HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrd 1059 and Res 03-124 CZ 03-10, PP 03-11 and DA 03-03 12-11-2003 CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: Consideration of approval of a change of zone, development
agreement addendum to Development Agreement 97-2 expanding
Planning Area #3 of the Wonder Palms Master Plan, a precise plan
of design for 122,000 square feet of gross leasable office space,
110,880 square feet of gross leasable retail including one drive-
thru restaurant adjacent to Gerald Ford Drive, a three-story hotel
with up to 130 rooms, and a Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact as it relates thereto, for 23.6 acres at the southwest corner
of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive, 37-001 Cook Street.
SUBMITTED BY: Steve Smith, Planning Manager
APPLICANT: Rick Evans
57745 Interlachen
La Quinta, CA 92253
CASE NOS: C/Z 03-10, PP 03-11 and DA 03-03
DATE: December 11, 2003
CONTENTS:
Recommendation
Discussion
Planning Commission Staff Reports dated September 2, 2003 and October 21, 2003
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2231 recommending approval
Planning Commission Minutes of September 2, 2003
Related Exhibits
Recommendation:
That the City Council pass Ordinance No. 1059 to second reading relating
to C/Z 03-10 and DA 03-03.
That the City Council adopt Resolution No.03- 124 approving PP 03-11,
subject to conditions.
Staff Report
Case Nos. PP 03-011 and DA 03-03
Page 2
December 11, 2003
Discussion:
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The applicant proposes a mixed use garden office, retail and hotel complex
providing for 122,000 square feet of gross leasable office space, 110,880
square feet of gross leasable retail including one drive-thru restaurant adjacent
to Gerald Ford Drive, and a three-story hotel with up to 130 rooms on 23.6 acres
at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive. The project has been
submitted in a form consistent with the GPAC and Planning Commission
recommended land use alternative contained in the General Plan Update.
The 11.6 acres of the site immediately at the corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford
are within the area covered by the Wonder Palms Master Plan (WPMP), Planning
Area #3 and are zoned PCD. To facilitate the project, the applicant seeks approval
of a change of zone, a precise plan and amendment to the WPMP to expand the
PCD zoning and Planning Area #3 from 11.6 acres to 23.6 acres.
The Planning Commission considered this request at their public hearings held on
September 2, October 21 and November 4, 2003 and recommended approval 4-0
with Commissioner Jonathan absent.
BACKGROUND
A. SITE DESCRIPTION
The 23.6-acre site extends 1 ,635 feet along Cook Street to align with
signalized Berger Circle on the Cal State site to the east. Along Gerald
Ford Drive the site extends west to a future street which will align with
Technology Drive to the north. The site is vacant with minimal vegetation
and drops from south to north.
B. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE
North: WPMP / Arco and Hampton Inn
South: PR-5 / vacant
East: PR-5 / Cal State site
West: PR-5 / vacant
Staff Report
Case Nos. PP 03-011 and DA 03-03
Page 3
December 11, 2003
C. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
General Plan: Commercial
Zoning:
North Commercial and Wonder Palms Master Plan
South Residential
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Planning Commission on a 4-0 vote (Commissioner Jonathan absent)
recommended approval of the project.
PROJECT REVIEW
A. SITE PLAN / ACCESS / PARKING / ARCHITECTURE
The property is bounded on the south by Berger Circle, Cook Street on
the east, Gerald Ford on the north, Technology Drive on the west, and
"spine road" on the southwest connecting Berger Circle to Technology
Drive. The primary purpose of the spine road is to provide future internal
circulation for the residential community to the south and southwest. The
commercial portion of the project will be located adjacent to Cook Street
and Gerald Ford. The office complex is located west and southwest of
the commercial. The hotel is located at the southwest corner of the
property at Berger Circle and spine road.
The applicant has described the mixed use project as an "urban village."
It is laid out with buildings and landscaping along the street frontages.
Parking and driveways are located to the interior.
The main feature of the site plan is "Main Street" which runs along the
interior of the perimeter buildings parallel to Cook Street and Gerald Ford.
An appealing open space entry plaza will face the Cook and Gerald Ford
intersection.
All of the retail buildings front onto Main Street and parking is located to
the west. This clustering of buildings and parking is designed to promote
a pedestrian friendly environment. Although the buildings' primary focus
Staff Report
Case Nos. PP 03-011 and DA 03-03
Page 4
December 11, 2003
is on the "Main Street," they have been designed with appropriate
architectural treatment on all four sides.
The Gerald Ford frontage has a retail building at the Cook Street end, a
drive-thru pad to the west, an access driveway, and two single-story office
buildings further to the west at the future signalized Technology Drive.
Along Cook Street there will be two retail buildings, a retail/restaurant pad,
an access driveway, a retail/restaurant pad, a retail building, two sit-down
restaurant pads, and the signalized access (Berger Circle). The plan
provides a direct access from Berger to the hotel / restaurant area.
At the southwest corner adjacent to the "spine road" will be a three (3) story,
36-foot high (tower elements at 39.5 feet and 42 feet) 130-room hotel.
Proceeding north there are two additional retail (first floor) / office (second
floor) buildings then the remainder of the office park (12 buildings, single
story varying in size from 6,600 square feet to 12,100 square feet).
The project will have a signalized access via Gerald Ford / Technology and
Cook Street/ Berger Circle. In addition, the site plan provides one additional
access to Gerald Ford 290 feet east of Technology. This access will be right-
in / right-out only and may provide left-turn ingress upon submittal of a
design acceptable to the City Engineer.
An intermediate access point is also provided along Cook Street. This
access will be right-in/right-out and may provide left-turn ingress upon
submittal of a design acceptable to the City Engineer.
The project also has three access points from the southwest and west. From
spine road there is one into the retail area and one into the office complex,
and one access from Technology Drive into the office complex. These
accesses provide full turning movements.
Main Street on the inside of the perimeter row of buildings connects the
various access road points with most of the parking to the interior of the site.
Angle parking spaces are located on the ring road which will tend to reduce
traffic speed and allow pedestrians to more safely cross the ring road to the
shops.
Staff Report
Case Nos. PP 03-011 and DA 03-03
Page 5
December 11, 2003
The on-site circulation will be adequate.
B. PARKING
The Municipal Code requires that the mixed use development comply
with three parking standards. The requirement for hotels is 1 .1 spaces
per room; for retail shopping center five spaces per 1 ,000 square feet of
gross floor area, and for general offices one space for each 250 square
feet of floor area exclusive of stairways, elevations, landings and
mechanical rooms not exceeding 15% of gross floor area.
PARKING ANALYSIS
CODE REQUIREMENT PROVIDED
130 Room Hotel @ 1 .1/room 143
130,000 square foot office Park:
122,000 square foot net after
exclusion* 488
27,697 square foot office--2nd
Floor Buildings 3&5 / 23,542**
net after exclusion 94
Retail 89,630 square feet GLA
@ 5/1 ,000 449
Total 1 ,173 1 ,206
*Excludable area included two 200 square foot restrooms in each building, plus 150
square feet of utility area per building
**Excluded area at 15% - elevators, restrooms, utilities, stairwells
Staff Report
Case Nos. PP 03-011 and DA 03-03
Page 6
December 11, 2003
C. ARCHITECTURE
The retail portion of the "urban village" will utilize "mercantile modern"
architecture using smooth plaster finishes in neutral desert colors. The
applicant's narrative (copy enclosed) indicates that, "The western portion
of the site is developed with single-story garden office buildings inter-
connected by landscaped pedestrian walkways and parking courts with
covered parking. The office buildings are designed in an urban desert
village cluster concept. The architecture is defined with soft desert floor
colors and deep recessed windows. Entry towers are pronounced by
warmer desert hues and trellis cornices at the parapets. Horizontal shade
devices provide solar protection at the glass areas."
ARC granted preliminary architectural approval to the office and retail
components of the project. With respect to the hotel, ARC felt that its
architecture was conceptually headed in the right direction, but that it
needed additional detailing and work which would occur when an actual
hotel developer made a specific application to the City. The landscaping
will be a "Desert Willow" style. The landscaping plans shown to the ARC
were not detailed enough to grant preliminary approval, but ARC
determined that the plant pallet was headed in the right direction.
PROJECT DATA
DISTRICT COMMERCIAL PROJECT
Street Setbacks:
Cook Street 32 feet 32 feet
Gerald Ford Drive 32 feet 32 feet
Berger as approved 80 feet
spine road as approved 20' - 75'
Technology as approved 35' - 62'
Lot Coverage 50% 23%
Staff Report
Case Nos. PP 03-011 and DA 03-03
Page 7
December 11, 2003
DISTRICT COMMERCIAL PROJECT
Landscape depth from street 20 feet minimum 20' plus, except for
areas adjacent to
pads 1 , 2 and 5 =
18 feet deep
Building Height:
Hotel 30 feet 36 - 42 feet*
Office 30 feet single story, 21 '6"
Retail:
Buildings 1 & 2 30 feet 23' with tower to
35'*
Buildings 3 & 5 30 feet 30', top of parapet*
34'
Building 4 30 feet 22' to 28'
Fast Food Landscape Area
Pad 5 30% 31 %
* Height exception required
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT / MASTER PLAN AMENDMENTS AND ZONE
CHANGE
The proposed precise plan, change of zone and master plan amendment are
consistent with the existing General Plan, all proposed alternatives within the
General Plan Update and have been specifically endorsed by the Planning
Commission.
The applicant specifically seeks approval of a change of zone and revisions to
the Wonder Palms Master Plan to:
A. Expand Planning Area #3 of the Wonder Palms Master Plan and amend
the zoning map expanding the existing PCD designation from 1 1 .6 acres
to 23.6 to accommodate the project as designed.
Staff Report
Case Nos. PP 03-011 and DA 03-03
Page 8
December 11, 2003
Response:
The 23.6-acre plan is consistent with the land use plan recommended by
GPAC and Planning Commission and is a logical configuration and size to
accommodate the land uses needed in this area. The previous 1 1 .6-acre
site (PA-3) provided commercial development along Gerald Ford. With the
Cal State campus on Cook Street it makes more sense to focus the
commercial development along Cook Street.
B. The applicant requests a height exception for the hotel to allow up to 42
feet of height and retail buildings to 35 feet in height.
Response:
The increased height in the retail portion results in improved architectural
appearance and diversifies the roof lines. In the past this has been
sufficient to warrant a height exception.
The current hotel plans show a 36-foot high main structure with tower
elements of 39.5 feet and 42 feet. ARC determined the plans required
additional improvement prior to granting preliminary approval.
Preliminary and final approval of hotel plans will be required prior to
issuance of permits for the hotel. As presented, the development
agreement will allow the hotel as currently designed with a basic height
of 36 feet and tower elements of 39.5 feet and 42 feet. Any future
modifications to the architecture would need to comply with these limits.
By comparison Marriott Courtyard is 44 feet, Hampton Inn is 35 feet and
Marriott Shadow Ridge is 35 feet with tower elements to 42 feet.
Staff would also note that this hotel site is located 230 feet from Cook
Street behind two restaurant pads.
C. The applicant requests provision to allow a 15% increase in building size
without additional hearing.
Response:
Staff and Planning Commission recommend that the master plan be
amended to define a "minor modification" as an increase of up to 10%
Staff Report
Case Nos. PP 03-011 and DA 03-03
Page 9
December 11, 2003
in building size being acceptable without additional hearings. This
assumes that the request complies with all other provisions.
GENERAL PLAN AND MORATORIUM CONSISTENCY
The Wonder Palms Master Plan area was specifically excluded from the
moratorium.
Based on consistency with the General Plan, General Plan Update alternatives
and inclusion in the Wonder Palms Master Plan, the proposed project can be
made exempt from the moratorium.
CEQA REVIEW
This project was reviewed as part of the General Plan Update and the EIR. In
addition, a project specific traffic study was prepared. The information
contained in those documents supports the conclusion that this project will not
have an adverse impact on the environment. A Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact is recommended for certification.
CONCLUSION
The project before City Council will create an architecturally attractive major
entry statement for persons entering the city via Cook Street. The project has
oriented a large open space plaza at the Cook Street / Gerald Ford intersection
to provide an immediate impression. As designed, the project will create a
pedestrian friendly environment with its "Main Street" with the perimeter
buildings shielding pedestrians and persons dining at outdoor restaurants from
the traffic noise on Cook Street.
The land uses proposed are compatible with the land use plan recommended by
GPAC and Planning Commission and will be able to evolve as the area develops.
At this time it will be oriented mostly to freeway customers. As the Cal State
campus grows and the residential neighborhood around it builds out, the project
will be able to adapt to these changes and orient itself to these users.
Staff Report
Case Nos. PP 03-011 and DA 03-03
Page 10
December 11, 2003
During discussion on the moratorium City Council expressed a desire that the City
not unreasonably delay processing projects that are generally consistent with the
existing and proposed general plan land use designations.
The northerly 11.6 acres of this site are commercial within the Wonder Palms
Master Plan.
The precise plan is conditioned so as not to become effective until the development
agreement receives second reading.
Submitted by: Department Head:
Ste e Smith P I Drell
Planning Manager Director of Community Development
Approval: Approval:
Homer Croy Carlos L. 0 a
ACM for D opment Services City Manager
Passed Ordinance No. 1059 to second reading
MEET, G DATE f 1/ — 0_5* and continued Resolution No. 03-124 both
,0,ar3_/a( until such time as the General Plan process
fig CONTINUED r J (Ai )CDLr{Q/c) has been considered for this area, asking
/(, 1) Jo. /U,S4% the Applicant in the meantime to refine the
LLB' PASSLD TO 2ND READING 'rat 1 (f/ fil issues discussed at this hearing (i.e. , height,
acceleration/deceleration lanes, setbacks,
public art, areas for entry signage, bus
stop[s] , spine road, hotel design, and adjacency
to future projects in the vicinity) . 5-0
(W pd ocs\tm\s r\P P03-11.cc2)
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PRECISE
PLAN OF DESIGN, AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS IT RELATES THERETO, FOR
122,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS LEASABLE OFFICE
SPACE, 110,880 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS LEASABLE
RETAIL INCLUDING ONE DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
ADJACENT TO GERALD FORD DRIVE, AND A THREE-
STORY HOTEL WITH UP TO 130 ROOMS AT THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF COOK STREET AND GERALD
FORD DRIVE, 37-001 COOK STREET.
