AREA 0130 SA 2Jx PA T!L nem i25-o.Re RAM MT.976-SW ram'- 1 1 '' ..1, OWDlJb __.—_., _-..._. , �._." 1 f f I"l 2-t2c GANDER CT. L . :OQt eT AEYOCIATEe.LL.C. ,,1 i - IRATE no wl PALM oc.EAr.CA e22p _-_. TEL AOOOI 1TG VOS°2E I I eNa"'A Dew'..of Af ..._ �J`; -_ _,_--9 r W I.O XxxINFxN LP^. '1 r 4s Rs�'S -ems" 3 ; �_ ,, v.p•v.rr au» - _..-; ; . FAX vea 1eo-Reel ' I r__ i- f 1 I I _-. II 1 El (Lr• ` • , I --- - -. . INARVISOOS f I � j 4 Win �: A �- i rww6M�i t. - TDJECr TITLE' Y r� I __ IQpIgCE-MOUSTRUL 31, COOK ST. . "� ; �- E f a D e--v• o - r (ASSOCIATE&LL.C. MIN C _ '�, ri A ', _ I� (weer G. — 1 e T i .J.otter N w ATeeT xtve , ----- f.9e-o'-- ep Ia..? _.._.__ a'1R _ XXI 51-IERYL RD. `�e N` _ ___.. _......._-- nRn wn nn ao-2a. I OM _ I - "' \ I Old® N• i.—.._. ///I,- \1 I - _ awn w.• __i II oNS.0 In.T! • . A1.0 ...... . Schematic Site PMn i Au - ______________,, ,t COOK STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC RESPONSE TO COUNCIL CONCERNS JUNE 14, 2001 1. ENHANCED WEST SIDE OF BUILDING (REAR OF BUILDING): A. Eliminated one roll-up door (now down to four). B. Roll-up doors will be painted to match wall. C. Enhanced framing and shading elements around doors. D. Enhanced landscaping to shield doors and wall (see line of site section). 2. ENHANCED NORTH SIDE OF BUILDING (SIDE FACING APARTMENTS): A. Roofing feature now wrapped around from front. B. Added frame elements along length of wall. C. Enhanced landscaping to soften appearance. 3. CREATED ADDITIONAL PARKING: A. Re-aligned waste bins (adding 3 spaces). B. Re-aligned turnaround area (adding 2 spaces). C. Net requirement: 28 spaces Total Provided: 42 spaces (37 on-site, 5 off-site) 4. ADDED A BUS SHELTER: A. Specific design to be developed with City of Palm Desert sub-committee. B. Art in Public Places fee to be applied towards cost of bus shelter, at discretion of applicant, and subject to staff approval. -- r a w, t k. I l ma '.. ,� Lnin. *4;t � . (-di Pam I I ft:Iliet/ ' ' 1 . . .a ' ., „Alit ,.... t. w rinwmporpqmpi , . ,,, Ism ,giiiiiiii . .._.:. �..; -_ _ ��! ,era_--r -- — _ Jr ......- GOOK ST. ELEvAT I ON • • i ce's • �•:,, y,9y,•- a — r, x ...:71 iiiliiii.. 1=iv ,, '-.7...,. 1.':i.',741111;:,:.."0, , , :N., ,,,,,s1", ,;'..ili 01/4 • S �y VW ----_ —.Mr'.t.-__ _ _.........___ ____ i „in...a_ A SHERYL ST. ELEvATION I. SG HET .4TIC ELEVATIONS PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA SANBOR SCALE.1/8••1'-0' 03/21/01 ARCHITECTI GOO<. ST. ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. CIVIL ENGINEEF LAND SURVEY 42-62m CAROLINE COURT, SUITE IO2 nm e.GENE nurnrr sure c PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92211 `"`"°'-NTE` TEL 1)30,305-w] PA%17e0,325-519 r I> " 0 p0 30p 3m U A U3 A1 A CI n � p or• E PI 0 iv. , r 0 N„, nn0 v � III :,, I pp p p r oil ibiI U ,.- P ZN Zmr ar ' ,� �_n •, _... .o .ri 1,:._ __ ..1 . IIn I III if% • 611' 1 'I . NI -.1 -: I. '` ‘1111hIII 11 III , it, 1ii i ' I' '' '' 1 , �'� IIWI111181,ii` ', lA ,` -._ �i,l� / ii m IIn �m , � a- i o A 0. , ,. ,„, v a t'C)D (I) - zi^ m= ,, c z_ Z.! .. "d" p m0 4Yr 3 m -1 rni SITE NRAL GE E NOTES I LE•AL OERCRIPTION 7ARKIN• REDDIREMENTI - elLOT CM•Da O{ C°CI0O7 CLr VILLAGE NO I M►.a aPAr IOC IR Tr.Mb RR LaA 'won,.rsanso RETAL OR*PARCaL NO Pet SOOtF•IROaiV• a, SANBORN a2A-242OM CO2 LEr 3 RE%COM..AREA ALLOWAPLE -5 f PROJECT DATA TOTAL E•ACEa MOA= 24 MCK®a „URIALTA-OEsroN ARCHITECTURE I ECK raa3 2pa KJ o R ODOM/PLAN DESONATN r rOLt•R 2'SPACER as CIVIL EN 'EEF NG NANOCA,VACS 2 LAND SURVEYING CONTRGTON Tyre-'yrn r,11* 1 I AREA CALCULATION* TOTAL'PACE.PROVCED Y r SANBORNflUS,..HA /�1�E. INC. DTe MIA .]ia0 Lr CON I W�nMTICT I MAD..ARRA Nab,sc. J!% NAmaCAH AiA NAM to .O% Oa�T�.n.o6�KN�p[+JCT�IrpTKAL LµORC/Piq AEA O)60 sc a.N rA TEL ite0l lhCa=a'lE rwa ITAd»s-soo fy _ Lr______,__,..... .. i i `-.._..r R.7 I I ra-m°1A ACTEu-CSc...riI J / I ,/AWEDENT.CA 92211 I 1r , !. I TEL IT IN1-!ES! 1LLL Ax n001 n0-/E2a �+'___ CI j", ,.1, 11 l - DEhlRwL CCNT4ACTORt Rs _`N ,, ••,-....._t' \-.`1 —' I • n-a0 wIro1NN L.'. , 1i ! A „, A 1 *An MMT.411r A .,- i ar .PAALK I a° • 5.1 a • (w54a y 'r *r a lII • ra. ` yam; , .`.. r 1= i i a. t.- ( �_____ . . , ._. . [re � 11 'AEVtEWIY .__ I t y 1 ( T 2 .�E CO Twrw.T 4 e 1! 1 L ----._-_. .....r - 1 a a- E 1 i Ul l _ .o..... J ,ti ' (-u ■. a ,, _. IOFFICE-INDUSTRIAL _._ 11 I _ ASSOCIATES,LL.C. r I a•IA,. :..�.,....-.,_ _:-.-� LJL1 "m • . -. h•matl•ate Plan �I" Sa rra OAP MO roar Ir---Nr.atiRs•wr -._-__ NrMIT AU/ ___. _._---- - 3f L'ATL ROl I ° [ma an wn (co-a. 1,21/01 , oAn 0110.0 MA 1 .// I � aM µa IALaTR �Z Schematic Sits PIA 1 { -- �M6• � I� A1.0 L I / r I 1 1 BITE PLAN GENERAL NOTES LGOAL DGRCRIPTION PAIKINO REQUIREMENTS LOT ty.llA OP COv.TRT CLL sAL._AnG rcA 1 PM AO PO.9-i1 K.W Tan REE Of a M PMiq.!QUIT IRK PACE • A OR9 PARCEL NQ O�R��A• 5 5 SANBO dO.1-7A2-0Ol 002 LE9!15%CCGwON M HJ EA .O'wAISE -3 PROJECT DATA TOTAL SPACES REOIRi® 28 w0•Ce0!MICE/NAfl°l LOP•OR AOP rA rA.rRCHITEC I raw.2O.�.0 A O••RAL ILAN OIPOPMg �O TN .AR.x2 tTJ.AA VIMR..ENGINE] Ncc r PACE �z N LAW SUAVE CO INUCTK2.PTPE-TYPE v-1 Iw ARIA CALCULATIONS TOTAL PACES 1RClvIOL[+ AT P SANBORN A/I WE AREA, 4AJ3p{P nbA ALLENRA•410,1 c1 RILCNO MS& %LTV SP. UN 34 ICAPE AREA '1GOIS Sl. WI1227 S.1!AyC f' LAN2CAPEfP AAEA P'�9 SR 20N PALM.ROW.C-. FAX 17S21 mF .. y 1 `.J n i v'' I O T OWr•El w�Wfin r. • I i I I I i2�a�ao CAROLRi C . I I i !PUTTS E,o S I IALM OHM.CA.P • ♦� A-rMv+-} ( .. / 1 — ; T ) I I cmAl ns�maeo. • I ( i ____.......__ ^-wvvrr�`` L�w...�.. sp��PRrL.RT�HrbYy L. J� A A j A_ JI�.MI°t HIM A A A i1tiA ce Ru D�P!•0I • yyS�'� / j PA)<Rc0/8OU_RRw II I • I a—` " I Y s a is • I { j I q R ' • gEviRlow 1....j I J. 111 00 i- - . Jarw mr•RRaels `T/' PN \lwJ J'r"-rvr�•a.yrYL f 8 s a - 1 G • I I CwvP=NT - ow mm rer { J, `LD1) 1 P I I '. i... —- PROJECT'TITLE L E53 • / �✓. } Arm ° OFFICE- OU 1 BT RI BUILDING tor II ' COOK SF5 - I I ASSOCIATES.Li, l ° _ '� __ \ °m _ ��'? i O rPII DR. (CR. SHEET TITLE �-' .- Sch•m•tfe CHU 0 °/Ofalt NW 1 _ - - 1___ MY.)bVT AAP I C SI-E-RTL RD. ° _ - PINT EAR V. . Pa KILL .ti I ©.. _� �..1I R I DAM 7f5 4. MC RI Reno. • Schema VG 8Itio Plan .. 1 CD Ili Resolution No. 01-59 Ordinance No. 988 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT I. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II. REQUEST: Consideration of a request by Cook Street Associates LLC for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and a precise plan of design for a 16,000 square foot office/showroom building at the northwest corner of Sheryl Avenue and Cook Street, 42-595 Cook Street. Request also includes approval of a development agreement which will limit uses in the project to those with a parking requirement of two spaces per 1 ,000 square feet of floor area or less. III. APPLICANT: Cook Street Associates, LLC 42-620 Caroline Court, Suite 120 Palm Desert, CA 92211 IV. CASE NOS: PP 01-03 and DA 01 -01 V. DATE: May 10, 2001 VI. CONTENTS: A. Staff Recommendation B. Discussion VII. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft Resolution No. 01-59 and Draft Ordinance No. 988 B. Planning Commission Minutes C. Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 2064 and 2065 D. Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 17, 2001 E. Related maps and exhibits MEETING DATE 5 - 10 —61 ►�1 CONTINUED TO l 9` ` y--tO 0 PASSED TO 2ND READING Resolution No. 01-59 Ordinance No. 988 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. PP 01-03 AND DA 01-01 MAY 10, 2001 A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1 . That City Council adopt Resolution No. 01-59 approving Case No. PP 01- 03. 2. That City Council pass Ordinance No. 988 passing Case No. DA 01-01 to second reading. B. DISCUSSION: 1 . PROJECT ISSUES: The applicant seeks approval of a 16,000 square foot single story specialty limited retail use building with ancillary office space in the O.P. zone at the northwest corner of Cook Street and Sheryl Avenue. The office professional (O.P.) Zone is generally reserved for general office and medical office uses. As a conditional use the O.P. district permits "art galleries." In this case the applicant proposes to forego the basic O.P. uses in favor of lower intensity showroom / retail / warehouse uses. While the project will emphasize retail more than is typical in the O.P. district, the intensity of use will be less than a typical office use. A general office building on this site could be expected to be 11 ,500 square feet with 46 parking spaces and an expected trip generation of 127 vehicles per day. This project will provide 32 parking spaces and with the showroom/ warehouse type of use has an estimated trip generation of 96 trips per day. The reduced parking which is being provided will forever limit the intensity of use of this site. Hence the need for the development agreement which is part of this application. The applicant has provides signed statements from five (5) nearby residents supporting the application. 2 Resolution No. 01-59 Ordinance No. 988 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. PP 01-03 AND DA 01-01 MAY 10, 2001 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project takes its access from two driveways on Sheryl Avenue. The east driveway leads north to 16 parking spaces located between the building and Cook Street. This is a dead-end row of parking with a turn around space at the north end. The west driveway leads to 16 more parking spaces and five overhead loading doors in the rear of the building. This driveway is also a dead-end design without a turn around space. Architecture will be contemporary. The main building material will be grey precision block with red split-face block similar to the Hovley Lane Post Office. In the center of the Cook Street elevation a 30-foot high tower is shown. That tower element and shed roof sections are finished in standing seam metal in a Douglas pine green. March 13, 2001 ARC granted preliminary approval of the project architecture. 3. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: North: R-3 (4) / Two Story Apartments South: R-1 / Vacant East: SI / Vacant West: R-3 (4) / Three Single Family Dwellings PROJECT DATA Project O.P. District Site Size 45,730 square feet 15,000 square feet minimum Building Area 16,000 square feet 22,865 square feet Coverage 36% 50% Building Height 22' + 30' tower 25' + towers to 50' Parking* 32 spaces 64 spaces typical 32 "if limited to showroom" Landscaping 24% N/A 3 Resolution No. 01-59 Ordinance No. 988 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. PP 01-03 AND DA 01-01 MAY 10, 2001 PROJECT DATA CONTINUED Project O.P. District Setbacks **Cook Street 74 feet 15 feet Sheryl Avenue 17 feet 15 feet North (side) 10 feet 10 feet West (rear) 60 feet 46 feet * The applicant intends to use the building primarily for showroom/warehouse space which has a parking requirement of 1 space per 500 square feet (32 spaces). A typical office building would be parked at 1 space per 250 square feet (64 spaces). In order to recommend the project, staff is requiring a development agreement which will limit the uses in the building to those having a 1 space/500 square foot parking requirement. (See discussion later.) ** Setbacks from the residential project to the north must meet the required setback for that project (i.e., 10 feet). Setback from the west is based on the land use to the west (single story single family dwellings which is calculated as follows: 20 feet plus 6.43 feet of setback for each foot of building height above 18 feet (4 x 6.43 = 25.72 = 45.72). 4. ANALYSIS: Permitted and conditional permitted uses in the O.P. zone range from general offices to churches to art galleries. Parking for this range of uses is variable depending on the use. For parking purposes staff considers that art galleries would fall within the "furniture and appliance store" category (i.e., one space for each 500 square feet of gross floor area). The applicant indicates that his project will focus on being a showroom/ warehouse facility such as are currently located in the service industrial area to the north and east (i.e., electrical or plumbing or audio/video showroom facilities with large warehouse areas and small office areas). This is consistent with art galleries which are permitted uses in the O.P. district with approval of a conditional use permit. We feel that the 4 Resolution No. 01-59 Ordinance No. 988 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. PP 01-03 AND DA 01-01 MAY 10, 2001 showrooms with warehousing use is compatible with the surrounding area. Staff is concerned that over time the base zoning (OP/professional office) may become the prime use if there is no formal limitation placed on the permitted uses for this project. We could just approve the precise plan with a condition limiting the permitted uses to those uses with a parking requirement of two spaces per 1 ,000 square feet or less, however, over time that limitation could be forgotten especially on sale of the property. Staff looked at various means of limiting the uses including rezoning the site to service industrial, but ruled it out due to our desire to limit impacts on the residential uses to the north and west. We feel that a development agreement which will limit uses in the project to only those which have a parking requirement of two spaces per 1 ,000 square feet or less as prescribed in Municipal Code Section 25.58.210 "Commercial and Industrial Off-Street Parking Schedule" is the only avenue available to us to approve this project. The development agreement will be recorded in the County Recorder's Office so any purchaser of the property will be on notice of the limited permitted uses. The project is designed with five overhead loading doors facing west. This side of the site will be enclosed with a masonry wall and landscaping. The west parking and off-loading area has the potential to create noise impacts for the residences to the west. We will condition this project to limit hours of deliveries and to prohibit outdoor storage in the parking spaces. The project has two dead-end aisle situations which staff typically is reluctant to accept. In this instance the Public Works Department has prohibited access to or from Cook Street so the applicant is limited to how he can design his circulation. The applicant prefers not to create a driveway around the north end of the site due to the building area which would be lost. This solution would also bring traffic much closer to the apartment units to the north. The Fire Department has reviewed the current site plan and can accept it as they have street access on three sides of the building. 5 Resolution No. 01-59 Ordinance No. 988 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. PP 01-03 AND DA 01-01 MAY 10, 2001 It would be simpler if we had ageneral or medical office project on this p site with appropriate parking so that in the long term we have a clear understanding of how the site will be used. The applicant has advised us that given the site's isolated location (i.e., no office uses currently around it) that he cannot proceed in that direction. At this time the applicant feels that showroom/warehouse uses are the only way he can proceed. The only way staff can support a project of this type is if we have the development agreement to formally assure that the uses are permanently limited to uses having lower parking and traffic generation requirements. Staff recommends approval of the precise plan subject to the applicant entering into a development agreement. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: April 17, 2001 , the Planning Commission considered this request and on a 3-1-1 vote recommended approval with Commissioner Finerty voting nay and Commissioner Jonathan abstaining. Commissioner Finertynoted that the type of buildingand architecture did YP not fit in the O.P. zone or on a major arterial street. She expressed concern with loading docks and overhead doors backing onto single family dwellings and that they were not consistent with office professional land use. Grey precision block also did not fit in the O.P. zone (see further discussion on page 44 of Planning Commission minutes). 6. CEQA REVIEW: The project has been reviewed for compliance with CEQA and the Director of Community Development has determined that the project will not have an adverse impact on the environment. A Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared and is recommended to City Council for certification. 6 Resolution No. 01-59 Ordinance No. 988 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. PP 01-03 AND DA 01-01 MAY 10, 2001 Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved: TEVE SMI PHILIP DRELL PLANNING MANAGER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 4/4.4„.g_ew ar: Review and Concur: ARDERS CARLOS L. O TEGA ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER OF CITY MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES /t m 7 RESOLUTION NO. 01-59 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN FOR A 16,000 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE/SHOWROOM BUILDING WITH ANCILLARY OFFICE SPACE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SHERYL AVENUE AND COOK STREET, 42-595 COOK STREET. CASE NO. PP 01-03 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 1st day of May, 2001 , hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of COOK STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC for approval of the above noted case; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended approval of Case No. PP 01-03 by Resolution No. 2064; 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. 00-24," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact 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 approval of said request: 1 . The precise plan is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Office Professional zone. 2. The design of the precise plan and the manner in which it will be operated will not substantially depreciate property values, nor be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. The precise plan of design as conditioned will not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes. 4. The precise plan will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. RESOLUTION NO. 01-59 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 City Council in this case. 2. That Case No. Precise Plan 01 -03 is hereby approved, subject to conditions. 3. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (Exhibit A attached hereto) is hereby certified. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this day of , 2001 , by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JIM FERGUSON, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 2 RESOLUTION NO. 01-59 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. PP 01-03 Department of Community Development: 1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the Department of Building and Safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas. Said placement shall be approved by applicable trash company and Department of Community Development and shall include a recycling program. 3 RESOLUTION NO. 01-59 6. Project is subject to Art in Public Places program per Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 4.10. Method of compliance shall be established prior to completion of the Architectural Review Commission process. 7. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to these conditions. Applicant will 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 specific intent of the parties that this condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. The final landscape plan shall include a long-term maintenance program specifying among other matters appropriate watering times, fertilization and pruning for various times of the year for the specific materials to be planted, as well as periodic replacement of materials. All to be consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801 ) and the approved landscape plan. 8. Approval of PP 01-3 is subject to adoption of an ordinance by City Council approving Development Agreement 01-01 , which limits uses of the proposed warehouse/ showroom building to those with a parking requirement of two spaces per 1 ,000 square feet of gross floor area or less per Municipal Code Section 25.58.310. Office space for any one tenant shall not exceed 20% of the lease space. 9. That delivery hours to businesses in this project shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. 10. That business hours shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 10:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. The City hereby reserves the right to further limit business hours on Saturdays and Sundays should it be demonstrated that the project is creating unexpected noise or other impacts on surrounding residential uses. 11 . Final landscape plan shall comply with the parking lot tree planting master plan. 12. The project shall be subject to all applicable fees at time of issuance of permits, including but not limited to, Art in Public Places, TUMF and school mitigation, and low income housing mitigation fees. 4 RESOLUTION NO. 01-59 13. That the street and sidewalk improvement plans include provision of bus stop(s) and shelter(s) with the architecture complementing the building architecture, to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development and Sunline Transit. Director of Public Works: 1. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and Palm Desert Ordinance Number 653, shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading permit. 2. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading permit. 3. Any storm drain construction associated with this project shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. 4. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards. All public improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. 5. As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance with Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. Offsite improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works and a surety posted to guarantee the installation of all required offsite improvements prior to issuance of a grading permit. Such improvements shall include, but not be limited to, widen Cook Street frontage to 43' half-width with 55' right of way dedication, widen Sheryl Avenue frontage to 22' half-width with 30' right of way dedication, minimum 8' sidewalk on Cook Street and a minimum 6' foot wide sidewalk on Sheryl Avenue and two minimum twenty-four foot wide drive approaches on Sheryl Avenue. "As- built" plans shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of Public Works prior to the acceptance of the improvements by the City. 5 RESOLUTION NO. 01-59 6. All private driveways and parking lots shall be inspected by the engineering department and a standard inspection fee paid prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 7. Landscaping maintenance on Cook Street, Sheryl Avenue and alley frontages shall be the responsibility of the property owner. 8. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 27, complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. 9. Size, number and location of driveways to the specifications of the Department of Public Works with two driveway approaches on Sheryl Avenue to serve this project. 10. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans by the Director of Public Works and the issuance of a valid encroachment permit by the Department of Public Works. 11. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of the grading permit. 12. Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Section 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 13. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment of said fees shall be at time of building permit issuance. 14. Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust (PM10) Control as well as Section 24.20, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. 15. As required under Sections 26.32 and 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, all existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground per the respective utility district recommendation should said district be formed. 6 RESOLUTION NO. 01-59 Riverside County Fire Department: 1 . With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced project, Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Codes, NFPA, UFC, and UBC or any recognized fire protection standards. The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all buildings per UFC article 87. 2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible materials are placed on the job site. 3. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of providing a gpm flow of 3000 gpm for commercial buildings. 4. The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant(s) (4" x 2-1 /2" x 2-1/2"), located not less than 25' nor more than 150' from any portion of a commercial building measured via vehicular travelway. 5. Water plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the water system will produce the required fire flow. 6. Install a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all buildings with a 3,000 square foot total cumulative floor area. The Fire Marshal shall approve the locations of all post indicator valves and fire department connections. All valves and connections shall not be less than 25' from the building and within 50' of an approved hydrant. Exempted are one and two family dwellings. 7. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and water-flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per UBC Chapter 9. 8. Install a fire alarm system as required by the UBC Chapter 3. 9. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than one 2A10BC extinguisher per 3,000 square feet and not over 75' walking distance. A "K" type fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens. 7 RESOLUTION NO. 01-59 10. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall not be less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Whereparallel parkingis required on both sides of the street the roadwaymust Q be 36' wide and 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). 11 . Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers or other means provisions shall be made to install a "Knox Box" key over-ride system to allow for emergency vehicle access. Minimum gate width shall be 16" with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6". 12. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city. 13. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be submitted separately to the Fire Marshal for approval prior to construction. 14. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when building permits are not obtained within 12 months. OTHER: Provide plans on fire hydrant lay out. 8 RESOLUTION NO. 01-59 EXHIBIT A Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the California Code of Regulations. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: PP 01-03 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Cook Street Associates, LLC 42-620 Caroline Court, Suite 120 Palm Desert, California 92211 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: A 16,000 square foot warehouse/showroom building with ancillary office space for property located at the northwest corner of Sheryl Avenue and Cook Street, 42-595 Cook Street. 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. PHILIP DRELL DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9 MINUTES Lill SUBJECT TO PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION , g r — REVISION APRIL 17, 2001 Chairperson Lopez agreed. He thought they were getting very close and he felt much more comfortable with the concept and asked for a motion of continuance for one month. Chairperson Lopez stated that the public hearing would remain open. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Chairperson Lopez, continuing this matter to May 15, 2001 by minute motion. Motion carried 5- 0. F. Case Nos. PP 01-03 and DA 01-01 - COOK STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and a precise plan of design for a 16,000 square foot showroom/warehouse building with ancillary office space at the northwest corner of Sheryl Avenue and Cook Street, 42-595 Cook Street. Request also includes approval of a development agreement which will limit uses in the project to those with a parking requirement of two spaces per 1 ,000 square feet of floor area or less. Mr. Smith noted that commission received a copy of the full set of plans in their packets. The property is 45,700 square feet, vacant and located at the northwest corner of Sheryl Avenue and Cook Street. The property sloped north to south and was currently zoned Office Professional. To the north were two-story apartment buildings and to the west were three single family dwellings that front on the street to the west. To the south is vacant property. To the east across the street is vacant property. The request is for a 16,000 square foot showroom/warehouse building with some ancillary office space. The project would have access from two driveways on Sheryl Avenue. The easterly driveway would go into 16 parking spaces and one turn around parking space. The front of the building would be located on the east side facing Cook Street. There would be a second driveway access further west on Sheryl leading to 16 more parking spaces, the trash area at the north end and then five overhead doors where some loading and off loading of vehicles would occur. At the west edge of the property is an existing 20-foot alley that runs between Sheryl and Merle to the north and then three single family 38 ri SUBJECT TO MINUTES AFT - PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 17, 2001 residences. The southerly corner residential unit had its garage on the east corner. The building elevations were as shown. The most prominent feature was a 30-foot high tower element in the center of the Cook Street frontage. There would be a green metal seamed roof feature over the perimeters of the buildings, at least over the east and south perimeters. He indicated that the building elevations and architecture were given preliminary approval by ARC at its March 13 meeting. He stated that while the parking doesn't comply with a typical office standard of four spaces per 1 ,000 square feet, it did comply with the showroom provisions which were two spaces per 1 ,000 square feet. That was the use for which the applicant was applying. The setbacks, particularly from the north and west, were dictated by the zones. To the north would be a 10-foot side yard which was consistent with the apartment site. To the west the OP zone dictated 46 feet, which the project met. The OP zone allows for a wide range of uses, so if they were going to use the uses at the lower end of the parking standard, staff was looking for some long term assurance that the use of the building would stay within the uses at that parking level. Staff felt that showroom usage, art galleries and furniture stores were appropriate parked at two spaces per 1 ,000. He said that they were showrooms generally oriented toward interior design functions. They took a look of various means of assuring that the long term use would stay within that parking. They looked at rezoning but staff didn't think that was appropriate. Staff came up with the applicant entering into a development agreement with the City that would be recorded against the property so that upon sale it would be there for whoever was purchasing the property to see that they couldn't put in a general office use even though the zoning was office professional. The project as conditioned with its limited uses as outlined on page four of the development agreement would limit uses to art galleries, interior design showrooms, audio visual showrooms, plumbing showrooms, electrical and lighting showrooms, furniture showrooms, floor covering showrooms, window treatment showrooms, and other similar uses as determined by Planning Commission to be no more objectionable than those delineated above. If they came up with some use that fit that 9th criteria, then it was possible they might be back here seeking approval of additional use(s). As conditioned, the project would have less traffic than a general office use at around 11 ,500 square feet. They estimated about 96 vehicle trips per day for this facility. General office at about 11 ,500 could expect approximately 127 trips. Staff was recommending approval of the application, but it was subject to and only if the development agreement is adopted so that they have long term assurance that the property would only function pursuant 39 rti SUBJECT TO MINUTES r REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 17, 2001 to those permitted uses specified. For purposes of CEQA, staff was recommending certification of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. Commissioner Campbell asked if the developer was in favor of signing the development agreement. Mr. Smith said they had numerous conversations and he was aware of staff's concerns and he could address that question. Commissioner Finerty asked to see the rendering with the colors. Commissioner Campbell asked if it was a copper roof. Mr. Smith said it was a green metal roof. Chairperson Lopez asked if the City has entered into a development agreement at any other time as it pertains to a situation similar to this. Mr. Smith said the City has entered into development agreements, but not for a situation like this that he could recall. The more recent ones related to assisted living facilities and affordable units. Chairperson Lopez asked whose responsibility it was to monitor this ten years from now. Mr. Smith said ultimately it was the City's. Ten or 15 years down the line if someone issued a business license for an office use in that location and parking became a problem and the neighborhood started complaining about it, then someone would dig up the file and see that there was mistake made. Mr. Drell said that with the new computer system and notations on the map, they would try to have as many fail safe mechanisms to alert any future Certificate of Use that would trigger this. Obviously it was a complication in terms of the enforcement process. Mr. Smith said that on page four he would like to make some modifications to the conditions. Under number eight, the second line would "limit" uses, not "identify" them. Number ten would be replaced with a condition that reads, "That business hours shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 10:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday. The City hereby reserves the right to further limit hours on Saturdays Sundays should it be demonstrated that the business y Y project is creating unexpectedP noise or other impacts on surrounding residential ro� uses." Chairperson Lopez asked if loading and unloading would be confined to 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Commissioner Finerty asked if there were any other sites within the Office Professional zone that were similar to this where there were roll up doors at 14 feet and more of a warehouse atmosphere. Mr. Smith said the Office Professional he could relate to was located on Monterey and Fred Waring, so 40 op r, ri FT SUBJECT TO / MINUTES - 4 REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 17, 2001 the answer was no. He couldn't think of another area. Commissioner Finerty asked if it would be fair to say that something like this would generally go into the city's Service Industrial zoning. Mr. Smith said there certainly were showroom facilities of this type in the industrial area. He was trying to think if there were any showrooms or art galleries in the OP district. He wasn't aware of any with the overhead doors. Commission Campbell said that on Corporate Way there was an art place with roll up doors. Mr. Smith said that was in the Service Industrial zone. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the property to the south was zoned OP. Mr. Smith said it was zoned single family residential. Mr. Drell indicated that in the past a bowling alley application had been considered for that location. Mr. Greenwood said he would like to amend a Public Works condition on page six, number 15. He wanted to add at the end, "should said district be formed." Mr. Drell said that the justification for the recommendation was that the applicant was proposing a use that was less intensive than what would be permitted under the OP zone, but not explicitly permitted by the OP zone. They didn't want to change the zone to SI which would allow a bunch of other uses which staff didn't want at this site. The C-1 zone would allow a much more intense retail use, so of those three zones as a base zone, OP was the least intensive. That was why they chose to keep it OP. With these restrictions, although allowing some uses that were not explicitly allowed in the OP, the ones that they were allowing were less intensive than those permitted in the OP. That was the line of thought they came up with to arrive at this solution. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. SABBY JONATHAN, 42-620 Caroline Court, Suite 102 in Palm Desert, thanked staff. Being on the other end of the process, he said he had a new found appreciation for their professionalism and he has heard from clients all along how nice the City of Palm Desert is to work in as a developer and he was experiencing it first hand. They are truly helpful, concerned and professional and knew what they were doing. So it was a pleasure to work with them. To refresh the commission's memory, he explained that one and a half to two years ago the prior 41 SUBJECT Ti MINUTES at $ t1 A REVISION � 3 � PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 17, 2001 owner came to the City and asked how the commission would feel about a retail showroom type of use and got a unanimous reply that it sounded good and it could be appropriate. He said that at that time he had no idea that he would be interested in this property, but upon the subsequent purchase, they decided they wanted to do a retail showroom type of use. They looked at other uses including offices, medical, and they have had numerous offers from gas station operators. But in talking to the neighbors and analyzing the situation they felt that the retail showroom was least intensive and the most appropriate for this corner. There was nothing other than service industrial type uses facing on the Cook Street frontage between Hovley and Fred Waring. That was all there was, so this was consistent with that. He said they thought they would be coming in with a change of zone request. But the City expressed concern about the type of open-ended use under Service Industrial. They could end up with more intensive, more noisy type uses. They didn't have a problem with the request but wanted to limit the use to certain types of activities that would be a quiet use. He said that was fine. As the applicant, he was letting the commission know that he was open to any way they wanted to do it. They could do it either as a change of zone, a condition of approval, or as a development agreement. He was okay with any and all of the above. Basically they wanted to develop what they were seeing. It was kind of a high scale interior design, maybe like Bath Kitchen Elegance, high end appliances or window coverings. Those types of tenants mostly having to do with interior design and probably catering to the high end market. Maybe to the designer trade and to the retail trade. If there was a furniture place, the doors in the back were primarily for loading and unloading furniture. It wasn't an industrial type use door, just access to the open storage area. He said they were open to any way the commission wanted to make that happen. He noted that they talked to the surrounding neighbors and had unanimous support. He had letters from all the surrounding neighbors with the exception of Mr. Simons, who was present. He didn't think he had any opposition. The residential owners signed letters of support. He hoped they did their homework and seemed to have neighborhood support. His architect, Mr. Alan Sanborn, was present and he would go over a couple of technical matters. 42 V o r SUBJECT TO MINUTES REVLS10M r PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION Loi I T . APRIL 17, 2001 MR. ALAN SANBORN, 1227 South Gene Autry Trail in Palm Springs, said he had a couple of items that needed clarification. Public Works condition number five said that they needed to widen the Cook Street frontage to 43 feet half width to coincide with the existing frontage up and down the rest of Cook Street. Then they had a condition about the overhead utility lines. If they widened the street, the existing utility pole ended up in the middle of the street. There was a concern with timing on those two things happening, the undergrounding and the widening of the street. One possibility was to bond for future street improvements at which time when poles go down, they would widen the street. Or they could come up with some other solutions. It was a concern that those two didn't seem to coexist at the same time. Regarding the 22-foot half street on Sheryl, there was already a 30-foot right-of-way dedication that exists. He believed the existing half-street is 18 feet. Whether the 22 feet was a plan to extend further west to the residential area or if it was some future widening of the street, he suggested that they could participate when the whole street gets done versus putting in 22 feet now and have it jog back 18 feet at the alley. So he was also concerned about the timing of that issue. Everything else seemed straightforward. Mr. Greenwood said that with regard to the widening on Cook Street it was widening that needed to happen, sooner rather than later, but they have some latitude and would work with the developer. In all likelihood they would need the widening before the undergrounding was ready to happen and in that case they would rather go ahead with the widening now and whatever happened with the utility lines happened. On the Sheryl widening, with the previous proposed commercial project across the street on Sheryl they had required a similar widening to accommodate the additional traffic that would happen in that area and the additional turning movements. It wasn't planned to go further west into the neighborhood, just in the commercial area. In both cases he felt they needed to stick with building the improvements now. Mr. Drell asked if they would just move the poles over. Mr. Greenwood said that they could move it a number of feet without rewiring the poles, but that was limited to four or five feet. In all likelihood they would install new poles and rewire them. At some later date they would underground them. They wouldn't be sitting in the middle of the road. 43 I MINUTES SUBJECT TO PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION , , AFT_ REVISION APRIL 17, 2001 Commissioner Campbell asked if there was going to be a wall on Cook Street of if there would be landscaping on Cook and then the parking area. Mr. Jonathan said they would shield the parking lot from view with a six-foot wall in the center location and there would be landscaping inside and outside the wall as well as against the building. Commissioner Campbell asked about the egress from the parking areas and if they would be able to make left turns on Sheryl from both points. Mr. Greenwood said yes. Commissioner Campbell noted that there was a problem with the other project and they weren't allowed to make a right turn but had to go all the way around. Mr. Greenwood said they wouldn't want to do anything that would cause commercial traffic to be forced into the residential neighborhood. The alternative was to allow left turns there. The traffic on Sheryl was pretty low, so the left turns could be accommodated pretty easily. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Campbell stated that she would recommend approval as long as the developer signed the development agreement and hoped no slip ups occurred in the future. Commissioner Finerty said this was tough because for the past two and a half years she has listened to Mr. Jonathan and had learned a tremendous amount. One of the things that really resonated with her was that they shouldn't compromise the type of buildings they have, even in service industrial. They want the service industrial buildings to look really nice. Her concern was this type of a building, which reminded her of a post office, she didn't believe fit into office professional. She had never seen a project in OP that looked like this. The other concern was that this was on a major arterial. She knew they were sensitive about the buildings on the main arterials such as Cook. They wanted a nice entrance into the city and Mr. Jonathan had taught her to pay attention to that as well. She didn't believe that this was a project that belongs in OP. It would be a great project in service industrial. She appreciated the use as far as wanting to cater to the high end market and going with the less intensive use. What went with this type of use were unfortunately the loading docks and the 14-foot roll up doors which were inconsistent with office professional and more associated with service 44 a MINUTES P }- SUBJECT TO PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION i r REVISION APRIL 17, 2001 Commissioner Campbell asked if there was going to be a wall on Cook Street of if there would be landscaping on Cook and then the parking area. Mr. Jonathan said they would shield the parking lot from view with a six-foot wall in the center location and there would be landscaping inside and outside the wall as well as against the building. Commissioner Campbell asked about the egress from the parking areas and if they would be able to make left turns on Sheryl from both points. Mr. Greenwood said yes. Commissioner Campbell noted that there was a problem with the other project and they weren't allowed to make a right turn but had to go all the way around. Mr. Greenwood said they wouldn't want to do anything that would cause commercial traffic to be forced into the residential neighborhood. The alternative was to allow left turns there. The traffic on Sheryl was pretty low, so the left turns could be accommodated pretty easily. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Campbell stated that she would recommend approval as long as the developer signed the development agreement and hoped no slip ups occurred in the future. Commissioner Finerty said this was tough because for the past two and a half years she has listened to Mr. Jonathan and had learned a tremendous amount. One of the things that really resonated with her was that they shouldn't compromise the type of buildings they have, even in service industrial. They want the service industrial buildings to look really nice. Her concern was this type of a building, which reminded her of a post office, she didn't believe fit into office professional. She had never seen a project in OP that looked like this. The other concern was that this was on a major arterial. She knew they were sensitive about the buildings on the main arterials such as Cook. They wanted a nice entrance into the city and Mr. Jonathan had taught her to pay attention to that as well. She didn't believe that this was a project that belongs in OP. It would be a great project in service industrial. She appreciated the use as far as wanting to cater to the high end market and going with the less intensive use. What went with this type of use were unfortunately the loading docks and the 14-foot roll up doors which were inconsistent with office professional and more associated with service 44 r MINUTES FT-. SUBJECT TO PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REVISION APRIL 17, 2001 industrial. There was a complication with the parking limiting it to 32 spaces and they had to be concerned with the uses in the DDA. That was another concern that perhaps staff could look out for but it left room for another error. She would be reluctant to vote for this project in an office professional zone. She didn't believe that the grey precision block fit in the OP zone, nor did she believe it was the desired architecture for Cook Street. Commissioner Tschopp said he didn't have a concern with the architecture. He thought it was bold and different, but that it fit in with some of the other things going on there, so he didn't have a real problem with that. He thought that staff had addressed the concerns and issues he had. His only question was if the developer really wanted to sign this type of development agreement. Times change and things change and the real concern was down the road and if he really wanted that type of development agreement sitting on it. Other than that, the truck access needed to be limited beyond Sheryl past Clifford. He was surprised that some of the neighbors didn't have concerns with the doors but it seemed to work in the neighborhood and he didn't have a problem with it as proposed with the development agreement. Chairperson Lopez thought the concept was very interesting and that the architecture lent itself to the area and would add to the area. The development agreement would address his concern as to what would happen with this project down the road in keeping the parking issue at hand and the use in this particular area. He was a little concerned about the operation of the facilities on Saturday and Sunday. In the original condition it was open on Saturday and closed on Sunday. He was going to suggest that they also close on Saturday. If there was any opposition at all in the correspondence, it had to do with the use of this area on the weekends for the residents in the area. He was a little concerned about that. Otherwise, the rest of the project was fine. By opening for business on Saturday and Sunday, they left the door open for people to make deliveries on Saturday and Sunday and he thought it was inherent when doing business. If someone got behind on deliveries, they would make deliveries on Sundays and he thought it could create problems for the residents. He was concerned about the ability on Sunday. He could live with it on Saturday. He asked if there was a direction they could go. Mr. Drell explained that there were religious groups whose Sabbath was Friday or Saturday, so he didn't think it was appropriate to differentiate Saturday or Sunday. He agreed that if they would prohibit it, it would be on both Saturday and Sunday. That was consistent with the fact that offices were 45 � r 8 MINUTES _ SUBJECI TO PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION " REVISION APRIL 17, 2001 typically closed on Saturday and Sunday. On the other hand, they have reserved the right in the agreement to close them on Saturday and Sunday. He wasn't sure what sort of noise would be generated, but he was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and if there was a problem, they would address it. He would agree that if they were going to close it, it should be on both Saturday and Sunday. Chairperson Lopez said he wasn't opposed to giving them this opportunity and the benefit of the doubt. He would rely on the residents because he was concerned and knew that when he worked Monday through Friday and sometimes on Saturday, he was looking forward to a quiet day in his backyard or in his residence on Sunday and if there was business going on over there that was obtrusive in the way of noise, that would be a concern to him if he was a resident. He noted that there were a couple of yards there and everyone supported it, but he was concerned that they supported the closure on Sunday and wasn't sure what had been presented to them. Commissioner Campbell noted that one letter requested no late night hours after dark, no early hours Saturday or Sunday. It didn't request eliminating Saturday or Sunday, just no early hours. She noted that she works six days a week and looks forward to going somewhere on Sundays. Chairperson Lopez asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-1 -1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no, Commissioner Jonathan abstained). It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 2064 and 2065, recommending approval of PP 01-03 and DA 01-01 to City Council, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 3-1-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no, Commissioner Jonathan abstained). IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Case Nos. C/Z 00-02 and PP 01-02 - ROBERT ORR, Applicant Per Planning Commission direction on April 3, 2001 , presentation of a resolution denying a request for approval of a Negative 46 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2064 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 A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN FOR A 16,000 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE/SHOWROOM BUILDING WITH ANCILLARY OFFICE SPACE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SHERYL AVENUE AND COOK STREET, 42-595 COOK STREET. CASE NO. PP 01 -03 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 17th day of April, 2001 , hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of COOK STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC for approval of the above noted case; 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. 00-24," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact 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 recommending to City Council approval of said request: 1 . The precise plan is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Office Professional zone. 2. The design of the precise plan and the manner in which it will be operated will not substantially depreciate property values, nor be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. The precise plan of design as conditioned will not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes. 4. The precise plan will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That approval of Precise Plan 01 -03 is hereby recommended to City Council for approval, subject to conditions. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2064 3. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (Exhibit A attached hereto) is recommended for certification. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 17th day of April, 2001 , by the following vote, to wit: AYES: CAMPBELL, TSCHOPP, LOPEZ NOES: FINERTY ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: JONATHAN J OPEZ, i person ATTEST: 1>IL:4 PHILIP DRELL, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2064 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. PP 01-03 Department of Community Development: 1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the Department of Building and Safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas. Said placement shall be approved by applicable trash company and Department of Community Development and shall include a recycling program. 6. Project is subject to Art in Public Places program per Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 4.10. Method of compliance shall be established prior to completion of the Architectural Review Commission process. 7. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to these conditions. Applicant will 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 specific intent of the parties that this condition and 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2064 agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. The final landscape plan shall include a long-term maintenance program specifying among other matters appropriate watering times, fertilization and pruning for various times of the year for the specific materials to be planted, as well as periodic replacement of materials. All to be consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801) and the approved landscape plan. 8. Approval of PP 01-3 is subject to adoption of an ordinance by City Council approving Development Agreement 01-01 , which limits uses of the proposed warehouse/ showroom building to those with a parking requirement of two spaces per 1 ,000 square feet of gross floor area or less per Municipal Code Section 25.58.310. Office space for any one tenant shall not exceed 20% of the lease space. 9. That delivery hours to businesses in this project shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. 10. That business hours shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 10:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. The City hereby reserves the right to further limit business hours on Saturdays and Sundays should it be demonstrated that the project is creating unexpected noise or other impacts on surrounding residential uses. 11 . Final landscape plan shall comply with the parking lot tree planting master plan. 12. The project shall be subject to all applicable fees at time of issuance of permits, including but not limited to, Art in Public Places, TUMF and school mitigation, and low income housing mitigation fees. 13. That the street and sidewalk improvement plans include provision of bus stop(s) and shelter(s) with the architecture complementing the building architecture, to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development and Sunline Transit. Director of Public Works: 1. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and Palm Desert Ordinance Number 653, shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading permit. 2. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79- 55, shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading permit. 3. Any storm drain construction associated with this project shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2064 4. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards. All public improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. 5. As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance with Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. Offsite improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works and a surety posted to guarantee the installation of all required offsite improvements prior to issuance of a grading permit. Such improvements shall include, but not be limited to, widen Cook Street frontage to 43' half-width with 55' right of way dedication, widen Sheryl Avenue frontage to 22' half-width with 30' right of way dedication, minimum 8' sidewalk on Cook Street and a minimum 6' foot wide sidewalk on Sheryl Avenue and two minimum twenty-four foot wide drive approaches on Sheryl Avenue. "As-built" plans shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of Public Works prior to the acceptance of the improvements by the City. 6. All private driveways and parking lots shall be inspected by the engineering department and a standard inspection fee paid prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 7. Landscaping maintenance on Cook Street, Sheryl Avenue and alley frontages shall be the responsibility of the property owner. 8. in accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 27, complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. 9. Size, number and location of driveways to the specifications of the Department of Public Works with two driveway approaches on Sheryl Avenue to serve this project. 10. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans by the Director of Public Works and the issuance of a valid encroachment permit by the Department of Public Works. 11 . A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of the grading permit. 12. Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Section 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2064 13. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment of said fees shall be at time of building permit issuance. 14. Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust (PM10) Control as well as Section 24.20, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. 15. As required under Sections 26.32 and 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, all existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground per the respective utility district recommendation should said district be formed. Riverside County Fire Department: 1 . With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced project, Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Codes, NFPA, UFC, and UBC or any recognized fire protection standards. The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all buildings per UFC article 87. 2. A fire flow of 1 500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible materials are placed on the job site. 3. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of providing a gpm flow of 3000 gpm for commercial buildings. 4. The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant(s) (4" x 2- 1 /2" x 2-1/2"), located not less than 25' nor more than 150' from any portion of a commercial building measured via vehicular travelway. 5. Water plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the water system will produce the required fire flow. 6. Install a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all buildings with a 3,000 square foot total cumulative floor area. The Fire Marshal shall approve the locations of all post indicator valves and fire department connections. All valves and connections shall not be less than 25' from the building and within 50' of an approved hydrant. Exempted are one and two family dwellings. 7. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and water- flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per UBC Chapter 9. 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2064 8. Install a fire alarm system as required by the UBC Chapter 3. 9. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than one 2A1OBC extinguisher per 3,000 square feet and not over 75' walking distance. A "K" type fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens. 10. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 1 50' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall not be less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is required on both sides of the street the roadway must be 36' wide and 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). 1 1 . Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers or other means provisions shall be made to install a "Knox Box" key over-ride system to allow for emergency vehicle access. Minimum gate width shall be 16" with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6". 12. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city. 13. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be submitted separately to the Fire Marshal for approval prior to construction. 14. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when building permits are not obtained within 12 months. OTHER: Provide plans on fire hydrant lay out. 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2064 EXHIBIT A Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the California Code of Regulations. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: PP 01-03 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Cook Street Associates, LLC 42-620 Caroline Court, Suite 120 Palm Desert, California 92211 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: A 16,000 square foot warehouse/showroom building with ancillary office space for property located at the northwest corner of Sheryl Avenue and Cook Street, 42-595 Cook Street. 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. s 17 2001 PHILIP DREtL DAT DIRECTOR F COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2065 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO LIMIT USES IN THE PROJECT TO THOSE WITH A PARKING REQUIREMENT OF TWO SPACES PER 1 ,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA OR LESS PER MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 25.58.310 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SHERYL AVENUE AND COOK STREET, 42-595 COOK STREET. CASE NO. DA 01-01 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 17th day of April, 2001 , hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of COOK STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC for approval of DA 01-01 and PP 01-03; 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 recommending to City Council approval of said request: 1 . The proposed development agreement will limit uses to only those uses which comply with the amount of parking provided on the approved precise plan of design (PP 01-03). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and Correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That approval of Development Agreement DA 01-01 (Exhibit A) is hereby recommended to City Council for approval. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 17th day of April, 2001 , by the following vote, to wit: AYES: CAMPBELL, TSCHOPP, LOPEZ NOES: FINERTY ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: JONATHAN OPEZ, it erson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2065 EXHIBIT "A" DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT COOK STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this , day of , 2001 , between Cook Street Associates, LLC, (hereinafter "Property Owner") and the City of Palm Desert, (hereinafter "City"), a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of California. RECITALS This Agreement is predicated upon the following facts: A. Government Code Sections 65864-65869.5 authorize the City to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the development of such property; B. DEVELOPER is owner of certain real property located within the City of Palm Desert, California, which property is described in Exhibit 1 , attached hereto and made a part hereof (hereinafter "PROPERTY"). DEVELOPER has applied for and been granted approval of a precise plan (PP 01 -03) to construct a 1 6,000 square foot warehouse/showroom building on the PROPERTY; 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2065 C. The DEVELOPER has applied for precise plan approval pursuant to Chapter 25.73 of the Zoning Ordinance, Precise Plan review; D. The PROPERTY is zoned O.P., Office Professional; E. The project as designed complies with the parking requirements for showrooms and warehouses but not for general office uses which are the primary uses in the O.P. zone district; F. The City has determined that the precise plan as designed would be a desirable addition to the Cook Street corridor if the uses in the project could be limited to only those that have a parking requirement of two spaces per 1 ,000 square feet of floor area or less; G. The City Council of City has found that the development agreement is consistent with the General Plan; and NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree: 1 . Definitions. in this Agreement, unless the context otherwise requires: (a) "City" is the City of Palm Desert. (b) "Project" is the development to be constructed in the City pursuant to Precise Plan 01 -03. (c) "Property Owner" means the person having a legal or equitable interest in the real property as described in paragraph (3) and includes the Property Owner's successor in interest. (d) "Real Property" is the real property referred to in paragraph (2). 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2065 - (e) "Permitted Uses" means those uses described below as follows: i. art galleries; ii. interior design showrooms; iii. audio/video showrooms; iv. plumbing showrooms; v. electrical and lighting showrooms; vi. furniture showrooms; vii. floor covering showrooms; viii. window treatment showrooms; and ix. other similar uses which are determined by the Planning Commission to be no more objectionable then those uses delineated above. 2. Description of Real Property. The real property which is the subject of this Agreement is described in Exhibit A. 3. Interest of Property Owner. Property Owner represents that he has a full legal and equitable interest in the Real Property and that all other persons holding legal or equitable interests in the Property are to be bound by the Agreement. 4. Assignment. The rights of the Property Owner under this Agreement may not be transferred or assigned unless the written consent of the City is first obtained. 5. Binding effect of Agreement. The burdens of this Agreement bind and the benefits of the Agreement inure to the successors in interest to the parties to it. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2065 6. Relationship of parties. It is understood that the contractual relationship between the City and Property Owner is such that the Owner is an independent contractor and not the agent of the City. 7. Agreement by Property Owner and City. (a) Property Owner has been conditionally granted permission by the City to construct 16,000 square feet of warehousing and showrooms with ancillary office space not to exceed 20% of any one unit on the PROPERTY, pursuant to Precise Plan 01 - 03. (b) Property Owner or its successors in interest shall limit tenants in said building to those "Permitted Uses" identified in Section 1 (e) of this agreement. (c) City agrees to review at owners request expansion of "Permitted Uses" on a use by use basis and shall not unreasonably withhold approval of expanded permitted uses if it is demonstrated that the proposed use will not negatively impact parking on the site. (d) Change in Project. No change, modification, revision or alteration may be made in the approved precise plan without review and approval by those agencies of the City approving the plan in the first instance. A change, modification, revision or alteration in the approved precise plan is not effective until the parties amend this AGREEMENT to incorporate it. (e) Hold Harmless. Property Owner agrees to and shall hold the City, its officers, agents, employees and representatives harmless from liability for damage or claims for damage for personal injury including death and claims for property damage which 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2065 may arise from the direct or indirect operations of the Property Owner or those of his contractor, subcontractor, agent, employee or other person acting on his behalf which relates to the PROJECT. Property Owner agrees to and shall defend the City and its officers, agents, employees and representatives from actions for damages caused or alleged to have been caused by reason of Property Owner's activities in connection with the PROJECT. This hold harmless agreement applies to all damages and claims for damages suffered or alleged to have been suffered by reason of the operation referred to in this paragraph, regardless of whether or not the City prepared, supplied, or approved plans or specifications or both for the PROJECT. Property Owner further agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, pay all costs and provide a defense for City in any action challenging the validity of the DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. (f) Periodic Review of Compliance with Agreement. i. City Planning Commission shall review this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT whenever substantial evidence exists to indicate a possible breach of the terms of this AGREEMENT. ii. At least once each year, Property Owner shall demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. Property Owner agrees to furnish such evidence of good faith compliance as City, in the exercise of its discretion, may require. 