Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-12-18 PC Regular Meeting Agenda PacketMIM TUESDAY, DECEMBER 18,2012 — 6:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CA 9221 TRES909TRIF07-19" Ill. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IV. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Any person wishing to discuss any item not scheduled for public hearing may address the Planning Commission at this point by stepping to the lectern and giving his/her name and address for the record. Remarks shall be limited to a maximum of three minutes unless additional time is authorized by the Planning Commission. Because the Brown Act does not allow the Planning Commission to take action on items not on the Agenda, Commissioners will not enter into discussion with speakers but may briefly respond or instead refer the matter to staff for report and recommendation at a future Planning Commission meeting. Reports and documents relating to each of the following items listed on the agenda, including those received following posting/distribution, are on file in the Office of the Department of Community Development and are available for public inspection during normal business hours, Monday -Friday, 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., 73510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260, telephone (760) 346-0611, Extension 484. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR •NMLTIFA-1109 AZAI "My-AVA 9 me] 64TOLOS01 10910 we]= 9 M 11*4 =11 9:9 Ai 641111111110 1 Mm"VE M IN M I *I I.-DRIK01 MWON TA I NA I RUN rel 0 woftw-AX11 a] 1:4 11511 WS El 301� 1:91 RA ON -.1 014 AA LOWN oil a 00101 AA a I E MaKel 01 RIM 011 COCA 4:9 o I NITAI ots go] :111104:4 MARE'% I M a] 6401MM• i A ISHINTME133111 IM 0 all 0 191:3 001110440" 11150 0 N I were] 0 601 ALI In 19:9 A, 153 1 1:3 1 NVOITTI: No 0 AGENDA PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 18,2012 A. MINUTES of the Planning Commission meeting of November 20, 2012. Rec: Approve as presented. B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a lot line adjustment (APN 652-320- 008) at Bighorn Golf Club. Case No. PMW 12-365 (Dan Sandy, PO Box 4094, Tumwater, WA; and McGee Surveying, Inc, 45-100 Golf Center Drive, Suite G, Indio, CA, Applicants) Rec: By Minute Motion, approve a lot line adjustment, Case No. PMW 12- 365. Action: Vill. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER 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. REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION to the City Council for consideration of a Development Plan creating uniform development standards for the Canyons at Bighorn in accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Sections 25.25.190 and 25.24.330. Case No. DID 12-371 (Bighorn Development, LLC, 255 Palowet Drive, Palm Desert, CA, Applicant). Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 2594 approving Development Plan 12-371, subject to conditions. Action: B. REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION to the City Council for consideration of a remodel and expansion to the existing 111 Town Center to accommodate a new grocery store and retail use. The Project is located at 44459 Town Center Way. Case No. PP/CUP 12-223 (Aubrey Cook McGill Architects, 104514 th Street, Suite 100, San Diego, CA, Applicant). Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 2595 recommending approval of Precise Plan and Conditional Use Permit 12-223, subject to conditions. 2 GAPIanningWonica OReilly\Planning Commission\2012\Agenda\12-18-12 agn.dou AGENDA PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 18,2013 IX. MISCELLANEOUS None X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES B. PARKS & RECREATION X11. COMMENTS XII. ADJOURNMENT I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing agenda for the Planning Commission was posted on the City Hall bulletin board not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting. Dated this 14 th day of December, 2012. -4 m6nica'O'Reilly, Recording Secreta,,� 3 GAPIanningWonica OReilly\Planning Commission\2012\Agenda\12-18-12 agn.docx CITY OF PALM DESERT PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY MINUTES TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2012 — 6:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CA 92260 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Sonia Campbell called the meeting II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioner Connor Limont Commissioner Van Tanner Vice Chair Nancy DeLuna Chair Sonia Campbell Bob Hargreaves, City A Lauri Aylaian,m hector Tonv__Baaato. Princinaf' 5tina Canales, Assistant Engineer ica O'Reilly, Admid0trative Secretary DGE OF AL r at 6:00 p' nt: mmissioner Roger Dash lopment Vice Chair DeLuna led the Pledge of Allegiance. IV. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Ms. Aylaian, Director of Community Development, stated that the City Council discussed several items since the last Planning Commission meeting. The first item was revisions to the entitlements for the Villa Portofino project. The City Council approved the Tentative Tract Map, the Certificate of Compliance, and the modification to the Development Agreement. Secondly, they considered and continued the proposed guidelines for outdoor dining on El Paseo. A subcommittee was appointed to work out a couple of issues that were not decided by the City Council. She noted that the item will be going back to the PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION V. W NOVEMBER 20, 2012 City Council in December. The Council also approved an agreement with Terra Nova Planning and Research for the update of both the Housing Element and Land Use Element. She announced there will be a joint study session between the City Council and the Planning Commission regarding the Housing Element update on Thursday, January 10, 2013, at 2:00 p.m. Last, staff was looking for guidance from the City Council pertaining to A -frame and pedestal signs. The City Council has given direction for the zoning ordinance to allow A -frame signs during the summer months. She explained that during the summer months businesses keep their doors closed for the air conditioning, and people cannot tell if the businesses are open. She said this would allow businesses to put out signs that say "open" with their logo during this period of time. In addition, sidewalks are less congested by pedestrians, so the signs are less likely to be tripping hazards during the summer months. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Planni n meeting of September 18, 2012. Rec: By Minute Motion, approve as presented. B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a lot line adjustment, Lot D (Tract No. 25296, APN'` 652-160'058) at Bighorn Golf Club. Case No. PMW 12-270 (Robert & Robecca Pohlad, 860`Andreas. Canyon Drive, Palm Desert; and Kristi W. Hanson, Inc:.,; 72-185 Painters Path, Suite A, Palm Desert, Applicants). , second by DeLuna, and 4-0 vote of the Planning ,he Consent Calendar was approved as presented. _4:i A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a new monopalm distributed antenna system wireless node and associated equipment consisting of six antennas, one disconnect, one power pull box, and one fiber splice vault to be installed at 74-785'/2 Frank Sinatra Drive, APN 620-400-019. Case No. CUP 12-257 (Crown Castle NG West, Inc, 1100 Dexter Avenue North, Suite 250, Seattle, WA; and Susan Makinson, 5350 North 48th Street, Suite 305, Chandler, AZ, Applicants). 2 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2012\Minutes\11-20-12 min.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 2012 Mr. Tony Bagato, Principal Planner, stated that the project is located on the west side of Cook Street, north of Desert Mirage Drive, and south of Frank Sinatra Drive. He said it is surrounded by residential zoning to the east and west, and on the Desert Willow public right-of-way. He displayed photos of the site. He noted that some of the palm trees at Desert Willow were recently burned from several fires. Mr. Bagato explained that the project consists of installing a faux -palm distributed antenna system (DAS) that can carry',more than one utility company. Mr. Bagato stated that the system is smaller than the typical 60 to 75 foot monopalm. The current monopalm for consideration is a maximum of 40 feet to the top of the fronds. The antenna is at 35 feet, and the faux -palm is at 32 feet. He noted staff will be working with the applicant on a plan to deal with the burned palm trees. Mr. Bagato stated there is a`revised condition on the resolution for the applicant to include a landscape plan. He;, mentioned the Architectural Review Commission approved the project on October 9, 2012. He offered to answer any questions:' Vice Chair DeLuna asked if the dead Mr. Bagato responded th down, which then moved Vice Chair DeLuna i Ms. Aylaian replied arborist that state i recover. revent other fire 1r. Bagato said uired the Cif are still hang down were set on fire. at the skirt that hangs burned are still alive. eived the preliminary results from the , and the trees should be allowed to asked if the City has plans to clean the other trees to hat there is a plan to cut the remaining skirts on the palm asked if the proposed monopalm has an artificial skirt. Mr. BagatdJeplied yes since the monopalm was designed before the fires. Vice Chair DeLuna inquired if at the top of the fronds of the monopalm would be 40 feet, and if the other trees are approximately 29 feet. Mr. Bagato replied that was correct. Vice Chair DeLuna asked how fast the palm trees grow a year. 3 GAPlanningWonica OReilly\Planning Commission\2012\Minutes\11-20-12 min.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION Mr. Bagato said he believes they grow a foot or less. NOVEMBER 20, 2012 Vice Chair DeLuna asked if there would be a noticeable difference between the artificial tree and the live trees. Mr. Bagato replied that the monopalm will be nestled in with the other trees, and there should not be a noticeable difference. Vice Chair DeLuna inquired about the unique land use and geographic features as stated in the staff report. Mr. Bagato responded the features are the el monopalm, and the fact that Desert Willow has Chair Campbell declared the public hearing open address the Commission on this matter, followe FAVOR or OPPOSITION. Ms. Susan Makinson, Crowr 85208, thanked the Planr request. She communicates skirt is made of a fire retarda Vice Chair DeLuna thanked report. It was ye helpful in ked d aster of ,palm trees around the a lot of palm trees in that area. and invited the Applicant to by any public testimony IN Castle, 6914 East Exmoor Drive, Mesa, Arizona ig Commission and staff for reviewing their In response to a possible concern; the artificial it material: he applicant for a thorough and comprehensive nderstanding the proposed system. it is 32 Makinson replied yes. distance is from the ground to the fire if it is over 25 feet. Ms. ''Louise Kermode, 38731 Desert Mirage Drive, Palm Desert, stated that the notice sh'e received indicates the project is on Desert Mirage Drive. After viewing the photo, it is actually on Frank Sinatra. She asked who would benefit from the system. Mr. Bagato responded the system will serve Metro PCS as the main carrier for cellular service, but this type of system is designed for other carriers to join. Ms. Yolande Gross, 14 Hillcrest Drive, Palm Desert, stated that she was not clear on the location of the project and its use. She now knows that it is a cell 4 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2012\Minutes\11-20-12 min.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 2012 tower, and noted they have terrible cell service in their area. She wanted to know the exact location of the monopalm because the map indicates Cook Street, but the address is Frank Sinatra Drive. Mr. Bagato responded the location of the monopalm is on Cook Street, near the Marriott Courtyard. He said the Building and Safety department assigns the address, and they gave it a Frank Sinatra address. Ms. Makinson clarified that the system is a multi -carrier so other cellular service providers could join. Currently, the anchor, tenant is Metro PCS, and they are in negotiations with Verizon. She also mentioned it is not only for cell phones, but for smart phones which download data. With no further testimony offered, Chair CampbE closed. Commissioner Tanner expressed this type of future, and it's in a good location. He said he % Commissioner Tanner moved, by Minute Motioi distributed antenna system and associated equipme' DeLuna and carried by a 4-0 vote with DashABSENT. Commissioner Tanner moved, by 1 adopt Resolution No., 25.93, subject to coi carried by a 4-0 vote.W' ith Dash ABSENT. Chair constru IX. MISCELLAN X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Motion II decla opalm is move for public hearing ve of the al. to approve the monopalm Motion was seconded by waive further reading and seconded by DeLuna and m would be installed. I begin the first of the year. Ms. Aylaian reported that there was one artist reviewed for the artist registry. Second, there was a recommendation regarding two sculptures that were proposed by the Melissa Morgan Gallery to be loaned to the City for a period of two years. She said a sculpture was selected and approved by the City Council. The sculpture is called "Big, Big Root," and it will be installed near the tot lot in the Civic Center Park. 5 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Gommission\2012\Minutes\11-20-12 min.docx , PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION B. PARKS & RECREATION None XI. COMMENTS NOVEMBER 20, 2012 Commissioner Limont wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. Ms. Aylaian commented the next Planning Comm December 18. The Commission wished Commissioner Tann Council member. XII. ADJOURNMENT Upon a motion by Tanner, second '° by. Limont, Commission with Dash ABSENT, Chair Campbell-adjou 6 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2012\Minutes\1 1 -20-12 min.docx meeting will be held future role as a City 4-0 vote of the Planning the meeting at 6:23 p.m. BELL, CHAIR CITY OF PALM DESERT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: LAURI AYLAIAN, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FROM: BO CHEN, CITY ENGINEER SUBJECT: PARCEL MAP WAIVER NO. 12-365 DATE: DECEMBER 7, 2012 The above -referenced parcel map waiver has been reviewed by the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department and found to be technically correct. Please schedule for Planning Commission action as soon as possible. PMW 12-365: Property Owners: Sandy Investment, LLC, and Bighorn Golf Club Applicant: Dan Sandy P.O. Box 4094 Tumwater, WA 98501 Representative: McGee Surveying, Inc. 45-100 Golf Center Drive, Suite G Indio, CA 92201 BO CHEN, P.E. City Of Palm Desert I Department of Community Development > PARCEL MAP WAIVER 73-510 Fred Waring Drive • Palm Desert • California a 92260 • (760) 346-0611 • Fax (760) 776-6417 Applicant: ✓DY Telephone: Mailing Address: 1{, 0" Kok gL)41 f Fax number: (360J Le- 6-097 City: -TUB A V -rM State: VJA Zip: SSA + Email: Property Owner: moo SA"Telephone: Mailing Address: City: State: Zip: Email: ax number: Representative: Telephone: '�� � -3Y2-Z2Y9 Mailing Address: 45 -/4o 6e,,F C, S rZ;�- C7, Fax number: City: P-01 o State: CA —Zip: 112201 Email: hrgale In eC SU rvey, Please send correspondence to (check one): Applicant Property Owner Representative Project Address(s): ( 0 1 '3 tWr. �j {�2►u!� S Assessor Parcel Number(s): �`-j 2 ' 320- 006 Existing Zoning: General Plan Designation: Project Request (describe specific nature of approval request): ACcp(112 4:5- Authorizati The undersigned states that they are the owner(s) of the property described and nation f o he application. Print Name bate Applicant / Representative Signature: By signing this application I certify that the information provided is accurate. I understand t qt the City might not approve what I am applying for and/or might require conditions of approval. 5ignaturer r Print Name Date Property O r Authorizati . Agreement absolving the City of Palm Desert of all liabilities relative to any deed restrict* 1 O BY MY GNATURE ON THIS AGREEMENT abso Ives the City of Palm Desert of all liabilities reg,in any eed restr' ons ray be applicable, he proaa described herein. i at "' Print Name Date OFFICE USE ONLY y- S II - )s-iz 12��[�K' = e. -,, Ci y of Palm Desert / Department of Community Development PARCEL MAP WAIVER 73-610 Fred Waring Drive • Palm Desert • California • 92260 • (760) 346-0611 • Fax (760) 776-6417 Applicant: , Telephone: Mailing Address: Q" 0, If U 5 N Fax number: (36o) 676, - �,a �7 City: 'ISM PA,1-+2.. State:KJA Zip: -/1SUI Email: d4k)(0.5A,1411 0- Property wner: >5t" c; /-10 r," ( -? c W C Telephone: "7&0- ?41- S t')_ Mailing Address: 241 A115 01h „e Fax number: City: State: CA Zip: c)eZ6O Email: -"34o , C6 to Representative: M b-L- Sa✓4"-� i� � . /.r.G (312 Telephone: b66) 3Y 2 -2 2 Y 4 Mailing Address: _k(C-/Co 1714wy 19 STt- f Fax number: t 7Go / ,3Y 2- S&'%y City: Glyhtu State:ek Zip: '727dI Email: e /4 c1,-e*c5urv-e�)„,!i, Please send correspondence to (check one): Applicant Property Owner Representative Project Address(s):_ 1013 A4 7.. Assessor Parcel Number(s): 6 52 - 1&0 -075- Existing Zoning: General Plan Designation: Project Request (describe specific nature of approval request): AGE UI/Z e" Ll�&'� T/c�,�• �►z. �2� pE-r'rz1 Property Owner Authorization: The undersigned states that they are the owner(s) of the property described and herein give authorization for the filing of the application. Signature ?re rT(4_,4-,t-y2�-) Cof 04 , Print Name Date Applicant / Representative Signature: By signing this application I certify that the information provided is accurate. I and hat the City might not approve what I am applying for and/or might require conditions of approval. Sig Al -�c-z,r Print Name V// 5// "f- Property Owner Authorization: Agreement absolving the City of Palm Desert of all liabilities relative to any deed restrictions. I DO BY MY SIGNATURE ON THIS AGREEMENT absolves the City of Palm Desert of all liabilities regarding any deed restrictions that may be applicable to the property described herein. `/ V `� ✓ l r C1-1 gnatur�f�, t 6 C,- ((� Print Name Date OFFICE USE ONLY �1 h ) I-) P(Y) LV EXHIBIT "A" P.M.W. 12-365 LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL "A" ( ADJUSTED LOT 24, TRACT NO.25296-7) LOT 24 OF TRACT NO. 25296-7, IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 300, PAGES 14 THROUGH 23, INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER, OF SAID COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE; TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF LOT "D" OF SAID TRACT NO.25296-7, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST NORTHERY CORNER OF SAID LOT 24; THENCE S 47043'23" E, A DISTANCE OF 29.59 FEET; THENCE PARALLEL WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 24, S 27058' 13" E, 32.48 FEET; THENCE S 00038'05" W, 20.99 FEET TO THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 24; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE OF LOT 24, N 27058' 13" W, 78.67 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL "A" CONTAINS 26,461.50 S.F. (0.607 AC.) MORE OR LESS FOR GRAPHICAL PURPOSES SEE EXHIBIT `B" ATTACHED HERETO AND BY THIS REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF. SUBJECT TO ALL COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESERVATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, RIGHTS OF WAY, EASEMENTS, OR EXCEPTIONS OF RECORD, IF ANY_ -Ls 50 v PAGE I OF 2 PAGES EXHIBIT "A" P.M.W. 12-365 LEGAL DESCRIPTION TRANSFER PARCEL ( FROM LOT "D", TRACT NO.25296-7 TO LOT 24, TRACT NO. 25296-7) THAT PORTION OF LOT "D" OF TRACT NO. 25296-7, IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 300, PAGES 14 THROUGH 23, INCLUSIVE OF MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER, OF SAID COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST NORTHERY CORNER OF LOT 24 OF SAID TRACT NO. 25296-7; THENCE S 47043'23" E, A DISTANCE OF 29.59 FEET; THENCE PARALLEL WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 24, S 27058' 13" E, 32.48 FEET; THENCE S 00038'05" W, 20.89 FEET TO THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 24; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE OF LOT 24, N 27.58' 13" W, 78.67 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE ABOVE DESCRIBED TRANSFER PARCEL CONTAINS 555.77 S.F., MORE OR LESS FOR GRAPHICAL PURPOSES SEE EXHIBIT `B" ATTACHED HERETO AND BY THIS REFERENCE MADE A PART OF. SUBJECT TO ALL COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESERVATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, RIGHTS OF WAY, EASEMENTS, OR EXCEPTIONS OF RECORD, IF ANY. PAGE 2 OF 2 PAGES NOTE.. THIS PLAT WAS PREPARED FROM RECORD DATA AND DOES NOT REPRESENT A SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY SHOWN HEREON. THIS MAP HAS BEEN APPROVED UPON THE EXPRESSED CONDITION THAT BUILDING PERMITS SHALL NOT BE ISSUED FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THIS ADJUSTMENT PLAT UNTIL NECESSARY DEDICATrONS, IF ANY, HAKE OCCURRED. NOTE.