CASE NO. PP 03-1 1
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the
1 1 th day of December, 2003, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the
request by RICK EVANS for approval of the above described project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2231 has
recommended approval of said precise plan; 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. 02-60," in that the Director of Community Development has
determined that the project will not have an adverse impact on the environment and
a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is warranted based on the data
provided as part of the University Village Master Plan, the General Plan Update and
EIR; 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 proposed precise plan will comply with each of the applicable
provisions of this title, except for approved exceptions permitted through
the development agreement process.
2. The proposed location of the office / retail / hotel complex and the
conditions under which it will be operated and maintained will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or be
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
RESOLUTION NO.
3. The proposed precise plan complies with the goals, objectives, and
policies of the City's General Plan and all alternatives considered in the
General Plan Update.
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 a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, attached hereto as
Exhibit "A", is hereby certified
3. That the City Council does hereby approve Case No. PP 03-1 1 , subject
to the attached conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
City Council, held on this day of , , by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
, Mayor
ATTEST:
RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
2
RESOLUTION NO.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. PP 03-11
Department of Community Development:
1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with
the department of community development/planning, as modified by the following
conditions:
2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the
date of final approval or the term provided for in Development Agreement 03-03 (DA
97-2 as amended), whichever is greater.
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 statues 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 permit and/or clearance from the
following agencies:
Coachella Valley Water District
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 provisions for recycling.
6. All future occupants of the buildings shall comply with parking requirements
provided in DA 03-03.
3
RESOLUTION NO.
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. A detailed parking lot and field lighting plan shall be submitted to staff for approval,
subject to applicable lighting standards. Plan to be prepared by a qualified lighting
engineer.
9. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the department of public
works prior to architectural review commission submittal.
10. The project shall be subject to all applicable fees at time of issuance of building
permits including, but not limited to, Art in Public Places, Fringed-Toed Lizard,
TUMF, School Mitigation and Housing Mitigation fees.
11 . That the project shall be permitted medical office use provided said medical
office use shall be parked at a rate of six parking spaces per 1 ,000 square feet
per Municipal Code Section 25.56.310.
12. That the approval of PP 03-11 shall not be effective until the related
Development Agreement (DA 03-03) is approved by the City Council.
Department of Public Works
1. Any drainage facility construction required for 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 prior to start of construction. The
project shall be designed to retain storm waters associated with the increase in
developed vs. undeveloped condition for a 100 year storm.
2. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17
and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of any permits associated with this
4
RESOLUTION NO.
project. Modification of existing signals at Gerald Ford and Technology Drive, and
at Cook and Berger Circle West, may be used as credit against these fees, at the
discretion of the City Council.
3. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF).
Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance.
4. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer,
shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public Works prior to the
issuance of a grading permit.
5. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public
Works and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading
permits.
6. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the
issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works.
7. 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 to be
approved by the Public Works Department and a surety posted to guarantee the
installation of required offsite improvements prior to permit issuance.
8. Landscape installation on the property frontages as well as on-site shall be drought
tolerant in nature and maintenance shall be provided by the property owner.
9. Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive
Dust Control and Section 24.20, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control.
10. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.44, complete grading
plans/site improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director
of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits.
Preliminary landscape plans shall be submitted for review concurrently with grading
plans.
11. Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in
accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code.
5
RESOLUTION NO.
12. 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, the city's Circulation Network, and the University Village Offsite Street
Site Plan dated November 4, 2003 including the following:
• Curb, gutter, paving sidewalk on Gerald Ford Drive, Cook Street, Technology
Drive, Spine Road, and Berger Drive.
• Gerald Ford Drive shall be constructed to a half-street width of 45'on
75'right of way minimum, plus free right turn lane onto Cook Street.
• Cook Street shall be constructed to a half-street width of 51' on 75'
right of way minimum, plus free right turn lane from Gerald Ford Drive.
• Landscaped center median on Cook Street, Gerald Ford Drive, and Berger
Circle.
• Signal modifications at Cook and Berger Circle West, Gerald Ford and
Technology Drive.
• Right turn lanes at all entrances, and on Cook Street at Berger Circle.
• Construction of a bus facility with turnout as required by Sunline Transit
Agency.
• Construct a free right turn lane with deceleration and acceleration lanes on
the southwest corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive.
Ultimate street improvements on Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive shall be
installed prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for Phase 1. Ultimate
Street improvements on Technology Drive, Spine Road, and Berger Drive shall be
installed prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for any subsequent
phase.
Rights-of-way necessary for the installation of the above referenced improvements
shall be dedicated to the city prior to the issuance of any permits associated with
this project.
13. This project shall be limited to one driveway on Gerald Ford Drive, one driveway on
Cook Street and one driveway on Berger Circle, with right turn ingress and egress.
The Cook Street driveway may also be provided with left turn ingress subject to final
design and approval by the City Engineer. The Gerald Ford Drive driveway may
also be provided with left turn ingress subject to final design and approval by the
City Engineer. Two full access driveways may be permitted on Spine Road.
Driveways and parking lots shall be inspected by the Public Works Department and
a standard inspection fee paid prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
6
RESOLUTION NO.
14. Proposed Berger Drive shall match the width of Berger Drive to the east. Proposed
Technology Drive shall be constructed to a width of 52' on 76' right of way to match
Technology Drive to the north. Spine Road shall be constructed to a half street
width of 26' on 38' right of way minimum, with a 12' raised, landscaped median
island. Spine Road shall be widened to provide a minimum of four traffic lanes at
key intersections, as determined by the City Engineer. Interim street widths shall
conform to the approved rough grading plan.
15. Parcel Map shall be required to erase existing property lines, establish new property
lines and make dedications for future street widening.
16. A traffic study has been prepared and accepted for this project.
Fire Department Conditions
1. 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, CFC and CBC 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 pressure must be
available before any combustible material is placed on the job site, 3000 gpm for
commercial buildings and 150' from any portion of a commercial building measured
via vehicular travelway.
3. Water Plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the
water system will produce the required fire flow.
4. Install and 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 within 50' of an approved
hydrant. Exempted are one and two family dwellings.
5. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and Water-
flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per UBC chapter 9.
7
RESOLUTION NO.
6. Install a fire alarm system as required by the UBC Chapter 3.
7. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than one 2A10BC
extinguisher per 3000 square feet and not over 75' from walking distance. A `K'
type fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens.
8. Install a Hood/Duct automatic fire extinguisher system per NFPA 96 in all public and
private cooking operations except single-family residential usage.
9. All building 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. 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.
10. A dead end single access over 500' will require a secondary access, sprinklers or
other mitigative measures approved by the Fire Marshal. Under no circumstances
shall a dead end over 1300' be accepted.
11. 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.
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 tot he 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 twelve months.
15. Verify all turning radii are a 45 degree radius.
8
RESOLUTION NO.
EXHIBIT "A"
Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the
California Code of Regulations.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NO: PP 03-1 1
APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Rick Evans
57745 Interlachen
La Quinta, CA 92253
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION:
A Precise Plan of Design, and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it
relates thereto, for 122,000 square feet of gross leasable office space, 110,880
square feet of gross leasable retail including one drive-thru restaurant adjacent to
Gerald Ford Drive, and a three-story hotel with up to 130 rooms at the southwest
corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive, 37-001 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.
PHILIP DRELL DATE
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
9
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2231
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 97-2 EXPANDING PLANNING
AREA #3 OF THE WONDER PALMS MASTER PLAN AND
APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN FOR AN OFFICE,
RETAIL, HOTEL PROJECT AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER
OF COOK STREET AND GERALD FORD DRIVE, 37-001
COOK STREET
CASE NOS. PP 03-1 1 AND DA 03-03
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did
on the 2nd day of September, 2003, hold a duly noticed public hearing, which was
continued to October 21 and November 4, 2003, to consider the request by RICK
EVANS for approval of the above described project; 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. 02-60," in that the Director of Community Development has
determined that the project was analyzed as part of the General Plan Update, the
University Village Plan and the Environmental Impact Report related thereto, and that
when the EIR is certified by the City Council, no further review will be necessary; 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 . With the Amendment to the Development Agreement, the proposed
location of the office / retail / hotel complex as conditioned is in accord
with the objectives of the zoning ordinance and the purpose of the
district in which the site is located.
2. The proposed precise plan will comply with each of the applicable
provisions of this title, except for approved exceptions permitted through
the development agreement process.
3. The proposed location of the office / retail / hotel complex and the
conditions under which it will be operated and maintained will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or be
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2231
4. The proposed precise plan complies with the goals, objectives, and
policies of the City's General Plan as recommended for amendment.
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 Development Agreement DA 03-03 amending DA 97-2 is hereby
recommended for approval to the City Council. Said case DA 03-03
amends DA 97-2 as follows:
Expands Planning Area #3 of the Wonder Palms Development Plan
from 1 1 .2 acres to 23.6 ± acres as shown on Exhibit "A"
attached.
ii. Approves Precise Plan 03-1 1 providing for 122,000 square feet of
office space, 110,880 square feet of retail including one drive-thru
restaurant adjacent to Gerald Ford Drive, and a three-story hotel
with up to 130 rooms along with certain amenities, functional
areas and parking areas (the "Project") that shall be developed
pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, all as more fully
described in the Precise Plan attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and
incorporated herein by this reference.
iii. Approval of the proposed uses, setbacks, the density and intensity
of use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings and
provisions for reservation and dedication of land for purposes as
set forth in the precise plan contained in Exhibit "B" and the
conditions attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein
by this reference.
iv. Allow as a minor amendment, without further public hearing, an
increase in the size of approved buildings of not more than 1 0%
provided said expansion complies with all other code provisions.
2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2231
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 4th day of November, 2003, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: FINERTY, LOPEZ, TSCHOPP, CAMPBELL
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: JONATHAN
ABSTAIN: NONE
)/1'(
SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson
ATTEST:
PHILIP DRELL Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
3
. . .. •
• N: N
. . . N.• • •
• . - .'s • , . .
.. .,..
- t . • . N •N .
....'.. /
...
. • \ N
N •N . •
N i .t.
X\ 's. •
. .' . •• • \
\ . . . •
\ , ,
.. • • •
N • •
\\
\ I i
1CV
I 1! I 4C I
eIrr, - NxN
t 1:
.' ....., i
'10 / .• i ka / .._ ,
. - ,
\Os -
\\. i N\ •• .N`
N. •-- •• _
"--
. ..0-- .
• .
,---J -...G., • 7
-. .
7
:
,
.
-'` , N
-.40 Ns
1 •
s N.............1 ,
. .
, ....
---- --- --- -- ---------- -- I I
.........•-.....''''' j ./. ‘ : $
_ — /
BERGER RD
• -
. , • O -
. .,,-,
_ ----
- - • O.--
.
___---,
-- — ------\___,,.•
Expanded Area of
. .
, ....-- ,._
Planning Area #3
.
, • of the Wonder Palms
.. •
...-- -„ . • Development Plan,
....,..-
Ordinance No. 837
N
------
_-/ ' W-+E
.•-•--.. / S
FRANK SINATRA DR 0 300 600 1,200
FeetlI
----,• i .
City of Palm Desert PLANNING COMMISSION
e...I.T...."N.
EXHI It IT A RESOLUTION NO. 2231
Date: 11-04-03
gN331i.fell1ilisJG COMMIS I RESOLUTION NO. 2231 11
ag
imi,1111 0!
. 1 .1111! EXHIBIT B •I
' I 11
E k 1 ii111/1
M I A him!
•
LLJ
CD
nc3
cr)
13)
:ZE
Cip
c3
LLJ C.D
•
0
L U
5 C7i
EC4
•
ei
PLANNING COMMISE"--I RESOLUTION NO. 2231 a � " '# ui
EXHIBIT E
i
y
cc
1 1 A f 1 I 111111i i
---..._.J1
I
W ; .. ¢ anla0 Oae4 •1 iaa
iI
1 l• 1 7C d
4'T ''41""ilAriati&S.""rer- 11;
4/ ' tasiii,'==iaor..-0 791 .--,, yo 1
• Iiir.yip... • ! �,
0 p� 1-., .I -rots `rjoim.m...„.0,_v„.10', \..,..,._.,.\-4 s . •• 1 W
ii;
It
ili ip, 1,Frimpir" 7L,(7 . ‘iN\\\, • . iriiVIUMBIti °
/ • .9 / V #
i Ai4 it / 44 e" . ..7 ) 41 \A j , I j .
`�� i A J t.
# • • � /40Y II 1'AI� �
.0 v,„, ., ,,, .... t 400, -.7, .,:, , ,, ,,
t -. I IN. A ,.„40\ A \ Its'_, 1 r , Ft!En-
a. I141
1 .
ti g) ' \„‘ et 1 i'L__ , ilaid 1
G , 11
1
,ar ,iIHN1!U
.1 rit tri �.ri '1 r I�I.I�l1
\t* ! rIi
re
: .dllllll ; pun14
1 1
gg 8 a c c ) i c !g
ti 6 � s 9W g . & aniaa a3oa3e 4 .a
w ' o g 2 "n§g 2 \
og. . @ =f
r.
l���t, ,�, i .• ` Swit Ear rl GP �',-:� D
1,PLAZA ELEVATION @ CORNER 0
• PROVIDED MORE INTERESTING ROOF FEATURES TO PLAZA TOWERS g
• INCREASED VIEW INTO CENTER BY SCALING DOWN PLAZA ARCHITECTURE g
• PROVIDED PEDESTRIAN SCALED PAVILION BUILDINGS WITH OPERABLE STOREFRONTS TO ENHANCE INDOOR OUTDOOR CONNECTIONCn
U,
. Lli.1 r rj- a-
O
F*WJON PAYIIION r
TRANSITION TRnusmON
C C
X O
_ Z
RUSA _
V CORNER TOWER CORNER TOWER CO Z
Ill 5 < I, —Io
- UNIVERSITY N
T /•„ REVISED PLAZA ELEVATION
o.R+wN TheENmWooly
V VV V' VV V 1 ,` ,� . Q.. e
IS' 6" 41' O" S' 6" 4u,. RabOnn M
REVISED PLAZA PLAN , ::/, T g= ,.I..•Wpp, „mxEw.