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2065 (g) Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement. This DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT may be amended or canceled in whole or in part by mutual consent of the parties and in the manner provided for in Government Code, Sections 65868, 65867 and 65867.5. (h) Enforcement. Unless amended or canceled as provided in paragraph (j), this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT is enforceable by any party to it notwithstanding a change in the applicable general or specific plan, zoning, subdivision, or building regulations adopted by City which alter or amend the rules, regulations or policies governing permitted uses of the land, density, design, improvement and construction standards and specifications. (i) Events of default. Property Owner is in default under this AGREEMENT upon the happening of one or more of the following events or conditions: i. If a warranty, representation or statement made or furnished by Property Owner to City is false or proves to have been false in any material respect when it was made; ii. A finding and determination by City made following a periodic review under the procedure provided for in Government Code, Section 65865.1 , that upon the basis of substantial evidence Property Owner has not complied in good faith with any of the terms or conditions of this AGREEMENT. iii. Property Owner's failure to maintain the Real Property in substantially the same condition as it exists on the date that City issues the Certificate of 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2065 Occupancy with respect to the PROJECT or to restore promptly in a good and workmanlike manner any building which may be damaged or destroyed. iv. Property Owner's failure to appear in and defend any action or proceeding purporting to affect the rights or powers of City under the terms of this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, and to pay all costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees in a reasonable sum, in any such action or proceeding in which City may appear. (j) Procedure upon default. If, as a result of periodic review, or other review of this AGREEMENT, the Planning Commission or City finds and determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, that Property Owner has not complied with the terms or conditions of this AGREEMENT, the Commission shall notify the Property Owner or successor in interest as to the specific nature of noncompliance, and describe the remedies required to achieve compliance. Property Owner has thirty (30) days upon receipt of notification to take remedial actions. If Property Owner fails to take remedial action within thirty (30) days, the Planning Commission of City shall recommend to the City Council of City that this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT be modified, terminated, or that the remedies set forth in this paragraph be exercised by the City. If the City Council of City concurs with the recommendation of the City's Planning Commission, the City Council may modify this Development Agreement, terminate this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, or may employ one or more of the remedies set forth in this paragraph. Proceedings before the City Council shall be by noticed public hearing pursuant to Chapter 25.86 of the Municipal Code of the City of Palm Desert. In the event of a default, City may employ one or more of the following remedies, in its sole discretion: 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2065 City may revoke all previous approvals, entitlements and permits granted by the City to Property Owner with respect to this PROJECT and the subject Real Property. ii. City may pursue all other legal or equitable remedies City may have under California law or as set forth in this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT and City shall be entitled to specific performance and enforcement of each and every term, condition and covenant set forth herein. (k) Damages upon Cancellation, Termination of Agreement. In no event shall Property Owner be entitled to any damages against the City upon modification, termination of this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT or exercise by City of its rights under this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. (I) Attorney's fees and costs. If legal action by either party is brought because of breach of this AGREEMENT or to enforce a provision of this AGREEMENT, the prevailing party is entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs. (m) Notices. All notices required or provided for under this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT shall be in writing and delivered in person or sent by certified mail, postage prepared. Notice required to be given to City shall be addressed as follows: City of Palm Desert, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California 92260. Notices required to be given to Property Owner shall be addressed as follows: Cook Street Associates, LLC, 42-620 Caroline Court, Suite 120, Palm Desert, California 92211 . 9 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2065 A party may change the address by giving notice in writing to the other party and therefore notices shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address. (n) Rules of Construction and Miscellaneous Items. The singular includes the plural; the masculine gender includes the feminine; "shall" is mandatory, "may" is permissive. ii. If a part of this AGREEMENT is held to be invalid, the remainder of this AGREEMENT is not affected. iii. If there is more than one signer of this AGREEMENT their obligations are joint and several. (o) Duration of Agreement. This AGREEMENT shall expire only upon total destruction of the project which is the subject of this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. (p) Applicable Law. This AGREEMENT shall be construed according to the laws of the State of California. (q) Severability. If any portion of this AGREEMENT is for any reason held to be unenforceable, such determination shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions. (r) Authority. Each of the parties hereto covenants and agrees that it has the legal capacity to enter into this AGREEMENT contained herein, that each AGREEMENT is binding upon that party and that this AGREEMENT is executed by a duly authorized official acting in his official capacity. 10 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2065 IN WITNESS WHEREOF this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT has been executed by the parties on the day and year first above written. Approved as to form: CITY OF PALM DESERT A Municipal Corporation By: City Attorney Attest: COOK STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC By: By: STATE OF rAL IFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) On this day of _ , 2001 , before me, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared , known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person who executed the within instrument on behalf of , and acknowledged to me that executed the same. 11 I PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2065 EXHIBIT "1" LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 134 and 135 MB 40/9-1 1 Country Club Village No. 1 in the County of Riverside, California. 12 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: April 17, 2001 CASE NO: PP 01 -03 and DA 01 -01 REQUEST: Approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and a precise plan of design for a 1 6,000 square foot showroom/warehouse building with ancillary office space at the northwest corner of Sheryl Avenue and Cook Street, 42-595 Cook Street. Request also includes approval of a development agreement which will limit uses in the project to those with a parking requirement of two spaces per 1 ,000 square feet of floor area or less. APPLICANT: Cook Street Associates, LLC 42-620 Caroline Court, Suite 120 Palm Desert, CA 92211 I. BACKGROUND: A. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: North: R-3 (4) / Two Story Apartments South: R-1 / Vacant East: SI / Vacant West: R-3 (4) / Three Single Family Dwellings B. SITE DESCRIPTION: The property is a 45,730 square foot lot at the northwest corner of Cook Street and Sheryl Avenue. The property slopes from north to south. C. SITE ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: The property is zoned O.P. and has an Office Professional general plan designation. STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. PP 01-03 AND DA 01-01 APRIL 17, 2001 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project is a 16,000 square foot single story showroom/warehouse building with ancillary office space. The project takes its access from two driveways on Sheryl Avenue. The east driveway leads north to 16 parking spaces located between the building and Cook Street. This is a dead-end row of parking with a turn around space at the north end. The west driveway leads to 16 more parking spaces and five overhead loading doors in the rear of the building. This driveway is also a dead-end design without a turn around space. Architecture will be contemporary. The main building material will be grey precision block with red split-face block similar to the Hovley Lane Post Office. In the center of the Cook Street elevation a 30-foot high tower is shown. That tower element and shed roof sections are finished in standing seam metal in a Douglas pine green. March 13, 2001 ARC granted preliminary approval of the project architecture. PROJECT DATA Project O.P. District Site Size 45,730 square feet 1 5,000 square feet minimum Building Area 1 6,000 square feet 22,865 square feet Coverage 36% 50% Building Height 22' + 30' tower 25' + towers to 50' Parking* 32 spaces 64 spaces typical 32 "if limited to showroom" Landscaping 24% N/A Setbacks * *Cook Street 74 feet 15 feet Sheryl Avenue 17 feet 15 feet North (side) 10 feet 10 feet West (rear) 60 feet 46 feet * The applicant intends to use the building primarily for showroom/warehouse space which has a parking requirement of 1 space per 500 square feet (32 spaces). A typical office building would be parked at 1 space per 250 square feet (64 spaces). In order to recommend the project, staff is requiring a development agreement which 2 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. PP 01-03 AND DA 01-01 APRIL 17, 2001 will limit the uses in the building to those having a 1 space/500 square foot parking requirement. (See discussion later.) ** Setbacks from the residential project to the north must meet the required setback for that project (i.e., 10 feet). Setback from the west is based on the land use to the west (single story single family dwellings which is calculated as follows: 20 feet plus 6.43 feet of setback for each foot of building height above 18 feet (4 x 6.43 = 25.72 = 45.72). III. ANALYSIS: General offices have a parking requirement of four spaces per 1 ,000 square feet while "stores solely for the sale of furniture and appliances" have a parking requirement of two spaces per 1 ,000 square feet. The range of permitted uses in the O.P. zone is quite broad (see code section attached). It ranges from general offices to churches to art galleries. Staff considers art galleries to fall within the furniture store category for parking purposes. The applicant indicates that his project will focus on being a showroom/ warehouse facility such as are currently located in the service industrial area to the north and east (i.e., electrical or plumbing or audio/video showroom facilities with large warehouse areas and small office areas). This is consistent with art galleries which are permitted uses in the O.P. district with approval of a conditional use permit. We feel that the showrooms with warehousing use is compatible with the surrounding area. Staff is concerned that over time the base zoning (OP/professional office) may become the prime use if there is no formal limitation placed on the permitted uses for this project. We could just approve the precise plan with a condition limiting the permitted uses to those uses with a parking requirement of two spaces per 1 ,000 square feet or less, however, over time that limitation could be forgotten especially on sale of the property. Staff looked at various means of limiting the uses including rezoning the site to service industrial, but ruled it out due to our desire to limit impacts on the residential uses to the north and west. We feel that a development agreement which will limit uses in the project to only those which have a parking requirement of two spaces per 1 ,000 square feet or less as prescribed in Municipal Code Section 25.58.210 "Commercial and Industrial Off- Street Parking Schedule" is the only avenue available to us to approve this project. 3 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. PP 01-03 AND DA 01-01 APRIL 17, 2001 The development agreement will be recorded in the County Recorder's Office so any purchaser of the property will be on notice of the limited permitted uses. The project is designed with five overhead loading doors facing west. This side of the site will be enclosed with a masonry wall and landscaping. The west parking and off-loading area has the potential to create noise impacts for the residences to the west. We will condition this project to limit hours of deliveries and to prohibit outdoor storage in the parking spaces. The project has two dead-end aisle situations which staff typically is reluctant to accept. In this instance the Public Works Department has prohibited access to or from Cook Street so the applicant is limited to how he can design his circulation. The applicant prefers not to create a driveway around the north end of the site due to the building area which would be lost. This solution would also bring traffic much closer to the apartment units to the north. The Fire Department has reviewed the current site plan and can accept it as they have street access on three sides of the building. It would be simpler if we had a general or medical office project on this site with appropriate parking so that in the long term we have a clear understanding of how the site will be used. The applicant has advised us that given the site's isolated location (i.e., no office uses currently around it) that he cannot proceed in that direction. At this time the applicant feels that showroom/warehouse uses are the only way he can proceed. As conditioned this project will have less traffic than would a general office building of 11 ,500 square feet which would be a reasonably sized office building on property of this size. The proposed use as a showroom/warehouse/office has not been specifically studied by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Furniture Stores 5.06 vehicles/day/1 ,000 square feet Light Industrial Uses 6.97 vehicles/day/1 ,000 square feet General Office Buildings 1 1 .01 vehicles/day/1 ,000 square feet Medical Offices 36.13 vehicles/day/1 ,000 square feet Mini Storage Facilities 2.50 vehicles/day/1 ,000 square feet Based on the uses proposed and described by the applicant and delineated in Section 1 (e) on page 4 of the Development Agreement, we feel that it falls within the 4 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. PP 01-03 AND DA 01-01 APRIL 17, 2001 furniture store/light industrial use range, so it should result in about six vehicle movements per day per 1 ,000 square feet or about 96 vehicle trips per day. This is less than the 1 27 trips which could be expected if the site developed with 11 ,500 +/- square feet of general office use and 46 parking spaces which the site would support. The only way staff can support a project of this type is if we have the development agreement to formally assure that the uses are permanently limited to uses having lower parking and traffic generation requirements. Staff will recommend approval of the precise plan subject to the applicant entering into a development agreement. IV. CEQA REVIEW: The project has been reviewed for compliance with CEQA and the Director of Community Development has determined that the project will not have an adverse impact on the environment. A Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared and is recommended to City Council for certification. V. RECOMMENDATION: Approve findings and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. recommending to the City Council approval of PP 01 -03 and DA 01 -01 . IV. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft Resolution B. Legal Notice C. Comments from city departments and other agencies D. Initial Study E. Precise Plan Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved by: Z...e 1%3 Stev Smith Phil Drell Planning Manager Director of Community Development /tm 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 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 A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN FOR A 16,000 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE/SHOWROOM BUILDING WITH ANCILLARY OFFICE SPACE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SHERYL AVENUE AND COOK STREET, 42-595 COOK STREET. CASE NO. PP 01 -03 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 17th day of April, 2001 , hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of COOK STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC for approval of the above noted case; 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. 00-24," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact 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 recommending to City Council approval of said request: 1 . The precise plan is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Office Professional zone. 2. The design of the precise plan and the manner in which it will be operated will not substantially depreciate property values, nor be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. The precise plan of design as conditioned will not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes. 4. The precise plan will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That approval of Precise Plan 01 -03 is hereby recommended to City Council for approval, subject to conditions. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (Exhibit A attached hereto) is recommended for certification. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 17th day of April, 2001 , by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JIM LOPEZ, Chairperson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. PP 01-03 Department of Community Development: 1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the Department of Building and Safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas. Said placement shall be approved by applicable trash company and Department of Community Development and shall include a recycling program. 6. Project is subject to Art in Public Places program per Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 4.10. Method of compliance shall be established prior to completion of the Architectural Review Commission process. 7. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to these conditions. Applicant will 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 specific intent of the parties that this condition and 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. The final landscape plan shall include a long-term maintenance program specifying among other matters appropriate watering times, fertilization and pruning for various times of the year for the specific materials to be planted, as well as periodic replacement of materials. All to be consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801 ) and the approved landscape plan. t j Nr l 8. Approval of PP 01 -3 is subject to adoption o n ordinance by City Council approving Development Agreement 01 -01 , which idetatiiivs useiiof the proposed warehouse/ showroom building to those with a parking requirement of two spaces per 1 ,000 square feet of gross floor area or less per Municipal Code Section 25.58.310. Office space for any one tenant shall not exceed 20% of the lease space. 9. That delivery hours to businesses in this project shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. 10. That business hours shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. through 1 :00 p.m. on Saturdays. Businesses shall not be open on Sundays. 1 1 . Final landscape plan shall comply with the parking lot tree planting master plan. 12. The project shall be subject to all applicable fees at time of issuance of permits, including but not limited to, Art in Public Places, TUMF and school mitigation, and low income housing mitigation fees. 13. That the street and sidewalk improvement plans include provision of bus stop(s) and shelter(s) with the architecture complementing the building architecture, to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development and Sunline Transit, Director of Public Works: 1 . Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and Palm Desert Ordinance Number 653, shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading permit. 2. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79- 55, shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading permit. 3. Any storm drain construction associated with this project shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards. All public improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. 