- THERE MAY BE EASEMENTS OF RECORD DELINEATED AND REFERENCED ON THE UNDERL PING MAP, OR THERE MA Y BE EASEMENTS WI THIN THE AREA BEING ADJUSTED THAT ARE NOT SHOWN ON THIS DOCUMENT THAT COULD ENCUMBER SAID PARCEL HEREIN. EXHIBIT "B" P.M. W. 12--365 50 0 25 50 { IN FEET ) 1 inch = 50 ft. m LOT 23 —3 79, i x�, Z l 40, TRACT NO. 25296-7 145. 2 S+A �,� N@11 { — M.B. 300/14-23 712"E f f �v PARCEL TRANSFER 16 1 4 N83V0Z5" 61,, c4�' _ _ W 8B- 820__ �--�� R=30,00 5' •" '� LOT LINE. � L 3 # L=31,49 6- BEING ELIMINATED Z�,=60°08'06' N p 83YJ- - 1 25" dY ; 7 pq' \ LOT 24 S 35�k33 W \ TRACT NO. 25296-7 ' \ M.B. 300114-2.3 \ A.P.N. 652-320- 008 6 x\� PARCEL 'A' cV EASEMENT NOTF_ S: `\\ \ (0.607 AC /,� 3" S C. E. EASEMENT, RECORDED �� APRIL .3, 2001, INST. NO. 2001 138129 h LOT 'D" AN EASEMENT FOR HARDSCAPE AND LANDSCAPE lss \ TRACT N0. ? 222 PURPOSES PER INST. REC. NOV. 2, 2012 AS i3o_ \ U.B. 300/14-23 4-23 5 A.P.N. 652-160--08� INST NO. 2012-0525779 \ AAN EASEMENT FOR UTILITY AND LANDSCAPE LOT 25 \ PURPOSES ( BLANKET IN NA TURF) PER INST TRACT NO. 25296-7 56.5 RECDEC. J1112008 AS INST NO. 2008-0679519 M.B. 300/14-23 yam, N 25. E 'L4 VERIZON EASEMENT, RECORDED--�`�-1�� FEB. 20, 2001, INST. NO, 2001— 066464 LINE TABLE ALINE I LENGTH BEARING L1 29.59' N47°43'23'W j L2 32.48' N27°58'lYW L3 20.89' N00'38'05'E LEGEND: EX. LOT LINE TO REMAIN EXIST. EASEMENT — -- -- -- ELIMINATED LOT LINE TRANSFER PARCEL ADJUSTMENT PLAT - CITY OF PALM DESERT PREPARED Y.• APPLICANT- APPROVED, BY- DAN SANDY R. PAGE GARNER P.O. f30X 4094 // 2- 7UMWA TER, WA 98501 , / 2 YNE A. McGEE DA FE CI T Y SURV YOR / 2 �7 / 2 W L. S. 5479 L S. 6155 E�'f'. 51JI114 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT REQUEST: RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION OF A NEW DEVELOPMENT PLAN CREATING UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE CANYONS AT BIGHORN IN ACCORDANCE WITH PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 25.25.190 AND 25.24.330 SUBMITTED BY: Tony Bagato, Principal Planner APPLICANT: Bighorn Development, LLC. 255 Palowet Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 CASE NO: DP 12-371 DATE: December 18, 2012 CONTENTS: 1. Resolution No. 2594 2. Legal Notice 3. Copy of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 25296 Recommendation Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 2594, recommending to the City Council approval of Development Plan 12-371 as proposed. Executive Summary The applicant is requesting approval of a Development Plan to create uniform development standards within the Canyons at Bighorn for all residential lots within the Planned Residential portion of the project. The Canyons began construction 15 years ago and many of the lots have changed in size from phasing the original map, changes during construction, and parcel map waivers to move or merge property lines. These changes have resulted in many of the lots being irregularly shaped, located on sloping lots, abutting curving streets, or containing other limitations that make it difficult and impractical to apply the set of development standards identified on Vesting TT 25296. The Development Plan will provide clarity for uniform development standards that the applicant, developers, builders, and the City can follow for reviewing and approving new construction. The request will also apply retroactively to previous approvals due to variations in setback requirements throughout the 15 years of homes being constructed. Staff Report Case No. DP 12-371 Page 2 of 8 December 18, 2012 The Development Plan will not modify the overall project in terms of the number of residential lots, grading area, maximum building height, or boundary limits. In addition, the plan will not be applied to the portion of the Canyons at Bighorn located in the Hillside Planned Residential zone. Those homes will still be subject to Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.15 governing all hillside development within the City. Background A. Property Description: The property known as Canyons at Bighorn is located in south Palm Desert, on the west side of Highway 74. The Canyons at Bighorn is a private planned community consisting of single-family homes and villas with a private golf course with amenities supporting the community. B. Zoning and General Plan Designation: Zone: Planned Residential -Five units per acre (P.R.-5) Planned Residential -Seven units per acre (P.R.-7) Planned Residential -One unit per acre -Drainage Overlay (P.R.-1, D) General Plan: Residential, Low Density (R-L), zero to four units per acre C. Approval of Tentative Tract Map 25296, Canyons at Bighorn: On July 17, 1990, the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 1456 for TT 25296 with the following conditions for development standards: Setbacks for detached units: Front — 20 feet Side — 5 feet Rear — 10 Feet Setbacks for attached units: Front — 20 feet Side — 5 feet — 16 feet between buildings Rear — 10 Feet After the Planning Commission approved the project, it was presented to City Council in October of 1990. The project was referred back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration based on issues that the Bighorn Institute raised about the project density and potential impacts to bighorn sheep. Specifically, they were concerned with the mitigation measures in the project Environmental Impact Report (EIR), not the setbacks of the homes. The project was modified by reducing the density by providing more open area and larger lots at the south end of the project that is closest to the Bighorn Institute. The project was approved by the Planning Commission on May 21, 1991, and by the City Council on August 5, 1991. However, as part of the new approval, the applicant changed the setbacks by identifying the development standards on the map based GAPlanning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\Canyons at Bighorn Development Plan\PC Staff Report.docx Staff Report Case No. DP 12-371 Page 3 of 8 December 18, 2012 on lot numbers identifying certain lot types. The lot types varied from a Lot 1 to Lot 4. Each lot type is identified as a rectangular lot with certain setbacks (see attached copy of Vesting TT 25269). Since the applicant provided the development standards on the map, the conditions of approval were modified to state that the setbacks "Shall be identified on the map." This replaced the set of standards approved by Planning Commission Resolution 1456 described above. Neither the City nor the Bighorn Institute required that the setbacks be modified. This modification was proposed by the applicant. After the project was approved in 1991, amendments to the project were approved in 1992 and 1997. Again, the conditions of approval referred to the lot types identified on the map, and the condition of approval for setbacks states: "That the setbacks for dwelling in this project shall be as shown on map exhibits." In addition to the changes in the conditions of approval, the lots as physically graded today have been modified from the amended Vesting TT 25296. The applicant was allowed to modify the lots and streets on site to minimize grading by incorporating the natural terrain and topography as much as possible. Furthermore, the original lot configuration and numbers were changed by the different phases of the original map, or by parcel map waivers that moved or combined property lines. These modifications are typical in large planned communities that take several years to construct. However, the changes resulted in different lot numbers on the lots as they exist today from the the numbers on original map. In addition, the modifications changed the physical shape of the lots making them larger and irregularly shaped. Many lots are located on slopes, abut curving streets, or contain other limitations that make it difficult to apply the development standards identified on Vesting Tentative Tract Map 25296. The exhibits illustrate rectangular lots that do not match the current shapes of the lots in the Canyons. The changes described above make it difficult for staff to determine what setbacks should be applied to lots. For example, what is shown on the original map as Lot 198, a rectangular lot designated as Type 2, may now be twice as large, roughly square in shape, meeting the criteria for Lot Type 1, and numbered 26. Project Description The applicant is requesting approval of a new Development Plan for the Canyons at Bighorn to create uniform development standards for all residential lots within the Planned Residential Zone of the Canyons at Bighorn. As described above, many of the lots have been modified since the original approval in 1997. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 25296 identifies setbacks for different lot types, all of which are rectangular form. However, the modified lots are irregular in shape, are located on sloping lots, abut curving streets, or contain other limitations that make it difficult and impractical to apply the set of development standards identified on Vesting TT 25296. To address these issues, the applicant is proposing a Development Plan to create a new set of development standards that will be the same for each lot. GAPlanning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\Canyons at Bighorn Development Plan\PC Staff Report.docx Staff Report Case No. DP 12-371 Page 4of8 December 18, 2012 The proposed Development Plan will not be applied to the lots designated Hillside Planned Residential. Those lots will continue to be subject to Section 25.15, which governs all the standards for hillside residential properties within the City of Palm Desert. The Development Plan will be applied to the area identified in Exhibit A, identified below and in the attached Planning Commission Resolution No. 2594 GAPlanning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\Canyons at Bighorn Development Plan\PC Staff Report.docx Staff Report Case No. DP 12-371 Page 5 of 8 December 18, 2012 The proposed Development Plan is as follows: Incorporation of Chapter 25.24 Development Standards Except as otherwise modified by this Development Plan or a subsequent action of the City's Planning Director, as set forth below, the Development Standards set forth in Chapter 25.24 of the City's Zoning Code shall be and are hereby incorporated by reference into this Development Plan. Minimum Yards Notwithstanding the standards set forth in Section 25.24.250, the following minimum yard development standards shall apply to habitable structures (primary residence, including garage or guest residence) located within the Plan Area: Minimum Front Yards — 15 Feet Minimum Rear Yards — 10 Feet Minimum Side Yards — 5 Feet Non -habitable and other accessory structures, including without limitations, walls, decks, pools, spas, outdoor cooking areas, mechanical equipment, landscaping features, pergolas, and similar structures may be constructed within the minimum yards required under this Section. Minimum Separation Between Buildings Notwithstanding the standards set forth in Section 25.24.260, the minimum separation between buildings, including two-story elements of single-family detached homes, shall be at least 10 feet. Maximum Buildina Heiahts Notwithstanding the standards set forth in Section 25.24.280, the maximum building height shall be 20 feet. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the provisions of Section 26.56.300 shall apply to structures within the area of this Development Plan. Maximum Building Coverage The maximum building site coverage on any lot shall not exceed 60 percent of the total lot area. Modifications of Standards in Site Plan The Planning Director, or its designee, may, in conjunction with approval of a Site Plan for structures on an individual lot, modify the standards set forth in this Development Plan as an adjustment consistent with the standards set forth in Chapter 25.78 of the Municipal Code. Such decisions of the Planning Director may be appealed to the Planning Commission in accordance with Chapter 25.86 of the Municipal Code. GAPlanning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\Canyons at Bighorn Development Plan\PC Staff Report.docx Staff Report Case No. DP 12-371 Page 6 of 8 December 18, 2012 Effect of Development Plan In accordance with Sections 25.24.310 and 25.24.330 of the Municipal Code, the development standards contained in this Development Plan shall govern and control all development within the plan area. In the event that different or conflicting development standards are stated in any tentative or final subdivision map for the plan area or in any other provision of law, the provisions of this Development Plan shall supersede such standards and control. All development within the plan area shall comply with this Development Plan. Retroactive Application Any structure for which a grading or building permit has been issued within the area of this Development Plan prior to the effective date of the resolution approving this Development Plan shall be treated as though the resolution approving this Development Plan had been in effect prior to the issuance of such building or grading permit and shall be deemed to be consistent and in conformance with this Development Plan. Analysis The proposed Development Plan will provide uniform standards for all the lots within the Canyons at Bighorn zoned Planned Residential. The new Development Plan will address several issues that staff and the applicant have recently encountered with permitting new construction. Given all of the changes to the original setbacks and the physical changes to the lots described above in the background section of the staff report, it has become difficult to determine which setbacks to use and how to apply a standard used for rectangular lots to irregularly shaped lots that are sloping, abutting curved streets or that contain other limitations. In addition to the proposed Development Plan, the applicant controls design standards through an Architectural and Landscape Design Guidelines that may require larger setbacks to accommodate their transition areas for the golf course, streets, and neighboring homes. Approval of the Development Plan will create uniform development standards for all residential lots that are straightforward for staff, the applicant, future builders, and home owners to follow and implement. The Development Plan will not change the density, grading, or approved maximum building height of 20 feet, and will not apply to the hillside residential properties. Staff is recommending approval of the Development Plan as proposed. Findings 25.24.330 Approval Criteria "The Planning Commission and/or City Council may approve a development plan only after finding that the requirements of this title and other ordinances affecting the property have been satisfied. In granting such approval, the City Council may impose and enforce such specific conditions as to site development, phasing and building G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\Canyons at Bighorn Development Plan\PC Staff Report.docx Staff Report Case No. DP 12-371 Page 7 of 8 December 18, 2012 construction, maintenance and operation as it deems necessary to carry out the purposes of this title and the General plan." 1. The proposed Development Plan is in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance; 25.24.010-Purpose, states: "It is the purpose of the PR (Planned Residential, added) district to provide for flexibility in development, creative and imaginative design, and the development of parcels of land as coordinated projects involving a mixture of residential densities and housing types, and community facilities, both public and private. The PR district is further intended to provide for the optimum integration of urban and natural amenities within developments. The PR district is also established to give a land developer assurance that innovative and unique land development techniques will be given reasonable consideration for approval and to provide the city with assurances that the completed project will contain the character envisioned at the time of approval. (Ord. 94 § 1, 1975: Exhibit A § 25.14-1) Most of the lots within Bighorn are irregular in shape and size, which makes following the original map requirements, illustrating rectangular lots, difficult to follow. In addition, the phasing of the original map changed the original lot numbers shown in the table that determines the lot type for setbacks. This has made it difficult to determine the standards to be used for new construction. The proposed Development Plan will create development standards that will provide the applicant and land developers assurance for all new construction and standardization of setbacks for new construction with the Canyons at Bighorn. In addition, the standards provide flexibility by allowing for modification of the plan to be approved by the Planning Director or his/her designee. 