I!"_ MIME_r: e. Try 1 yrPow m�
i :101— o :,,1, 4. I Mr norm
. I� ' .' T 7:T?' • I .'E Fe,lb�.9tr.,Prop 111/ID
r,rl 'Mj: �r • ti Ili ( �' j i:•�l i m.,.aW slm•i I11110
MO
KEY SITE PLAN — ✓ 1,0
UNIVERSITY VILLAGE 0 0
PLANNING COMMISS.-- RESOLUTION NO. 2231 ' '' ii x 'iP. ®-
z
I
I 9
EXHIBIT E 0I
5-A di
z a d
! !! e
ARID 1
/ —si •r I'# 4' 1
, ,.:,„•.k.,,,,t,„„.;:_ifii
,, ,,,. ,,....,,,A,..,,
N, i litig
,... r,,,,,,,
r
Hi 4
i li a 81. s`
d
P 14 1
cfl
7+ C
--�_ �i W \ l
r
---4IA
Gi
Gi
s n
J
r
z1
11
D
Z
Z
Z
G)
O
_ - 4 8ABIESDotrratlw Neu _ Surf and Spar BLUE ART Col Coll? ,THE OLD NI:KEL \ - bi
.Alliii Weit':.-7.,:d&
I _= ya,.a..n.�� . _ \ . .
Ill
I I 1' I 1
1.RETAIL 1 REVISED COOK STREET ELEVATION(RETAIL 2 SIMILAR) CT C
• ADDED PLASTER SIGN FASCIA OVER PIERS TO CREATE VERITY.
• MODIFIED CORNER TREATMENT,REFER TO EXHIBIT 1.0
• INCREASED VERTICAL PROPORTION OF STOREFRONT BY EXTENDING STOREFRONT GLASS TO FLOOR Rl
• RE-PROPORTIONED AWNING AND STOREFRONTS TO INCREASE INDIVIDUAL TENANT IDENTITY. x 0
I Z
co 5 z
—1 O
•
UNIVERSITY VILLA& N
/` ' REVISED COOK STREET ELEVATION(RETAIL 2 NAN
• 'i" Neb„y The Elam Ste4moy
q.. .,.I 7 I i k i . ,A.
:.'J x,' 111, NA 11.1101
.:r� <T �
r �'�I `\Iam
"�J_ iI11 rMd� it •CN•.�Perietgeanul IAA
•-�'R1l.R._� ldlR �_' •w� .�_�_�... de;� I AVCn..wm-lrrrv.�yAd►. YAW
ar ri 1 ' �> r n..ro.r`saes
1___ tea:
KEY SIZE PLAN 2.0
o • o
UNIVERSITY VILLAGE
r
D
Z
z
z
0
Oau-0v
I ti
� - r�
E" ri 111111111�11'IIII '1I1111�111hillllll:N `r s g.��Y El E 1"e,.y
The
xi
/' ' ,/ _
11'r R t ' -I'`� —�—:—r J�I-;- 0_ , ■I r ,, �• ,��_ �� ��_�._'ti s.r � ® ,7 NM ® r� 10rCn
I.
1.MAIN STREET ELEVATION C
• REVISED PORTE COCHERE TO ENHANCE ENTRANCE m 0
• REVISED ENTRANCE BUILDING ROOF TO RELATE TO CENTRAL PLAZA ROOF ELEMENTS X Z
I
O co z
- 0
UNIVERSITY VILLAY N
REVISED HOTEL ELEVATIONS (A1
/: . ., m c r
�f .1
moo
921101
I OM
'I P47.4 A I—Vii grAl le I.a I k,V /N46. i
; Iftrtiaaninin MAW IMO
Mpg,Carom!aloft IMO
5� - — 3.0
o
UNIVERSITY VILLAGE ®®
P.
PLANNING COMMISSI RESOLUTION NO. 22311 5 . i l:g*, v gI
M j 3
EXHIBIT 01
I I Bill -
` , �I
111�I I
\ ''.4 /' ' -
rizo
i ,..ir
•
1 mum
IN MEM
11
9 1
�: 111E1 5
111111:111.1I.�8`1 I.1 h3 1mini Ill"
•ii . 6 ,.
II • .
11
il
.0 1 ....
;1, r rstsrl ,I\
I I Ii 4 11 gg 9=
I
IF,F,F I,, 9 Ii.log a
i I
11ENLIS IIIIIP.,1
iI 111°'l Irii
\\
`
a
11
.11'bi i mo imt
il_u w II._.
I`Mai
Cl) W
11 1
5
U)
wi
z1
f
, ,-... ..,
•
BERGER DRIVE
Xi 61.
cn
jr, .-. =w,..-T1P.
eili II 1 11 11.1-1A1r ir ; er
_ a
••< Ilt• I 0) gfi 13 iistilab
F---
1 I tWf-Iii'‘. 4 thisP Iii.
m lb I IW1 1 Si ;1". 7;
@ ,!. 1 ‘ , • 6....., ...‘,,
:'
10 i colia__•_!....0 co,e ik.,,,it -,v,
rii: df ; i' .. or ilip riya
.1 A
I 41 '-' I° (4 IbiffittlAitt. te4C k ii -' -
. mom 0,. v or:
171,.- 11, sA; t ,
00 I i .- ,40-1 II 0, i 0
g I Oil_j gl , _pg worot z 11).) tel,
il
5 ,1 .. • -1 t.Hip V.t.
41 .
N
11-c ..1) A-
I,
. :, • 1 At IA.,
II is
lir
i
' •• -AI- r, f° , -4° -1;s
III I 1. 1 1) id, V,t1 2 g 44 /06's 44
:II\— el • .- t; - 0 S, r",,,31 41 '4,
•,,,, .-,r-orr.--7-ro • - ME, .ii 0 a ,e., 4, t,
....4• %,, •,- •.... ..... Er. 411) I e...16. el, 10
-IN
- .. Fiati,Toy:'...-
,N . ,....t,
r.:0-41■M".fid . _ r IF Itmt4 0 ••-,:••• I V\s
I.04 Ot.410
#•:, ,'0.:•!: \ I E Itlihra• •'-';-''' . .e, -. •,',‘, e*-._ 1
TE re ff.-4-1v 0 lei I e, ,. ,,.. ,,,... ..41!. .
(f,,
Pi pig } .- • ;rig-°-- taV V
a;! tR, ‘• dr', :‘, 0e:A ; F*
• S 0. ...e
x I -%,-.. 4^..• 04, :48 4
41 10, it til G. -I rti,A,ve' .i.', % i's ..0. • %ilk ••*'
1.1 """"!..' ' IP 1 4 o".fr, Vii,,,, Aiii..) •friiii. si.;:ie 1.44.„1., k,"...,„
M I ,4itilz 4'i '•'$ A A Vz
iimod
iN, • ;.4,.%
s.,..t,
'al . ... iiit,146;01; ss,v A'S •'40 AN, VA.i •46,
1. 1 "irtr'0""' - 1:."''' .. N, ii kittr,c. •SS% 0. jt*...,„el't4,4, 4 41.ev
; --4.•-- - 'IV)
fp
llo • is #I-,- ,,,t,fkig 4:1-.
° % s-% V: .•4% VA' 4,, 8. 4 A., Oat
*, •• Vii4
8 1 I , •t. -44:'• AN ',4"'
i 0 - I '' k fi;s• %.irg" %-.4 •,.e 54 sl,, 41.,, z*
lt....a... ,4 • • • s 4),,I 4,4 il •••/ /.•
0, '71 `.,
- ..six •ti5*.;.,, 1 IP /,,,,,L•
X V-ilr,::.. 7 1') •.;-',a N
Ai 77
P , . i r 'ii) ...:.•' s II lel' i j
I ' OP ‘.1. Si;j .' Ztz„ 40,06..m........*.14.,•4 _,.T.:11 ii, ....
71 '41:. I I r ,•:, .. ... 4 ' _* 4..4 : ..: . .: 0
, .;A4,- 'N 641 0- • :I IR eV, . ,k,
•i• A , P' 4I, :11 1 b,alx ;f,1
m ! 11 q 1) t) .." ''' f)" „ , "'4 ", esql ti 4
- -
-: II il - ••:a Ar% * Vr elf...oat" -1-die—Vt. / lit i
;
gi .• I-j .1 g; .. ...'t- •.:,,)* 'Atill•Irs * * z .11 tee /: '' P
II .' °,,,, 43): ' All?' Afeb a .- 4..06.. 151 1"wit) eal "
r) -
Jill ‘ :.f1.; ..e.::e 'P F‘ 0 Ilk Q ItIM16
.t‘ •'
• • i, • . - 7----1 id gi e • -
1 ikil • c - & 1 MS 111', 1 ' "'Minn IIII Amur,4,,, ,
n ,-,-,4
11111114141p '..A. ti I --- -a ...., tottrzipiiiiiisilMri-k-al, er i 0
gi I
1 1 1111 II,C1 CI ,
PI@ olgi...--firataw ..-- - .......H .,.. .81,
0 ir •• --,._ 4 4 si 14 4) !II 414 I
._1,3.11) S. ' 0.1 ti
'' - Tit '
-9 "I• L '''-...----____-.-___. 61. ____e---"IrlAwri ' IP o oniv ! I
8 ••......,,-.-.''' c, i . k
GERALD FORD DRIVE
1^
...- .4e.,...FOC./ RC' 0 L.21. PG Nilif4
;9E C : :::
: !
F -..../- (- ---P--------- - 11
111: i SIENDU AIM-IIIIIIIIIID II 1111111111]i I 071.011NELINNEM 0 03,
. II/1111 1
• Ig I . td) 4, 1 p4iirouirthazu-1
.: , ... 1 tillipli ill 1111111
1 1
2 c-1 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiit
(I) i ,mutinumpitinasi
F., mown moo oomomoomn goonoommoso 111111111111
i 0 i rn U.M1117. !OPT nitutiguggi IJEWEIEMBHULIEE 1
1 -;‘ : - •I
i
14, 5-71 s• a - i
r• C::) CEICIIN I i I illig III iiiiiiiiii I 1111111111111 '
, : - . - . . 111%.0 I.. . " " Ili
PLANNING COMMISSI RESOLUTION NO. 2231 x a r.. et
W 91
m ®9
EXHIBIT B C.D � ,
W �J
1
W c a 1 iHiiiii
II I I ! 1 # isleIi
w
3 A I H O a �J O d CI -IV 213 0
12 0 a 0
i� ii � i� ',or �fikirgr-"›,\
4._ la
l�
pK ai
d Vi'e; 9 k
JJ ` / 1L t▪ fi i k'KG 1 J J•
c r V; Fiilwsn6piWiak:g `AlZ .aj4j„ a v�� tH`h.:; t F��4 iraf u.
y LS \
..: ` fs i V. . e „r ''44ffu ;,,,,' II lri
. \ \
\w,,iiiii;\ r a� mw
. ..\..41,4110 ,...,...„:‘,.....5,`*:4` ippr„ ��.... ,
..,„. ..„:„.„ ,....,,,,,....,„)..,,,. ..„,...,,,
•
,,,,,, ,....,..., ..,,,..„4,„;\,,,,,,,.....,,,,,v,„,.,,,,,,o
::)? :3 Q.. , ._ ., .. 4,„, ,„,,,,,I.,,,,,„,,..,,,„, _,„ 11 I
or - co 1,
. I
•. wI
-
., .\\\ ICI i• �• 1411
•
14
`.." /Al I
\,?.' , -I ' 1:Oil LIJ
!ill 0 111
\ <` +41c" J
is Y
\ .4 t;.4 P.4:4 1' (4,t ....m.,,,
�■Ssi
__,
'� egikigiaggrigtheatrENIMINSFAMilli
�I.• `po
boa , 1�
01 16 tiii `' II.
0
PLANNING COMMISS RESOLUTION NO. 223
EXHIBIT Bs=
sl
4114
141411;
O
4►n
/ 411t ..."
�
Wfry D ,.***)
Irak, PA. Nklmr, ...
.,,,.
N.
,,, ..,.. ,. ...
,,,•'4P \ ,„1., \
tliT4 • ,
.ev .eyem ,. / •
�;A,.:
„. i ,,,. . �..j
440, / ,. .ee�eeeeeee „:„..
e
2 1100v
a•e�e�41%,41s•e�e�e�e�e�.
017 eeee�eeeeev .�v
'�NII/III III
41,4‘4,
•'# ,, sq
err r ..
V , 4111
4011W
4111\s / / / AA
04,
4.i 0 ,
,e,s,i i i,,,,, ,
04
4c le'
. ,
14liPik C
PLANNING COMMISS RESOLUTION NO. 223' E ! ' "iri°# o ®l
EXHIBIT Eb
i
1
liiii
AmilI #d / i
,
0 ,4a:i.--,:1.-CI,-
m Q.
r
O,�J,
Yi��.�♦i;Willillike+
♦•�r11,irk**
izxpfYgo
AS1009
ilookt irelfrc
4,4&4,li,Aolk
wissitNps
ih., „.,,,,. .
,,,,,v,.
. ,,.,ic , i.,
. ti __I 1.--I i
n41...li 8 ►, fig 8
.4‘1•#11,!II' .
- ligh,...43:119
.:1�io 1 y`b:1�i1r� Ar♦
-g..•••:,:E=•._•.s.4•.4. ♦�. I v.,rl ♦♦Ii
♦r rrr' ♦Ijt♦1�i�1♦♦ � ii:1 ii�
14''y�♦♦'�H♦♦ _ III, p� *�.�♦ yr
v�r 1' >.I.0.� *.4�'1 'S .�,�1 i��
1..r♦1�♦♦�O:' ���kiwi '�` 1 N. •r:��;St at ��.�
ip44,,,zo....,,,.....ke....,i.
,/,...,,,..1.7,0,1e.s.dmi,...., 41,,,.0.74.akit..4,24y
i1,`<1ri7#4 40. ,.. 5.--
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2231
EXHIBIT "C"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. PP 03-11
Department of Community Development:
1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with
the department of community development/planning, as modified by the following
conditions:
2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within 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 statues 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 permit and/or clearance from the
following agencies:
Coachella Valley Water District
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 provisions for recycling.
16
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2231
6. All future occupants of the buildings shall comply with parking requirements in
section 25.58 of the zoning ordinance.