5. As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance with Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking approval a roval before construction of any improvements is commenced. Offsite improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works and a surety posted to guarantee the installation of all required offsite improvements prior to issuance of a grading permit. r shall include, but not belimited t widen improvements s a nclu , o, Cook Street frontage to 43' half-width with 55' right of way dedication, widen Sheryl Avenue frontage to 22' half-width with 30' right of way dedication, minimum 8' sidewalk on Cook Street and a minimum 6' foot wide sidewalk on Sheryl Avenue and two minimum twenty-four foot wide drive approaches on Sheryl Avenue. "As-built" plans shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of Public Works prior to the acceptance of the improvements by the City. 6. All private driveways and parking lots shall be inspected by the engineering department and a standard inspection fee paid prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 7. Landscaping maintenance on Cook Street, Sheryl Avenue and alley frontages shall be the responsibility of the property owner. 8. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 27, complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. 9. Size, number and location of driveways to the specifications of the Department of Public Works with two driveway approaches on Sheryl Avenue to serve this project. 10. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans by the Director of Public Works and the issuance of a valid encroachment permit by the Department of Public Works. 11 . A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of the grading permit. 12. Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Section 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 13. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment of said fees shall be at time of building permit issuance. 14. Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust (PM10) Control as well as Section 24.20, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. 15. As required under Sections 26.32 and 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, all existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground per the respective utility district recommendation. Riverside County Fire Department: 1 . With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced project, Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Codes, NFPA, UFC, and UBC or any recognized fire protection standards. The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all buildings per UFC article 87. 2. A fire flow of 1 500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible materials are placed on the job site. 3. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of providing a gpm flow of 3000 gpm for commercial buildings. 4. The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant(s) (4" x 2- 1 /2" x 2-1 /2"), located not less than 25' nor more than 1 50' from any portion of a commercial building measured via vehicular travelway. 5. Water plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the water system will produce the required fire flow. 6. Install a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all buildings with a 3,000 square foot total cumulative floor area. The Fire Marshal shall approve the locations of all post indicator valves and fire department connections. All valves and connections shall not be less than 25' from the building and within 50' of an approved hydrant. Exempted are one and two family dwellings. 7. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and water- flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per UBC Chapter 9. 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 8. Install a fire alarm system as required by the UBC Chapter 3. 9. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than one 2A1OBC extinguisher per 3,000 square feet and not over 75' walking distance. A "K" type fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens. 10. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 1 50' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall not be less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is required on both sides of the street the roadway must be 36' wide and 32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 1 50' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn-around (55' in industrial developments). 1 1 . Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers or other means provisions shall be made to install a "Knox Box" key over-ride system to allow for emergency vehicle access. Minimum gate width shall be 16" with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6". 12. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city. 13. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be submitted separately to the Fire Marshal for approval prior to construction. 14. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when building permits are not obtained within 12 months. OTHER: Provide plans on fire hydrant lay out. 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT A Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the California Code of Regulations. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: PP 01-03 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Cook Street Associates, LLC 42-620 Caroline Court, Suite 120 Palm Desert, California 92211 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: A 16,000 square foot warehouse/showroom building with ancillary office space for property located at the northwest corner of Sheryl Avenue and Cook Street, 42-595 Cook Street. 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. April 17, 2001 PHILIP DRELL DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 8 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Department of Community Development/Planning Attention: Steve Smith FROM: Joseph S. Gaugush, Public Works Director/City Engineer SUBJECT: PRECISE PLAN 01-03; COOK STREET ASSOCIATES OFFICE INDUSTRIAL BUILDING DATE: April 11, 2001 The following should be considered conditions of approval for the above-referenced project: (1) Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and Palm Desert Ordinance Number 653, shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading permit. (2) Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading permit. (3) Any storm drain construction associated with this project shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public A orks. (4) Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards. All public improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. (5) As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance with Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. Offsite improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works and a surety posted to guarantee the installation of all required offsite improvements prior to issuance of a grading permit. Such improvements shall include, but not be limited to, widen Cook Street frontage to 43' half-width with 55' right of way dedication, widen Sheryl Avenue frontage to 22' half-width with 30' right of way dedication, minimum 8' sidewalk on Cook Street and a minimum 6' foot wide sidewalk on Sheryl Avenue and two minimum twenty-four foot wide drive approaches on Sheryl Avenue. "As- built" plans shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of Public Works prior to the acceptance of the improvements by the City. (6) All private driveways and parking lots shall be inspected by the engineering department and a standard inspection fee paid prior to the issuance of a grading permit. (7) Landscaping maintenance on Cook Street, Sheryl Avenue and alley frontages shall be the responsibility of the property owner. (8) In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 27, complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. (9) Size, number and location of driveways to the specifications of the Department of Public Works with two driveway approaches on Sheryl Avenue to serve this project. (10) Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans by the Director of Public Works and the issuance of a valid encroachment permit by the Department of Public Works. (11) A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of the grading permit. (12) Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Section 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. (13) The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment of said fees shall be at time of building permit issuance. (14) Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust (PM10) Control as well as Section 24.20, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. (15) As required under Sections 26.32 and 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, all existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground per the respective utility district recommendation. JOSEP1* . A GUSH, P.E. G:\PubWorks\Joe Gaugush\WPOOCS\PPLANS\Pp0103ss revised.cnd.wpd RIVERSIDE COUNTY CALIFCRNIA FIRE DEPARTMENT ocyi•ct`iyPE PR0T c ioN k IN COOPERATION WITH THE 1 r NTY CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY •�Hfsr,� " AND FIRE PROTECTION ,Y,.. R1V 'RSIDEw•,t i,i', , Offal • RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE 2lC WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE COVE MARSHAL PERRIS,CALIFORNIA 92570 70.801 HWY l!1 TELEPHONE: (909) 940-6900 RANCHO MIRAGE,CA 9227C TELEPHONE: (760) 346.1870 FAX: (760) 328-1071 TO: 6'V7 /( /— f i C1 01 REF: / / (7/-.. o If circled, conditions apply to project ��� 0 With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced project, the fire department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Code, NFPA, UFC, and UBC or any recognized Fire Protection Standards: The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or • construction of all buildings per UFC article 87. 5 A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a i hour duration at 20 psi residual pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. Provide or show there exists a waxer system capable of providing a gpm flow of: 3. 1500 gpm for single family dwellings 4 2500 gpm for multifamily dwellings C5') 3000 gpm for commercial buildings The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant(s) 4"x2-1/2"x2-112", located not less than 25' nor more than: 6. 200' from any portion of a single family dwelling measured via vehicular travelway 7. 165' from any portion of a multifamily dwelling measured via vehicular travelway 0 150' from any portion of a commercial building measured via vehicular travelway /C9D Water Plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the water system will produce the required fire flow. 10. Please be advised the proposed project may not be feasible since the existing water mains will not meet the required fire flow. 1 .. Install a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all buildings with a 3000 square foot total cumulative floor area. The Fire Marshal shall approve the locations of all post indicator valves and fire department connections. All valves and connections shall not be less than 25' from the building and within 50' of an approved hydrant. Exempted are one and two family dwellings. pnntetl on recycled paper t . All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and Water-flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per UBC Chapter 9. .3, Install a fire alarm system as required by the UBC Chapter 3. . Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less that one 2A1 OBC extinguisher per 3000 square feet and not over 75' walking distance. A "K" type fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens. 15. Install a Hood/Duct automatic fire extinguishing system per NFPA 96 in all public and private cooking operations except single-family residential usage. 16. Install a dust collecting system per UFC Chapter 76 if conducting an operation that produces airborne particles. _ 17. All building shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 0 150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall not be less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is required on both sides of the street the roadway must be 36' wide and 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. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers (3) or other means provisions shall be made to install a"Knox Box" key over-ride system to allow for emergency vehicle access. Minimum gate width shall be 16" with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6". 19. A dead end single access over 500' will require a secondary access, sprinklers or other mitigative measures approved by the Fire Marshal. Under no circumstance shall a dead end over 1300' be accepted. 20. A second access is required. This can be accomplished by two main access points from a main roadway or an emergency gate from an adjoining development. 21. This project may require licensing by a state or county agency, to facilitate plan review the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Marshal a letter of intent detailing the proposed usage and occupancy type. Q All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city. 123.,) All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be .�/ submitted separately to the Fire Marshal for approval prior to construction. 411 onditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws , or when building permits are not obtained within twelve months. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to the Fire Marshal Office at 760-346-1870; 70-801 Hwy. 111,Rancho Mirage, Ca. 92270 Other: 9 1 1 ,0-t o V I s Obax_e_. of, ., r. ...., ,....2_/,,,, Sincerely, 'V U,-e- 1 C--\`-0-41-2 V. _CAzoompfireistitrsital— r PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO LIMIT USES IN THE PROJECT TO THOSE WITH A PARKING REQUIREMENT OF TWO SPACES PER 1 ,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA OR LESS PER MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 25.58.310 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SHERYL AVENUE AND COOK STREET, 42-595 COOK STREET. CASE NO. DA 01-01 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 17th day of April, 2001 , hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of COOK STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC for approval of DA 01-01 and PP 01-03; 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 recommending to City Council approval of said request: 1 . The proposed development agreement will limit uses to only those uses which comply with the amount of parking provided on the approved precise plan of design (PP 01-03). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That approval of Development Agreement DA 01-01 (Exhibit A) is hereby recommended to City Council for approval. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 1 7th day of April, 2001 , by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JIM LOPEZ, Chairperson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT "A" DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT COOK STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this , day of , 2001 , between Cook Street Associates, LLC, (hereinafter "Property Owner") and the City of Palm Desert, (hereinafter "City"), a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of California. RECITALS This Agreement is predicated upon the following facts: A. Government Code Sections 65864-65869.5 authorize the City to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the development of such property; B. DEVELOPER is owner of certain real property located within the City of Palm Desert, California, which property is described in Exhibit 1 , attached hereto and made a part hereof (hereinafter "PROPERTY"). DEVELOPER has applied for and been granted approval of a precise plan (PP 01 -03) to construct a 1 6,000 square foot warehouse/showroom building on the PROPERTY; 2 r - PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. C. The DEVELOPER has applied for precise plan approval pursuant to Chapter 25.73 of the Zoning Ordinance, Precise Plan review; D. The PROPERTY is zoned O.P., Office Professional; E. The project as designed complies with the parking requirements for showrooms and warehouses but not for general office uses which are the primary uses in the O.P. zone district; F. The City has determined that the precise plan as designed would be a desirable addition to the Cook Street corridor if the uses in the project could be limited to only those that have a parking requirement of two spaces per 1 ,000 square feet of floor area or less; G. The City Council of City has found that the development agreement is consistent with the General Plan; and NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree: 1 . Definitions. In this Agreement, unless the context otherwise requires: (a) "City" is the City of Palm Desert. (b) "Project" is the development to be constructed in the City pursuant to Precise Plan 01 -03. (c) "Property Owner" means the person having a legal or equitable interest in the real property as described in paragraph (3) and includes the Property Owner's successor in interest. (d) "Real Property" is the real property referred to in paragraph (2). 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. (e) "Permitted Uses" means those uses described below as follows: art galleries; ii. interior design showrooms; iii. audio/video showrooms; iv. plumbing showrooms; v. electrical and lighting showrooms; vi. furniture showrooms; vii. floor covering showrooms; viii. window treatment showrooms; and ix. other similar uses which are determined by the Planning Commission to be no more objectionable then those uses delineated above. 2. Description of Real Property. The real property which is the subject of P P P P Y J this Agreement is described in Exhibit A. 3. Interest of Property Owner. Property Owner represents that he has a full legal and equitable interest in the Real Property and that all other persons holding legal or equitable interests in the Property are to be bound by the Agreement. 4. Assignment. The rights of the Property Owner under this Agreement may not be transferred or assigned unless the written consent of the City is first obtained. 5. Binding effect of Agreement. The burdens of this Agreement bind and the benefits of the Agreement inure to the successors in interest to the parties to it. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6. Relationship of parties. It is understood that the contractual relationship between the City and Property Owner is such that the Owner is an independent contractor and not the agent of the City. 7. Agreement by Property Owner and City. (a) Property Owner has been conditionally granted permission by the City to construct 16,000 square feet of warehousing and showrooms with ancillary office space not to exceed 20% of any one unit on the PROPERTY, pursuant to Precise Plan 01- 03. (b) Property Owner or its successors in interest shall limit tenants in said building to those "Permitted Uses" identified in Section 1 (e) of this agreement. (c) City agrees to review at owners request expansion of "Permitted Uses" on a use by use basis and shall not unreasonably withhold approval of expanded itisdemonstrated that the proposed use will not negatively impact parking permitted uses if p 9 Y P P 9 P on the site. (d) Change in Project. No change, modification, revision or alteration may be made in the approved precise plan without review and approval by those agencies of the City approving the plan in the first instance. A change, modification, revision or alteration in the approved precise plan is not effective until the parties amend this AGREEMENT to incorporate it. (e) Hold Harmless. Property Owner agrees to and shall hold the City, its officers, agents, employees and representatives harmless from liability for damage or claims for damage for personal injury including death and claims for property damage which 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. may arise from the direct or indirect operations of the Property Owner or those of his contractor, subcontractor, agent, employee or other person acting on his behalf which relates to the PROJECT. Property Owner agrees to and shall defend the City and its officers, agents, employees and representatives from actions for damages caused or alleged to have been caused by reason of Property Owner's activities in connection with the PROJECT. This hold harmless agreement applies to all damages and claims for damages suffered or alleged to have been suffered by reason of the operation referred to in this paragraph, regardless of whether or not the City prepared, supplied, or approved plans or specifications or both for the PROJECT. Property Owner further agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, pay all costs and provide a defense for City in any action challenging the validity of the DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. (f) Periodic Review of Compliance with Agreement. City Planning Commission shall review this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT whenever substantial evidence exists to indicate a possible breach of the terms of this AGREEMENT. ii. At least once each year, Property Owner shall demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. Property Owner agrees to furnish such evidence of good faith compliance as City, in the exercise of its discretion, may require. 