2. The proposed Development Plan will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; The proposed Development Plan will not result in any physical changes to the original approval of the overall project in terms of the number of residential lots, grading, maximum building height, or any boundary limits that would create a potential impact to public health, safety or general welfare, or that will be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity of the Canyons at Bighorn. All development will continue to be required to meet the building code and other provisions of the municipal code, and to be constructed in compliance with OSHA regulations and other laws designed to protect the safety of the public. The Development Plan will establish new, uniform development standards for all new construction of single-family homes in the Planned Residential portion of the development. The portion of the development zoned Hillside Planned Residential will continue to be subject to the standards identified in Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.15, which governs development on the Hillside to protect the surrounding properties in the vicinity. GAPlanning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\Canyons at Bighorn Development Plan\PC Staff Report.docx Staff Report Case No. DP 12-371 Page 8 of 8 December 18, 2012 Environmental Review Approval of the Development Plan is considered a Class 5 Categorical Exemption (15305) for "minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than 20 percent, which do not result in any changes in land use or density." Since the project does not result in any changes in land use or density, no further review is necessary for CEQA. Submitted By: Tony Bag to, Principal Planner Department Head: Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Dev GAPlanning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\Canyons at Bighorn Development Plan\PC Staff Report.docx PLANNING RESOLUTION NO. 2594 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE PORTION OF THE CANYONS AT BIGHORN PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN THE PR PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ZONE. CASE NO. DP 12-371 WHEREAS, the Canyons at BIGHORN Project is located within the City's existing Planned Residential (PR) District Zone; and WHEREAS, the Canyons at BIGHORN Project has been developed over an approximately 15-year period as a planned master community comprised predominately of individually designed custom homes; and WHEREAS, many of the subdivided lots in the Canyons at BIGHORN Project are irregular in shape, are located on sloping lots, abut curving streets, or contain other limitations that make a literal application of rigid development standards impractical; and WHEREAS, the individual structures constructed at the Canyons at BIGHORN Project have been developed in an effort to achieve neighborhood harmony and consistency while preserving significant views and other community aesthetics; and WHEREAS, the City has reviewed and approved various site plans for the Canyons at BIGHORN Project pursuant to which individual structures have been constructed; and WHEREAS, Sections 25.240.190 and 25.240.330 of the City's Municipal Code authorize the City to approve a Development Plan for properties located within the City's PR Planned Residential District Zone, as shown in Exhibit A, to establish standards for development within the area covered by such Development Plan; and WHEREAS, BIGHORN has requested that the City consider the adoption of a Development Plan for the portion of the Canyons at BIGHORN Project located within the City's PR Planned Residential District Zone, and the City has determined that it is in the best interests of the City as well as the residents of the BIGHORN Project for the City to adopt a Development Plan for the portion of the Canyons at BIGHORN Project located within the City's PR Planned Residential District Zone in order to clarify and confirm the development standards for development within such area shall be governed by the Development Plan approved by the City; and WHEREAS, in order to avoid any potential confusion that may exist regarding approval of structures in the area subject to this Development Plan, the City desires to confirm that individual structures approved for development in the portion of the Canyons at BIGHORN Project located within the City's PR Planned Residential District Zone pursuant to and in conformance with an approved site plan and a City -issued building permit are and have been consistent with the spirit and intent of the City's Municipal Code. PLANNING RESOLUTION NO. 2594 NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert does hereby resolve to approve the following Development Plan for the portion of the Canyons at BIGHORN Project located within the City's PR Planned Residential District Zone: Part 1. Development Plan for the portion of the Canyons at BIGHORN Project located within the City's PR Planned Residential District Zone: A. Incorporation of Chapter 25.24 Development Standards Except as otherwise modified by this Development Plan or a subsequent action of the City's Planning Director, as set forth below, the Development Standards set forth in Chapter 25.24 of the City's Zoning Code shall be and are hereby incorporated by reference into this Development Plan. B. Minimum Yards Notwithstanding the standards set forth in Section 25.24.250, the following minimum yard development standards shall apply to habitable structures (primary residence, including garage or guest residence) located within the Plan Area: Minimum Front Yards — 15 Feet Minimum Rear Yards — 10 Feet Minimum Side Yards — 5 Feet Non -habitable and other accessory structures, including without limitations, walls, decks, pools, spas, outdoor cooking areas, mechanical equipment, landscaping features, pergolas, and similar structures may be constructed within the minimum yards required under this Section. C. Minimum Separation Between Buildings Notwithstanding the standards set forth in Section 25.24.260, the minimum separation between buildings, including two-story elements of single-family detached homes, shall be at least 10 feet. D. Maximum Building Heights Notwithstanding the standards set forth in Section 25.24.280, the maximum building height shall be 20 feet. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the provisions of Section 26.56.300 shall apply to structures within the area of this Development Plan. E. Maximum Building Coverage The maximum building site coverage on any lot shall not exceed 60 percent of the total lot area. E PLANNING RESOLUTION NO. 2594 F. Modifications of Standards in Site Plan The Planning Director, or its designee, may, in conjunction with approval of a Site Plan for structures on an individual lot, modify the standards set forth in this Development Plan as an adjustment consistent with the standards set forth in Chapter 25.78 of the Municipal Code. Such decisions of the Planning Director may be appealed to the Planning Commission in accordance with Chapter 25.86 of the Municipal Code. G. Effect of Development Plan In accordance with Sections 25.24.310 and 25.24.330 of the Municipal Code, the development standards contained in this Development Plan shall govern and control all development within the plan area. In the event that different or conflicting development standards are stated in any tentative or final subdivision map for the plan area or in any other provision of law, the provisions of this Development Plan shall supersede such standards and control. All development within the plan area shall comply with this Development Plan. 11. Retroactive Application Any structure for which a grading or building permit has been issued within the area of this Development Plan prior to the effective date of the resolution approving this Development Plan shall be treated as though the resolution approving this Development Plan had been in effect prior to the issuance of such building or grading permit and shall be deemed to be consistent and in conformance with this Development Plan. Part 2. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission held on this 18th day of December, 2012, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Lauri Aylaian, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission Sonia Campbell, Chairperson 3 PLANNING RESOLUTION NO. 2594 R,-7 r r� P.R.-7 R-3 f 43580(9),` S.P. .R.S NPR D P.R -1,D r � 3m i Z P. r' _ b y P,R. 5 47 zz s , roa LEGEND: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN AREA x a "A'' EXHIBIT 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE P,um DENERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 rEL:76o 346—o6u FAX: 760 341-7098 i u,oC�pal m-drscrr. urg CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. 12-371 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT NEW DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE CANYONS AT BIGHORN IN ACCORDANCE WITH PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 25.25.190 AND 25.24.330 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: BIGHORN DEVELOPMENT LLC, has submitted a request for approval of a new Development Plan for the Canyons at Bighorn. Many of the subdivided lots in the Canyons at Bighorn development are irregular in shape, are located on sloping lots, abut curving streets, or contain other limitations that make it impractical to apply any set of rigid development standards. To address these issues, the applicant is proposing a Development Plan to create a new set of development standards that will be the same for each lot, except for the Hillside properties. The Exhibit below identifies the properties that the Development Plan will be applied to: RY I r' sp f � � {BHP T rT-N P.R.. D i r-11 I LEGEND'. EXHIBIT "A" �c The proposed Development Plan is as follows: Incorporation of Chapter 25.24 Development Standards Except as otherwise modified by this Development Plan or a subsequent action of the City's Planning Director, as set forth below, the Development Standards set forth in Chapter 25.24 of the City's Zoning Code shall be and are hereby incorporated by reference into this Development Plan. Minimum Yards Notwithstanding the standards set forth in Section 25.24.250, the following minimum yard development standards shall apply to habitable structures (primary residence (including garage) or guest residence) located within the Plan Area: Minimum Front Yards — Fifteen Feet Minimum Rear Yards — Ten Feet Minimum Side Yards — Five Feet Non -habitable and other accessory structures, including without limitations, walls, decks, pools, spas, outdoor cooking areas, mechanical equipment, landscaping features, pergolas, and similar structures, may be constructed within the minimum yards required under this Section. Minimum Separation Between Buildings Notwithstanding the standards set forth in Section 25.24.260, the minimum separation between buildings, including two-story elements of single family detached homes, shall be at least ten feet. Maximum Building Heights Notwithstanding the standards set forth in Section 25.24.280, the maximum building height shall be twenty feet. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the provisions of Section 26.56.300 shall apply to structures within the area of this Development Plan. Maximum Building Coverage The maximum building site coverage on any lot shall not exceed sixty percent of the total lot area. Modifications of Standards in Site Plan The Planning Director, or its designee, may, in conjunction with approval of a Site Plan for structures on an individual lot, modify the standards set forth in this Development Plan as an adjustment consistent with the standards set forth in Chapter 25.78 of the Municipal Code. Decisions of the Planning Director may be appealed to the Planning Commission in accordance with Chapter 25.86 of the Municipal Code. Effect of Development Plan In accordance with Sections 25.24.310 and 25.24.330 of the Municipal Code, the development standards contained in this Development Plan shall govern and control all development within the plan area. In the event that different or conflicting development standards are stated in any tentative or final subdivision map for the plan area or in any other provision of law, the provisions of this Development Plan shall supersede such standards and control. All development within the plan area shall comply with this Development Plan. Retroactive Application Any structure for which a grading or building permit has been issued within the area of this Development Plan prior to the effective date of the resolution approving this Development Plan shall be treated as though the resolution approving this Development Plan had been in effect prior to the issuance of such building or grading permit and shall be deemed to be consistent and in conformance with this Development Plan. PUBLIC HEARING: Said public hearing will be held before the City of Palm Desert Planning Commission on Tuesday December 18, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the request is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun Lauri Aylaian, Secretary December 8, 2012 Palm Desert Planning Commission Cc w (0 w 0 LL 0 t w PA' all IM a w F— z w I cc z w 0 to FQ 0LL to . 0 Pz M 0 0 p CL () U. W 0 rj) z 0 rn 5; a M Z) 0 (In z g T Zi ffil M. l ail m g: 0, MM-93-- Lu! lod! »- ?6,49 '4 T L-H , Im 4' M UITITI, L i �s, cg iFl, ;M P, -%7"- "w t CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT REQUEST: RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION OF A REMODEL AND EXPANSION TO THE EXISTING 111 TOWN CENTER TO ACCOMMODATE A NEW GROCERY STORE AND RETAIL USE. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 44459 TOWN CENTER WAY SUBMITTED BY: Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner APPLICANT: Aubrey Cook McGill Architects Nick Fotias 1045 14th Street, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92101 CASE NO.: PP/CUP 12-223 DATE: December 18, 2012 CONTENTS: 1. Draft Resolution 2. Legal Notice 3. Architectural Review Commission Notices and Minutes 4. Environmental Assessment & Initial Study 5. Memo Regarding Traffic Study from the Director of Public Works Dated November 14, 2012 6. Plans and Photo Exhibits Recommendation Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 2595, recommending approval of Precise Plan / Conditional Use Permit 12-223 to the City Council, subject to: 1) Reducing two tower elements from 45 feet to 41 feet in height. 2) Installing no more than two signs per tower element. 3) Installing tower signage no taller than exceed 35 feet in height. 4) Adopting Notice of Exemption Form "B." Staff Report Case No. PP/CUP 12-223, 111 Town Center Page 2 of 14 December 18, 2012 5) The attached conditions. Architectural Review Commission Action On October 9, 2012, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) granted approval of the expansion to the existing shopping center, modifications to the exterior architectural elevations including the new tower elements, and new exterior paint colors. The ARC supported the architectural design, and believed the 45-foot tower elements provide an strong architectural feature that provides a visual relief for the buildings. The Commissioners also approved two to three signs on the tower elements, depending on the design of the actual signs which will be reviewed at a future ARC meeting. The project was approved on a 7-0-0-2 vote with Commissioners Gregory and Touschner absent. On November 14, 2012, the ARC granted preliminary approval of the landscaping plan that will upgrade and provide more drought tolerant landscaping for the shopping center. The motion carried 8-0-0-1 with Commissioner Touschner abstaining. Executive Summary On July 1, 1986, the City Council approved Resolution No. 86-92 allowing the construction of a 149,600-square foot retail commercial center. The 15.2 acres site is located at the northwest corner of Town Center Way and Highway 111. Over the years the center has had multiple tenants with the most notable two being Best Buy and Cost Plus. Today, the buildings remain vacant, along with smaller buildings within the center. Approval of staff's recommendation will approve a Precise Plan / Conditional Use Permit to allow the applicant to demolish the Banner Mattress building, the Floor Store, and a portion of the former Best Buy building to accommodate a new 30,099-square foot grocery food store (Whole Foods), and 33,392-square foot retail store (Nordstrom Rack). In addition, the applicant is modifying a portion of the parking lot, adding new landscaping around the shopping center perimeter and within the parking lot, relocating the existing water and electrical lines, and modifying the existing median along Highway 111. The left turn lane will provide access into the shopping center for vehicles traveling east bound into Palm Desert from Rancho Mirage. The project complies with the maximum building height allowed in the Zoning Ordinance both in accordance with Chapter 25.30 Planned Commercial -Regional (P.C.(3)) and with Chapter 25.56 General Provisions Section 25.56.300.B. Although the ARC approved the project with the two towers at 45 feet, staff is recommending that the two tower elements be reduced to 41 feet in height, in keeping with the tallest point of the G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Precise Plans\111 Town Center\Planning Commission Staff Report 4.doc Staff Report Case No. PP/CUP 12-223, 111 Town Center Page 3 of 14 December 18, 2012 buildings. Staff believes that reducing the height improves the overall scale and design of the proposed remodel. Background A. Property Description: The project site is located on the west side of Town Center Way between Highway 111 and Fred Waring Drive. The site is bordered on its west side by the Palm Valley Storm Channel. There are four vehicular access points into the shopping center: three on Town Center Way and one on Highway 111. The 15.2 acre site was divided into 17 commercial lots, each having reciprocal easements between all lots for ingress/egress, parking, storm drainage and utility services. The 149,600-square foot commercial center involves one main building containing three major tenants ranging in size from 12,000 to 30,000 square feet, and five shops ranging in size from 3,600 to 9,200 square feet. This building is located along the west portion paralleling the storm channel, formerly Best Buy and Cost Plus. In addition, the project was constructed with ten satellite building pads located along the perimeter of the site, ranging in size from 4,600 to 8,000 square feet. B. General Plan Designation and Zoning: General Plan Land Use Designation: Regional Commercial (C-R) Zoning Designation: Planned Commercial, Regional Center (PC-3) C. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use: North: Planned Residential (P.R. 22) / One Quail Place apartments South: Office Professional (O.P.) / Palm Springs Art Museum and Henderson Building East: Planned Commercial (PC-3) / Westfield Shopping Mall West: Planned Commercial (PC-3) / Fairfield Marriott Hotel Project Description The applicant is requesting to expand the existing 111 Town Center. The project consists of demolishing the existing Banner Mattress building, the Floor Store, and a portion of the former Best Buy building to accommodate a new 30,392-square foot retail building (Nordstrom Rack) and a new 30,099-square foot grocery store building (Whole Foods), with two outdoor patio seating areas; one on the south side and one on the east side. G1Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Precise Plans\111 Town Center\Planning Commission Staff Report 4.doc Staff Report Case No. PP/CUP 12-223, 111 Town Center Page 4 of 14 December 18, 2012 Also, the applicant is modifying a portion of the parking lot. Approximately 60 parking spaces will be redesigned directly in front of the Whole Foods building to improve vehicular circulation. The applicant is also modifying the landscaping for the shopping center by providing drought tolerant landscaping and removing all turf, as well as providing new trees and removing four eucalyptus trees along the west property line. Existing utilities for Southern California Edison (SCE) and a Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) main line will have to be relocated. The SCE lines will be relocated into Highway 111, and the work must be completed before April 2013, because the City will be repaving that section of Highway 111 starting in May 2013. The CVWD water line is currently under the driveway between the existing Banner Mattress building and the former Best Buy building. The waterline will need to be relocated because the driveway will be removed when the former Best Buy building is expanded over the driveway and the Banner Mattress building is demolished to accommodate the future Whole Foods. When the Banner Mattress building is demolished, the CVWD line will be relocated on private property running parallel with Highway 111. In addition, the applicant is proposing to modify the existing median along Highway 111 to provide for a left turn in pocket into the shopping center for east bound traffic. This would allow customers traveling east bound along Highway 111 to turn left into the shopping center instead of making a left or a U-turn at Town Center Way. The construction to the median must also be completed before April 2013. The applicant is modifying the shopping center by increasing two existing tower heights from 30 feet to 35 feet to add more prominence at the main entrances, as well as adding a new 35-foot tower at the corner of Fred Waring and Town Center Way. Also, in accordance with Section 25.56.300, the applicant is increasing a portion of the overall building heights to 41 feet over the main entrances, and proposing two tower elements at 45 feet in height. The rest of the shopping center will be upgraded with new stone finishes, paint, awnings, signage, energy efficient lighting, and store front revisions to tie the center together as a whole. A. Site and Building Description: Existing access to the site consists of three driveway points along Town Center Drive, and one along Highway 111. The applicant is proposing a left turn lane along Highway 111. Circulation on -site will continue to be adequate with reciprocal easements across the shopping center for parking. The existing buildings on -site are comprised of single -story structures roughly square in proportion ranging from 22 to 32 feet in height, surrounded by parking. G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Precise Plans\111 Town Center\Planning Commission Staff Report 4.doc Staff Report Case No. PP/CUP 12-223, 111 Town Center Page 5 of 14 December 18, 2012 The demolition breakdown is as follows: Building Square Footage Banner Mattress 6,485 Floor Store 4,886 Best Buy 7,041 18,412 Total Area being Demolished New building area is as follows: Building Square Footage New Building Shell 30,140 New Tower 479 New Addition 103 30,722 Total New Building Area After subtracting the 18,412 square feet that is being demolished from the 30,722 square feet of new building area, the proposed project will net an increase of 12,310 square feet of new building area. All building setbacks from streets will remain as previously approved, 18 feet from Fred Waring Drive, 10 feet from Highway 111, and 22 feet from Town Center Way. The service area and loading docks are located on the west side of the property behind the buildings. The former Best Buy loading dock will remain as is today, and will be used by Nordstrom Rack. The applicant will construct a new loading dock for Whole Foods facing the Palm Valley Storm Channel (PVSC). The grade of the loading dock is eight feet lower than the PVSC. As part of the landscape modifications, the applicant is proposing an eight foot hedge along the west side of the PVSC abutting the existing chain link fence. The hedge and grade differential will screen the loading docks from public view along Highway 111. B. Architecture: The project architecture is of a Spanish Colonial architecture design, consisting of dual pane clear glass windows, smooth finish stucco, metal trellises, clay tile roofs and stone veneer on the columns and wainscots. The exterior stucco paint colors are Sherwin Williams "Restrained Gold," "Blonde," "Kestral White," "Bungalow Beige," "Rustic Adobe," and "Deer Valley." The faux- wood fascia and corbels will be Sherwin Williams "Rockwood Clay." GAPlanning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Precise Plans\111 Town Center\Planning Commission Staff Report Final.doc Staff Report Case No. PP/CUP 12-223, 111 Town Center Page 6 of 14 December 18, 2012 C. Landscaping: The applicant is proposing to remove all turf, and replace it with a desert palette. There is a commercial bank fronting along Highway 111 and Town Center Way that is located on a separate private parcel, and is not part of the project. The existing turf will remain because the applicant does not have the ability to remove that. The new landscape palette will focus on a desert theme, with plants requiring minimal water usage. In addition to modifying the existing landscaping, the applicant will replace and dead or dying landscaping where needed. In addition, the applicant will provide new trees where necessary and is proposing to remove four eucalyptus trees along the west property line to enhance building visibility along Highway 111. In exchange for the loss of canopy cover provided by the eucalyptus trees, the applicant will be providing an equivalent amount of coverage from new shade trees to be planted in other areas of the site. Preliminary approval from the City's Landscape Specialist has been granted. A condition of approval has been placed on the project stating that all landscape and lighting for the facility will be strictly on site, and will not intrude onto surrounding properties. Other conditions are that the plant selection is in conformance with the City's Desert Floral Palette, and a final landscaping plan must be reviewed and approved by the City's Landscaping Manager and by CVWD before building permits are issued. Analysis Chapter 25.30 Planned Commercial District, Section 25.30.020 Uses Permitted by Approved Precise Plan or Conditional Use Permit, B Regional Center (PC-3) states that supermarkets less than 60,000 gross square feet, and department stores are permitted as conditional uses. Over the past three years, the City has tried to address the vacancy of several large buildings, mainly in the PC (3) zone. Representatives of several food stores have approached the City about locating in these prospective vacant spaces. The zoning allows supermarkets smaller than 60,000 square feet in the PC (3) zone. The proposed 30,099- square foot Whole Foods is similar in size to specialty -markets such as Trader Joe's, Henry's/Sprout's, Jensen's, and Bristol Farms. Since Whole Foods and Nordstrom Rack are not located adjacent to residential homes such as Bristol Farms on Country Club Drive, Albertsons at Deep Canyon and Highway 111, and Vons on Highway 111 and recently approved on Fred Waring Drive, staff is not concerned with the noise from delivery trucks and trash compactors. Residents within Palm Desert and in the surrounding area will be able to shop at two businesses (Whole Foods and Nordstrom Rack) that are not located presently within the GAPlanning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Precise Plans\111 Town Center\Planning Commission Staff Report 4.doc Staff Report Case No. PP/CUP 12-223, 111 Town Center Page 7 of 14 December 18, 2012 Coachella Valley. The two businesses will help revitalize the center, and will attract more shoppers and other businesses as well. A. Parking: The 111 Town Center is parked at five spaces per 1,000 square feet, requiring 748 total parking spaces. The shopping center is designed with a total of 780 parking spaces, providing 32 parking spaces more than required. Section 25.58.310 requires one parking space per 200 square feet of gross floor area for supermarkets. With the new building area totaling 12,310 square feet, the additional square footage requires 62 parking spaces. Since the shopping center has an additional 32 parking spaces, that leaves 29 parking spaces required for Whole Foods. Nordstrom Rack is utilizing the former Best Buy building; therefore, the parking is equivalent. The 111 Town Center has a reciprocal parking agreement throughout the retail center and parking efficiencies are typically realized from the size and mix of retail uses. Whole Foods is a specialty market, and does not generate the same traffic as a day-to-day supermarket. Therefore, staff believes that adequate parking is provided for this and other uses in the retail center. B. Land Use Compatibility: The proposed project is located within an existing commercial retail center that provides approximately 149,600 square feet of gross leasable space. The subject site is designated C-R (Regional Commercial) on the City General Plan land use map. The site is also located along three major roadways, Highway 111, Town Center Way, and Fred Waring Drive. They serve as major regional routes and local connectors for commercial, tourist, and residential travelers throughout the area. In addition to general retail and apparel stores, the project also includes restaurants, a gym, dry-cleaners, and other retail establishments. Surrounding land uses include a mix of regional commercial and community commercial uses, with single-family and multi -family development to the north and east. The proposed grocery store and department store is well suited for the existing buildings and the location, being located at the intersection of two major roadways that provide easy access for a wide retail commercial area. The businesses would also occupy spaces within the center, and increase curb appeal. From a community wide perspective, there will be a positive impact. The vacant Best Buy building and other buildings are having a negative impact on commercial activity in the rest of the center. It should be noted that if Whole Foods and Nordstrom Rack occupy these spaces, they will be accessible by foot GAPlanning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Precise Plans\111 Town Center\Planning Commission Staff Report 4.doc Staff Report Case No. PP/CUP 12-223, 111 Town Center Page 8 of 14 December 18, 2012 or bicycle to residents of nearby single-family homes and affordable multi -family housing to the north and east. C. Traffic: In 1987, when the 111 Town Center was constructed, Highway 111 had two travel lanes each direction. Today, Highway 111 has three travel lanes each direction. The 111 Town Center is currently served by a total of four vehicular access points with three on Town Center Way, and one on Highway 111. The access point on Highway 111 provides only right in/right out access. This restricted driveway causes the need for shopping center patrons traveling eastbound to make U-turns at surrounding intersections or alter their routes in order to accommodate preferred travel patterns. The applicant is proposing to install a left turn in pocket along Highway 111 for east bound travelers. The Department of Public Works fully supports the applicant's request, since it will reduce traffic volume on Town Center Way and Fred Waring Drive. The Director of Public Works submitted a memo dated November 14, 2012 which is attached to the staff report, stating that the proposed Whole Foods and Nordstrom Rack does not require a traffic study. D. Noise: The proposed Nordstrom Rack would rely on the existing loading dock facilities that were used by Best Buy. Whole Foods requires a new loading dock, which would be located on the west side of the property behind the building facing the PVSC, the same as Nordstrom Rack. The location and operation of the existing and proposed loading docks does not pose any potentially significant impact to surrounding land uses, specifically since they are adjacent to the PVSC where there are no sensitive receptors. Access to the loading docks will not change, with the road running behind the buildings located along the west side of the development and accessing the site from a drive located on Town Center Way. Delivery trucks will pull beyond the loading dock and then back into the docking area, as shown on the applicant's site plan. By conforming to the City Noise Ordinance and Conditions of Approval, the project is expected to have no impact on the noise environment of the area. GAPlanning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Precise Plans\111 Town Center\Planning Commission Staff Report 4.doc Staff Report Case No. PP/CUP 12-223, 111 Town Center Page 9 of 14 December 18, 2012 E. Height: The property is zoned PC (3), which has a maximum height of 35 feet. The Whole Foods and Nordstrom Rack buildings maintain an overall height at 25 feet for the main perimeter parapet. Both buildings gradually increase from the 25- foot parapet to 41 feet for an architectural feature over the main entrances. The applicant is also proposing two 45-foot tower elements with signage. From Highway 111 to the building pad there is a seven to eight foot grade differential. With the grade differential the tower heights from Highway 111 will be 37 to 38 feet in height. For this project, visual studies have been prepared to evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed project. These studies have included on -site field studies, and use of a scissor lift with a banner to illustrate the future tower and building heights on site. See attached photos. After studying the site, staff is concerned with the overall height of the towers at 45 feet in height. Since the other buildings are 22 to 32 feet in height, and the proposed building height remains at 25 feet, the towers may not look well- proportioned to the center. Staff is recommending that the towers be reduced to the 41 feet in height to match the tallest portion of the building facades. In addition, staff has concerns that the towers would be used primarily for signage creating the appearance of a billboard. After working with the applicant, the signage on the towers will not exceed 35 feet in height. This would be in keeping with the 35-foot height limit within the PC (3) zone. Also, staff recommends that only two signs be allowed per tower element, and not the proposed three signs. The proposed project height is in accordance with the code. Chapter 25 General Provisions Section 25.56.300 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code states that the overall height of a structure shall be measured vertically from the average elevation grade to the highest point. Towers, spires, cupolas, chimneys, and similar structures not more than ten percent of the ground area covered by the structure may be erected to a height of not more than 65 feet, or not more than 25 feet above the height limit. The proposed buildings height meets all aspects of these regulations and complies with applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. GAPlanning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Precise Plans\111 Town Center\Planning Commission Staff Report 4.doc Staff Report Case No. PP/CUP 12-223, 111 Town Center Page 10 of 14 December 18, 2012 F. Findings of Approval: That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accordance with the objectives of the zoning ordinance and the purpose of the district in which it is located. The proposed location of the project is located in a PC (3), Planned Commercial Regional zone. The purpose the PC (3) Regional Commercial Center is to provide a unified area for commercial uses which offer a wide range of goods and services. Chapter 25.30 of the City of Palm Desert's Zoning Ordinance Section 25.30.026 states a supermarket having sixty thousand gross square feet or less and a department store are permitted uses within the PC (3) zone. The conditional uses in the Regional Commercial PC (3) zone, would comply with the Zoning Ordinance. The City of Palm Desert currently has neighborhood supermarkets such as Vons, Albertsons, and Ralphs that are more affordable and diverse of customer products. There is a need for the specialty neighborhood - oriented markets, including such businesses as Bristol Farms, Trader Joe's and Jensen's. Larger retail discount centers are also needed within communities to provide diversity. The City will be able to better serve its residents and assure that these businesses can compete in coming years. Additional conditions have been added to the project to ensure that all the minimum requirements of the Palm Desert Municipal Code are met, including Public Works, Building and Safety, and the Fire Department Conditions. 2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it will be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed project as a conditional use is consistent with the intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance as described above. The project has been conditioned to address public health and safety and will require permits from the City's Building and Safety Department, Finance Department, Riverside County Fire Marshal, as well as other local agencies. The project will not physically divide an established community or neighborhood. Based on consideration of the whole, the proposed project does not appear to conflict with any applicable land use plan or policies. The site has been previously designed to meet setbacks, lot coverage, building height, land use, and parking requirements such that it will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, welfare and will not be GAPlanning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Predse Plans\111 Town Center\Planning Commission Staff Report 4.doc Staff Report Case No. PP/CUP 12-223, 111 Town Center Page 11 of 14 December 18, 2012 materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity as described in more detail in the staff report. A condition of approval has been placed on the project that will require the project proponent to construct all necessary on and off -site infrastructure to provide utilities to the proposed project prior to the issuance of building permits. Water, sanitation and public utilities and services are available in Highway 111, a public street. The loading docks for the project are located along a storm channel, over 230 feet from the nearest receptors, so the sound generated by the project as conditioned will not be materially injurious to surrounding properties. 3. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance, except for approved variances or adjustments. The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The use of a grocery store and department store with a Conditional Use Permit (for the land use), is consistent with the intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance as described in the staff report. The nature of the proposed uses and building square footages are compatible with surrounding land uses, and is a part of and complements and supports the existing commercial center. Additionally, conditions have been added to the project to ensure that all the minimum requirements of the Palm Desert Municipal Code are met, including building, landscaping, public works, and the fire department conditions. No variances or adjustments are proposed or are necessary for this project. 