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. A detailed parking lot and field lighting plan shall be submitted to staff for approval,
subject to applicable lighting standards. Plan to be prepared by a qualified lighting
engineer.
9. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the department of public
works prior to architectural review commission submittal.
10. The project shall be subject to all applicable fees at time of issuance of building
permits including, but not limited to, Art in Public Places, Fringed-Toed Lizard,
TUMF, School Mitigation and Housing Mitigation fees.
11 . That the project shall be permitted medical office use provided said medical
office use shall be parked at a rate of six parking spaces per 1 ,000 square feet
per Municipal Code Section 25.56.310.
12. That the approval of PP 03-11 shall not be effective until the related
Development Agreement (DA 03-03) is approved by the City Council.
Department of Public Works
1. Any drainage facility construction required for 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 prior to start of construction. The
project shall be designed to retain storm waters associated with the increase in
developed vs. undeveloped condition for a 100 year storm.
17
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2231
2. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17
and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of any permits associated with this
project. Modification of existing signals at Gerald Ford and Technology Drive, and
at Cook and Berger Circle West, may be used as credit against these fees, at the
discretion of the City Council.
3. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF).
Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance.
4. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer,
shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public Works prior to the
issuance of a grading permit.
5. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public
Works and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading
permits.
6. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the
issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works.
7. 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 to be
approved by the Public Works Department and a surety posted to guarantee the
installation of required offsite improvements prior to permit issuance.
8. Landscape installation on the property frontages as well as on-site shall be drought
tolerant in nature and maintenance shall be provided by the property owner.
9. Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive
Dust Control and Section 24.20, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control.
10. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.44, complete grading
plans/site improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director
of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits.
Preliminary landscape plans shall be submitted for review concurrently with grading
plans.
18
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2231
11. Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in
accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code.
12. 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, the city's Circulation Network, and the University Village Offsite Street
Site Plan dated November 4, 2003 including the following:
• Curb, gutter, paving sidewalk on Gerald Ford Drive, Cook Street, Technology
Drive, Spine Road, and Berger Drive.
• Gerald Ford Drive shall be constructed to a half-street width of 45'on
75'right of way minimum, plus free right turn lane onto Cook Street.
• Cook Street shall be constructed to a half-street width of 51' on 75'
right of way minimum, plus free right turn lane from Gerald Ford Drive.
• Landscaped center median on Cook Street, Gerald Ford Drive, and
University Drive.
• Signal modifications at Cook and Berger Circle West, Gerald Ford and
Technology Drive.
• Right turn lanes at all entrances, and on Cook Street at Berger Circle.
• Construction of a bus facility with turnout as required by Sunline Transit
Agency.
• Construct a free right turn lane with deceleration and acceleration lanes on
the southwest corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive.
Ultimate street improvements on Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive shall be
installed prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for Phase 1. Ultimate
Street improvements on Technology Drive, Spine Road, and Berger Drive shall be
installed prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for any subsequent
phase.
Rights-of-way necessary for the installation of the above referenced improvements
shall be dedicated to the city prior to the issuance of any permits associated with
this project.
13. This project shall be limited to one driveway on Gerald Ford Drive and one driveway
on Cook Street, with right turn ingress and egress. The Cook Street driveway may
also be provided with left turn ingress subject to final design and approval by the
City Engineer. The Gerald Ford Drive driveway may also be provided with left turn
ingress subject to final design and approval by the City Engineer. Two full access
driveways may be permitted on Spine Road. Driveways and parking lots shall be
19
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2231
inspected by the Public Works Department and a standard inspection fee paid prior
to the issuance of a grading permit.
14. Proposed Berger Drive shall match the width of Berger Drive to the east. Proposed
Wonder Palms Drive shall be constructed to a width of 52' on 76' right of way to
match Technology Drive to the north. Spine Road shall be constructed to a half
street width of 26' on 38' right of way minimum, with a 12' raised, landscaped
median island. Spine Road shall be widened to provide a minimum of four traffic
lanes at key intersections, as determined by the City Engineer. Interim street widths
shall conform to the approved rough grading plan.
15. Parcel Map shall be required to erase existing property lines, establish new property
lines and make dedications for future street widening.
16. A traffic study has been prepared and accepted for this project.
Fire Department Conditions
1. 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, CFC and CBC 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 pressure must be
available before any combustible material is placed on the job site, 3000 gpm for
commercial buildings and 150' from any portion of a commercial building measured
via vehicular travelway.
3. Water Plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the
water system will produce the required fire flow.
4. Install and 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 within 50' of an approved
hydrant. Exempted are one and two family dwellings.
20
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2231
5. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and Water-
flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per UBC chapter 9.
6. Install a fire alarm system as required by the UBC Chapter 3.
7. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than one 2A10BC
extinguisher per 3000 square feet and not over 75' from walking distance. A 'K'
type fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens.
8. Install a Hood/Duct automatic fire extinguisher system per NFPA 96 in all public and
private cooking operations except single-family residential usage.
9. All building 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. 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.
10. A dead end single access over 500' will require a secondary access, sprinklers or
other mitigative measures approved by the Fire Marshal. Under no circumstances
shall a dead end over 1300' be accepted.
11. 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.
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 tot he 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 twelve months.
15. Verify all turning radii are a 45 degree radius.
21
Staff Report
Case No. PP 03-11, TPM 31515, DA 03-03
October 21, 2003
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: October 21 , 2003 continued from September 2, 2003
CASE NOS: PP 03-11 , TPM 31515 and DA 03-03
REQUEST: Approval of a general plan amendment from low density residential
to planned commercial; a change of zone from PR-5 (planned
residential five units per acre); and a precise plan and tentative
parcel map for a commercial / office project at the southwest
corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive, 37-001 Cook Street.
Said project includes 111 ,880 square feet of retail (including drive-
thru restaurants), a three-story hotel with up to 140 rooms; and
one story garden offices totaling 122,000 square feet. Project is
generally located at the southwest corner of Cook Street and
Gerald Ford Drive described as a portion of 653-390-062.
APPLICANT: Rick Evans
57745 Interlachen
La Quinta, CA 92253
I. BACKGROUND:
This application was continued from September 2, 2003 to allow the General
Plan process to catch-up, to allow the applicant to address the medical use
parking shortfall, to take revised building plans through ARC, to allow the
applicant to work with Public Works with respect to whether among other items
the project would have 1 access to Cook St. or 2 and to allow staff to prepare
the development agreement and conditions of approval
II. REVIEW OF ISSUES
The processing of the general plan continues. As of the writing of this report
Commission has not taken a position on the University Village Land Use Plan.
This may be accomplished at the morning session on October 21 , 2003.
Staff Report
Case No. PP 03-11, TPM 31515, DA 03-03
October 21, 2003
Cook Street Access
The applicant has agreed with Public Works to limit the project to 1 access to
Cook Street. That revision to the site plan allows the retail portion to increase
in size from 107,620 square feet to 111 ,880 square feet.
Medical Use Parking
In the project narrative page 8, the applicant addresses the medical use parking
shortfall (60spaces). The project addresses its "parking needs through its
shared parking agreement." The applicant analyzed the various uses and
expected varying peak demand times and concluded that if the medical uses are
spread out over the site that adequate parking will be available. The applicant
proposes a maximum of 30,000 square feet of medical office use provided in
the office building, #12 & 14 and the second floor of retail building #3. The
office building 12 & 14 are adjacent to the main retail parking field. The noon
retail peak hours coincide with the off peak hours of the adjacent offices. Peak
hours for the medical uses occur during lower demand retail periods. The
second floor of medical uses in retail building #3 shares its parking with the
hotel site which experiences its peaks in the early morning and late afternoon
providing medical use parking during the day.
Architecture
The applicant changed architects and submitted new architecture to the ARC
at its September 23, 2003 meeting and again on October 14, 2003. ARC
granted preliminary architectural approval to the office and retail components
of the project. With respect to the hotel ARC felt that its architecture was
conceptually headed in the right direction, but that it needed additional detailing
and work which would occur when an actual developer made a specific
application to the city. The landscaping will be a "Desert Willow" style. The
landscaping plans shown to the ARC were not detailed enough to grant
preliminary approval but commission determined that the plant pallet was
headed in the right direction.
Staff Report
Case No. PP 03-11, TPM 31515, DA 03-03
October 21, 2003
V. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission address design issues and continue to November
4, 2003.
Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved by:
Steve Smith Phil Drell
Planning Manager Director of Community Development
Review and Concur:
Homer Croy
ACM for Development Services
/tm
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: September 2, 2003
CASE NOS: GPA 03-07, C/Z 03-10, PP 03-11 , TPM 31515 and DA 97-2
AMENDMENT #2
REQUEST: Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact, general plan amendment from low density residential to
planned commercial; a change of zone from PR-5 (planned
residential five units per acre); an amendment to the Wonder
Palms Master Plan to expand Planning Area 3 from six acres to
23.6 acres; and a precise plan and tentative parcel map for a
commercial / office project at the southwest corner of Cook Street
and Gerald Ford Drive, 37-001 Cook Street. Said project includes
107,000 square feet of retail (including drive-thru restaurants), a
three-story hotel with up to 140 rooms; and one and two story
garden offices totaling 135,000 square feet. Project is generally
located at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford
Drive described as a portion of 653-390-062.
APPLICANT: Rick Evans
57745 Interlachen
La Quinta, CA 92253
PROJECT OVERVIEW:
The applicant proposes a mixed use garden office, retail and hotel complex on
23.6 acres at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive. The
project has been submitted in a form consistent with the GPAC recommended
land use alternative contained in the General Plan update. Since the application
involves land use and design issues, it was felt that an introductory presentation
would be helpful prior to further consideration.
The six acres of the site immediately at the corner of Cook Street and Gerald
Ford is within the area covered by the Wonder Palms Master plan (WPMP),
Planning Area #3. To facilitate the project, the applicant seeks approval of a
general plan and zone change, precise plan and amendment to the WPMP to
include the entire 23.6-acre site.
STAFF REPORT
CASE NOS. GPA 03-07, C/Z 03-10, PP 03-11 , TPM 31515 and DA 97-2 AMD. #2
SEPTEMBER 2, 2003
II. BACKGROUND:
A. SITE DESCRIPTION:
The 23.6-acre site extends 1 ,635 feet along Cook Street to align with
signalized Berger Drive on the Cal State site to the east. Along Gerald
Ford Drive the site extends west to a future street, Wonder Palms Drive
which will align with Technology Drive to the north. The site is vacant
with minimal vegetation and drops from south to north.
B. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:
North: WPMP / Arco and hotel
South: PR-5 / vacant
East: PR-5 / Cal State site
West: PR-5 / vacant
C. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING:
Presently Low Density Residential and PR-5
III. PROJECT REVIEW:
A. SITE PLAN / ACCESS / PARKING / ARCHITECTURE:
The property is a 'b' shaped site bounded on the south by Berger Drive
(University on the plan), Cook Street on the east, Gerald Ford on the
north, Technology Drive (Wonder Palms on the plan) on the west and
"Spine Road" on the southwest connecting University to Wonder Palms
Drive. The primary purpose of the Spine Road is to provide future internal
circulation for the residential community to the south and southwest.
The applicant has described the project as an "urban village." It is laid out
with buildings and landscaping along the street frontages. Parking and
driveways are located to the interior.
The main feature of the site plan is "Main Street" which runs along the
interior of the perimeter buildings parallel to Cook Street and Gerald Ford.
An open space plaza / corridor between retail buildings 1 and 2 creates
2
WONDER PALMS DEVELOPMENT
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
A. Purpose of Report and Study Objectives
The purpose of this traffic impact analysis is to evaluate the Wonder Palms
development from a traffic circulation standpoint. The proposed development is
located south of Gerald Ford Drive, east of Portola Avenue, and west of Cook
Street in the City of Palm Desert.
Study objectives include (1) documentation of existing traffic conditions in the
vicinity of the site; (2) evaluation of existing plus cumulative development (2005)
and existing plus cumulative development (2005) plus project traffic conditions;
and (3) determination of on-site and off-site improvements and system
management actions needed to achieve City of Palm Desert level of service
requirements.
B. Executive Summary
1. Site Location and Study Area
The project site is located south of Gerald Ford Drive, east of Portola
Avenue, and west of Cook Street in the City of Palm Desert. Exhibit 1-A
illustrates the site location and traffic analysis study area.
The study area includes the following intersections:
1-1
• EXHIBIT 1-A
LOCATION MAP _
-%
DINAH
SHORE DR. ••
L
W •• qR'�F
Q • RRQ
w
\
s N
W \
I-
Z
0 2 I s'0T
I
coif' l! -
GERALD FORD DR. ` '1/40 S
I-10 FWY.
1,0 .\`
LA;
Q
fii
giP\
a iiWl
FRANK SINATRA DR. • • _-
T-9
I
,9R/s\/ i-:
R
o�y
COUNTRY CLUB DR.
1
LEGEND:
•=INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATION
0
WONDER PALMS FOCUSED TIA,Palm Desert,California-01256:01 URBAN
1 -2
Portola Avenue (NS) at:
• Gerald Ford Drive (EW)
• Frank Sinatra Drive (EW)
Technology Drive (NS) at:
• Gerald Ford Drive (EW)
I - Northerly Driveway (NS) at:
Ii A • Gerald Ford Drive (EW)
Cook Street (NS) at:
• 1-10 WB Ramps (EW)
• 1-10 EB Ramps (EW)
• Gerald Ford Drive (EW)
Easterly Driveway#1 (EW)
• Easterly Driveway#2 (EW)
• Berger Street (EW)
• Frank Sinatra Drive (EW)
• Country Club Drive (EW)
Gerald Ford Drive (NS) at:
• Frank Sinatra Drive (EW)
El Dorado Drive (NS) at:
• Frank Sinatra Drive (EW)
2. Development Description
Proposed Land Use: The currently proposed site plan illustrates that
the project site is to be developed with a 100 room hotel, 66,000
square feet of shopping center, 11,000 square feet of fast food
restaurant, and 151,000 square feet of general office buildings.