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. (g) Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement. This DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT may be amended or canceled in whole or in part by mutual consent of the parties and in the manner provided for in Government Code, Sections 65868, 65867 and 65867.5. (h) Enforcement. Unless amended or canceled as provided in paragraph (j), this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT is enforceable by any party to it notwithstanding a change in the applicable general or specific plan, zoning, subdivision, or building regulations adopted by City which alter or amend the rules, regulations or policies governing permitted uses of the land, density, design, improvement and construction standards and specifications. (i) Events of default. Property Owner is in default under this upon the happening of on e or more of the followingevents or conditions: AGREEMENT pp g i. If a warranty, representation or statement made or p furnished by Property Owner to City is false or proves to have been false in any material respect when it was made; ii. A finding and determination by City made following a periodic review under the procedure provided for in Government Code, Section 65865.1 , that upon the basis of substantial evidence Property Owner has not complied in good faith with any of the terms or conditions of this AGREEMENT. iii. Property Owner's failure to maintain the Real Property in substantially the same condition as it exists on the date that City issues the Certificate of 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. Occupancy with respect to the PROJECT or to restore promptly in a good and workmanlike manner any building which may be damaged or destroyed. iv. Property Owner's failure to appear in and defend any action or proceeding purporting to affect the rights or powers of City under the terms of this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, and to pay all costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees in a reasonable sum, in any such action or proceeding in which City may appear. (j) Procedure upon default. If, as a result of periodic review, or other review of this AGREEMENT, the Planning Commission or City finds and determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, that Property Owner has not complied with the terms or conditions of this AGREEMENT, the Commission shall notify the Property Owner or successor in interest as to the specific nature of noncompliance, and describe the remedies required to achieve compliance. Property Owner has thirty (30) days upon receipt of notification to take remedial actions. If Property Owner fails to take remedial action within thirty (30) days, the Planning Commission of City shall recommend to the City Council of City that this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT be modified, terminated, or that the remedies set forth in this paragraph be exercised by the City. If the City Council of City concurs with the recommendation of the City's Planning Commission, the City Council may modify this Development Agreement, terminate this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, or may employ one or more of the remedies set forth in this paragraph. Proceedings before the City Council shall be by noticed public hearing pursuant to Chapter 25.86 of the Municipal Code of the City of Palm Desert. In the event of a default, City may employ one or more of the following remedies, in its sole discretion: 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. City may revoke all previous approvals, entitlements and permits granted by the City to Property Owner with respect to this PROJECT and the subject Real Property. ii. City may pursue all other legal or equitable remedies City may have under California law or as set forth in this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT and City shall be entitled to specific performance and enforcement of each and every term, condition and covenant set forth herein. (k) Damages upon Cancellation, Termination of Agreement. In no event shall Property Owner be entitled to any damages against the City upon modification, termination of this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT or exercise by City of its rights under this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. (I) Attorney's fees and costs. If legal action by either party is brought because of breach of this AGREEMENT or to enforce a provision of this AGREEMENT, the prevailing party is entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs. (m) Notices. All notices required or provided for under this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT shall be in writing and delivered in person or sent by certified mail, postage prepared. Notice required to be given to City shall be addressed as follows: City of Palm Desert, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California 92260. Notices required to be given to Property Owner shall be addressed as follows: Cook Street Associates, LLC, 42-620 Caroline Court, Suite 1 20, Palm Desert, California 92211 . 9 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A party may change the address by giving notice in writing to the other party and therefore notices shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address. (n) Rules of Construction and Miscellaneous Items. The singular includes the plural; the masculine gender includes the feminine; "shall" is mandatory, "may" is permissive. ii. If a part of this AGREEMENT is held to be invalid, the remainder of this AGREEMENT is not affected. iii. If there is more than one signer of this AGREEMENT their obligations are joint and several. (o) Duration of Agreement. This AGREEMENT shall expire only upon total destruction of the project which is the subject of this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. (p) Applicable Law. This AGREEMENT shall be construed according to the laws of the State of California. (q) Severability. If any portion of this AGREEMENT is for any reason held to be unenforceable, such determination shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions. (r) Authority. Each of the parties hereto covenants and agrees that it has the legal capacity to enter into this AGREEMENT contained herein, that each AGREEMENT is binding upon that party and that this AGREEMENT is executed by a duly authorized official acting in his official capacity. 10 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. IN WITNESS WHEREOF this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT has been executed by the parties on the day and year first above written. Approved as to form: CITY OF PALM DESERT A Municipal Corporation By: City Attorney Attest: COOK STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC By: By: STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) On this day of , 2001 , before me, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared , known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person who executed the within instrument on behalf of , and acknowledged to me that executed the same. 11 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT "1 " LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 134 and 135 MB 40/9-1 1 Country Club Village No. 1 in the County of Riverside, California. 12 f���--•-�: Department of Budding and Safety .f � LYIEILOFFICE 1E19ItANDfl1 ...... 1RFr' vlwrn �Yi► i� - 7 2.031 TO: Steve Smith, Planning Manager �, �p NIq�fyOF p M DESERT MINT ENT FROM: Homer C , irecto o uildi"ng and Safety DATE: March 7, 2001 SUBJECT: Return on Request for Comments and Conditions of Approval Case No(s): PP 01-03 Project: Office Industrial Building - Cook Street Associates COMMENTS: There are no known impacts on the environment from a Building and Safety Department viewpoint. However, there may be code safety issues which will be reviewed and disclosed during the plan review process. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1 . Project Title: Cook Street Associates, LLC, Office Complex, Case No. PP 01-03 2. Lead Agency and Name and Address: City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 3. Contact person and Phone Number: Stephen R. Smith, Planning Manager Department of Community Development (760) 346-061 1 ext. 486 4. Project Location: Northwest corner of Cook Street and Sheryl Avenue 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Cook Street Associates, LLC 42-620 Caroline Court, Suite 120 Palm Desert, CA 92211 6. General Plan Designation: Office Professional 7. Zoning: Office Professional (O.P.) 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary.) Approval of a precise plan for a 16,000 square foot warehouse/showroom building. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary.) Vacant site fronting on arterial street surrounded by residential uses to the north and west, and vacant property to the south and east. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): None CITY/RVPUB/1998/32095 PAGE 1 OF 12 FORM "J" ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM CASE NO. PP 01-03 AESTHETIC Project design includes perimeter landscaping and decorative walls to the west. Overall quality of architecture and landscaping will be equal to or higher than surrounding area. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The project is within the historical habitat of the Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard. Pursuant to CVFTL Habitat Conservation Plan and the recently approved MOU with the California Department of Fish and Game, a $600 per acre mitigation fee will be paid. Xl. NOISE The project is located adjacent to Cook Street, an arterial highway which serves as a major access from an interchange at I-10. The project will be bounded on the north by a six-foot block wall. Significant noise sources from commercial activity will be substantially contained within the buildings. Limitations of hours of operation activities will further reduce noise impacts to a level of insignificance. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE With both physical and operational mitigation measures, all identified impacts have been reduced to a level of insignificance. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC The proposed use as a showroom/warehouse/office has not been specifically studied by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Furniture Stores 5.06 vehicles/day/1 ,000 square feet Light Industrial Uses 6.97 vehicles/day/1 ,000 square feet General Office Buildings 11 .01 vehicles/day/1 ,000 square feet Medical Offices 36.13 vehicles/day/1 ,000 square feet Mini Storage Facilities 2.50 vehicles/day/1 ,000 square feet Based on the use proposed and described by the applicant we feel that it falls within the furniture store/light industrial use range, so it should result in about six vehicle movements per day per 1 ,000 square feet or about 96 vehicle trips per day. This is less than the 127 which could be expected if the site developed with 11 ,500 +/- square feet of general use and 46 parking spaces which the site would support. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/ Soils ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION(To be completed by the Lead Agency): 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 revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an E'vi"v'IRONNIE TAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant or"potentially significant unless mitigated"impact on the environment,but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,because all potentially significant effects(a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards,and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the prop sed project,nothing further is required. // Date 6 e �' I • L,'e c / 7Y/1 Printed Name For CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "J" Pave 7 of 14 EVALUATION OF ENVII 'MENTAL IMPACTS: I) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved(e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact"answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards(e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level,indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur,then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant,less than significant with mitigation,or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more"Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from"Potentially Significant Impact" to a"Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures,and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses,"may be cross- referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they arc available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are"Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts(e.g. general plans,zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions form this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "I" Page 3 of 14 9) The explanation of each is should identify: a) the significance cnteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. SAMPLE QUESTION Less Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Im Impact Incorporated Impact I_ AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0 b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,but not (] El limited to,tress,rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality El id' 0 C of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which El El would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,or Farmland of El Statewide Importance(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? CITY/RVPUB/1 999/3 1 3 7 85 FORM «j.,, Page 4 of 14 Less Than Issues: StEmificant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No lm Impact Incorporated Impact c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, ❑ ❑ ❑ due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY. Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable ❑ El ❑ air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially ❑ ❑ ❑ to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any ❑ El ❑ criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ 0 2 concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of ❑ ❑ ❑ people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through ❑ (� ❑ E habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? CITY/RVPUB/1999/3I3785 FORM "I" Page 5 of 14 Less Than Issues. Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Imp Impact incorporated Impact b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or 0 0 other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected 0 wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including,but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native �. resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting 0 El biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Q Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ❑ Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a El G2 historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological 0 2 resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside 0 of formal cemeteries? CITY/RVPUB/1 999/3 1 3 7 8 5 FORM "F' Page 6 of 14 Less Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation SiEmificant No Imp Impact Incorporated Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS --Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse rie effects,including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ,;._,( iii Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? � iv Landslides? � � CY b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? D c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that DEl El rtY would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of El the Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of 0 El El septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment D El through the routine transport,use, or disposal of hazardous materials? CITY/RVPUB/I999/313785 FORM "T' Page 7 of 14 Less Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Imp, Impact Incorporated Impact b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ❑ ❑ ❑ 2/ through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely 0 0 0 d hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous 0 0 ❑ ®/ materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result,would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ❑ ❑ ❑ EJ where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would D ❑ ❑ ,,/ the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or L�J working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation ❑ LE plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ❑ ❑ ❑ 12/ injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ ❑ ❑ Er requirements? CITY/RVPUB/1 999/3 1 3 7 8 5 FORM "I" Page 8of14 Lcss Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Imp Impact Incorporated Impact b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ❑ 0 ❑ ge substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g.,the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or ❑ ❑ 0 area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or ❑ ❑ ❑ L area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the ❑ ❑ 0 pJ capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff'? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ ID( g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as ❑ ❑ 0 Ei mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which ❑ ❑ 0 2 would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ❑ • ❑ C injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ 2 CITY/RVPUB/1999l313785 FORM "r' Page9of14 Less Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Imp Impact Inco rated pac rpo Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ C, b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or ❑ 0 ❑ d regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including,but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or ❑ ❑ ❑ iZ( natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ❑ ❑ ❑ Er resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important ❑ ❑ ❑ (21 mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific plan or other land use plan? XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in ❑ 0 0 Er excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ❑ 0 ❑ 421 groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in ❑ ❑ Cl the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient ❑ ❑ 0 / noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? CITY/RVPUB/I 999/313785 FORM 'T' Page 10 of 14 Less Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No[m Impact Incorporated Impact e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ❑ ❑ ❑ 2 where such a plan has as not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would ❑ ❑ ❑ the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,either ❑ ❑ ❑ L directly(for example,by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly(for example, through extension of road or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ❑ ❑ ❑ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ❑ ❑ ❑ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ u Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ C CITY/RVPUB/1 999/3 1 3785 FORM "F' Pave 11 of 14 Less Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Imps Impact Incorporated Impact Parks? ❑ ❑ 0 CIY Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ iti/ XIV. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional 0 0 ❑ [2/ parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require ❑ ❑ the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation 0 0 l>Q rJ to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system(i.e.,result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of 0 0 r- service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either ❑ 0 ❑ Q2, an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature D 0 ❑ Da (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ 2 CITY/RVPUB/1999r313785 FORM "I" Page 12 of 14 Less Than Issues Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Imp, Impact Incorporated Impact f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? D D D m/ g) Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or programs D 0 0 ©/ supporting alternative transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the D 0 0 e applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or D D 0 wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water D D D U drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the D D D Er project from existing entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment D D D ([2( provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity D D D Ei to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and D D D Ei regulations related to solid waste? C ITY/RVPUB/1999/3 13785 FORM "T' Page 13 of 14 Less Than Issues: significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No ImF Impact Incorporated Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality El of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat or 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,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually CI limited,but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current project,and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will 0 0 Ela cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? CITY/RVPUB/1999r313785 FORM "J" Page 14 of 14 STAFF REPORT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27, 2001 CASE NO.: PP 01-03 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): COOK STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC, 42-600 Caroline Court, Suite 120, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of architecture for a 16,000 square foot office/industrial building LOCATION: Northwest corner of Cook Street and Sheryl Avenue ZONE: OP DISCUSSION: The applicant proposes to construct two buildings with a total area of 16,000 square feet on the subject property. The property is zoned O.P. (Office Professional) and is adjacent to two-story apartments on the north and three single-story residences on the west. The south is vacant property which has been subject to an application by Rick Hughes for a neighborhood center. At this time, we do not have landscape plans, but that is just as well given that the Public Works Department advises it will require ten feet of street widening on Cook Street and twelve feet of right-of-way dedication. This will move the east property line twelve feet to the west (closer to the building). The required setback in the O.P. zone is fifteen faet from the property line so the building will need to be shifted westerly by two feet to meet the setback. At the southeast corner of Building A, the applicant has shown a large (30' tall) tower element which projects out beyond the main building. Farther north on the Cook Street elevation, a steel trellis extends into the setback by five feet. The corner element would be five feet from the new property line. Along Sheryl Avenue, the Public Works Department will require four feet of widening, but it will be accomplished within the existing right-of-way. The main building material will be grey precision block and red split-face block. The corner tower and south-facing roof sections will be standing seam metal in a Douglas pine green. The north elevation, facing the apartments contains three metal overhead doors and precision block. The westerly, smaller building, Building B, contains similar architecture and is 22-feet tall. This building is adjacent to three single-story residential units to the west. Code requires ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27, 2001 STAFF REPORT PP 01-03 a minimum setback of twenty feet for an 18-foot high structure plus 6.32 feet for every foot of height above 18 feet. This 22-foot high structure would need 46.52 feet of setback. There is a 20-foot alley between the two properties so we feel that the intent of the 20-foot setback has been met, however,the separation is 30 feet from the rear property line of the residences versus 46.52 feet as required. Building B will need to be reduced in height to a maximum of 19 feet. The west elevation of this building is essentially all grey precision -f of setback is limited. n the amount of landscaping that can be placed in a 10 0 block and p 9 in anticipation of puttinga typical professional The City zoned the site Office Professionalp YP office on it as we would usually see on Fred Waring or Monterey. The applicant is attempting to design a project which expands the range of use for the buildings. We feel that this can be done, however, it needs to meet all of the requirements of the O.P. district and be sensitive to the neighbors in both design and function. The applicant requested that this be placed on the agenda to obtain ARC comments on the architecture. RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission return the project to the applicant with input to applicant with respect to architecture so that he can make any necessary changes along with revisions to the site plan. STEVE SMITH MANAGER, PLANNING wpdocs\sr\pp01-03.arc ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27,2001 MINUTES Mr. Smith asked the Commission how much border they wanted. The Commission agreed to a 12" border on the top, 18" border on the sides and on the bottom. The sign will be 4 feet, 4 inches in height. The parapet will be thickened to two feet in depth to make it more substantial. The applicant has put battered walls on the monument signs. There are also peeler logs across the 9top. Mr. Knight commented that they were real close on the landscape. There are minor changes which he will talk to the applicant directly. Chairman Gregory stated that since the changes were relatively few and well understood, he suggested the Commission move the case ahead. Mr. Smith urged the applicant to have, in particular, the sign changes completed before the Planning Commission review. Mr. Choitz stated he would have revised drawings for the Planning Commission. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner VanVliet, to grant preliminary approval to the revised plans subject to the parapet being thickened to two feet, the sign over the front door having a top border of 12" and side and bottom borders of 18" with 4' 4" letters and logo, and subject to comments from the City Landscape Manager. Motion carried 7-0. 3. CASE NO.: PP 01-03 r APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): COOK STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC, 42-620 Caroline Court, Suite 102, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of architecture for a 16,000 square foot office/industrial building LOCATION: Northwest corner of Cook Street and Sheryl Avenue ZONE: OP Mr. Smith reported that the Public Works Department has submitted upcoming street modifications which affect the site plan. The purpose of the project being before the Commission was to 25 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27,2001 MINUTES obtain comments about the architecture as opposed to the site plan which may change considerably. They will be losing 12 feet off the Cook Street side, the curb will be moving 10 feet west of its current location, necessitating the relocation of building. Other issues include the height of the building prescribes a certain setback from the adjacent three residential units, the 30 foot proposed tower element may need to be back 60 feet from the curb line. There may be the option of turning the tower element 90 degrees along with the movement of the building, it would be possible to meet the setback. There are loading doors that face to the north into a two- story apartment complex to the north. The five overhead doors facing the north need to be made acceptable. The west elevation on Building B is not attractive to the residences to the west. The buildings are 22 feet high. Commissioner O'Donnell asked if the applicants met the relationship between the height of the proposed buildings and the residential zone. Mr. Smith responded that they did not in the present configuration, but they could be lowering the building to 19 feet. The OP zone prescribes 20 feet of setback for a 18 foot building. For every foot above that, add 6.5 feet of setback. Commissioner Hanson asked if the roll-up metal doors could be placed on the walls of each building facing the opposite building, thereby keeping the doors screened. Mr. Sabby Jonathan felt putting the doors on the north elevation would be the least intrusive. The challenge of putting the doors on the facing walls is the loss of some parking and the access to multiple suites. Along the north elevation, he thought there was a staircase on that side of the apartment building. But he will take another look, and if there are apartment unit windows, he would put in trees to shield as much as possible. They do not anticipate heavy usage of the doors. The tower element is non-functional so it can be taken out. However, the building becomes blank which is what they are trying to avoid. They think this is a good addition to the Cook Street neighborhood. Commissioner O'Donnell asked if the alley could be discontinued, therefore, providing more setback space. Mr. Smith responded that some of the homes and the apartment building to the north have their garages into the alley. Mr. Drell stated that the status of the alley was ignored in determining the width of the setback to the 26 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27, 2001 MINUTES backyard of the residence. They were given a credit for the alley in the setback. Commissioner O'Donnell had hoped that the alley could be used as a buffer zone between the project and the residences which would justify some of the direction he would go in improving the architecture on that elevation. Mr. Jonathan stated that one of the compelling reasons for this particular layout was that they thought it would be the least intrusive. The project will have "quiet-type" use, typically shut down in the evening and weekends. And no reason to go back into the neighborhood. While he would like to have another access at the northeast corner along Cook Street, but that it would probably be inappropriate. Commissioner VanVliet stated that this is a pretty visible corner, especially as Cook Street becomes a major corridor. He was concerned about the south-bound view from Cook Street at the 14- foot roll-up doors. While the perimeter wall is 11 feet, it goes down to 6 feet at the corner to match the existing wall. Mr. Sanborn, the architect, suggested that additional landscaping could be provided to shield the view. As the project is over-parked, trees could be planted in some of those parking spaces. The front of the apartment complex has substantial landscaping and you don't really see the property until you are right on top of it. Commissioner VanVliet asked if some of the back area might eventually be used for storage. Mr. Jonathan stated that is not how it is designed, but realistically that could happen. Commissioner VanVliet expressed concern that the apartment dwellers would be able to see the storage materials. Applicant will make note of the view from the apartment complex and try to screen any potential views into the industrial area. Mr. Jonathan asked the Commission for its comments on the architecture. He pointed out the use of red split face and grey precision block on the walls. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the applicant may have a problem before the City Council with the grey precision block. Mr. Sanborn responded that it seems a shame to put up precision block and then cover it with paint or stucco. Commissioner Vuksic pointed out that the south and east elevations shown look very good. The other sides are a stark transition from the street elevation architecture. It looks like the street architecture doesn't want to be connected to the rest of the building. It would be better if the block was used more extensively. 27 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27, 2001 MINUTES He suggested varying the heights of the parapets and carried some of the architecture around the building. Commissioner O'Donnell expressed his concern about the west elevation and that it needs to be improved upon. He, too was concerned about the line of sight for south-bound traffic. If the roll- up doors cannot be lowered, can other architectural elements be added that might help break up the industrial look. He also suggested putting landscape pods large enough to accommodate trees between the overhead doors. Mr.Smith suggested that the case be continued as there would be a change in the site plan and there were concerns about the landscape solutions, parking, the west and north elevations. Action: Commissioner Connor moved, seconded by Commissioner VanVliet, to continue the case to allow applicant opportunity to respond to concerns, ie, building siting, landscape solutions for screening, parking, and the west and north elevation architecture. Motion carried 7-0. 4. CASE NO.: TT 29469 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): WORLD DEVELOPMENT, 74- 333 Hwy. 111 , Suite 103, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of front yard landscaping LOCATION: 73-770 Frank Sinatra Drive (north side of Frank Sinatra Drive, east of Kaufman & Broad) ZONE: PR-5 Commission was provided with a copy of the front yard landscaping plan. The City Landscape Manager commented that the turf area was a little large and he asked them to reduce the turf area. He noted that there was a mix of sub-tropical and arid plant material. He has asked that the applicant not blend the types of plants. Action: Commissioner VanVliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to approve the plan subject to comments by the City Landscape Manager. Motion carried 7-0. Architectural Review Commission March 13, 2001 Minutes Commissioner Vuksic liked having it lowered but wondered if it could have been done more effectively. There are two different- sized windows at the second level next to each other. Mr. Lujan asked if smaller, but identical windows would be acceptable and by thickening the wall thereby giving the relief so it won't be continuous. Also by thickening the wall, he can recess the windows. Mr. Knight commented that he would be talking to the applicant about plant palette and adjusting the spacing of the plants. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to grant preliminary approval subject to modifications to the stair tower, thickening the adjacent wall in order to recess the windows and provide relief, have those two windows the same size, possibly adding a window to Office 2, offsetting of walls as discussed, and following through on the Landscape Manager's comments. Motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners Gregory and Lingle absent. 6./ CASE NO.: PP 01-03 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SABBY JONATHAN, COOK STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC, 42-620 Caroline Court, Suite 120, Palm Desert, CA 92211 ALLEN SANBORN, SANBORN ARCHITECTURE, 1227 S. Gene Autry Trail, #C, Palm Springs, CA 92264 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised architecture for a 16,000 square foot office/industrial building LOCATION: Northwest corner of Cook Street and Sheryl Avenue ZONE: OP The project has been totally redone from a two-building to a one- building project with parking along the east and west perimeters. To address a Public Works concern, they have offset the access driveway on Sheryl to get it further from the corner. The former tower element was located at the corner of the building, it is now centered on the east elevation facing Cook Street. 18 Architectural Review Commission March 13, 2001 Minutes Mr. Smith stated concern about the line of 16 parking spaces along Cook Street as they are not going to get an access driveway point from Cook. This creates a long dead-end situation. There is a turn-around area at the north end of the dead-end. A possible alternative is to cut off some of the north end of the building and create a one-way driveway system around and out towards the alley. However, the applicant does want to mix the traffic/parking areas as one is basically for loading/unloading. If the architecture is acceptable at this point, the Commission considered just acting on the architecture and referring the rest of the application forward to the Planning Commission/City Council with a recommendation on how to handle the parking situation. Mr. Jonathan stated that in going through the issues the Commission had last time, it became clear that it would be near impossible to fit two buildings sideways. By orienting one building toward Cook Street and having the two parking perimeters, he felt that the concerns of the Commission had to been addressed. They were: 1) The roll-up doors at the rear of Building 1 would be visible from Cook. That concern has been eliminated by placing the roll- up doors at the rear of the new building, facing west. 2) The apartment dwellers to the north seeing loading activity. There is a stairwell, two bathroom windows, and one balcony facing south onto this project. Now they are looking at the side of the building and may be able to see features of the front of the building. They are not looking at any loading activity. 3) The view of three residences to the west, one of those is not an issue because their 3-car garage is located at the back of their property. For the other two, the building has been moved far away from the property. The applicant would mitigate any of those issues with landscaping or up to an 8-foot wall. The traffic configuration works better because it keeps traffic away from the apartments and from the residences across the alley. Losing building space at the north end in order to install a driveway will not kill the project. Commissioner Connor stated it would be a disservice to people to the north and to the west to have a driveway on the north perimeter and to use the alley. The Fire Department has yet to see the traffic plan. Commissioner O'Donnell thanked the applicant for addressing the Commission's previous concerns, however, this is an entirely different project. Mr. Jonathan replied that it was the same architecture just in one building. 19 Architectural Review Commission March 13, 2001 Minutes Commissioner Hanson stated that it would be nice to have the Cook Street elevation sloped roof element continue along the sides of the building, especially along the Sheryl Street side. Commissioner Vuksic asked what was around the doors and stated that when there is a jog in planes, there should be some differentiation in heights so that the parapet doesn't "zig" around. He suggested doing something so that the forms are interlocking instead having the parapet return. Regarding the concrete columns on the front elevation, it looks as though they are flush with the plaster above it. It would be richer if the columns could come out, create a base, and have the upper piece sitting on top of it. Commissioner O'Donnell assumed that the loading would be a daytime activity, therefore, the three west side residences would not be experiencing traffic after the work day. He stated that there might be a need for a significant landscape buffer in layers between the parking and alley. Mr. Jonathan agreed their intent would be to landscape outside of the wall as well as meeting the shading and vegetation requirements on the inside. The wall can be made whatever height is required. They will see little to none of the activity on the westside of the property. This is not planned as a heavy industrial use. They are expecting to house furniture showrooms and design type tenants. They went with the larger roll- up doors to accommodate any types of special needs. Commissioner VanVliet stated it was important to screen the rear of the building which is 22 feet high with 14-foot high doors. The architecture on the Cook Street side is good and should be brought around to the other three sides to tie them together. Commissioner Connor asked if it would be possible to put a planting bed between the doors at the walls to get some vines on the wall. There are 4- foot wide planting pods between the doors. The roof-mounted air-conditioning units will be located below the parapet. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to grant preliminary approval subject to extending the metal roof to the south along Sheryl, increasing the thicknesses of the entry towers, staggering the parapet elements along the north elevation, with a strong recommendation for significant landscaping along the 20 Architectural Review Commission March 13, 2001 Minutes alley. Motion carried 4-1 with Commissioner VanVliet denying and Commissioners Gregory and Lingle absent. 7. CASE NO.: CUP 94-4 Amendment #1 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): WILLIAM HARRIS, ST. MARGARET'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH, 47-535 Highway 74, Palm Desert, CA 92260 PAM TOUSCHNER, WWEOT, 199 S. Civic Drive, Suite 10, Palm Springs, CA 92262 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of plans for the expansion of an existing school facility LOCATION: 47-535 Highway 74 ZONE: P The Church is looking to expand its school facility with the addition of an early childhood education center. This will be located west of the existing parking lot and north of the administration building. The building will be single story, 19 feet in height, with a central clevestory element, 21 feet in height. This building will have exterior plaster over metal studs with a 3 in 12 roof. Along the rear of the site, adjacent to the channel, the applicant proposes a two-story four-classroom facility for 7t'' and 8tn grades. The height on this structure when viewed from the west varies from 28 feet to 34 feet. Height in the "P" zone is not limited, however, the City has always attempted to minimize the impacts of height on nearby neighborhoods. Staff recommends that if this building can be lowered, it should be done. Ms. Pam Touschner, the architect, noted that the garage door on the west elevation of the 2-story building was for storage space, not for under-building parking. Everything is being proposed to fit in with the existing architecture of the administration building which is different than that of the church. The early childhood building will be used to bridge the gap with a walkway ending in a tower element. The Early Childhood Building and Bridge: The roof material will be painted wood, however, it could change to painted metal. The new 21 CITY OF PIM DESERT • , 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92 260-2 5 7 8 1i', fl!'r. RIK y TEL: 760 346-061 1 FAX: 760 341-7098 I7��'` =�7� info@ palm-desert org March 14, 2001 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION CASE NO.: PP 01-03 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SABBY JONATHAN, COOK STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC, 42-620 Caroline Court, Suite 120, Palm Desert, CA 92211 ALLEN SANBORN, SANBORN ARCHITECTURE, 1227 S. Gene Autry Trail, #C, Palm Springs, CA 92264 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised architecture for a 16,000 square foot office/industrial building LOCATION: Northwest corner of Cook Street and Sheryl Avenue ZONE: OP Upon reviewing the submitted plans and presentations by staff and by the applicant, the Architectural Review Commission granted preliminary approval subject to extending the metal roof to the south along Sheryl, increasing the thicknesses of the entry towers, staggering the parapet elements along the north elevation, with a strong recommendation for significant landscaping along the alley. Date of Action: March 13, 2001 Vote: Motion carried 4-1with Commissioners Gregory and Lingle absent (An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. Any amendments to this approved plan would need to be re-submitted to Commission for approval.) STAFF COMMENTS: It is your responsibility to submit the plans approved by the Architectural Review Commission to the Department of Building and Safety. CONTINUED CASES: In order to be placed on the next meeting's agenda, new or revised plans must be submitted not later than 9:00 a.m. the Monday eight days prior to the next meeting. • STAFF REPORT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION March 13, 2001 CASE NO.: PP 01-03 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SABBY JONATHAN, COOK STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC, 42-620 Caroline Court, Suite 120, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised architecture for a 16,000 square foot office/industrial building LOCATION: Northwest corner of Cook Street and Sheryl Avenue ZONE: OP DISCUSSION: In the period since the last meeting, the applicant has worked on several possible site layouts. The current layout provides more setback from Cook Street and has inserted a row of parking on this side of the site. The plan provides a long, 17-space, dead-end row of parking with the only access from Sheryl Avenue. This situation could be improved with a driveway across the north side of the lot. This driveway could be one-way. The applicant would need to landscape on either side of the driveway to prevent people from driving into the wall and to provide some screening for the apartments to the north. The building would need to be reduced in area in order to accommodate the driveway. This would bring the parking count closer to compliance. RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission review the revised plans and determine acceptability. STEVE SMITH MANAGER, PLANNING wpdocs\sr\pp01-03b.arc ..... .... CITY DE PRIMA DESERT • 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 9 2 260-2 5 7 8 to /•a r TEL: 760 346-0611 <( �.t. • FAX: 760 341-7098 a may.: =_yq:► Info@ palm-desert.org February 28, 2001 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION CASE NO.: PP 01-03 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): COOK STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC, 42-600 Caroline Court, Suite 120, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of architecture for a 16,000 square foot office/industrial building LOCATION: Northwest corner of Cook Street and Sheryl Avenue ZONE: OP Upon reviewing the submitted plans and presentations by staff and by the applicant, the Architectural Review Commission continued the case to allow applicant opportunity to respond to concerns, ie, building siting, landscape solutions for screening, parking, and the we st and north elevation architecture. Date of Action: February 27, 2001 Vote: Motion carried 7-0 (An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. Any amendments to this approved plan would need to be re-submitted to Commission for approval.) STAFF COMMENTS: It is your responsibility to submit the plans approved by the Architectural Review Commission to the Department of Building and Safety. CONTINUED CASES: In order to be placed on the next meeting's agenda, new or revised plans must be submitted not later than 9:00 a.m. the Monday eight days prior to the next meeting. STAFF REPORT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27, 2001 CASE NO.: PP 01-03 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): COOK STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC, 42-600 Caroline Court, Suite 120, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of architecture for a 16,000 square foot office/industrial building LOCATION: Northwest corner of Cook Street and Sheryl Avenue ZONE: OP DISCUSSION: The applicant proposes to construct two buildings with a total area of 16,000 square feet on the subject property. The property is zoned O.P. (Office Professional) and is adjacent to two-story apartments on the north and three single-story residences on the west. The south is vacant property which has been subject to an application by Rick Hughes for a neighborhood center. At this time, we do not have landscape plans, but that is just as well given that the Public Works Department advises it will require ten feet of street widening on Cook Street and twelve feet of right-of-way dedication. This will move the east property line twelve feet to the west (closer to the building). The required setback in the O.P. zone is fifteen feet from the property line so the building will need to be shifted westerly by two feet to meet the setback. At the southeast corner of Building A, the applicant has shown a large (30' tall) tower element which projects out beyond the main building. Farther north on the Cook Street elevation, a steel trellis extends into the setback by five feet. The corner element would be five feet from the new property line. Along Sheryl Avenue, the Public Works Department will require four feet of widening, but it will be accomplished within the existing right-of-way. The main building material will be grey precision block and red split-face block. The corner tower and south-facing roof sections will be standing seam metal in a Douglas pine green. The north elevation, facing the apartments contains three metal overhead doors and precision block. The westerly, smaller building, Building B, contains similar architecture and is 22-feet tall. This building is adjacent to three single-story residential units to the west. Code requires ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27,2001 STAFF REPORT PP 01-03 a minimum setback of twenty feet for an 18-foot high structure plus 6.32 feet for every foot of height above 18 feet. This 22-foot high structure would need 46.52 feet of setback. There is a 20-foot alley between the two properties so we feel that the intent of the 20-foot setback has been met, however, the separation is 30 feet from the rear property line of the residences versus 46.52 feet as required. Building B will need to be reduced in height to a maximum of 19 feet. The west elevation of this building is essentially all grey precision block and the amount of landscaping that can be placed in a 10-foot setback is limited. The City zoned the site Office Professional in anticipation of putting a typical professional office on it as we would usually see on Fred Waring or Monterey. The applicant is attempting to design a project which expands the range of use for the buildings. We feel that this can be done, however, it needs to meet all of the requirements of the O.P. district and be sensitive to the neighbors in both design and function. The applicant requested that this be placed on the agenda to obtain ARC comments on the architecture. RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission return the project to the applicant with input to applicant with respect to architecture so that he can make any necessary changes along with revisions to the site plan. STEVE SMITH MANAGER, PLANNING wpdocs\sr\pp01-03.arc SITE PLAN GENERAL NOTES LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARKIN• REQUIREMENTS I1ELOT 4•S1S OF CO WRY CLI•VILLAS',NO IP� RE02 Ma.AO,PG.4-5, MC Y TIETIEING. I M RETAL SPACE ASSESSORS PARCEL NO I par 500 SE.A1526Y GP.