4. That the proposed conditional use complies with the goals, objectives and policies of the City's General Plan. The General Plan land use designation for the site is C-R (Regional Commercial). A primary objective stated in the General Land Use Goals, Policies and Programs is: Goal 2, which states "a diverse resort residential community of desirable residential neighborhoods and resorts, full commercial services, and institutional uses that complement the employment base and provide a variety of community services and facilities." GAPlanning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Precise Plans\111 Town Center\Planning Commission Staff Report 4.doc Staff Report Case No. PP/CUP 12-223, 111 Town Center Page 12 of 14 December 18, 2012 Palm Desert was developed as the premier commercial retail center of the Coachella Valley, with the Westfield Mall, Desert Crossings, and a variety of other retail commercial centers. It is also the home of the premier high - end El Paseo commercial corridor, which has evolved as a unique and unrivaled premier shopping district of the City. The City has also emerged as a highly diverse residential community with residential product to appeal to a broad socio-economic cross section. The proposed Whole Foods and Nordstrom Rack fulfills an important need for City residents, fills a currently vacant retail space, enhances the function and desirability of 111 Town Center, and complement the local employment base of the City. Goal 3 of the General Land Use Goals, Policies, and Programs states "an appropriate mix of commercial, resort and other revenue -generating land uses that will continue to fund a high level of community development activities, services and facilities in the City." The proposed project addresses a current need of the City and vicinity in that it brings two new businesses to occupy space in the community in a currently vacant building and commercial center. It will also have important direct and indirect impacts on City revenues by generating retail sales and enhancing the sales potential of the existing and future 111 Town Center businesses. Policy 3 of the General Land Use Goals, Policies, and Programs states "the City shall integrate land use analysis and planning with economic and fiscal analysis as an essential part of development of a master strategic plan for economic development." In considering the appropriateness of the proposed uses, the City balances the land use and planning issues with those associated with maintaining a strong local economy that generates a revenue stream to support community facilities and services. The proposed uses, broadens and strengthens the City economic base and is consistent with the City's economic development strategies. Policy 4 of the General Land Use Goals, Policies, and Programs states "every opportunity shall be exploited to enhance the character and viability of the City's commercial areas, including Highway 111, El Paseo, the University Park planning area and the Interstate 10 corridor by integrating nearby higher density residential uses with retail and office/business park land uses. " G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Predse Plans\111 Town Center\Planning Commission Staff Report 4.doc Staff Report Case No. PP/CUP 12-223, 111 Town Center Page 13 of 14 December 18, 2012 The proposed project is expected to have a very positive effect on the business district comprised on 111 Town Center, Waring Plaza, Desert Crossing, and other City commercial areas in the vicinity. The project has the potential to enhance the viability of this part of the City's commercial area. Goal 2 of the Residential Land Use Goals and Policies states "the preservation and enhancement of the City's existing neighborhoods." The proposed uses do not separate or significantly affect existing neighborhoods in the planning area. Residential developments to the east and north are all composed of internally oriented one-story, single-family neighborhoods. Project traffic, including delivery trucks, should have no impact on existing neighborhoods. The proposed project does not separate or divide an existing neighborhood but rather helps to provide convenient access is needed neighborhood commercial services. Policy 3 of the Residential Land Use Goals and Policies states "the City shall encourage in -fill development on lands located adjacent to or near existing residential areas and utilities to maximize the efficient utilization of land and infrastructure." Shopping centers constitute the commercial infrastructure that supports the residents and their needs. Over the past two decades, the subject property has seen a variety of retail users, which includes businesses that. have not been able to remain viable in the long-term. In addition to providing a much -needed boost to retail activity at 111 Town Center, the project also provides needed day-to-day commercial services and associated amenities that will also be conveniently available to local residents. Goal 1 of the Commercial Land Use Goals and Policies states "an integrated and complementary mix of commercial land uses that meet the day-to-day needs of local residents, fully exploit opportunities to serve the regional retail commercial market, and provide hospitality and tourist commercial development opportunities." The proposed project appears to be an appropriate integration of neighborhood, residential -serving commercial services within easy walking distance of homes to the north and east. Both the residents and others working in the vicinity are also expected to make expenditures at the new Whole Foods and Nordstrom Rack, along with future retailers and keep associated retail sales revenues in the City. GAPlanning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Predse Plans\111 Town Center\Planning Commission Staff Report 4.doc Staff Report Case No. PP/CUP 12-223, 111 Town Center Page 14 of 14 December 18, 2012 Goal 2 of the Commercial Land Use Goals and Policies states "a pattern of commercial land uses conveniently and appropriately distributed throughout the City, meeting the community's needs while minimizing the disruption to or incompatibilities with other land uses." As a part of the Town Center Way, Fred Waring, and Highway 111 commercial corridors, the proposed uses should compliment and create synergies with the other retail businesses at 111 Town Center and the vicinity. This enhanced mix of commercial services provides vertical integration between general retail, dining and neighborhood commercial uses supports the City's overall retail commercial and strengthens local fiscal conditions. Environmental Review The 111 Town Center project was subject to a comprehensive CEQA review at the time it was initially approved in 1986. The project was constructed and provided mitigation measures for all the impacts to the vacant land at that time. The 15.2-acre site was divided into 17 commercial lots. The current approval takes place on 2.4 acres and merely reaffirms the prior approvals, and does not change in any way. Staff has reviewed the prior CEQA analysis and current conditions, and confirmed that there are no changes in circumstances or the project that would warrant additional CEQA review at this time. The proposed project is categorically exempt under CEQA Section 15332 infill development projects Class 32 on sites smaller than five acres in size. Submitted By: Kevin Swartz, Assistarft Planner Department Head: Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Devet6pment GAPlanning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Precise Plans\111 Town Center\Planning Commission Staff Report 4.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION OF A REMODEL AND EXPANSION TO THE EXISTING 111 TOWN CENTER TO ACCOMMODATE A NEW GROCERY STORE AND RETAIL USE. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 44459 TOWN CENTER WAY CASE NO.: PP/CUP 12-223 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 18th day of December 2012, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by Aubrey Cook McGill Architects for approval of the above noted; 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. 2012-20, in the Director of Community Development has determined that the project 111 Town Center was subject to a comprehensive CEQA review at the time it was initially approved in 1986. The project was constructed and provided mitigation measures for all the impacts to the vacant land at that time. The 15.2-acre site was divided into 17 commercial lots. The current approval takes place on 2.4 acres and merely reaffirms the prior approvals, and does not change in any way. Staff has reviewed the prior CEQA analysis and current conditions, and confirmed that there are no changes in circumstances or the project that would warrant additional CEQA review at this time. The proposed project is categorically exempt under CEQA Section 15332 infill development projects Class 32 on sites smaller than five acres in size; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify the recommendation to the City Council of said request: FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accordance with the objectives of the zoning ordinance and the purpose of the district in which it is located. The proposed location of the project is located in a PC (3), Planned Commercial Regional zone. The purpose the PC (3) Regional Commercial Center is to provide a unified area for commercial uses which offer a wide range of goods and services.. Chapter 25.30 of the City of Palm Desert's Zoning Ordinance Section 25.30.026 states a supermarket having sixty thousand gross square feet or less and a department store are permitted uses within the PC (3) zone. The conditional uses in the Regional Commercial PC (3) zone, would comply with the Zoning Ordinance. The PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. City of Palm Desert currently has neighborhood supermarkets such as Vons, Albertsons, and Ralphs that are more affordable and diverse of customer products. There is a need for the specialty neighborhood - oriented markets, including such businesses as Bristol Farms, Trader Joe's and Jensen's. Larger retail discount centers are also needed within communities to provide diversity. The City will be able to better serve its residents and assure that these businesses can compete in coming years. Additional conditions have been added to the project to ensure that all the minimum requirements of the Palm Desert Municipal Code are met, including Public Works, Building and Safety, and the Fire Department Conditions. 2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it will be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed project as a conditional use is consistent with the intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance as described above. The project has been conditioned to address public health and safety and will require permits from the City's Building and Safety Department, Finance Department, Riverside County Fire Marshal, as well as other local agencies. The project will not physically divide an established community or neighborhood. Based on consideration of the whole, the proposed project does not appear to conflict with any applicable land use plan or policies. The site has been previously designed to meet setbacks, lot coverage, building height, land use, and parking requirements such that it will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, welfare and will not be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity as described in more detail in the staff report. A condition of approval has been placed on the project that will require the project proponent to construct all necessary on and off -site infrastructure to provide utilities to the proposed project prior to the issuance of building permits. Water, sanitation and public utilities and services are available in Highway 111, a public street. The loading docks for the project are located along a storm channel, over 230 feet from the nearest receptors, so the sound generated by the project as conditioned will not be materially injurious to surrounding properties. GAPlanning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Precise Plans\111 Town Center\Planning Commission Resolution.doc II PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance, except for approved variances or adjustments. The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The use of a grocery store and department store with a Conditional Use Permit (for the land use), is consistent with the intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance as described in the staff report. The nature of the proposed uses and building square footages are compatible with surrounding land uses, and is a part of and complements and supports the existing commercial center. Additionally, conditions have been added to the project to ensure that all the minimum requirements of the Palm Desert Municipal Code are met, including building, landscaping, public works, and the fire department conditions. No variances or adjustments are proposed or are necessary for this project. 4. That the proposed conditional use complies with the goals, objectives and policies of the City's General Plan. The General Plan land use designation for the site is C-R (Regional Commercial). A primary objective stated in the General Land Use Goals, Policies and Programs is: Goal 2, which states "a diverse resort residential community of desirable residential neighborhoods and resorts, full commercial services, and institutional uses that complement the employment base and provide a variety of community services and facilities." Palm Desert was developed as the premier commercial retail center of the Coachella Valley, with the Westfield Mall, Desert Crossings, and a variety of other retail commercial centers. It is also the home of the premier high - end El Paseo commercial corridor, which has evolved as a unique and unrivaled premier shopping district of the City. The City has also emerged as a highly diverse residential community with residential product to appeal to a broad socio-economic cross section. The proposed Whole Foods and Nordstrom Rack fulfills an important need for City residents, fills a currently vacant retail space, enhances the function and desirability of 111 Town Center, and complement the local employment base of the city. GAPlanning\Kevin Swartz\Ward\Precise Plans\111 Town Center\Planning Commission Resolution.doc G7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. Goal 3 of the General Land Use Goals, Policies, and Programs states "an appropriate mix of commercial, resort and other revenue -generating land uses that will continue to fund a high level of community development activities, services and facilities in the City." The proposed project addresses a current need of the City and vicinity in that it brings two new businesses to occupy space in the community in a currently vacant building and commercial center. It will also have important direct and indirect impacts on City revenues by generating retail sales and enhancing the sales potential of the existing and future 111 Town Center businesses. Policy 3 of the General Land Use Goals, Policies, and Programs states "the City shall integrate land use analysis and planning with economic and fiscal analysis as an essential part of development of a master strategic plan for economic development." In considering the appropriateness of the proposed uses, the City balances the land use and planning issues with those associated with maintaining a strong local economy that generates a revenue stream to support community facilities and services. The proposed uses, broadens and strengthens the City economic base and is consistent with the City's economic development strategies. Policy 4 of the General Land Use Goals, Policies, and Programs states "every opportunity shall be exploited to enhance the character and viability of the City's commercial areas, including Highway 111, El Paseo, the University Park planning area and the Interstate 10 corridor by integrating nearby higher density residential uses with retail and office/business park land uses. " The proposed project is expected to have a very positive effect on the business district comprised on 111 Town Center, Waring Plaza, Desert Crossing, and other City commercial areas in the vicinity. The project has the potential to enhance the viability of this part of the City's commercial area. Goal 2 of the Residential Land Use Goals and Policies states "the preservation and enhancement of the City's existing neighborhoods." The proposed uses do not separate or significantly affect existing neighborhoods in the planning area. Residential developments to the east and north are all composed of internally oriented one-story, single-family neighborhoods. Project traffic, including delivery trucks, should have no impact on existing neighborhoods. The proposed project does not GAPlanning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Precise Plans\111 Town Center\Planning Commission Resolution.doc 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. separate or divide an existing neighborhood but rather helps to provide convenient access is needed neighborhood commercial services. Policy 3 of the Residential Land Use Goals and Policies states "the City shall encourage in -fill development on lands located adjacent to or near existing residential areas and utilities to maximize the efficient utilization of land and infrastructure." Shopping centers constitute the commercial infrastructure that supports the residents and their needs. Over the past two decades, the subject property has seen a variety of retail users, which includes businesses that have not been able to remain viable in the long-term. In addition to providing a much -needed boost to retail activity at 111 Town Center, the project also provides needed day-to-day commercial services and associated amenities that will also be conveniently available to local residents. Goal 1 of the Commercial Land Use Goals and Policies states "an integrated and complementary mix of commercial land uses that meet the day-to-day needs of local residents, fully exploit opportunities to serve the regional retail commercial market, and provide hospitality and tourist commercial development opportunities." The proposed project appears to be an appropriate integration of neighborhood, residential -serving commercial services within easy walking distance of homes to the north and east. Both the residents and others working in the vicinity are also expected to make expenditures at the new Whole Foods and Nordstrom Rack, along with future retailers and keep associated retail sales revenues in the City. Goal 2 of the Commercial Land Use Goals and Policies states "a pattern of commercial land uses conveniently and appropriately distributed throughout the City, meeting the community's needs while minimizing the disruption to or incompatibilities with other land uses." As a part of the Town Center Way, Fred Waring, and Highway 111 commercial corridors, the proposed uses should compliment and create synergies with the other retail businesses at 111 Town Center and the vicinity. This enhanced mix of commercial services provides vertical integration between general retail, dining and neighborhood commercial uses supports the City's overall retail commercial and strengthens local fiscal conditions. G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Precise Plans\111 Town Center\Planning Commission Resolution.doc 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of PP/CUP 12-223, subject to conditions. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 18th day of December 2012, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SONIA CAMPBELL, Chairperson ATTEST: LAURI AYLAIAN, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission GAPlanning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Precise Plans\111 Town Center\Planning Commission Resolution.doc 0 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO.: PP/CUP 12-223 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. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the Department of Building & Safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 3. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. 4. The applicant shall submit design development plans to the Architectural Review Commission before review of the construction drawings by the City. 5. All conditions of approval shall be recorded with the Riverside County Clerk's office before any building permits are issued. Evidence of recordation shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development/Planning. 6. Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the city against any third party legal challenge to these approvals, with counsel chosen by the city at applicant's expense. 7. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas. Said placement shall be approved by applicable waste company and Department of Community Development and shall include a recycling program. 8. All Delivery trucks and vehicles shall enter the premises via Town Center Way and Highway 111 only, no access from Fred Waring Drive. 9. Store hours for the supermarket shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. (midnight) seven days a week. GAPlanning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Precise Plans\111 Town Center\Planning Commission Resolution.doc 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 10. That the building colors be consistent with those shown on the material sample board and the design is consistent as approved by the Architectural Review Commission. 11. That any future restaurants on the site shall provide an effective means of odor control from cooking units satisfactory to the Planning and Building Departments prior to issuance of building permit. 12. That all signs on site be approved under a sign program by the Architectural Review Commission and conform to the sign program requirements. 13. A detailed parking lot and building lighting plan shall be submitted to staff for approval, subject to applicable lighting standards, plan to be prepared by a qualified lighting engineer. 14. 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. 15. All Landscaping and lighting for the facility shall be strictly on site and will not intrude onto surrounding properties. 16. The owner shall be responsible for installation and maintenance of landscaping of the property, as indicated on the approved landscape plan. 17. All HVAC roof -mounted mechanical equipment must be screened from public view. 18. All operations shall comply with the City Noise Ordinance Chapter 9.24 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 19. Appropriate sound attenuation measures, such as silencers and/or barriers, shall be provided where necessary on outdoor equipment, whether roof or pad - mounted, including but not limited to cooling towers, air-cooled condensers, refrigeration compressors/condenser units, and air intake and discharge openings for building ventilation. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS: The applicant shall: 1. Not locate or relocate utilities in the paved portion of Highway 111. 2. Construct a left turn ingress left turn pocket on Highway 111 and restore landscaping to the Highway 111 median. G1P1anning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Precise Plans\111 Town Center\Planning Commission Resolution.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3. Be responsible for the maintenance of all proposed and existing landscaping. Trees missing from planters shall be replaced in the parking lot areas for buildings with tenant improvement permits. 4. Retain the existing eucalyptus trees along the Palm Valley Storm Channel except for the trees marked for removal by the City of Palm Desert Landscape Manager. 5. Be responsible for the maintenance of the proposed subsurface infiltration basins and proposed retention basin in accordance with the approved preliminary WQMP. 6. Provide for ADA compliant sidewalks and path of travel leading from Town Center Way to the proposed building and building 445. Handicap ramps shall be installed as needed along these paths. In the future if the applicant is going to construct/reconstruct in the building 419 location they shall be required to add a path of travel to that building as well. 7. Record a Parcel Map Waiver for lot line adjustment prior to Building Permit issuance. Prior to the issuance of grading permits the applicant shall: 8. Provide the City Engineer with evidence that a Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed with the State Water Resources Control Board. Such evidence shall consist of a copy of the NOI stamped by the State Water Resources Control Board or the Regional Water Quality Control Board, or a letter from either agency stating that the NOI has been filed. 9. Submit a final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for approval. The WQMP shall identify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on the site to control predictable pollutant runoff. Prior to the issuance of grading permit, the Operation and Maintenance Section of the approved final WQMP shall be recorded with County's Recorder Office and a conformed copy shall be provided to the Public Works Department. 10. Storm drain/retention area design and construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. 11. Submit a PM10 application for approval. The applicant shall comply with all provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 24.12 regarding Fugitive Dust Control. 12. Identify all proposed and existing utilities on the precise grading plan. G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Precise Plans\111 Town Center\Planning Commission Resolution.doc 0 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 13. Submit a landscape plan concurrently with the precise grading plan for review and approval. Applicants are advised to use the City of Palm Desert Design Guide when designing plans. Landscape plans must meet the following criteria: a. Must be water efficient in design and meet the City of Palm Desert's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. b. Planting plans must show location of proposed and existing utilities. c. Must match approved civil plans. d. All specs and details must be site specific. e. Applicants must have CVWD approval of their irrigation plans prior to City approval. f. Applicants must have a stamp or signature from the County Agricultural Commissioner before City approval. g. Landscape to be maintained into perpetuity per approved landscape document package. 14. Any deviation from the approved plans shall be reviewed for approval by the City Engineer prior to work commencing. 15. Proposed easement quitclaims/abandonments and new easements shall be recorded before building permits are issued. DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY: 1. This project shall comply with the latest adopted edition of the following codes: A. 2010 California Building Code and its appendices and standards. B. 2010 California Plumbing Code and its appendices and standards. C. 2010 California Mechanical Code and its appendices and standards. D. 2010 California Electrical Code. E. 2010 California Energy Code. F. 2010 California Green Building Standards Code G. Title 24, California Code of Regulations. H. 2010 California Fire Code and its appendices and standards. 2. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed as required per the City of Palm Desert Code Adoption Ordinance 1217. 3. A disabled access overlay of the precise grading plan is required to be submitted to the Dept of Building and Safety for plan review of the site accessibility requirements as per 2010 CBC Chapters 11 A & B (as applicable) and Chapter 10. 4. All exits must provide an accessible path of travel to the public way. (CBC 1024.6 & 1127B.1) GAPlanning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Precise Plans\111 Town Center\Planning Commission Resolution.doc 10 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5. Detectable warnings shall be provided where required per CBC 113313.8 and 112713.5 (7). The designer is also required to meet all ADA requirements. Where an ADA requirement is more restrictive than the State of California, the ADA requirement shall supersede the State requirement. 6. Provide an accessible path of travel to the trash enclosure. The trash enclosure is required to be accessible. Please obtain a detail from the Dept of Building and Safety. 7. Public pools and spas must be first approved by the Riverside County Dept of Environmental Health and then submitted to Dept of Building and Safety. Pools and Spas for public use are required to be accessible. 8. All contractors and subcontractors shall have a current City of Palm Desert Business License prior to permit issuance per Palm desert Municipal Code, Title 5. 9. All contractors and/or owner -builders must submit a valid Certificate of Worker's Compensation Insurance coverage prior to the issuance of a building permit per California Labor Code, Section 3700. 10. Address numerals shall comply with Palm Desert Ordinance No. 1217 (Palm Desert Municipal Code 15.15. Compliance with Ordinance 1217 regarding street address location, dimension, stroke of line, distance from street, height from grade, height from street, etc. shall be shown on all architectural building elevations in detail. Any possible obstructions, shadows, lighting, landscaping, backgrounds or other reasons that may render the building address unreadable shall be addressed during the plan review process. You may request a copy of Ordinance 1217 or Municipal Code Section 15.28 from the Department of Building and Safety counter staff. RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT: 1. The Fire Department requires the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with the City of Palm Desert Municipal Code, 2007 California Building and Fire Codes with applicable NFPA and or any other nationally recognized Fire Protection Standards. The Fire Department shall set the minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of al buildings per California Fire Code Appendix B. 2. The applicant shall provide a fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20 psi residual pressure from a permanently installed Fired Hydrant before any combustible material is placed on the job site. G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Precise Plans\111 Town Center\Planning Commission Resolution.doc 11 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3. The applicant shall provided proof the existing water system is capable of providing the minimum necessary gpm fire flow for 3000 gpm for commercial buildings prior to any project approvals. 4. The applicant shall provide the required fire flow from a permanent wet Barrel Super Hydrant with 1-4" and 2-2'/2" discharge outlets located not less than 25' and no more than 150' from any portion of a commercial building prior to any building permits approvals. 5. The applicant shall submit water plans to be reviewed and approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the water system is capable of providing the required fire flow. 6. The applicant shall install a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all buildings with a 3000 square foot total cumulative floor area. The Fire Marshal shall approve the locations of all fire appliances including Post Indicator Valves, Fire Department Connections and Fire Hydrants. All Fire Appliances shall not be within 25 feet of a building and all Fire Department Connections shall be within 50 feet of a Fire Hydrant. 7. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and water - flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per the 2007 California Building and Fire Code. 8. The applicant shall install a complete NFPA 72 Fire Alarm/Sprinkler Monitoring system as required by the 2007 California Building and Fire Code. 9. The applicant shall install portable fire extinguishers as per NFPA 10. The applicant shall install a minimum of 1-2A10BC Fire Extinguisher for every 3,000 square feet, 3' to 5' above grade with no more than 75' walking distance from any point of the business to the extinguisher. The applicant shall install a "K" class fire extinguisher as required for commercial kitchens within 30' of the hazard area. 10. The applicant shall install a Hood/Duct Fire Suppression system as per NFPA 96 for all public commercial and private cooking operations with the exception of a single-family residence. 11. The applicant shall install an all weather Fire Department accessible roadway extending to any portion of the building where as a 150' hose lay can be utilized for the inaccessible building perimeter. Construction type of the same shall be approved by the Fire Marshal and be rated for 80,000 lbs. Turf block will not be accepted. Fire lane access roadway minimum width is 20' and height clearance is 13'6" Public roadway minimum unobstructed width is 36' with parking on both sides. A Fire Apparatus Turn around shall be provided for dead end streets in excess of 150' in length with approved cul-de-sac or hammer head dimensions. G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Precise Plans\111 Town Center\Planning Commission Resolution.doc 12 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12. Knox access devices shall be provided as follows: • A Knox Padlock for every manual gated entrance. • A Knox Box for each individual commercial building. 13. The applicant shall install an illuminated building address in accordance to the city standards for size and location. The building address shall be installed on the building in an unobstructed locale and the color shall be contrasting to background. 14. The applicant shall submit three sets of the following plans for review including tenant improvement: • Fire Alarm System • Sprinkler System • Fire Main Underground • Hood Suppression System • Site Plan to Scale 15. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws or when building permits are not obtained within 12 months. 16. Construction plans must reflect all new or relocated hydrants, PIV and FDC locations. 17. The applicant shall provide secondary access for a dead end single access roadway exceeding 500' and or mitigate with sprinklers or other means approved by the Fire Marshal. Under no circumstances, shall dead end roadways over 1,300' be accepted. Secondary access can be accomplished by two main access points from a main roadway or a emergency gate from an adjoining development. GAPlanning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Precise Plans\111 Town Center\Planning Commission Resolution.doc 13 73-5io FRED WARINc DRivF FALhi DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 Tee:760 346-0611 1Ax:76o 341-7098 inloYpelm-das m-g CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO.: PP 12-223 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN: That a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission on December 18, 2012, for consideration to recommend approval to the City Council for construction to the existing 111 Town Center Shopping Center to accommodate a new grocery store and retail store. The project consists of demolishing the existing Banner Mattress building and a portion of the former Best Buy building, along with new tower elements, modifications to a potion of the parking lot, new exterior landscaping, re -locating the existing water line and electrical line, and modifying the existing median along Highway 111 for a left turn in pocket. PUBLIC HEARING: Said public hearing will be held before the City of Palm Desert Planning Commission on Tuesday, December 18, 2012, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone ese raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun Lauri Aylaian, Secretary December 7, 2012 Palm Desert Planning Commission The Desert Sun 750 N Gene Autry Trail RECEIVED r . Certificate of Publication Palm Springs, CA92262 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 760-778 4578 /Fax 760-778-4731 PALM S t r - , C A City of Palm Desert 2012 DEC 10 PM 2: 35 Community Development State Of California ss: DEC 10 2012 County of Riverside Advertiser: CITY OF PALM DESERT 73510 FRED WARING DR PALM DESERT CA 922602 2000351677 I am over the age of 18 years old, a citizen of the United States and not a party to, or have interest in this matter. I hereby certify that the attached advertisement appeared in said newspaper (set in type not smaller than non pariel) in each and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to wit: Newspaper: The Desert Sun 12/7/2012 I acknowledge that I am a principal clerk of the printer of The Desert Sun, printed and published weekly in the City of Palm Springs, County of Riverside, State of California. The Desert Sun was adjudicated a newspaper of general circulation on March 24, 1988 by the Superior Court of the County of Riverside, State of California Case No. 191236. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed n this 7th day of December, 2012 in Palm Springs, Ca ornia. Sig No 3178 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO.: PP 12-223 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN: That a public hear- ing will be held before the Palm Deseft'Planning Commission on December 18, 2012, for consider- ation to recommend approval to the City Council for construction to the existing 111 Town Center Shopping Center to accommodate a new grocery store and retail store. The project consists of demolishingg the existing Banner Mattress building and a porflon of the former Best Buy building, along with new tower elements, modifications to a potion of the parking lot, new exterior landscaping re -locating the ,existing water line and electrical line, and modifying the existingg median along Highway 111 for a left turn in poctcet. PUBLIC HEARING: Said public hearing will be held before the City of Palm Desert Planningg Commission on Tuesday December 18, 2012, al 6:00 p.m; in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73 510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shag be ac- cepted up to the date of the eadng. Information ���,!ormm� rha nrnnnsad moiecY is available for meet at the above aaaress oerween me nourB or 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 P.M. Monday through Friday. If you challengge the proposed actions in court, you may be limifed to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing descri- bed in this notice, or in written correspondence de- livered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. Lauri Aylaian, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission Published: 12f7/12 October 10, 2012 �1 is i :3 , 73-5 I0 FRED WARING DRIVE PALJI DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL:760 346—o6ii info@cityofpalmdesert.org ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION CASE NO: PP 12-223 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): AUBREY COOK MCGILL ARCITECTS, Attn: Nick Fotias, 1045 14 th Street, Suite 100, San Diego, CA 92101 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of expansion to existing center, amend precise plan, add tower elements, new signage program, modify portion of parking field, paint center, modify existing median at Highway 111 for a left in movement and stacking to existing driveway; 111 Town Center. (Whole Foods and Nordstrom Rack) LOCATION: 44419-44491 Town Center Way ZONE: PC-3 Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff and by the applicant, the Architectural Review Commission: Granted approval of the architecture subject to: 1) depth of the gabled roofs shall undergo further studies; 2) cornice detail on the horizontal parapets shall be reviewed in final construction documents; 3) roof access shall be internal; and 4) west side of the building where Nordstrom Rack and Whole Foods signs are located shall undergo further studies to articulate the elevations. Motion carried 7-0-0-2 with Commissioners Gregory and Touschner absent. Granted approval of a portion of the sign program subject to: 1) sign type #3 (tower) shall have either two or three signs depending on the design of the actual signs; and 2) continued remainder of sign program. Motion carried 6-0-3-0 with Commissioners Gregory, Lambell, and Touschner absent. (An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. Any amendments to this approved plan would need to be re -submitted to the Commission for approval.) STAFF COMMENTS: It is your responsibility to submit the plans approved by the Architectural Review Commission to the Department of Building and Safety. a�',� 111-9 ue arty"10 verve ARCHITECTURAL REV COMMISSION MINUTES October 9, 2012 3. CASE NO: PP 12-223 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): AUBREY COOK, MCGILL ARCITECTS, Attn: Nick Fotias, 1045 14th Street, Suite 100, San Diego, CA 92101 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of expansion to existing center, amend precise plan, add tower elements, new signage program, modify portion of parking field, paint center, modify existing median at Highway 111 for a left in movement and stacking to existing driveway; 111 Town Center. (Whole Foods and Nordstrom Rack) LOCATION: 44419-44491 Town Center Way ZONE: PC-3 Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, presented the project and said this is the 111 Town Center, commonly known as the former Best Buy Center. Coming into this center will be Nordstrom Rack and Whole Foods. After demolishing two existing stores, Nordstrom Rack will take over 33,392 square feet and the Whole Foods will take over about 30,000 square feet for a net increase of 17,000 square feet of new building. They will be updating the existing landscaping by removing all turf on -site and adding plants, but the landscape is not a part of this approval and will come back to the Commission to a date uncertain. What is being proposed today is the architecture for Nordstrom Rack and Whole Foods and a sign package for the center. Mr. Swartz started with the architecture and said the current building is 35' in height and the applicant will be adding tower elements for Whole Foods which will be 45'. They are asking for an exception to the zoning ordinance which must be approved by City Council. The tower elements would incorporate signage. This site is about 8' to 10' lower than the street and explained that when you're driving along Highway 111 you wouldn't be looking at a 45' tower, it would be more like a 38' tower. For the other part of the center, the applicant will repaint the existing building. The applicant is looking for approval of the architecture of the center and the paint colors for the remainder of the center will come back to a date uncertain. They are making modifications to the existing parking lot directly in front of Whole Foods with an increase in parking, removal of a median and the addition of new landscaping. The applicant will be adding a sidewalk along the Town Center Cafe, as well as adding a path of travel through the parking lot to get to the buildings. Currently the center does not meet G:1P1anning\Janine JudyMord FilesN ARC CommisisonllMinutest20121121009min.do Page 11 of 19 ARCHITECTURAL RE VIEW COMMISSION MINUTES October 9, 2012 ADA requirements, so the applicant will bring that up to code. They are also adding a left turn -in pocket to the center from Highway 111, as well as re -doing the median and landscaping along that area. The applicant will also be re -doing the loading dock area in the rear; which is an entrance only. MR. DAVE MOORE, Senior VP for Harsh Investment Properties, said they are hoping today to get through the first hurdle and show the Commission how the rest of the project will blend. They have been waiting months to be able to officially announce these stores. There is a third anchor that will be announced shortly that will line up the entire center. The interest in the remaining space has increased dramatically. It is their goal to try to deliver to the Commission what the City's expectations area MR. BRIAN WILLIAMS, VP of Construction for Harsh Investment Properties, stated that two stores will be demolished and the entire area will be re -graded. A portion of the existing Best Buy building will be cut off in order to make the Best Buy building actually smaller to house the Nordstrom Rack and the remaining space will be the new Whole Foods building along with two outdoor patio seating areas. There will be a couple of towers that will be added to each corner of the building to add a little prominence to the Highway 111 elevation. One thing with this center is the historic lack of visibility from Highway 111. When you are traveling west, the pad buildings really block a lot of the visibility of the mainline and really hurt the tenant's visibility with it being focused more on the Town Center side. They want to give as much prominent visibility as they can to their tenants to ensure their success with this center. In addition to the towers, they are proposing to increase tower height on two pad buildings to add a little more prominence at the main entrances, as well as adding a new tower on Fred Waring and Town Center Way to add more prominence there as well. Existing utilities for Southern California Edison (SCE) and Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) main line will have to be relocated for these areas. The SCE lines have to go out into the street and they will have to do that before May 1 because the City will be re- paving Highway 111. The CVWD line will go along their private property along the street side of the project. They will be upgrading the rest of the center primarily with finishes, new paint, stone finishes, new awnings, and a couple of store front revisions to tie the center together as a whole. They will also upgrade the lighting in the parking lot to make it much more energy efficient as well as revising the landscape throughout the entire center in an effort to make it more water efficient. G'.\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\1 ARC Commisi—\IMinules\2012\121009mindod Page 12 of 19 ARCHITECTURAL REV I COMMISSION MINUTES October 9, 2012 Commissioner Clark asked what the estimated occupancy time would be. MR. WILLIAMS said Whole Foods and Nordstrom Rack are scheduled to open in March or April 2014. They are planning on having a grand opening in the spring of 2014 with a majority filled brand new center. Chairman Gregory informed the Commission that he and Commissioner Touschner would have to leave no later than 2:15 p.m. and wanted to make sure there would be a quorum. MR. TOM AUBREY, Aubrey, Cook, and Hill Architects, presented and discussed the renderings. He stated this will be a 150' addition of the existing Best Buy building. He pointed out the two outdoor dining areas for Whole Foods; one on the south side and one on the east side. He discussed the differential from the street and the building being about 8' and the transition of landscaping to make that change of grade. He presented renderings of the building elevations showing the views facing east and the view from Highway 111. To get some articulation of the building, they will be creating two towers that will include signage. He pointed out the outdoor dining area which will be a trellis covered area that will go back about 30' at the deepest point and 15' at the shallowest point. Then as you wrap around the corner to make the transition to the east elevation, you drop down from Highway 111 about 7' to 8' to get to the elevation that is Whole Foods. The finish will be Santa Barbara stucco on the exterior, the trellises above the entrances to the store will be constructed of reclaimed lumber, as well as the outdoor dining areas. The tower height from the street will be 37' to 37%' as you look from Highway 111. As you transition to the Nordstrom Rack building, the similar architecture style will continue. There will also be trellis' that will be covered with vines to provide shading. He pointed out other tenant spaces and described the finishes for those spaces. They will use stone clad columns, stone clad finished retaining walls and ramps, and will try to use the reclaimed wood as much as they can for the entry doors. He referred the Commission to the colors planned for Whole Foods and Nordstrom Rack. Commissioner Touschner said this was definitely an improvement to the center. She assumed they would submit a color board along with construction documents to assure the Commission that everything is carried through. She is pleased they will be addressing ADA access along Town Center Way, but wondered if there was a drop off along Highway 111. She suggested they think about the sequence of entry and how someone would be coming onto the site. G.IPlanningWanine Judyword Fileskl ARC CommisisonllMinutes12012112 /009min.do= Page 13 of 19 ARCHITECTURAL RE a LW COMMISSION MINUTES October 9, 2012 MR. WILLIAMS said there will be ramps that go from Highway 111 down to Whole Foods that will be ADA compliant. Chairman Gregory said he and Commissioner Touschner were about to leave and asked if they could vote on the items that have been presented thus far; the architecture and site planning improvements, excluding the signage. Ms. Aylaian suggested that while the Commissioners were still here they may want to move to continue this and felt they would not be able to approve everything at today's meeting. Then the two Commissioners can depart and the rest of the Commission can give feedback to the applicants. Commissioners Gregory and Touschner can then review the minutes prior to the next meeting and will be able to vote. The applicants discussed getting approval as soon as possible so that it can move on to the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Swartz stated the approval today would be preliminary and the construction drawings will have to come back to ARC. Commissioner Touschner said architecturally she is fine with the proposed changes. However, she had a few comments regarding signage and deferred to Commissioner Vuksic to make sure her concerns are addressed after her departure. She said she reviewed the sign package and the applicant is asking for a relatively large sign on the back of the building facing Highway 111. She understands why they are asking for it, but she would really need to see a picture of what that looks like. She suggested they be a little more discreet back there. MR. WILLIAMS said the only signage on the rear would be Nordstrom Rack and Whole Foods, which are the main anchors. This is needed for the visibility as you are driving east on Highway 111. Commissioner Touschner understood that but said that it shouldn't look like the back of a house elevation and needs to be an elevation that is worthy of the sign; in size and quality. Mr. Swartz said that is one of the things that staff is working on with the applicant and has requested that the applicant put signage in the location for Nordstrom Rack to see what it would look like. G.1P1anningUanineJud0Word Nes\1 ARC CommisisonliMinutes\2012\121009min.doac Page 14 of 19 ARCHITECTURAL REV / COMMISSION MINUTES October 9, 2012 Commissioner Touschner had one final concern prior to leaving. At first glance, she wasn't sure that the monument sign design is of the best quality for the center and didn't think that it matched the architecture. Commissioners Gregory and Touschner left at 2:45 p.m Commissioner Clark said they might take a look at how the parking lot is striped upon entering from Town Center Way at the stop light and how the internal traffic will be at this access point. MR. AUBREY pointed to an area on the rendering and said the area will have a wider drive than the others because that would be the main drive. They could look at re -striping or re -working it, but they can't lose any stalls in order to meet the parking requirements because they are at the minimum for their needs. Commissioner Clark discussed the two towers and how one tower is open at the top and the other one is solid. Given that they are asking for a variance, that opening could act as mitigation because it is open and allows a sense of flow or openness, which would partially mitigate the height. He also said on Highway 111 he sees a lot of green and thought by doing heavy landscaping or something nice in there would be important. MR. AUBREY said there would be a retaining wall that will have the nicer finish as well as landscaping. Commissioner Lambell said they have done a terrific job with this project and the devil is in the details. The Commission has seen some Santa Barbara here in the desert that looked wonderful on paper, but wasn't executed as well as they were led to believe. She hoped with having the two prominent tenants they will make an exceptional effort and it won't be lost in the budget or lost in the finish product since this will be a prominent area on Highway 111. Commissioner Levin asked what lighting would be in the tower and on the signage. MR. AUBREY said there will be some up -lighting for one of the towers and the tower facing Highway 111 will have a translucent glass with a back light. GAPlanningWanineJudy=ord Filesll ARC CommisisonFiMinutes120121121009min.d_ Page 15 of 19 ARCHITECTURAL RE W COMMISSION MINUTES October 9, 2012 MR. SCOTT BLAIR, Blair Sign Programs, said the signage will be internally illuminated, face lit channel letters. Commissioner Levin asked if Whole Foods and Nordstrom Rack would be the only two tenants on the towers or would there be another tenant. MR. BLAIR said the one tower would be dedicated to Whole Foods and Nordstrom Rack. The other tower facing Highway 111 will have two or three other tenants who don't get visibility on the other towers. Commissioner Vuksic was taken by how much better this looks than what is out there now. He asked about the batter on some of the walls and said it was very subtle. He asked if that was really their intent. MR. AUBREY said it is their intent on the towers to have a slight batter, as well as the towers at the southeast corner and the southwest corner. Commissioner Vuksic referred to the two gabled roofs and said one is really large over Whole Foods and was concerned about the depth with both. Although it is quite deep, it is such a long element and thought it would look a little staged fronted. MR. AUBREY said they could look at that a little bit more and submit some prospective sketches showing what that would look like from the front of the building and from Highway 111. Commissioner Vuksic said it is a 100' long and at a glance it needs to be twice that depth for it to look like it's over a space. The other gable roof is a lot thinner and on both of them you are going to see the surface of that so it's going to be important. He asked what "no coping" meant on the plans for the parapets that won't have the exposed rafters. MR. AUBREY said the horizontal parapets will have a foam piece that will be covered in a plaster finish maybe a slightly contrasting color to give the appearance of a full thickness. Commissioner Vuksic asked how they will gain access to the roof. MR. WILLIAMS said it will be an internal access for both stores. GAPlanningVanine JudNWord Fi1es\1 ARC Commisison\1Minutes\2012\12100gmin.doc Page 16 of 19 ARCHITECTURAL REV / COMMISSION MINUTES E October 9, 2012 Commissioner Vuksic said he is familiar with working with existing buildings and the structural challenges that arise. On the plans he saw a lot of masses they are creating that are three dimensional and asked if they have thought about the structural implications of this. MR. AUBREY said after talking with Whole Foods, who wanted more openings, they knew this would require some kind of bracing to make that happen. He said their structural engineers have gone through and seen what they have to do from a bracing standpoint and it will all tie in with the existing architecture. Commissioner Vuksic said he thought about the problems that have existed at this center and one of them was access and visibility. He absolutely understands the reasons for having signs on the back. He said that Commissioner Touschner made a good point about how the back elevation looks. He said they have gone to so much effort on the signs to make this pop, but on the back it almost looks like a different project. He asked what their thoughts were. MR. AUBREY said these comments were well taken. Obviously they can't put windows in the back but they will come back with plans to create more relief from a horizontal standpoint. They will add more pilasters and the parapets will have more relief with a three dimensional coping on the very top. He understands their point and they will take a look at that on how to dress it up. Vice Chair Van Vliet said he didn't have a problem with the height of the towers and believes the architecture will be done well and it will help the center. Commissioner Vuksic made a motion to approve the architecture. The Commission then moved on to the sign program. Mr. Swartz stated there will be three monument signs; one located along Highway 111, one on Town Center Way and one on Fred Waring. The signs are about 9' plus the structure. Commissioner Lambell informed the Commission that she would have to leave at 2:45. She said she was happy with renaming the center 111 Town Center and didn't have any trouble with the aesthetics of the signage and will leave it up to the Commission regarding the size and lighting. G.