1-3
3. Principal Findings
a. Required Level of Service: The definition of an intersection
deficiency has been obtained from the City of Palm Desert General
Plan. The City of Palm Desert Plan states that peak hour
intersection operations of Level of Service "C" or better are generally
acceptable. Therefore, any intersection operating at Level of Service
"D" or worse will be considered deficient.
b. Level of Service With Cumulative Development: For existing plus
cumulative (2005) conditions, the study area intersections are
projected to operate at an acceptable Level of Service during the
peak hours with the improvements as shown on Table 5-1.
c. Level of Service With Cumulative Developments Plus Proposed
Development: For existing plus cumulative (2005) conditions plus
project traffic conditions, additional improvements are needed at
study area intersections (see Table 5-2).
The proposed development is projected to generate a net total of
approximately 9,158 trip-ends per day with 707 vehicles per hour during the
AM peak hour and 817 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour.
Other developments that are approved or being processed concurrently in
the study area include the following:
• Light Industrial Park (2 locations)
• Desert Gateway
• 2000-068 Sport's Complex
• 2000-080 General Office Building
• 2000-018 University/College
• 2000-078 High Turnover(Sitdown) Restaurant
1-4
For existing plus cumulative (2005) conditions with or without project traffic
- conditions, traffic signals are projected to be warranted at the following
study area intersections (see Appendix "C"):
Portola Avenue (NS) at:
• Gerald Ford Drive (EW)
El Dorado Drive (NS) at:
• Frank Sinatra Drive (EW)
Based on discussions with City staff, traffic signal plans are currently being
prepared at the intersection of:
Technology Drive (NS) at:
• Gerald Ford Drive (EW)
4. Recommendations
Site-specific circulation and access recommendations are depicted on
Exhibit 6-A and are described below:
• Northerly Project Driveway at Gerald Ford Drive - Restrict
access to right turns in/out and left turns in only.
• Cook Street at Easterly Driveway #1 - Restrict access to right
turns in/out only with left turns in only.
• Cook Street at Easterly Driveway #2 - Restrict access to right
turns in/out only.
..- 1-5
• Construct a 150 foot westbound left turn pocket at the
intersection of Technology Drive and Gerald Ford Drive
serving the site.
• Construct a 150 foot westbound left turn pocket at the
intersection of the Northerly Driveway and Gerald Ford Drive
serving the site.
• Construct a 150 foot northbound left turn pocket southbound
right turn pocket at the intersection of Cook Street and the
Easterly Driveway#1 serving the site.
• Construct a 150 foot northbound left turn lane at the
intersection of Cook Street and Berger Street serving the site.
• Construct Gerald Ford at its ultimate half-section width as an
arterial between Technology Drive and Cook Street in
conjunction with development.
• Construct Cook Street at its ultimate half-section as an
arterial between Gerald Ford Drive and Berger Street in
conjunction with development.
On-site traffic signing and striping should be implemented in conjunction
with detailed construction plans for the project site.
Sight distance at the project entrances should be reviewed with respect to
standard Caltrans and City of Palm Desert sight distance standards at the
time of preparation of final grading, landscape and street improvement
plans.
I
1-6
The project shall participate in funding of off-site improvements which are
needed to serve cumulative future conditions through payment of
appropriate fees (City fees and TUMF).
r
F
T
L
1
LA.
L
L
L
1-7
SUBJECT TC
1}' ® REVISION
MINUTES I '
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
VII. CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising
only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing
described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning
Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing.
A. Case Nos. GPA 03-07, C/Z 03-10, PP 03-11, TPM 31515 and DA
03-03 - RICK EVANS, Applicant
(Continued from September 2 and October 21, 2003)
Request for approval of a general plan amendment from low
density residential to planned commercial; a change of zone
from PR-5 (planned residential, five units per acre) to PCD
(planned community development); and a precise plan and
tentative parcel map for a commercial / office project at the
southwest corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive, 37-
001 Cook Street. Said project includes 111,880 square feet of
retail (including drive-thru restaurants), a three-story hotel with
up to 140 rooms; and one-story garden offices totaling 122,000
square feet. Project is generally located at the southwest
corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive described as a
portion of 653-390-062.
Planning Manager Steve Smith stated he had passed out an updated
Resolution for the Commission's consideration. The changes were basically
reflected on page 2 relative to the size of the commercial aspect of the
project, which had been reduced. The number of hotel rooms had been
reduced from 140 to 130. The square footage difference on the retail portion
was a reduction of approximately 1,000 square feet. Several other
typographical corrections had been made as well.
2
r
SUBJECT TC
MINUTES
r ® REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
He noted that Mr. Evans had given him a letter requesting some changes
relative to street widths and other public works issues. A meeting had been
held this afternoon with Public Works and Mr. Evans' engineer, and he asked
City Engineer Mr. Greenwood to explain what had been agreed upon at that
meeting.
Mr. Greenwood stated that a layout had been distributed to the Commission,
and it basically presented the conditions of approval in a picture format. The
conditions had been revised a number of times, and staff felt it would be
better to show them on a plan. Essentially what had been worked out at the
meeting were minor details. He said there were several things the
Commission should be aware of. One was the fact that this project does
accommodate six lanes on Gerald Ford, which was a major finding of the
General Plan Traffic Study, that Gerald Ford needed to be six lanes. Cook
Street also needs to be six lanes, and that was accommodated as well. The
free right from Gerald Ford onto Cook was accommodated, and that was
shown on the plan. One of the issues that might need to be discussed was
the bus bay on Cook Street. Sunline has indicated they want to see it just
about where the street is labeled "Cook Street"where there was a bubble in
the curb line on the west side on the plan. Neither the developer nor Public
Works staff felt that was the appropriate spot, and it was felt the bus bay
should be just south of Berger Drive. The reason was that from staff
perspective, locating the bus bay within the weaving area from that
acceleration lane coming off the free right and within the right turn lane for
the project driveway was not really an ideal location. That location would
also tend to draw pedestrians across the street mid-block, and this was not
really a good idea on a street with a 50 mile an hour speed limit. Locating
the bus stop south of Berger Drive would put the bus stop very near to a
signalized intersection and would be a better location, and he thought the
developer agreed with that.
The one issue that they tried to resolve at today's meeting was the alignment
of Berger Drive with the existing Berger Drive on the east side of Cook
Street. He had not had a chance to review this layout presented, but the
engineer said that he thinks he has it worked out. He said it looked like it
was possible that this might work. However, there was one issue for the
Commission to be aware of, and that was that the College has a 29-foot wide
center median on Berger Circle Drive east of Cook Street. This plan reduces
that nose down to about five feet. It goes from being an entry statement kind
of median down to a finger of concrete. The way it was presented, there was
3
SUBJECT Tl
a REVISION
MINUTES E
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
something of an impact that needs to be judged whether it is acceptable or
proper. Other than that, he felt everything here was pretty straight forward
with nothing unexpected. He also mentioned that the all of the improvements
on Gerald Ford and Cook Street would be with Phase I of this project.
Technology, Spine Road, and Berger Drive would all be completed with
Phase II of this project, and this project was a multi-phase project, with two,
three, or four phases. The Spine Road improvements would not happen up
front, but they would happen at the first building on Phase II.
Commissioner Tschopp asked whether it was incumbent on the Commission
to accept the Sunline recommendation or if the Commission could make a
statement that it does not feel it is correct in that area.
Mr. Greenwood responded that he felt staff could work with them. He said
it was an interesting situation because it is the City's Public Works
Department that locates the bus turnouts, and Sunline locates the bus stops.
It has happened where the bus stop has not been located at the bus turnout,
specifically on Washington Street, although generally they do follow the bus
turnout with a bus stop.
Mr. Drell noted that it was his understanding there is not currently bus
service at all on Cook Street.
Mr. Greenwood responded that there was service to the College on a very
limited schedule.
Mr. Drell added that apparently Sunline picks up almost no one. He
anticipated in this area that the level of service and location of bus stops will
change significantly as it develops and as the demand develops. It will
probably not be known entirely where the appropriate bus stops are until that
happens and we see the final design of the University on the other side and
the final design of the rest of the master plan that is going to occur to the
south. In the interim, it was best to wait and see what makes the most sense
and once there actually is a route designed to know which side of the street,
where it's going, etc., before a lot of permanent street improvements are
made.
Mr. Smith noted that the City Attorney's office was working on an amended
development agreement which will incorporate most of the findings contained
4
SWIM
r SUBJECT TC
{ REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
in this resolution. That was still coming, but it would be presented to the
Council as part of the recommended action.
Mr. Drell stated that one of the unresolved issues was reconciling the parking
supply relative to the medical offices, and the applicant had agreed to reduce
the medical office entitlement down to meet the parking supply, and it was
now in compliance. Staff and the applicant believed there will be joint use
efficiencies that will occur once the project is completed between the office
use and the retail use based on their differing peak demands.
Mr. Smith said that meant Condition #11 would be amended, which had
provided for the 30,000 square feet of medical to verbiage that staff will work
on relative to what Mr. Drell outlined.
Chairperson Campbell asked Mr. Smith to review again what Phase I will
entail.
Mr. Smith stated that basically it was the project at the corner of Cook and
Gerald Ford.
Mr. Evans indicated that Phase I was about 50,000 square feet of
office and about 45,000 square feet of retail. Phases II and Ill they
had not been able to predict when they may happen. Those phases
matched the parcels and were tentative parcel maps. They tried to
keep the whole thing in concert. He said a question was asked by
Commissioner Tschopp at the last meeting what happens if the hotel
phase happens before Phase II or III, and he said that would trigger
the completion of any and all the Spine Road and Berger and
Technology. He said they had to be cognizant that there may be a
demand for it to go ahead further earlier, which the adjacent land
owner may require. He said this was what they thought was the best
way to reflect on what Phase I would look like and then let Phase II
trigger the rest.
Commissioner Tschopp asked whether ARC had given approval yet to this
project. Mr. Smith responded that portions had been approved, the retail
portion, but not the hotel. Commissioner Tschopp asked about the left turn
from Cook Street into the center, asking whether it would hurt or change any
traffic patterns on Cook Street.
5
SUBJECT TC
S MINUTE F REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
Mr. Greenwood responded that this was one of the items that had a lot of
discussion, and he felt they had an acceptable situation presented here.
Upon question by Commissioner Tschopp as to how many cars would stack
up on Cook Street to make the left turn, Mr. Greenwood responded that he
did not have the dimension for the driveway into the project, but he thought
it was about 200 feet long, and this would accommodate about eight cars.
Mr. Drell said that once the center is built out and people understand how it
works, you will see people entering from the back, turning onto Berger, and
driving along the Spine Road as opposed to winding your way down Main
Street with your car, which will not be easy because it is being shared with
pedestrians. The easiest way to get to the parking field is to go the Spine
Road and then straight down the aisle that takes you into the main parking
field. The advantage of this project was that it has six driveways, which is
unusual. As an example, Desert Crossing effectively has only two
driveways, and the mall effectively has three or four. With so many ways to
get into this project, the idea was that people will ultimately disperse their
access so that one of them should not get overloaded.
Commissioner Lopez expressed concern with the eight-car stack-up on Cook
Street in Phase I and said he could foresee that as being a problem because
it could back up right into the intersection of Berger, although Berger will not
be an intersection until Phase II.
Mr. Greenwood stated that the left turn off Cook will be the only access just
during Phase I. Assuming this project moves along reasonably quickly, the
traffic volumes on Cook Street were currently relatively low, so capacity is
very good. He said he could not imagine we would ever see this turn lane
stacked up with eight cars within the next four or five years. Within that time
it was anticipated that Spine Road would be built, either by Phase II of this
project or by some other surrounding project. He said he felt it would be a
comfortable situation there, assuming the timing worked out.
Mr. Drell said we might want to have some contingency relative to Berger.
Mr. Evans stated in devising this plan, they looked at the question that
was brought up, and their feeling has been that the right turn, the
queuing lane that was agreed to with Public Works, was more than
adequate to deal with the Phase I traffic for three reasons. The traffic
on Cook Street during that period of time was not at the anticipated
6
1
" . E SUBJECT It
MINUTES ® REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
five-year level, much less the 20-year level, which was what the
design was for. Number two, the traffic that is queuing up from
Gerald Ford will have an alternate ingress off of Gerald Ford, so that
traffic will be picked up by the Gerald Ford entrance with a right turn
in. Basically, the accommodation for that right turn in and that
queuing that was referred to, there is traffic generated from 1-10 as
opposed to traffic generated from the regional roadway system.
Commissioner Lopez stated that he was referring to the left-hand turn in,
going north on Cook Street, into Phase I.
Mr. Evans said going northbound on Cook Street was the reason they
felt they were providing adequately because the queuing and stacking
in there is not going to be a huge factor.
Commissioner Lopez said he hoped this would be so successful and would
be such a destination. He said the developer was going to go through the
first phases of success where everyone wants to come and see what this is,
and he was concerned that because of that, in the early stages, the access
off Cook Street and the left turn should be given some consideration as to
how many cars can stack up on there. If this is a successful place, it's
Saturday afternoon, and it's prime season in the Valley, there will be more
than eight cars stacked up. Although Cook Street can handle the traffic,
we're talking about a left hand turn, and he felt consideration should be given
to that.
Mr. Drell asked whether it would make sense to have a contingency that if
that problem does, in fact, occur, it would trigger at least development of
Berger up to that driveway so you at least get access off of Berger.
Mr. Greenwood responded that this would be fine.
Mr. Drell stated that it could be determined by the City Engineer if significant
traffic congestion is occurring. He added that if that is actually occurring,
then Phase II is not long to follow. He said it was very likely that Berger and
the Spine Road might get built with Phase I in conjunction with the
development of the infrastructure for the balance of the master plan.
Commission Tschopp asked where exactly the median was that was
discussed by staff for decrease.
7
r SUBJECT TC.
MINUTES `';
V
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 20RE03ISION
Mr. Drell responded that it was north of Berger, and it was one of the
restricted right turn in, left turn out, median control structures. It would allow
northbound to go left turn in but did not allow northbound left turns to exit.
It was adjacent to the only access off of Cook Street, and it was
approximately mid-way between Berger and Gerald Ford.