• 33 SANBORN 624-242.001 A CO2 LESS 15%COMMON AREA ALLOWANCE -S PROJECT DATA TOTAL SPACES REOUREO 25 PROPOED EINCE/w•mK LDS_MSTORY ARCHITECTURE PARKING PROVIDED CIVIL ENGINEERING ExISTNG 20NN•l OFAAL PLAY DES•NATION REGLLM V'X 20'SPACES JO C-1 NANDICAP SPACES 2 LAND SURVEYING CONSTRUCTION TYPE-TYPE V-1 Iw• ------ A R E A CALCULATION• TOTAL PACES PROVIDED 32 SANBORN A/E INC. STE AREA 45.730 IF. PDX ALLEN,M^� RI SANBORN.A.I.A TECT BUILDING AREA. 16257 tF 36X IYJ)S.GENE AUTRY TRAIL NARDSCAPE AREA 6.456 IF. 40x SUITE UT PALM 6PR SUITE CA.e22e4 LANDSCAPING AREA: X275D SF. 24% TEL Ae01325-S42e J FAX 1re01 325-5130 I I i f,~� ` I .� /\\ .,W.l I / I I�IrJOWNER:COOK ei_ \ YUITE 1020\\ / / I I I� 1 I' \ "i/ PALM DESERT.CA.e2211 1 TEL nea 34rea5e \\ I \ \ I PAK reol T o-eE2e O ! `}�vK 71) / /' 1 --' / I 1 1 j -° GENERAL CONTRACTOR; �� -- \ _--\ / I LDER6 r -'O' �..�_ _/ i II I ,IIiisTorsmmtna.L.nRNON D. II 1 ! .. -` ._. i 1 , I II I I CC!FAT 3e0-ae32 I1II1t to . 11 __ _ �a A n A A mil. }'- } I/ 1 I / PAx 176013eo-asm ti F2. I 1,, . . „\ I x j�, I '-` I \\J \� Il i i �Q ~ ( IrT �. i I• N '\ I iII' II / a (ii I R �� : � ,.Y•GN. i \ 8I 1 I j j I \I1\ \ L— / \ _ \- --2 rII lorue �a•RGo ' I LW '^ I .. .: I I .eorrr \--, ---,.....7 ` 22 I•— �� x fl / � I I \ � ^ � f I /I a , 1 l - I Y It' VI 1 , N......, \ PROJECT nrLE ___.1 ' \ \ I OFFICE-IPDUSTItl � �/ — J �_ NG Mr SP a AL — f _—COOK ST. ASSOCIATES,LLC. •_. X -.. E I --'� I / J�JxexM �� r1 L f'1 �\ �� � ' , � PEAR Dawn,G. - T TITLE. i _— Saha oeatla Site Plan — ' '-��` Wt.GN.wa2lT-. -- _lam—._— O N M.roof IN.8T''''`� ''''1!: \`\ CA-, HIS.root 30AN> ° I • © I — I --J SI-IEQYL Rd. I P M oAn w ao-2a rs1 ----.—__—._. ./-.'Y'_�1s... _.__._.. ,��'" -. .- _.e._�`_ _._. --� /�_- a MT[ 9/0S/O U I ft —�� \F �_—...__J - \\ \� �' MIXED AVB /..-', n ,c @ T �` �. PAN oo-nR _ Leif IAS } lI 11 !Z ,Yri� �11 a X � X:.. j (1 I / I NonTN De r Na A Schematic Site Plan "\1 1 -r ,/ ` 1 1- 0 1 /,��; Cr A1.0 Qs 1 /� '_"F 3DIRS` /r i • lible .EDo• o•-0' rsr 6 er-r , co• r c,ti. e•.r ac•r�ra's•r; ors• v-C, r oy+•r• e•-r CFO' So0•-1: ex-r , SANBORN ARCHITECTURE CIVIL ENGINEERING r LAND SURVEYING r•••......1 {7 f^v""^"^^ �r. __"" .1 1 _ ._ ' � SANBORN A/E INC. ALLEN M RANeORN.AI.A. I L___..._. L__.__....—. _�.....�...J PALM NE ALITT II I NE A C TRAIL GW CA.a22eA FA%111D01 3255-RISA OWNER' 4]_/TO CMAIW.INE CTXI.L.L.C. IUD PALM PALM DESERT.CA,evil TEL DWI 34H//6E IN FAX f7e01178-e02e pGEEgNERAL CONTRACTOR: 77-GUILDER, 11-610 Springfield L. NP.��lt�D. FAX 7 GOI IIJe0-55811° FA%nem xo-ssal M I . 0 • -M • REVISIONS n k n COPYRIGHT 11 U - PROJECT b I ° O BTRIAL P M. —j 1 1.. t- ......a._ ... 1- 1 i l .._._1- I. COOKIBUILDNG tor P a ASSOCIATES,LLC. �._ Z --_Z-_ 1.-- ._-1.._.: 1_... = f ="... .-..� n Palm Oxcart Ca, SHEET TITLE: L mil Bahama tlo p Floor Plan 6'4' I ♦♦♦0W e6-r 0.-0.1 Mr0' e'-0 36'A' I'O' MT DATE WA. II0-9E1 CME vr.r-v ea-0• DATE f/M/q O*8(00 Me O AVM AME PATH aHEE1 DVA FEE ALSO KITED SHEET ND ecA� � 0 A 2.0 Schematic Floor Plan _ I/Bf=I'-OA1 __ U c 0 0 0,0 . 9 0 a ...IiiIiIIIIIIIIII IIII. II._ "hal E _ mmumw SANBORN } -,. is IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiII IIIIIII1111IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII lu���,.. ARCHITECTURE /,I CIVIL ENGINEERING I��I I.a MIME' �I�I�I F LAND SURVEYING II II NumMIMI MnomIMI MIMI MUM_MIMI iiiiillMIME =.. ..a SANBORN A/E INC. , EN l0,A., 4181N.AAA. MIME__ -_= 1221 S GENE AUT TY TRAIL SUITE'C . PATPRNTEAEnE - TELi2ESZ0 FAX 11001 323-0130 GOOK ST. ELEVATION (1E440.) OWNED: 00 O COOK ST.ASMATES,L.L.C. ♦UITT120 CAPOLEJE CT. i 0 PALM DESCRY,CA,eZZll TEL I7801 341-8O8 P AX 1100117e-8e40 \ GENERAL CONTRACTOR: :MIME _ _MIME — Et11LOEPO T• 10 aPnlrorNw L.n. WIN D. — i WE G;ol 33EEo-ssa?E ♦ ♦ ♦ SI1-IER11L ST. ELEVATION (South) REVISIONS - (n/s 7 - MIME- MIME C YPX]HT MIME MIME — — r7 — -- , , i _.. - - ..-_.. - MIME - MATERIALS NORTI-I ELEVATION —PROJECT TITLE. Qi SravDnsSEAMne-raLpapa. OFFICE-INDUSTRIAL ICI PAINTS-9W-DOWLAS PINE BUILDING for O P.C.C.PLASTER COOK ST. ICI PAINTS-WI-CASABA MELON 0 0 Q I O ASSOCIATES,L.L.C. ICI PAINTS-RAS-SCENIC ROSE Il O ....cdc.OLOCK Pilo Daeart,Ca. r-NR,7 BLOCK-PRECISION BLOCK-TAN er,EF - ORCO BLOCK•SPLIT FACE BLOCK-RED -_-_- —_— i - Schema tic Elev ations OPAINreD STEEL CORBELS -._ Building A_ICI PAINTS-RLi-DCGLAS PS!®- PAINTED STEEL TRELLIS "'— — _ _ -..._ _ T ICI PAINTS 9J-aINEBERRTIlD - , '� (—_ — , t 'mac_---.1 - . - _ _ } '47 0 BRONZE ANODISED STCRei4d71YT _TT _i T- '� ..- _= / 'f— - _ _ . 1 7 fi Nwr DATE RR 0a2Z. ® PAi ED/TELL MIME - '-y -J — SCALE E.M1C K/PAINTS-93-LLMALBERIT RED _ — -__ - O PAINTED METAL DOORS _ \ — `---1 . -'\ p_ .`i MIME \ = <\ DATE voe of NAM PAINTED TO INATCLI TAN BLOCK 0WN A. ALLEY ELF-v.4TION (WIss_t) PAT" So-"' DWG ALE AI_FTE NCETX 51ET ND Schematic Elva tons .411) A3.O h o X�', MN SANBORN ARCHITECTURE 7 A221 CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING SANBORN A/E INC. ALLEN RC„IITECT A.I.A. 1227 S.GENTE CTRY TRAIL PALM SPPo"TOE CA.922E4 TEL ITOO a2E-W20 FAX 7001825-3I30 EVAI COOLLR OWNER 8♦22'-O' (M'� ./10 CARAOLIK CEL.L.L.C. SUITE ALM OE 120 PaERT.CA 02211 TEL r001 3AF0060 FAX r001 TTD-0020 GENERAL CONTRACTOR: OM^EOu0.oeR0 I TT-STO 1p.h.gtAC Lane DOPING./MINERAL Si 0 1 C.. 21I p 8Xd's lLPE�' TEL 73 I Seo-ee 2 G+ PAX rill 3eo-EEal F- _ • r- L �P t \TP.22'-D- al 5%EMFETI DOPING-/MINERAL C t - C UNIT 1RE%VISION. IMMEI I�� HOME IMF TP+tY-G' r), OOPMK/NT • _ -- ::::..7.21-Tii-"_:E."..-5. emu.. I I PROJECT TITLEOFFICE-MOUST/PAL fw 1----- -... -... _ELL - COOK ST. I i i -- -' - - ASSOCIATES,L.L.C. .•: ' • ',VA t'•'�'),;,� Palo Daunt Ca. IUILT-UP ROOPINO./MINERAL OI.I[ET TITLE: CAP SNFFT Schema to /I Roof Plan STTN'GI NG SEA j PINT DATE W.O. 00-22. WALE VI.1-0 DATE 2/00/I d000D MO DRAWN AAI PATII 00 224 OVAL FLE ALITE Nan, MEET NO. 0 A 5.0 Schema to Roof Tian .ti.,\`-'_: I I..... 017-ealaris— Pi�� I -' �.�� - - oy s 11'. �1 SANBORN ur .11 . a ' ARC IITECTURE o 1po yl a j CIVIL ENGINEERING • 111__ �,, 0 1 ', ' LAND SURVEYING �I PLANT MOM ' w 0 ,1111 �1 SANBPRN A/E INC. _i_� Rn•wr •.,... .a ••w•m. O .l.� 4/ ALLerJAnc.iTGCOTRN,A.I.A. ROES ,��/ J�J( _— 1 1 11 1 I Y1II]B.GENE SUIrE U�RY TRAIL �I I .� .nrAxaWo Wpm - ' .(J�) ,f 1 1 PALM RPRINGS FI STS-AV ®� �^I- ?l .��yy 8,-Ry ❑ . ��C ) ,`1 \ fA AIOI a�D-DI3D— I fp r maw.ms ..Ma• war -- �.. _ ■ ® -- NI . PALMS eXAaaa r.•N. _ _(`'�� - 11 1, I OWNER / Q I t v 1 Fg 0^ARO INEACLD.L.L.C. -- wi ta a X•M•I•.= ,Maul ra PM• Pa mu• - ❑ , — �St I PATE IaJ 1 I. 1 PALM DESERT.CA.alRII PDX.I ACCENT PLANTS �/ I I I PAX gaol I]DO 1)a-aa]D '-- '}1�[�(� a omu.a..•.Ma• Rer R.r.rw PM Ala J1•tl. - ❑ J 11` ` ! I GENERAL CONTRACTOR: �� OO I V nr eraurw A.�aoW, a.ew MO>PWat u w. - --_--- �*I` I I OM DUX,DERa M II.Ru.Xa.1rN.Pm II.MA m•IL - I E8 61,0 DWIrg11.I•L.n. • • •l / __— *I Q® OW SAMOS ...ar... 0., .•arm. X•a - ❑ ® r W 3�'o-ee�'3n Sz �. IM • T.Ra. S i1 igi fAX I]DOI aDP65Y1 .. ..] , ,......,..p..gg.... WPM ❑ ♦ is 01100NO COVEN t3%1 V MI, C] KO 1.1.10.188. r•a•e y,m A II.vrONP O -- -- 1M CD .• Y.,....r,.a•• Wily ammo m r•r•• ❑ 'a.1, F �I 80.0212 MIh. r OM antra. 1 / A. / �c-xf oG:Twr"r ��--- —. O :y AX :..r 1 al 0• 1 - �I �' 0 Mq PCT TITLE: OFFICE-IPDUSTAlAL ❑ , 1 — EUILDI G for Vile —_.. ' �. SR��,� COOK�T. ��;�,>)� ASSOCIATES,L.L.C. • i.• - Pale Dj.•rt,Ca. reSHEET TITLE I� � - ♦�\ � I Preliminary _ . ❑ ❑ 0 0 0 0 ❑ / I _ Lan p• Pia'�I�.r�l`.``_.-.__.. . - . �' U i 1\\tdata • n PANT DATE WO. 00-224 ��i,��xyc7l n-'C® ��� 'I a N• v Yam' / y� ...A fe....ice ``4I SCALE I•.Ia-a• li_ ..___.---- �C `i •� .-: .. =e'n/ — — L7 ,! 1��1i= ;I DATE s,a./1 j; f�' VC V� Y ® '® r' , auwR we / _.._. _..__... ____.— _ ._—.—___..._ __. _--_ PAIN ao-ns I Preliminary L.nd,oape Plan . A L1.O .....-.,�... ` C � �� V OF P � DESER i 1 , . f'� 73-510 FRED WAKING DRIVE 1, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 97260-2578 if i TEL: 760 346-0611 , PAX: 760 341-7098 ••:::. ?.a. 7• io(o@palm-deeerr.org CITY OF PALM DESERT , LEGAL NOTICE CASE NOS. PP 01-03 AND DA 01-01 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by COOK STREET ASSOCIATES LLC for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and a precise plan of design for a 16,000 square foot office/showroom building at the northwest corner of Sheryl Avenue and Cook Street, 42-595 Cook Street. Request also includes approval of a development agreement which will limit uses in the project to those with a parking requirement of two spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area or less. a —J a a ir - cn1a SEGO LN J 1 JONI DR Illiiiimi . Ar 1 . •mA'i����' — ■ MERLE DR One_1I� i1II■urj — u :WNW a��\--- ;.10 a a APw � '; a Ott (l , • �sxERnavE S/171.17 Subject Property T1 SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, April 17, 2001, 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. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. 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 at, or prior to, the public hearing. 0/8-/47 621-42 SP/T /of 2 I POR. NE. I/4 SEC. l6 T. 5S. R.6E. 0/8-/49 b/8-/50 -: 0/8-/63 0 0/8- 202 r _el0/8-/88 4-1 ,4/89'd9V5' • VC. - N /47 T ; ZO V I — - wT �� n O /39 1 Sf. 44 Lot K '' TRA 0/8-/46 I • if iFV _ m' L./ 4 Trrrarr Aaa.dz L./., m TRA 0/8-/50 30 i fo I Li ' , a I..l IOY n /49 O ' 139 o- t I 149 O __ ---- / 100� ^ `+ TRA 0/8-150 0nri 6B k r TRA 0/8-146 i a Q ;S /7 2.16dC� /37 a. m^ ( Or(L'' 1•+'L 1 CH-111'k,.,4'% Torvz.( iz--'1-.9 4, `TO '1-tr- b o 3 , /5/ 0l36 634 ' �-2 c y' O p - TRA O/d- !VI r V . 1 0 i 152.. 12 k `_.irit r C/e ••/47 ` - s ss ti 1 h 0 /s i `Z ' O /35 t o O09 � N� n /53 O � ffgg � � JO ■1 m 2Qf.ts m, vo 'T iaeS /34 �. q N rD' .11.,-�-7 D 120 -- TRA 01> / :_t.0 . .. 1 Q .. Aral, col C,' d,t — •• v I t.il.U. S9LPZ `1 O //a.33 `' _ ' g //SO.99'/3'0 __ - AVE ¢ys.sd _ F _ —BERYL 12/ 6 w LD7 N Po:oe Qa 'g 7 Ogg /22 /28 /29 130 /3/ /32 0 133 P P • /23 ° /24 /25 126 /27 k ' C, V .. I oo fo CCY-/:. _ �' Go - • -., — plrA- OLD NO.Nor NO. "____'�tt 01;h Feed 57hI;: 4FY[di Lse :empiate for 5`.6O® APN 624-160-001 APN 624-160-002 APN 624-241-012 HERBERT S.&RITA F.MOLLEN SIMONDS ENTERPRISES K.W.&S.R.SIMONDS 74617 STRAWFLOWER CIR PO BOX 11830 75587 CAMINO DE PACO PALM DESERT CA 92260-3150 PALM DESERT CA 92255-1830 INDIAN WELLS CA 92210-7638 APN 624-241-013 APN 624-241-014 ✓ APN 624-241-015 K.W.&S.R.SIMONDS KATHLEEN M.WALKER PHYLEEN MILLER 75587 CAMINO DE PACO 26352 HOUSTON TRL 74923 SHERYL AVE INDIAN WELLS CA 92210-7638 1J LAGUNA HILLS CA 92653-6332 PALM DESERT CA 92260-2073 ti APN 624-241-016 1- 1-\\0°r APN 624-241-017 APN 624-241-018 SIMONDS ENTERPRISES SIMONDS 1993 TRUST KATHLEEN M.WALKER PO BOX 11830 71890 ELEANORA LN 26352 HOUSTON TRL PALM DESERT CA 92255-1830 RANCHO MIRAGE CA 92270-4451 LAGUNA HILLS CA 92653-6332 APN 624-241-019 APN 624-242-001 APN 624-242-002 KATHLEEN M.WALKER S. &W.S.JONATHAN S. &W.S.JONATHAN 26352 HOUSTON TRL 42620 CAROLINE CT#102 42620 CAROLINE CT#102 LAGUNA HILLS CA 92653-6332 PALM DESERT CA 92211-5141 PALM DESERT CA 92211-5141 APN 624-242-007 APN 624-242-008 APN 624-242-009 RICHARD EUGENE COTTRELL RICHARD EUGENE COTTRELL • RICHARD EUGENE COTTRELL 45525 CAMINO DEL REY 45525 CAMINO DEL REY 45525 CAMINO DEL REY INDIAN WELLS CA 92210-8805 INDIAN WELLS CA 92210-8805 INDIAN WELLS CA 92210-8805 APN 624-242-010 APN 624-242-011 APN 624-242-012 .� KOZLAK TRUST KOZLAK TRUST MARCO A.CASTILLO 35-955 PASEO CIRCULO 35-955 PASEO CIRCULO 42770 CLIFFORD ST CATHEDRAL CITY CA 92234 CATHEDRAL CITY CA 92234 PALM DESERT CA 92260-2012 APN 624-242-013 APN 624-242-014 i✓ APN 624-242-017 VIC &BERNADETTE PELOQUIN JEFFREY THOMAS RUNYAN • • JACK E.&MARILYN H.ROBERTS 42800 CLIFFORD ST 42818 CLIFFORD ST 150 VIRGINIA ST PALM DESERT CA 92260-2012 PALM DESERT CA 92260-2012 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103-4315 APN 624-243-003 APN 624-243-004 APN 624-243-005 ALLEN B.&HILDA SHUPPS ROBERTA L.HARABEDIAN ATHANASIOS J.FOSTER 632 S IRENA AVE 75235 PURPLE HILLS RD PO BOX 2761 REDONDO BEACH CA 90277-4355 INDIAN WELLS CA 92210-8376 RANCHO SANTA FE CA 92067-2761 APN 624-243-006 APN 624-243-007 APN 624-243-008 DAVID D.&ROBERTA A.ERNST CHESTER L./.PT&S.M.BURNETT ROGER C.&NOLA J.COLE 78840 AURORA WAY 3151 AIRWAY AVE STE T3 7023 LISA LN LA QUINTA CA 92253-4914 COSTA MESA CA 92626-4627 WESTMINSTER CA 92683-2267 APN 624-243-009 APN 624-243-010 APN 624-243-011 DONALD A.LIVINGSTON CLAUDIA BARAJAS THOMAS P.BUTCHER 74800 SHERYL AVE APT 23 74800 SHERYL AVE APT 24 74800 SHERYL AVE APT 31 PALM DESERT CA 92260-2000 PALM DESERT CA 92260-2000 PALM DESERT CA 92260-2000 e sew F4.. /, k ® l � • 8 1 y r G;r� a1 tad ,0.0j aa, fb , 2 t L L .. .. vex .- Ig 114i ,°, :, tar, 9ai F. fry + �'� ► d a. F � AFT 0 , r L i n� ,`, s � .c .3 .. s' ..t s ^ •N r et � 7� 213hF9 tsk ► t (.2 an 'IOU • T0•l►lO {kk �Ys N•7 1 i ,,,. 'r iF/ �!. aL -' ,. ..,., .f Of .. t ' of • flY1I 1' •, a a° O[ of ' 1 el "gyp, ! Q ���� I PF/ •®, 1$ ., k iv ,, 'i .�.1a ... 44. k s kt • -r C of` ' �j 9r/ . p , � i�i t1 " ,lJ -31« 17) , '' /` Via` ,,, I (r117vv1dw • x f is' Fxres a is 1 90,—?/p VEAL ' w '�O9 t —— • ! 6i/ Pik ' 8r/ t R a tler -�—__ • . � I / Of `1 Aid 9 OG/:ma 1'dl • ••� T1 wr Aril A/ , I--- 9I/-NOI'dL IS •Y /07 I•'' - --�iF� � �fI -� 6F/ P crr it sites • .__.I ,..i g it. 4 - rl z e 60 C) osi-eIq •• 6P/-8/0 ;39 ',Ss51 91 �3s �ii 3'N dod a, jot Mg 1 zi,'/z9 it,/-8/O i ,<. r "a". ar; * mh, \N i y EF N N n� O N F4 i O � � 0) �t p0. ffil 1 CO r.. i c4 LO �- M '� N ►- bi N 27i �.:: O N Z 6 8 4 qq VI W � Q at UQQ d Wz � � a fin N LL N U N QQ N < > � " (� N aLL1U N W 06 4,, F U N f � a QU " U a h r 3 6 1 4 Z ? F- 4 C7 , ,, .. N gy u) L N -i N N a6 ' co d � oWG .,„ � 1- cNG o0 � cv W 2 '0 4. uj cp IZ tD O ^ co °� 'aJt[ t� m d gN co Eu 2 U9 O 1R od , Ci LLi � x U g F ci d .d o cN0 •Z 3 Z vg Uo �: Z x5 ►- Z " Z �- 3 � � � �° a °z Ira Q � 5 Q a2 Q P3 & i .;yr 1 \ . : r-- i cv O N bT 36 4 ; O d �` [121 1 !El IJ � gWU N Z6 N 6E6 N � :3 O 4 O v) U • O O N } N W 2 co a (0 ca ? F)5 Qi xcs, 5@ , ': 1Wi. p Q CO -1 < M co I'j w 2 R Q k; � W 5 ; E � o au3 : � � � hi § § a 'eig pzp, R.c� a. a s � ' � a( I < ui . .. < „vz < Xr4U _, va. < < gv < r^ , , >t r4- \ ', Z .i' IA a •c'. 8N r- i 0 `- d to r" p `r' -Id p0 E g 1 c' 6 i . c. N - _1 0) s' 0 0 igl _ 1- . .4- .1. 1 a i v- 16e ZQS a3 N D QQ zQNZQQN � _ u U N N 3 N U N y - 3On W OU ►- ° -- g 4 9 < 4 ►- a a) O Occ CV z N U N (a co a ^ O D $ LLwco . 04mcD adQtD da2 � = PAd vi ow WI a. ELIo ° z Z CX S ^ mc. o cn o Z ^ 1 tZ = . ciO m vN9ZVN0 3 $ ZN $ Z 5 Z 0,7?,, Q n + � g < � z Q Y � <( U5vN Q< W Q< Q ,. g �'< $ da a Fabio Ceresa Fabio Ceresa & Associates 42-620 Caroline Court, Suite 102 Palm Desert, CA 92211 Re: COOK STREET BUSINESS PLAZA NW Corner of Cook Street and Sheryl Avenue, Palm Desert, California Case Number: PP 01-03 To Whom It May Concern: The undersigned has reviewed the above referenced project and is in full support of its development. Thank you. Sinc ely, \/\ 4) n.) 1.JI', ` 1 J t '? -gate \ rJ me Printed APN: 624-241-014 624-241-018 624-241-019 Fabio Ceresa Fabio Ceresa & Associates 42-620 Caroline Court, Suite 102 Palm Desert, CA 92211 Re: COOK STREET BUSINESS PLAZA NW Corner of Cook Street and Sheryl Avenue, Palm Desert, California Case Number: PP 01-03 To Whom It May Concern: _ _ The undersigned has reviewed the above referenced project and is in full support of its development. Thank you. Sincerely, , Date Name Printed V. L. Peloquin APN: 624-242-013 42800 Clifford St. Palm Desert CA 92260 Fabio Ceresa Fabio Ceresa & Associates 42-620 Caroline Court, Suite 102 Palm Desert, CA 92211 Re: COOK STREET BUSINESS PLAZA NW Corner of Cook Street and Sheryl Avenue, Palm Desert, California Case Number: PP 01-03 To Whom It May Concern: The undersigned has reviewed the above referenced project and is in full support of its development. Thank you. Sincerely, Y Date t k),6" • ,ice, A - C4-3 t-11'V Name Printed APN: 62-4 ..., 21r2 © I Z Address: 4- Z - 1 0 C Lr Frog6 ST, PM s � CA- q Q 6-0 Fabio Ceresa Fabio Ceresa & Associates 42-620 Caroline Court, Suite 102 Palm Desert, CA 92211 Re: COOK STREET BUSINESS PLAZA NW Corner of Cook Street and Sheryl Avenue, Palm Desert, California Case Number: PP 01-03 To Whom It May Concern: The undersigned has reviewed the above referenced project and is in full support of its development. Thank you. Sincer= , A / 61,1,1 1 Date 111:11/-4/ IP Wa_ Name Printed APN: 624-241-015 Apr 13 01 11 : 34a ^elm Desert Design Center ^^7 776 4126 p. 1 !'4/I3. 2Hl 1:::3 �:7°°525 „QJ,?ttAb: & PAGE 32 r abit (:ei esa Fabio Ceresa Asso:;i.aCes 12- 623 Caroline Court. Suite 'C Pa ::r; :eeert. CR 32211 Re: COOK STREET BUSINESS PLAZA NW Corner of Carr. Street and Sheryl Avenue. ra1m Desert, California Case Ntmber: PP 01-03 To Whom. It Mgy Concern: The undersigned has reviewed t tie above referenced project and :s ir. full support of its development. Thank you. X Z1.4 Date 4_r-/ 47.4 Name Prinl-_ed 21�sr" mot- (LI kz l? - U (�..�e - lit,f k' s a,frt- ��,� / nt y � r- / � UV Sc`' U r d ck7 � ............ CITY Of PALM DESERT IO FRED WARING DRIVE • 0•44 ti PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 9 2 260-2 5 78 TEL: 760 346-0611 . L11 `s /' • FAX: 760 341-7098 • ;.... info@palm-deserr.org CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO.: PP 01-03 and DA 01-01 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by COOK STREET ASSOCIATES LLC for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and a precise plan of design for a 16,000 square foot office/showroom building at the northwest corner of Sheryl Avenue and Cook Street, 42-595 Cook Street. Request also includes approval of a development agreement which will limit uses in the project to those with a parking requirement of two spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area or less. JONI DR A '� i nir ky MERLE DR \ • .............. CITY OF F11Lffi DESERT • rim ' y �� 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 i 1 TEL: 760 346-061 I • FAX: 760 341-7098 ? . • info®palm-deserc.org CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO.: PP/CUP 00-27 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by LAMB ARCHITECTS on behalf of Hampton Inn for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and precise plan/conditional use permit for a three-story, 88-room hotel to be constructed on 2.4 acres on the north side of Gerald Ford Drive approximately 200 feet west of Cook Street, 74-900 Gerald Ford Drive. Request includes approval of a master plan of development for the three (3) lots fronting on Gerald Ford Drive west of Cook Street and an approval of tower elements in excess of 35 feet on the Hampton Inn. P.C.D. No P.C.D. r i P.C. ., �O FC i� �•• CITY OF PALM DESERT '� ` ; 2001 �ii�ti • COMMUNITY SERVICES crY Or-Q:�L�apEsE�tT >,. '•c��� 3�-fv4#:s <rD�yo�;,.•• INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM =973 • To: Steve Smith, Planning Manager From: Frankie Riddle, Management Analyst Date: May 7, 2001 Subject: Bus Shelter Condition for Cook St. Associates Project After reviewing and speaking with SunLine regarding the Cook Street Associates, L.L.C. Project located at the corner of Cook Street and Sheryl, I recommend that the development be conditioned with a bus shelter. Currently, there exists a bus stop (bench, trash container, and sign) at the north-end corner of Cook Street and Merle Drive and according to SunLine the existing stop can be relocated to the new development. Therefore, services will be provided upon completion of construction. The bus shelter, at minimum, should be 7' x 16' x 7' in size, ADA Compliant, with electrical lighting, designed to aesthetically match the architecture of the complex/building(s), and meet other standards as may be set forth by law and Palm Desert Municipal Codes. The developer should submit plans/drawings on the bus shelter design and materials for review and approval. Frankie Rid e Management Analyst h6 6 UU 0T aid T0. 03A1303111 H\friddle\WpData\BusShelter&Ads\BSCond.CookStAssoc.Cook&Meryl.1 dot ...... ..... . . • • CITY Of P 1 ifi DESERT .1.44 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE III PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92 260-2 5 7 8 11`�" . RP v TEL: 760 346-0611 FAX: 76o 340-0574 jra nfo@palm-desert.org May 14, 2001 Cook Street Associates, LLC 42-620 Caroline Court, Suite 120 Palm Desert, California 92211 Dear Sir or Madam: Subject: Consideration of a Request by Cook Street Associates LLC for Approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and a Precise Plan of Design for a 16,000 Sq. Ft. Office/Showroom Building at the Northwest Corner of Sheryl Avenue and Cook Street, 42-595 Cook Street (Case Nos. PP 01-03 and DA 01-01) At its regular meeting of May 10, 2001, the Palm Desert City Council considered the subject request and took the following action: By Minute Motion, continued the matter for 30 days (June 14, 2001), requesting that upon its return, the cases include more specifics regarding conditions for a bus shelter and the number of tenants. If you have any questions or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, R6Q RACHELLE D. KLASSEN DEPUTY CITY CLERK RDK:nb cc: Planning Department g:Icityclrklnoreen bouchardlword fileslietterslcook st assoc.doc aruxito ox x¢xito x.xo