Mr. Greenwood said he also wanted to make sure the median on Berger on
the College side does not get lost in this discussion. He wanted to make
sure the Commission understood the change to median island was to reduce
it from the current 29 feet in width. In order to make the streets line up with
the land plan, that median nose will have to be reduced down to five feet
wide for a length of 100 feet. It goes from being a major entry statement at
the College to being just a ribbon of concrete. He said there was a push and
pull between those land uses on the south edge of the project and this
median on the College side. It seemed strange to tie those together, but that
was what was happening.
Mr. Drell stated that Berger was a private street, and the ability to do that
was contingent upon agreement by the University, and he did not believe this
latest design had been run by them.
Chairperson asked Mr. Greenwood what he would recommend on the other
side of Berger and said the City wanted to have a grand entrance to the
University.
Mr. Greenwood agreed and said what was being presented was the five-foot
nose. He asked the Commission what it wanted. He asked if it was
acceptable to go across the street to this entry statement and make a major
change there or attempt to do that in order to make these roads line up, or
if an attempt should be made to do that in some other way.
Mr. Drell said the plan showed two through lanes on Berger, and he asked
why that was the case.
Mr. Greenwood responded that what was really wanted there was two left-
turn lanes and one through lane out of the College, with space reserved in
case there is a heavy traffic flow, and a second west-bound through lane
could be added.
8
arm
" "" SUBJECT T(
MINUTES ! f1
REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
Mr. Drell said we do not want to encourage a heavy flow across Berger
because that is entering a residential neighborhood, and he did not think
there should be any contingency or encouragement of a heavy flow into that
residential neighborhood. He said the Spine Road was just a two-lane road
with a bike lane, and he did not know why we would ever want to have a cut-
through situation to a residential collector.
Mr. Greenwood stated that was why we want to do it as one lane now. If the
volume develops to where it is causing a traffic problem, we would have the
ability to go to a second lane.
Mr. Drell asked if having just one through lane would change in any way the
geometry of that median. He said he felt it was not only unnecessary but
undesirable to have two through lanes, and traffic should be discouraged
from going there at all costs rather than accommodating it.
Mr. Greenwood responded that a lot of variations of this intersection had
been seen, and there may be other ways to do this.
Mr. Drell asked if the extra footage by having just one through lane could be
added back to the median. He said the primary destination for people
leaving the University is either going north or south, and it should not be
going through the residential neighborhood. Traffic through the
neighborhood should be limited to people whose destination is that
neighborhood, and that should be handled by one lane. The purpose of the
Spine Road was to service the residential area, not to relieve congestion at
that intersection.
Mr. Greenwood responded that his concern was that Spine Road has an as
yet undetermined amount of residential development scheduled, and without
a traffic study, we don't know what that volume will be. He said his gut
feeling was that one lane was ultimately tolerable and probably at a pretty
good level of service. The difficulty was in the geometry, making the right
lanes line up with the right lanes across the street, and it was more an issue
of geometry than traffic volume.
Commissioner Tschopp asked if there were any concerns that if Spine Road
becomes a priority road, traffic trying to make turns would back up and
create more problems on Spine Road. He said he felt that would impact
what happens at the corner of Cook and Berger.
9
SUBJECT TC
MINUTES REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
Mr. Greenwood said staff anticipated that the intersection of Spine and
Berger would have some kind of control, probably a stop sign. Technology
and Spine would probably be stop controlled all the way around, and at
those stop controlled intersections, it may be necessary to widen it out and
provide a second through lane and a left turn pocket or right turn lane,
depending on what the movements are. He said a preliminary traffic study
had been prepared by one of the developers in this area, and it showed the
volume on Spine Road at about 5,000 vehicles per day, based on very rough
projections. Even if they are off by 50% and it is 10,000 per day, that can be
accommodated by a two-lane road. He said the 5,000 per day assumed no
cut-through traffic, and it was just the volumes generated within this section
of land. Assuming there would be some cut-through traffic, the volume could
be higher. He said in staff's discussions with the developer, it was agreed
at a staff level to optimize Gerald Ford and Cook and make them really nice
arterial streets with excellent capacity and scale Spine Road more to the
local collector it is intended to be, so it should be able to handle the traffic we
want to be on that road. Gerald Ford and Cook Street will be able to handle
the traffic we want on those roads.
Mr. Drell added that there would be additional right-turn lanes at the
intersections to handle the potential stacking that would occur at those
locations.
Commissioner Tschopp stated he felt this will be a successful project, and
at build out there will be many people coming north on Cook. Given that the
main entrance is at the Berger intersection, traffic will enter the project on
Berger. The first driveway to the right takes you down the main street area,
which is not really conducive to traffic or to get to the center parking aisle, so
they will probably then proceed on to Berger and use Spine Road to come
in through the back. That will add a tremendous amount of traffic, and he
asked if that was adequate planning to meet those needs.
Mr. Drell said the peak traffic coming in and out of the residential area will be
in the early morning and late afternoon, while peak traffic coming in and out
of the center will be more midday. It is important to balance all the various
considerations, and staff felt this was the appropriate solution. There will be
a lot of traffic coming from all directions to this project, and the idea was to
have enough driveways throughout the project so that dispersion of that
traffic should avoid any impact in any one location.
10
F
SUBJECT TC
6" REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
Commissioner Tschopp felt the entryway into the University was a good
statement that needs to be made and kept as it is. Given that we do not
have an existing Berger Drive yet, is there any way to work with the west
side of Berger Drive as opposed to serving the existing Berger Drive.
Mr. Greenwood responded that this can be done. A side effect was that it
would really affect the land plan for this development.
Commissioner Tschopp asked whether Berger Drive was laid out right now
or if constraints were being imposed because there are two separate owners
on opposite sides of the street.
Mr. Drell responded that on the west side, there was technically one owner
right now. He said there was no land plan on the south. If whatever we do
involves or requires any modification of the College side, a discussion will
have to be had with them to figure out how that will be accomplished and
whether they agree to it. He said the idea was whether there is room to
expand the curb at the College to the south a bit to preserve that median.
Mr. Greenwood said the difficulty was that it was the west-bound through
lane that needed to be lined up. The problem was that Berger Drive on the
east side was a very unusual design with a 29-foot median island, and it was
hard to match up to that without duplicating that width exactly.
Chairperson Campbell noted that the public hearing was open, and she asked that
applicant to address the Commission.
MR. RICK EVANS, 57745 Interlachen, La Quinta, said he felt most of the
open issues had been discussed, and Mr. Smith had brought to the
Commission's attention the letter he had submitted today which addressed
certain adjustments in the resolution which subsequently his engineer had
further conversation with Mr. Greenwood. He felt the had probably resolved
all of the open issues from his standpoint, with the adjustments being made
to the bus stops and the suggestions and recommendations from that angle,
the changes on Gerald Ford and Cook Street, the new hundred-foot radius
at the intersection of Gerald Ford and Cook, and to varying degrees a lot of
the adjustments made in this project over the last couple of months. He
noted that at their last meeting, Berger was not on center on the east side of
Cook Street. They went back last week and redesigned that end of the
project to squeeze as much as they could out of it to line it up. He said they
11
SUBJECT TC
MINUTES �' I
REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
had a four-foot dimension they needed to make up in order to align with the
east side, the University side, of Berger. That process lost them ten hotel
rooms and 1,000 square feet of space in those two retail buildings in order
to preserve the parking. They also created an additional buffer of another
ten parking spaces. They wanted to go in a little over-parked from Code
because things happen. A lot of changes and adjustments had been made,
they worked well with staff, and they appreciated all of their input. He said
Berger had been a moving target since they began this six months ago.
From their standpoint, they had made it as wide as they possibly could
without having a detrimental effect on the project. He offered to answer any
questions.
Chairperson Campbell said she would be interested in knowing exactly
where the drive-thru restaurants would be.
Mr. Evans responded that three were included on the plan. There were two
on Cook Street, one on the south side of the entry, one on the north side of
the entry, and one on Gerald Ford.
Chairperson Campbell asked what kind of buffer there was going to be
between Cook and the restaurants.
Mr. Evans responded that one of the buffers added on Cook Street was on
Pad #3, which had a buffer from the driveway with landscaping and
enhanced paving. He said when they implement their landscaping program,
they felt they would need to analyze even further to ensure that there is the
right landscaping effect. Most importantly, there is no window on that side,
it is the exit, and there will not be stacking standing there all the time. There
will just be exiting cars from the drive-thru entrance. On the other side, they
reversed it so that the drive-thru is on the right-hand side of Pad #4 so that
when people pick up their product, that area is buffered from a lot of the view
of the street.
Mr. Drell said in the northern one, the one on the north side of the Cook
Street entrance, the drive-thru lane does not go around the building, and it
is just a circulation aisle in the parking lot. It leaves the building both
engaging front and back both on the main street and on Cook Street. Where
we have building engaging those streets, there is no buffer necessary at all.
12
SUBJECT TC.
MINUTES g o REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
Commissioner Tschopp noted that traffic going into Pads 3 and 4, using
drive-ups, then empty back out onto Main Street. He asked if that would
impair pedestrian traffic or impact that in any way.
Mr. Evans said no and added that they had designed it to be two cars more
than what the McDonald's scheme is for acceptable stacking, and he
believed that number was eight. He said that was the most difficult case in
their experience.
Commissioner Tschopp stated that when the cars exit, they will exiting out
onto the main street. Trying to increase and promote pedestrian traffic, he
asked if the applicant had a concern that that traffic exiting the drive-ins are
going to impact the pedestrian or come in conflict with that.
Mr. Evans responded that they did not anticipate that to be an issue. He
said while there would be exiting there, they felt it queues very nicely with the
surface level of the restaurant, whichever one it happens to be, and the
queuing will be, just by design of a fast food restaurant, metered in a way
that allows the traffic to not stack up on the parking lot and allows adequate
separation. Also, that is a two or three mile an hour situation there, it is not
a speed situation.
Upon question by Commissioner Finerty, Mr. Evans responded that the plan
had always been to have some kind of enhanced paving in the plaza. She
asked if any thought had been given to locating the main restaurants at the
entrances instead of focusing on the entrances both on Cook and Gerald
Ford with fast food drive-thru's. Mr. Evans responded that they had them in
several places, although they opted to have them this way because
experience had shown that the restaurant people really did not have a big
need for the main entrance locations. He said down at restaurant Pads 1
and 2, they have a very good proximity to the entrance off of Berger, and
they were designed to service that end of the project as well as the hotel and
some of the local traffic. He said they saw even more restaurants at the
main plaza corner.
Commissioner Finerty asked if that meant Pads 1 and 2 were sit-down
restaurants, and Mr. Evans agreed. He said he saw one as being a three
meals a day restaurant (breakfast, lunch, and dinner), which would be
something like Mimi's or Coco's. He saw the one next to it as being
somewhat more limited in service, probably lunch and dinner, perhaps
13
SUBJECT TC
= r
— REVISION
Le _
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
something like PF Chang's or Macaroni Grille. He said they envisioned the
locations at both sides of the plaza at the corner of Gerald Ford and Cook to
be sit-down restaurants, probably two meal a day restaurants.
Commissioner Finerty said in her mind the corner of Cook and Gerald Ford
was the main entrance, and there would be a sit-down restaurant on each
side. Mr. Evans agreed. She said that meant there would be four sit-down
restaurants and three fast food restaurants with drive-thru's.
Mr. Evans agreed this is what would be at those particular locations,
although he did not necessarily feel it was limited to that. He said that was
what they saw at this point. He said Retail #1 and #2 were designed as
multiple-tenant buildings, and they saw the lineup of merchants in these two
buildings as going from three to four thousand square foot restaurant down
to a one thousand square foot salon. He said they had actually intended and
designed the two low pavilion buildings to be restaurants, and they expected
them to be able to operate with a patio that is not only out in the plaza but
also their own patio. They had operable doors, and they expected those
doors to be opened and closed in inclement weather. The concept was that
on a day that is beautiful, they will be able to open those doors to allow
diners to sit outside. On a day where it is windy, rainy, or too cold, those
diners will still be able to have a nice dining experience.
Commissioner Finerty noted that a few meetings back discussion had been
held about the parking plan and the medical use, and the applicant said he
was not going to let all the medical use get in the way of the project. She
noted that the medical area had been reduced so that the applicant will be
in compliance with the parking. She asked if the applicant could live with
Pads 3 and 4 not being drive-thru's and not having that exception that would
require expanding the freeway overlay zone to allow drive-thru's.
Mr. Evans responded that this would be a very difficult thing for them. The
financial model for this project really requires it. Also, the leasability of any
more retail on this intersection in the foreseeable future was rather difficult
to predict. A lot of it depends on the growth in the neighborhood, and they
had tried to adapt themselves to the idea that not everything that is there
today will be the same thing that is going to be there tomorrow. A plan was
shown last time that included the expansion. They saw a building that
replaces a parking lot, and that becomes below grade parking. They also
saw these fast food pads, 15 to 20 years from now, as going away and
becoming more intense retail uses. Part of that was not only an economic
14
` . SUBJECT IC
a REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
hardship on the project today, but in the future it would eliminate perhaps the
ability for them to grow the project in the market rate condition that it needs
to be able to grow in in the future when they anticipated the University to be
more and the neighborhoods to be bigger.
Commissioner Finerty said the applicant talked about one of the nice things
about the project being the fact that one can walk everywhere, and the
purpose of Main Street was to have both the cars and pedestrian-friendly
use. She felt that was inconsistent with wanting three drive-thru's.
Mr. Evans appreciated what she said but said we also have to recognize the
market condition, that this is a freeway-oriented site, becoming less so in the
next two to six years. He said he felt as the developer that he had to be very
cognizant of market conditions that make a project financially viable. They
also had to have a good merchandising mix for the project, and they saw that
as a very important aspect. While fast food was a very important aspect
today, it may not be as important in 15 years.
Commissioner Finerty noted that in Palm Desert, there are really no drive-
thru's, and most fast food restaurants are walk-in. She said they are rather
successful and that there is probably every fast food restaurant known to
man in the City except for In-n-Out.
Mr. Evans said he would not have recommended doing this kind of a project
with this idea on Highway 111; however, this is 1-10, and they were a
freeway-oriented project to a certain degree. This project will have three
customers: those generated by 1-10, those generated by the neighborhoods,
and those generated by the office workers. Being able to accommodate
people in a multi-faceted way was an important aspect to a project like this.
Not being able to accommodate them for a quick meal was a big loss for a
project like this.
Chairperson Campbell said with regard to the drive-thru, she really did not
understand why it was so important to have drive-thru's. She said it was
okay to have fast food, but she did not know why a drive-thru was needed.
She felt it took the same amount of time to park and go in to get the food as
it did to drive through. She said when she travels, she can go to a fast food
restaurant, but she would rather go in so she can use the restroom.
15
SUBJECT TC
' - REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
Mr. Evans agreed with Chairperson Campbell and said he would rather go
in himself, but he felt they were in the minority. A good example was
Starbuck's, which is starting to create drive-thru facilities. He said they had
just met with the Starbuck's people last week on this and another project,
and the answer was that 30% of the customers are now using the drive-thru
because they are in a hurry and they want something quick and they believe
that is the quick way. He said most people think of drive-thru restaurants as
being like McDonald's and Burger King. The fast food business is changing,
and as you read the paper you see how they are working hard to change.
McDonald's is starting to create better meals than they've ever created
before, so they cannot be put in the genre of lousy food like we did even two
years ago. They have to be put in the genre of they expect that they will do
a better job and be a better product. But there is that customer who wants
to swing in and swing out and get the job done and go on to their next spot.
He said they had looked at this project to try to blend a lot of uses. The
office use is an important blend for them. This is not a Wal-Mart center or an
Alberton's center. He said they looked for traffic generators when they put
together the merchandising scheme. The office product is, in fact, a traffic
generator. The hotel product was, in fact, a traffic generator. The residential
was also a traffic generator, as was the highway customer that is quick on
and quick off of the highway, and that was a very important aspect of the
project because there will a lot of people getting on and off that freeway to
go to the gas stations. Medical office was high on their list, but it was not so
high that it should jeopardize the project. He said they had come in with a
recommendation with the encouragement of Mr. Drell and the staff to say
they currently are approximately 37 cars over-parked according to Code.
That was not enough to provide the required parking for the medical office,
but it was enough to provide the required parking for about 20,000 square
feet of the 30,000 requested. On the medical office, if the project quantity of
medical office rises and falls on available excess parking, that is a fair way
to deal with the issue of the six to one parking ratio.
Chairperson Campbell said she wanted to make sure the hotel would be built
and not have the project stop with Phase 1 without the other phases being
built.
Mr. Evans said he felt Phase 1 was a done deal for them as long as the
Commission is willing to accept it on its merits. The hotel phase was not a
current phase, and they did not have a transaction with a hotel. They had
activity on Phase 1 that is different than the hotel. He said they did not plan
16
t _
w 1
SUBJECT It
®
MINUTES Li. I t REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
for the hotel to be built and have nothing else built. They did not see it as the
first thing that happens on the project. He said he felt the phasing plan
shown was indicative of that. The one thing they could not predict was
whether the hotel phase would be built before Phase 2 or 3 with the office
and/or the rest of the retail. It was possible that may happen and trigger
Phase 2 before the rest of the office and the rest of the retail. Given that and
market conditions and the housing being planned around them, he did not
think there was going to be any delay on the whole thing. He said they were
being very cautious, conservative, and fair. They also conceded the fact that
right now the right thing for the corner is the project that is Phase 1. As time
goes on and more people are in the neighborhood, Phase 2 and Phase 3 will
become attractive as the market conditions improve.
Chairperson Campbell said she did not want to see just Phase 1 be built and
the rest be left barren land, with somebody else needing to come along and
take up where this applicant left off. She said she hoped this would not
happen.
Mr. Drell added that the problem was that right now it is in the middle of
nowhere. He said what you don't want is for a project to be over built initially
beyond what the markets can support, and then the whole thing collapses.
By definition, the project will have to grow and evolve as the neighborhood
grows and evolves around it. The greatest appeal of the project is the Main
Street. Today it is a freeway-oriented project because that is where the
traffic is generated. The Main Street becomes attractive when residents and
the University start growing up around it. To a certain degree, what happens
at Desert Willow is going to be a determinant. If we get those hotels built in
Desert Willow, suddenly there is a greater mass of customers in the
neighborhood.
Upon question by Chairperson Campbell, Mr. Drell responded that the
Commission is not voting on Phase I, it is voting on the master plan for the
whole project. Probably the only indeterminate aspect of the project right
now is the hotel. Mr. Evans is not a hotel developer. He has provided a pad
for the hotel, but that is something that would have to come back to the
Commission. Or if there was any significant change in any of the phases as
they were to be built, those would also come back to the Commission. The
Commission was voting on the whole project. We are in an optimistic
business and always assume that the plans we approve will get built,
although there is never a guarantee that anything gets built. He believed this
17
_ SUBJECT TE
MINUTES g � $ I REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
was the right project for this location given its unique variety of market
demand. It was very likely that as Phase 2 and Phase 3 evolve, they will be
different than the Commission was seeing now, and in those cases, they
would come back to the Commission.
MR. MIKE MARIX, 128 Vista Monte, Palm Desert, said they owned the
balance of the property here. He supported Mr. Evans' program. He had
once concern and said he had not seen the site plan for some months. This
was the first update he had see, although that was his own fault. When the
project was first discussed, the hotel was going to be in the middle of it.
Discussion was held relative to view corridors and heights. The hotel had
now been moved, and he had some concern about a 35-foot building
adjacent to residential directly west of it. He said they had not yet
established the elevation directly of those residential pads to the west, but
he would not like to see the view be the third floor of the hotel. He asked the
Commission to consider this in the course of approving grading plans and
the like.
Mr. Drell said he believed in the master plan submitted, directly west was the
park and the public facilities. One of the reasons the park was there was a
significant need to take up grade for the shopping center since it has to be
relatively flat. He said the grading plan showed a significant grade, and he
thought the residential pads could be 20 or 30 feet above the grade of this
project. An interesting architectural problem was how to deal with rooftop
equipment of all the buildings, given the fact that the residential lots will be
considerably higher. How that rooftop equipment is screened is a different
problem than we are normally used to where we're looking at eye level.
Mr. Marix added that he does support this project and felt it would be
complementary to what they are going to do. So far they have had good
talks and sensitivity about adjoining uses.
MS. KIM HOUSKEN, 73-237 Somera, said she was not well-versed in this
project, although she had read up on it a bit. She was intrigued by the idea
of a Main Street and felt it was a great idea. She felt a pedestrian friendly
area was a wonderful idea, especially with family restaurants. She concurred
with Chairperson Campbell and Commissioner Finerty that it seems a
contradiction to have fast food restaurants where you're encouraging people
to stroll. Mr. Evans himself said this was not a speed situation turning onto
Main Street, but "fast" meant "speed" and people wanted to get in and get
18
f
•
' SUBJECT IC
MINUTES i .of V t 1�
REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
out. The location was a major entry into the City, and she questioned
whether this was something we want to have coming into Palm Desert. In
her mind, when she heard the term fast food, she started to think about strip
malls and nail joints, and it goes downhill really quick. In terms of this major
entrance to the City, she felt it should be carefully thought out as to what will
be put there. She added that there still seemed to be a lot of questions,
including about what kind of restaurants, and she thought of Denny's when
hearing about a three meals a day restaurant. She did not think this was the
kind of restaurant that should be out there. With regard to the hotel, she was
not sure what type there would be —would it be like a Motel 6? She added
that there were a lot of unanswered questions, and with the General Plan still
be amended, it would seem prudent to continue this case until we see what
direction the City Council will take with the General Plan.
Chairperson Campbell declared the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Finerty agreed with the last speaker that this is an intriguing
project, and it was an interesting concept with the Main Street. As we have
gone through the process, this was something she would like to see.
Unfortunately, she could not support it at this point for a number of reasons.
She had never been particularly thrilled with the architecture, and she
understood that the applicant had changed architects. This project, because
of all the little stores packed together, was the opposite of the big box
concept, but the architecture to her reminded her of a bunch of little boxes.
She said she knew there were no landscaping plans yet, and we really do
not know what the hotel will look like, and Architectural Review Commission
was still looking at it. With regard to the height issues for the hotel and retail
and requesting exceptions for a 34-foot height, she was not seeing where
the benefit of anything architectural was helping with the extra height,
because it still looked like a bunch of little boxes to her. She was concerned
about the entire surface being dg, and she was not convinced that would
hold up and work. She was appreciative of the fact that the applicant had
come into compliance with the parking. Her main objection was the gateway
to the City, and this would not be her idea of a gateway as the main entrance
to Palm Desert: a) because of architecture; b) because of the fast food. She
was not a fan of fast food restaurants and had never supported fast food
drive-thru restaurants with all the applications that had come before the
Commission, and she could not do so now. She understood with the
Wonder Palms agreement Pad 5 was already allowed for the drive-thru;
however, Pads 3 and 4 do require an exception that she could not support.
19
rrn SUBJECT TC
MINUTES REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
She said it was hard for her to live with all the fast food restaurants, and
making them drive-thru's on top of that was an intolerable situation. Palm
Desert has done well without drive-thru's, and she thought that was an image
she would like to see continue. Additionally, the locations of the fast food
restaurants, Pads 3, 4, and 5, right at the entrance, again that would not be
what she would want to see when you enter. That was not her idea of a
gateway to Palm Desert, which has that resort atmosphere so that when you
enter somewhere you're not going to see this fast food on both sides as you
enter off of Cook. If changes could be made to accommodate her concerns,
she felt it eventually could be a nice project, but for right now, she would not
be able to support it.
Commissioner Tschopp said this project was on a very busy intersection
adjacent to an Interstate, and across the street from a university that will
grow to some significance over time. He said he felt it would be a mistake
on the part of the Commission to tie the developer's hands and tell him what
types of restaurants and businesses to put inside. He felt the market would
require fast food restaurants. He said he was not enamored with the location
of them, but in looking at the plan he was not sure where else they would go.
The market does require fast foods, and many years back in college, he
remembers they ate fast food. He felt this was convenient to the College and
to the Interstate, and he did not have a problem with that. He thought the
entryway was actually beautiful. Standing in the intersection looking up
through the project, he felt it was a good look for that area, and he felt the
developer had done a good job given the environmental constraints that are
out there, including the wind. With regard to the architecture, he felt it could
work out there. Overall, he felt the plan was compatible and was consistent
with the current projects out there and with the proposed development. He
felt it would be a good fit and hoped it would work the way it has been
envisioned with the Main Street walkway, etc. If the Commission were to
approve it, he would like to have the conditions to mitigate any problems that
occur on Cook Street with the left-hand turn lane, why we only have Phase
1 included, and he would also like to make sure we maintain the median to
the College's satisfaction across the street. He felt an entry into the College
as well as this project needed to be a statement and should be maintained.
Commissioner Lopez said he also saw this a little differently from the
standpoint of the overall project. The medical office and the lines for parking
and the reduction and limitations of that, it was his understanding we would
20
, r
SUBJECT TC.
MINUTES I1
` I. REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
have to reword Item #11, and he asked if that was something that needed
to be done this evening or if it was something staff would work on.
Planning Manager Steve Smith said he had some language that could be
used.
Commissioner Lopez said he would look to staff to make that appropriate
change. The development agreement Item #12 would need to be submitted
to the City Council for approval prior to anything else being moved forward
on this. The concerns regarding the hotel developer were concerns he also
had, but he also knew that we are in an environment right now where hotels
are not developing. With few exceptions in our community right now, hotels
are doing terribly, and this destination resort usually lags one to two years
behind what happens normally in the normal hotel environment. It takes a
little bit longer for the recessions to hit here, and it also takes a little bit longer
for them to move out. He did not know what would go there, but he would
rely on Architectural Review to make sure the project looks great.
Experience told him that there is a chance we will be sitting there with that
property the way we're looking right now at Desert Willow. It has been there
forever, and no one has jumped on it even for one dollar, so it could be a
challenge for the future. He believed the concept was correct and the
location was good. The usage of restaurants across the street to help
support the people who would be staying in that location was fine. Knowing
where the project will be located, he said there was a need and it made
sense for fast food drive-thru in Phase 1. He would really recommend that
in the future phases we carefully take a look at Pad 3 and see if that makes
sense. That particular pad has the opportunity to have a negative effect on
the entire project as it pertains going down Cook Street. Pads 5 and 4 he felt
were pretty well hidden. Overall, he felt it looked fine architecturally. With
the proper changes on some of the conditions of approval, he felt good about
it.
Chairperson Campbell said she liked the project very much and felt it was a
great entrance to the City. Her only comment would be in regard to the fast
food restaurants. She did not mind Pad 5 because it did not seem that it
would have more through traffic like Cook Street has, but she had a problem
with Pad 4 being a drive-thru restaurant. She agreed with Commissioner
Lopez on Pad 3 and did not feel it should have a drive-thru restaurant. She
really did not like the drive-thru on the corner of Dinah Shore and Monterey
and felt it would look terrible. As far as everything else was concerned with
21
P \
SUBJECT TC.
REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
the parking and the medical buildings, she did not have any problems with
that.
Mr. Drell said what he heard was that there were three votes in favor of fast
food on Gerald Ford and maybe the fast food on the north side of the
entrance but not on the south side of the entrance. He asked if there was a
good elevation of either of those Cook Street fast foods, and he felt perhaps
if the Commissioners saw a very specific view of what it might look like form
Cook Street, it might change their minds. The fast food on the north side of
the entrance should look no different than any other store because the drive-
thru aisle is not differentiated. He said the one on the north side of the
entrance was not circled by the aisle and was just a building next to a
parking lot and an aisle in the parking lot that people drive through, which
they do all the time in a parking lot.
Commissioner Tschopp asked if when the Commission approves a pad for
a restaurant, they are saying it could be a drive-thru.
Commissioner Finerty stated that drive-thru's are not allowed in the City.
Mr. Drell responded that this was not true. The City has a specific zone
which specifically allows it at major intersections next to the Interchange.
Commissioner Tschopp said it was his understanding when the Commission
approves a restaurant pad, it is not stating that it has to be something like a
Ruth's Chris and it could be a Taco Bell 2.
Mr. Drell responded that we do not have the ability to approve tenants. Land
uses are approved as well as physical development.
Commissioner Tschopp said if the problem with Pad 3 is with the drive-thru,
hopefully the architecture could handle that or perhaps see if the
Commission wants to look at eliminating the drive-thru on that pad, leaving
it as a restaurant pad and stating that it wants the architecture to be
compatible with the rest of the center.
Mr. Drell responded that he was sure it would be. The issue was what level
of approval does the Commission want to confer. The Commission can
confer any level it wants. It can require that the drive-thru's, which the
Commission has not yet seen elevations of, be brought before the
22
MOM 111111.ft
r'. ' SUBJECT it
l t rA i - REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
Commission. The problem Mr. Evans has is that to finance the project and
start the project, he has to know he has certain tenants of some sort, and
that is based on what he expects to get from certain drive-thru restaurants.
He asked how the developer could ease the Commission's mind as to the
final appearance of those at this stage.
Mr. Evans said they had endeavored to put together a balanced project, not
slanted in one direction or the other. Their experience said that the
neighborhood that is going to be around this project would fully utilize all the
uses that have been planned. As mentioned by Mr. Drell at the last meeting,
when they started working on this corner, they were working solely within the
Wonder Palms development agreement, which really was 11 acres of this
project currently. They were encouraged by staff to abandon the idea of a
gasoline station and four fast food pads on the six acres, and they
encouraged them to look at something that had a lot more vision attached
to it. They endeavored to pull together a project that had balance, that met
conditions, that was unusual. He said this was an unusual and upcoming
area, a growing area. They endeavored to create balance of the project, not
only visual balance but also merchandising balance. There were a lot of
different customers out there. They were not like himself and Chairperson
Campbell where they go to a fast food restaurant not for the drive-in but for
the food and for the relaxation and a spot to relax for a bit before getting
back on the road. He said there are people who go to fast food restaurants
because that's where they like to go, while there were people who preferred
to go to a sit down restaurant. There were people who do all different kinds
of things. This is a big project in a big corner. They felt the fast food in this
case offers great balance. He said what he would be willing to do, if it was
of any interest at all, was to have Phase 1 approved and deal with the fast
food pad on the Phase 2 portion of the site as a future question that would
have to come back for approval rather than taking it off the site plan.
Perhaps the market condition would change for the developer in that time
period and make more sense to do that. He said his experience showed that
across the street from a brand new university, across the street from brand
new middle income, young families, near a freeway, across from the
Hampton Inn, down from the Courtyard, down from the Residence Inn, there
was a big demand for this kind of product. He felt that while the Commission
was correct in saying it is not in many other places in the center of the City
of Palm Desert, they recognized that, and it was not a debate nor reason for
them to justify anything. They were looking solely at market conditions and
saying that from a market condition standpoint, financing of this project
23
SUBJECT Tf
MINUTES II r i ` - REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
standpoint, it is an economic hardship on them to knock those fast food pads
out.
Commissioner Finerty said it was not the fast food pads, it was the fast food
drive-thru's on Pads 3 and 4.
Mr. Evans said there were not that many restaurants in the market. If those
were made into sit down restaurants, their experience was that those
locations they want on the plaza, where they want this really nice, easy
dining, comfortable restaurant on the plaza, were not going to be there.
Commissioner Finerty said if the drive-thru were removed, they could still
have their Burger King or whatever, it just would not include the drive-thru
feature.
Mr. Drell said part of the reason the freeway overlay zone was created which
allowed drive-thru restaurants was to provide the property owners in Palm
Desert the same ability to attract restaurants and commercial as the property
owners on the other side of the freeway in the County. Given a choice of
locating their In-n-Out Burger on the north side of the freeway or the south
side of the freeway, they're going to go on the north side if it means giving
up the drive-thru on the south side. The other issue he felt was important
was that what we're suggesting Mr. Evans do in terms of design of this sort
of project was unconventional. This was not a project that lenders are used
to seeing. It doesn't have the big anchor. It doesn't have an Albertson's,
Wal-Mart, Target. This is an unconventional project that a lender will have
to be creative to finance. What they will be looking for, in the absence of a
Wal-Mart or Target or Albertson's, is what they call "credit tenants". Who are
the sort of tenants that we know will be successful? If they are not as
successful as Mr. Evans, what sort of tenants are we sure will be successful
that will at least additionally carry the project. That is why there are so many
projects with gas stations on the corner. When lenders see the gas station,
they say well the money he might not make or the time it takes to develop
success for the rest of the project, he will be able to be carried along, in
essence, by the gas station. That is why almost every project you see has
a gas station or a bank or a big box. The things we find most attractive
about this project are the things that scare most lenders. They want to see
what is familiar, what they know will be successful. What they know will be
successful is a gas station or fast food. They know that can carry the project,
especially in the beginning, and that will induce them to lend money on those
24
• .
SUBJECT it
r `•` r o
MINUTES REVISION
4.; � � � V
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
aspects of the project for which they are more uncomfortable, which are
those aspects we find most intriguing, most exciting. Unfortunately, in the
financial community, you can't have one without the other. This project has
pretty much rejected most of those things, the big box, the gas station, the
drug store, the supermarket. It will need something of known financial value
that the lender can hang his hat on, and what is left is the fast food
restaurants. Over time, he felt those parking lots that support the drive-thru
can disappear, mainly because their value as frontage on Cook Street will be
far more important as a building. Hopefully by then this project will be a
great success.
Commissioner Tschopp said as he understood the rest of the
Commissioners, they were not opposed to restaurant pads going there.
They were opposed to the drive-thru's. To offer some type of compromise,
he asked if we could require that the drive-thru's be sufficiently screened by
vegetation, with the specifics to be left to the Architectural Review
Commission to ensure that the drive-thru's and the plantings are sufficient
to screen them.
Commissioner Finerty said when the Wonder Palms ordinance (No. 838)was
adopted back in 1997, the City Council at that time had no drive-thru's, and
the one area that they decided could have drive-thru's was this freeway
overlay zone. They set down different criteria that needed to apply. These
criteria do talk about screening with landscaping and that the menu boards
be screened and out of public view. But they also said that drive-thru
restaurants should be limited to the portion of the property north of Gerald
Ford Drive. That is where Pad 5 is covered, but Pads 3 and 4 are not, and
that is why exceptions were needed.
Mr. Drell said that there was no question that doing the project would require
an amendment to Wonder Palms. But he believed the freeway overlay zone
was applied here as well as to Monterey and Washington. He said it was a
given that the standards of Wonder Palms were being modified to fit the
geometry of this project, mainly because it was determined that while the
Wonder Palms plan showed most of the commercial frontage on Gerald
Ford, there was no disagreement that it was more appropriate to be on Cook
Street. The issue came down to design, and it could either be left up to the
Architectural Commission or the Commission could require that it come back
here to determine whether the requirements for the architecture and
landscaping are satisfactory.
25
-ISUBJECT IC
MINUTES '11.0' , REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
Commissioner Finerty said Mr. Evans wanted a decision at this meeting, and
the Commission does have the ability to make its decision now. Mr. Evans
could then take it to the City Council, which is where it needs to go anyway.
Mr. Drell stated that development agreements do need to go to the City
Council.
Commissioner Finerty said that rather than waiting for ARC to look at
something or to show the Commission what the drive-thru's are going to look
like, the applicant might as well get all that stuff and take it to the City
Council.
Mr. Drell said he would suspect that the Council will want to see those
pictures before they proceed as well. They will want some assurance, even
if it is a generalized standard, that this is the standard that the final project
will have to meet. They will need some visual representation of how those
drive-thru's are going to look.
Chairperson Campbell said she would feel comfortable having the fast food
on Pad 4, which is adequately screened, but no drive-thru. For Pad 5, she
would feel comfortable having a drive-thru fast food restaurant. With regard
to Pad 3, that was something that would come back with Phase 3.
Mr. Drell said that there would be no guarantees, and the applicant, if he had
a fast food tenant there, would have to come back and go through the
process.
Commissioner Finerty said that the only drive-thru then would be what
Wonder Palms calls for, and that is a drive-thru on Pad 5.
Upon question by Mr. Drell, Chairperson Campbell said she did not want a
drive-thru on Pad 4 because it is right there on the Main Street. Mr. Drell
said it would not look any different than a sit down restaurant at that location
because the building abuts the street and it is adjacent to a parking lot. The
fast food aisle is no different than an aisle in a parking lot.
Chairperson Campbell said we will have to go ahead and see how it is
adequately screened. Also, we have been talking about the University
Village, and the people in the University and in the neighborhood will be
riding bikes. She asked if bikes can go through drive-thru's.
26
• •
FT SUBJECT It:
REVISION
MINUTES `a +�
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
Mr. Drell said right now there is no neighborhood, there is no University, and
there are no bicycles. There will be bicycles five to ten years from now.
Unfortunately, the project cannot wait for that in order to get financed. The
project has to respond to today's market and then be able to evolve into
tomorrow's market. If we cut it off at the knees, it will not respond to any
market.
Chairperson Campbell said if there is a drive-thru on Pad 5, you are not
impaired by all the parking that you have on both sides of the Main Street.
It seemed it would be easy in and easy out, whereas on Pad 4, it is a little
more complicated. When you are driving out, you go into all of the parking
area.
Commissioner Lopez said when you look at Pad 4, the people pull into the
driveway as they would to park their car and go into a fast food restaurant.
However, instead of parking, they pull up to a window, get their food, and pull
out. That is where he felt this was unique and where it was different. If it is
well-bermed and landscaped along Cook Street, there really isn't any
difference being a fast food restaurant or being a fast food restaurant with a
drive-thru. He said this was not a drive-thru that goes around the building
and becomes exposed as it does on Monterey Avenue. This is going to be
situation where they are adequately sheltered, and they are really in a
parking lot. They just happen to drive up to a window in that parking lot, get
their food, and leave. On Pad 5, that is really not an issue. With Pad 4, he
did not think it was a situation where you will have an unsightly view of cars
lined up as you do on Monterey. He said he felt it was important to get
Phase 1 off on the right foot. After that, everything else will fall into place.
Pad 3 in Phase 3 probably won't even be there because it wasn't in the
beginning. The early plan did not include a Pad 3 in Phase 3, it was a
parking lot area. He said perhaps part of the compromise could be to
approve Phase 1 tonight, with the other phases and the hotel to come back
to the Commission for approval.
Mr. Evans said it was difficult at this point to envision that there will be a
building there. The only thing that could be conceivably different is that they
could find a tenant that would go there that really wouldn't need or want a
drive-thru. What they were suggesting in the master plan concept, that
particular pad would have to come back to the Commission for further
approval based on their ability to justify a need. To disenfranchise all of the
phases from what they were presenting would really put an unusual burden
27
SUBJECT It
r - REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
on them, and they could not go out and market anything without their
entitlements on this. They were phased, but they were master plan phased.
Commissioner Finerty asked if it would be advantageous if the Commission
voted on the entire project tonight as presented, and then the applicant could
take it to the City Council.
Mr. Evans responded that this was not spirit in which he came here tonight
and it was not the spirit in which he was talking.
Mr. Drell said the suggestion was that the southern pad for the fast food
would, in essence, be put on hold, and there would be no approval for that.
He said there was no debate about the office plan or about the balance. It
was already understood that in terms of the hotel, all we're talking about is
the location of a hotel. The hotel will have to come back when it is finally
designed by the hotel developer. To go a step further, it would be
acknowledged that there will be a fast food restaurant on the north side of
the entrance, but the Commission wants to see the design prior to it
proceeding to be assured it is complying with the requirements of the
Wonder Palms plan.
Commissioner Tschopp agreed with Commissioner Lopez about Pad 4 and
how that drive-thru is just an extension of the parking lot to some degree and
does not have the flavor of a true drive-thru. If he understood Mr. Evans
correctly and the concerns of the Commissioners on the drive-thru, we are
looking at a master plan here, and he would hate to see the whole thing held
up because of the drive-thru on Pad 3. Perhaps it could be approved subject
to, if Mr. Evans wanted a drive-thru on Pad 3 at a later date, he would need
to come back for conditional approval on that.
Chairperson Campbell said agreement had been reached on that, but they
were now talking about Pad 4, which is the problem.
Commissioner Tschopp restated that this is a unique development, and the
Commission should feel very fortunate to have this type of development
coming into the City on a very viable corner. There is a lot of big box
development going on in this valley, and there are a lot of big boxes still
looking for places to play. He said he would hate to see an opportunity like
this go down the road because we got hung up on a drive-thru that can be
adequately shielded from the road.
28
. :�� SUBJECT Tr
REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
Commissioner Tschopp moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the master
plan as presented, with the amendments to mitigate the traffic concerns on Cook
Street that may arise, that the median be maintained on the Berger side of the
street, that if the applicant desires a drive-thru on Pad 3 he would need to come
back to the Commission for a conditional use permit, and that Pad 4 be adequately
screened from the street so that the drive-thru is not visible from Cook Street.
Motion was seconded by Lopez. With a vote of 2-2, with Commissioner Jonathan
ABSENT, the motion FAILED.
Mr. Drell stated that because the motion failed, the Commission could
forward this case to the Council as no action or it could be continued to the
next meeting when there will be five Commissioners present.
Upon question by Commissioner Finerty relative to his preference, Mr. Evans
responded that he prefer having the matter continued. Commissioner Finerty
asked if it would be a hardship for Mr. Evans if the Commission continued it
to the first meeting in December. She said if Mr. Evans got his decision then
and had all of his pictures, he could go to the City Council the first meeting
in January. Mr. Evans agreed.
Commissioner Finerty moved to, by Minute Motion, continue this matter to
the meeting of December 2, 2003. Motion was seconded by Campbell and carried
by a 4-0 vote, with Commissioner Jonathan ABSENT.
Chairperson Campbell reopened the public hearing.
Mr. Evans asked if his understanding was correct that the drive-thru
issue was the only question to resolve.
Commissioner Finerty responded that this was not the only issue from her
point of view. She noted she had listed her issues, and whether Mr. Evans
chooses in that month's time to address them was up to him.
Mr. Evans offered a suggestion that the drive-thru be eliminated on both
Pads 3 and 4 and let those be restaurants, whether they be fast food or not.
If they have a user that is going to require drive-thru, they can come back for
some kind of conditional use permit on that pad. He suggested that in order
to keep this ball moving, they would go back and work on the drive-thru
element and bring it back to the Commission at some point in time for the
purpose of the Planning Commission's approval of the master plan of the
29