\PlanningUanine JudyMord Files\1 ARC Commisison\1Minutes\2012112100gmin.dou Page 17 of 19 ARCHITECTURAL RQ W COMMISSION MINUTES October 9, 2012 The Commission discussed the height of the signs and the grade differential on Highway 111. The Commission was concerned that since three Commissioners have left, should they continue the signage. In order to move on to City Council, they asked what the applicant needed. MR. WILLIAMS said the overall sign package is part of this proposal to maximize the square footage for the project in total. The things they have to go to City Council for will not only be for the variance on the height but to sign their towers, which is a part of the sign program. Mr. Swartz informed the Commission they could make a motion for the size of the towers and the locations of the signs on the towers. He pointed out on the plans the locations of the signs. The Commission discussed the location and the number of signs on the towers. Commissioner Vuksic said the signs were tasteful and interesting as far as the letter styles and it overrides his concern with clutter. Commissioner Clark suggested limiting it to not more than three signs per tower. Commissioner Vuksic said in order to have three signs on one tower they would have to be pretty impressive signage. Commissioner Lambell left at 2:55 pm. MR. AUBREY said the proposed three tenant tower is actually behind the building. The reason they will put three tenants on the tower that faces Highway 111 is because their unannounced tenant is taking almost 25,000 square feet and he would like for them to have visibility from Highway 111. Commissioner Levin wanted to confirm that the only signage on the backside would be Nordstrom Rack and Whole Foods. MR. AUBREY said that was correct, but the tower facing Highway 111 would have three tenants. Commissioner Vuksic said the Commission would have to see how those signs would look; how tight they are together and how big they are. G Tlanning\Janine JudyMord Files\l ARC CommisisonllMinutes\2012\121009min.doo Page 18 of 19 ARCHITECTURAL REV J COMMISSION MINUTES October 9, 2012 The Commission and the applicants discussed the aesthetics of the signs and their quality assuring requirements and how the sign program will stipulate only three signs per tower. They stated other applicants in the future will hold this up as a precedent that has been set and this Commission has to have specific reasons why this was different. They felt that if these signs were a high quality design it will be okay. ACTION: Commissioner Vuksic moved to approve the architecture subject to: 1) the depth of the gabled roofs shall undergo further studies; 2) cornice detail on the horizontal parapets shall be reviewed in final construction documents; 3) roof access shall be internal; and 4) west side of the building where Nordstrom Rack and Whole Foods signs are located shall undergo further studies to articulate the elevations. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Lambell and carried by a 7-0-0-2 vote with Commissioners Gregory and Touschner absent. Commissioner Vuksic moved to approve a portion of the sign program subject to: 1) sign type #3 (tower) shall have either two or three signs depending on the design of the actual signs; and 2) continued remainder of sign program. Motion seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by a 6-0-3-0 vote with Commissioners Gregory, Lambell, and Touschner absent. C. Miscellaneous Items: None VI. COMMENTS VII. ADJOURNMENT Upon a motion by Commissioner Stendell, second by Commissioner Levin, and a 6-0-0-3 vote, with Commissioners Gregory, Lambell, and Touschner absent, the Architectural Review Commission meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m. LAURI AYLAIAN, DIRECTOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SECRETARY JANINE JUDY RECORDING SECRETARY G \Rlanning\danine JudyMord Hes\1 ARC Commisison\1Minutes\2012\121009min.doa Page 19 of 19 73 -510 FRFD W.uzIN(, DiuvF 1'.\t.\i Dist:x-r, C,At lk)RNL: 9 2z6o--S78 TEL: 76o 3,16-o61 1 FAX: 760 341-6372 ill "ot palm-deserr.org November 15, 2012 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION CASE NO: PP 12-223 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): AUBREY COOK MCGILL ARCHITECTS, Attn: Nick Fotias, 1045 14 Street, Suite 100, San Diego, CA 92101 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of landscape plans and sign program; 111 Town Center. LOCATION: 44419-44491 Town Center Way ZONE: PC-3 Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff and by the applicant, the Architectural Review Commission Granted to continue the sign program subject to: 1) one sign allowed on tower element per elevation on Buildings 489 & 491; 2) one sign allowed for each tenant per frontage; 3) all signs shall be limited to three colors; 4) there shall only be a maximum of three signs on the rear of the east facing buildings; 5) re -assess the size of the letters on the buildings; 6) address a variety of blade sign options for tenants; 7) reduce height of monument signs; 8) reduce number of tenants on monument signs; 9) additional architecture shall be added to monument signs; 10) the trellis on the monument signs shall be added to this sign package; and, 11) reduce directional signage to 6'. Motion carried 8-0-0-1 with Commissioner Touschner abstaining.* Granted preliminary approval of landscape plans. Motion carried 8-0-0-1 with Commissioner Touschner abstaining. (An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. Any amendments to this approved plan would need to be re -submitted to the Commission for approval.) STAFF COMMENTS: It is your responsibility to submit the plans approved by the Architectural Review Commission to the Department of Building and Safety. *CONTINUED CASES: In order to be placed on the next meeting's agenda, new or revised plans must be submitted no later than 9:00 a.m. the Monday eight days prior to the next meeting. ARCHITECTURAL REV W COMMISSION MINUTES - November 13, 2012 2. CASE NO: PP 12-223 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS)' AUBREY COOK MCGILL ARCHITECTS, Attn: Nick Fotias, 1045 14`h Street, Suite 100, San Diego, CA 92101 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of landscape plans and sign program; 111 Town Center. LOCATION: 44-419-44-491 Town Center Way ZONE: PC-3 Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, presented the re -model project for Whole Foods and Nordstrom Rack. He referred to the tower elevations for Buildings 489 and 491 and stated there should only be one sign allowed on the tower elements per elevation and only one sign allowed for each tenant per frontage. He wanted to make sure that this language was included in the sign program. Three monument signs are proposed; one located on Highway 111 at the main entrance, one on the corner of Fred Waring and Town Center Way, and one on Town Center Way by the bus stop. Staff was concerned with the massing and the size of the proposed monument sign. They are proposing monument signs 10' in height and staff is recommending the monument signs be reduced. Inside the center they are proposing directional signs 9' in height and staff is recommending they be reduced to 6' in height. The Commission discussed the number of tenants on the monument signs. Staff indicated that they typically approve three to four panels. The Commission asked if there was a code or ordinance regarding the number of panels. Staff said the code doesn't specify the number because the signs are approved by the Architectural Review Commission. Staff pointed out there are a couple of monument signs within the City that have five names, but they are integrated as part of the sign. Commissioner Vuksic pointed out that on those signs the names are more irregular and not like a stack of signs. MR. SCOTT BLAIR, Blair Sign Programs, indicated this was a master sign program with two fundamental working parts to divide and organize the project. The first working section is the common area signs; entry monument signs, project identity, vehicle and pedestrian way -finding. The second section is for sustaining the project over time; the tenant sign criteria. He described the four directional signs proposed, which will be four-sided kiosks tucked into the project. All G.1PlanninglJanine Judy=.rd Filesll APCl l Minutes120121121113min dccx Page 3 of 14 ARCHITECTURAL REV W COMMISSION MINUTES November 13, 2012 the tenant signs are specified as individual internally illuminated channel letters and all are required to use LED only. In reference to colors, he wants to have some control and uniformity. He wants to have some retail vitality and energy and will allow the tenants to use their own font and color, but within the construction methodology that is specified and the sign area that is assigned by the landlord. Commissioner Gregory asked if that was okay from the City's prospective. Mr. Swartz said yes if it is within the sign program. However, the ordinance states no more than three colors per sign. If the Commission wants to limit it to no more than three colors, they can add that into the sign program. Mr. BLAIR stated he could assign a color pallet to the tenants who do not have a national established sign program, so long as they are allowed to use their registered trademark branding. The Commission discussed the colors and staff said they can have more than three colors it just requires the sign to be reduced a certain percentage. Commissioner Lambell said the Commission will look to the applicant to be sure this doesn't get "junked" up and didn't want it to look any less than their previous presentation. The Commission and the applicant discussed only having one sign per fagade. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if there would only be two major signs on the backside of the buildings. MR. DAVE MOORE, Senior VP for Harsh Investment Properties said Whole Foods and Nordstrom Rack will have signage on the rear of the buildings to expose them to Highway 111. In another couple of weeks, they will be announcing a third anchor tenant that may also want signage on the back. He pointed out that their sign program doesn't restrict that but they are showing their intent of a minimum of three signs. Commissioner Van VIiet recommended a maximum of three signs. MR. MOORE reluctantly said okay. GAPIanningUanlneJudy\WordReeNAROIMinutes\2012\121113inindoc Page 4 of 14 ARCHITECTURAL RE\ W COMMISSION MINUTES November 13, 2012 Commissioner Gregory stated this Commission didn't have a problem with the design of the monument sign just the height and the number of tenants. MR. BRIAN WILLIAMS, VP of Construction for Harsh Investment Properties, said their desire is for six tenants because they have such limited frontage on Highway 111 compared to the rest of the center. They want the tenants who are all the way at the other end of the center to be able to have a sign on Highway 111 to get exposure. Commissioner Vuksic was also concerned with the monument signs. The first time he saw the rendering he saw a big metal box. He was concerned that it is basically a bunch of sign panels with very little space between each panel. MR. BLAIR said the panels sit off the back surface so they are very dimensional with natural shading and separation. He agreed that it is a sign box but they worked to break it down and have it still be practical. They tried to make it have enough character in consideration of fabrication methods that is more craftsman style and design to help break that down. Commissioner Vuksic said he appreciates the craftsman detail outside that sign box and thought it may look better if they didn't incorporate "Town Center" as part of the sign box and suggested that be something different. MR. BLAIR said there is a design theory to actually take it off and apply a medallion only to the column and have landscape up lighting to reduce the overall height of the display while retaining the character. Commissioner Vuksic didn't want to limit their ability to sign their tenants and understands the importance of that. However, the applicant needs to do a better job of making this sign more artful and looking less like a sign box. Mr. Swartz stated there seems to be a lot of concerns with the monument signs and suggested to the Commission they continue this to allow the applicant an opportunity to come back with other designs. Commissioner Van Vliet said the applicant could certainly put more architecture into the sign. Mr. Bagato said could use as a ordinance with architectural. there were other monument signs in the city they reference and referred to photos in the zoning sign cabinets that are very dimensional and G'�:Plannin9Uanine JudyMord Filesll ARCM I MinutesQ012MI113min.d— Page 5 of 14 ARCHITECTURAL RE`' W COMMISSION MINUTES November 13, 2012 MR. BLAIR said he looked at that and stated those signs were modern styles. He wants to do something that is in harmony with the construction methods and styles of this project's architecture. At this point, several people were talking at the same time making it difficult to transcribe the minutes. MR. MOORE asked the Commission if there was a consensus that they come back with a different sign program. Commissioner Gregory was concerned that every architectural plane on this building has a sign. He recognizes that it is a commercial center and tenants have needs and demands for signage, but there is no architecture left showing through. Commissioner Vuksic appreciates the need to sign the tenants and said there may be tenants in every one of those spaces who will need a sign. So the applicant must prepare for this in their sign program. Commissioner Clark suggested that the size of the sign may need to be reduced which would then allow the architecture to come forward. The Commission and the applicants discussed the size of the signs and the individual letters for the hanging arcade signs and the tower elements. The Commission recommended variety with the hanging signs to strike a balance so it doesn't get too repetitive. The applicant suggested having at, least three different types for the tenants to choose from. Commissioner Levin verified that the awnings will not have any signage and asked that the trellis on the monument sign be added to the sign program. Mr. Swartz described the landscaping plan for the center and stated that the plans have already received preliminary approval from the landscape department and staff is recommending approval. MR. RANDY PURNELL, Landscape Architect, stated that no landscape is shown on the exhibits for the monument signs and suggested integrating landscape into the monument signs; possibly plants on the trellis or showing lower material to help break the down the mass. Commissioner Gregory and staff discussed the size of the proposed monument signs and how it conforms to City dictates. Staffs G:�P1,—ngW-,—)udyfflord Flask, ARC„Mlnut-Q012\121113mn.d.. Page 6 of 14 ARCHITECTURAL RE% W COMMISSION MINUTES November 13, 2012 recommendation is to reduce the overall height of the sign or come up with a different design. The Commission and the applicant discussed bifurcating the approval. It was decided to continue the entire sign program and approve the landscaping plan. ACTION: Commissioner Clark moved to continue the sign program subject to: 1) one sign allowed on tower element per elevation on Buildings 489 & 491; 2) one sign allowed for each tenant per frontage; 3) all signs shall be limited to three colors; 4) there shall only be a maximum of three signs on the rear of the east facing buildings; 5) re -assess the size of the letters on the buildings; 6) address a variety of blade sign options for tenants; 7) reduce height of monument signs; 8) reduce number of tenants on monument signs; 9) additional architecture shall be added to monument signs; 10) the trellis on the monument signs shall be added to this sign package; and, 11) reduce directional signage to 6'. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Vuksic and carried by an 8-0-0-1 with Commissioner Touschner abstaining. Commissioner Levin moved to preliminarily approve landscape plans. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Colombini and carried by an 8-0-0-1 with Commissioner Touschner abstaining. 3. CASE NO: MISC 12-215 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JEFF MASSNICK, 47-530 Via Montigo, La Quinta, CA 92253 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of landscaping and color changes to the bungalows and cottages on the former Forest Lawn Mortuary. LOCATION: 44-660 San Pablo Avenue ZONE: O.P. Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, presented this project and stated this is returning to the Commission for approval of landscaping and color changes to the bungalows and cottages for the former Forest Lawn Mortuary. This project was to convert the three cottages and four bungalows; painting, adding carports, and re -doing the landscape along the exterior of the project. He presented a materials board for review. Staff is recommending approval. The landscape plan is still awaiting approval from the Coachella Valley Water District. G.',PlanningWni-JudOW.,d Fil.s\I ARC\l hfinut-Q012N21113mmdoax Page 7 of 14 9 1 1 1. Pt+ojat Title: � � l Tv w� 2. Lead Agcow N=w and Addn=: 3. Contact Person and Phone N=*W. —I4—IFV i F4 S -3 S�(� 041/ 4. Pr"l acation: *44q -' Mwg e-*-#J V-4L WWY ?A•1." re--S-P-.W T e A gZZbb 1 S. nAea Name and Addrm: G.' ' •G-'12 oa.lAcL- G 9 :p"'WA Eb f. Can" lls. DW T. Z "r. .� Ccw�twc.>Et� �- G�wtER.Gl r�-l� S. Desawban of Project Momft ft vr6ols notion involved, =cW& bnt not limited to later phases of the ' sod i W Y, KWM% Cr off -rite &slnras aocewry for its inrplereentatiae. Attach additisal sheets) if necessary.) Df-mai,LS14 TWO a1c= NEW 2Oaez, 6F 'f3�ba tt,1 Gt_u D r NLr T�4e�c.1 NG t..cT �EutStea.[S �„_ l.�AwLt�SGr�Pr N [� Aa�.t D� VTLL4-Of 2E L o aotTl r.*L S r 9. Stsrmubot Land Una and Setting {Briefly describe the projects surroundsa� ) ` kLC,4 -4T NS 5'v¢.¢oi. i4bF-D FSY 12S T*I t_ A+Ab 1 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.s, patnits, finencia8 approval, of participation tA/�-zi,a- v Is-rtz�cr Rtt� oNA-�- uA'tF- Qaysau'Ck Crs�YC2t- Sc2p CITY4ZVPUBi1999l313795 IPage l of 14 FORM "I" 1 1 it C F L ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY A"TgTED: The eavisom=W fators checked Wow would be potmli* affected by thin pr+ojaet, WvdvinE at lw ens m*w that is a "Patmt * Sipif km bmpaet" as indicated by do dmklist cm the Mining pars, ❑ Biological Rmauras ❑ Haar+ds R Hazardous Matm*- ❑ Minaral Regan es ❑ Public Savcas ❑ Utild m / service System ❑ Arkuk a Rmwm ❑ Cum R+ee scas ❑ HydrobvI WdwQuamy ❑ Noise i ❑ Marndemsy 1 mfbp efSipaficma s DETERNMATION (To be completed by the lead Agmcyx On the basis cf d& iWdial waluatiom ❑ Air Quality ❑ Ge buI Seals ❑ Lad Use / Ptaaoing ❑ P mddim Housing ❑ Tranaportatim / Trds ❑ 1 Rod that the pep a , A project COULD NOT bsve a sigificaat affat as the a vir m cm, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION wiB be prepared. ' ❑ 1 find that dd am& dw propaaal prrojeet eaald bate a sipni5eaet Was an the mvisoaaiathere wnU not be a sipnf om elfed in dds came beeanme nisi m in the pmjad bum bem made by or agreed to by the project prWoocat. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be p gmto& ❑ 1 find that tine proposed project MAY have a significant efrox ao the eevirom mat, and m ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ 1 fad flat the propoaad project MAY have a "potentially significant or "pomnbially ngnificant unless mitiiated" impact as 16e arvirormenrot, but at [east ace effect1) has been adequately analyzed is an ealier doczamt pursuant to applic" legal standsok and 2) has been addressed by mieipbon mearnses based as the earlieir andyss as described an ausched sbift An MWIRONMENTAL A IPACT REPORT is regnnirod, but it mist analyse only the eifecb that rera'tain to be addressed. ❑ 1 find &a dtbough dne proposed pn%ject could have a significant eBed an the enviramnernt, because all potanwn113r significant effects (a) bwe been aeaiyxed adequately in an earlier MR cr NEGATIVE ' DECLARATION pmant t to applicable ataxia* and (b) bsve•beca wordied or mitigated pursuant to that ewhw ER at NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including reviums or ni bptm menum that are unposed dpw the prapo®ed pojod, nothing fuatba is mgwv& Date Si �2sA� lvt`c-,�4s+•csGif /lrvFS`Tt'tl�"r'i�iE,�K-'C`�!' rPrinted Name For CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "I" ' Page 2 of 14 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL II1 PACTS: 1) A Wd mossaum is required for d answers except "No hnpact" mtwas that are sd Mpately supported by the iaforrastian sources a lad ap "efts a the Para dwas folbvmg sack q wWon. A "No bapect" sewer is adequ a* supported if the reimenced iafonoom sourtxs shoo► that the impact soply does vat apply to projects h7oa the one involved (a& the p c jw6b cat" a fault rupour+s seam A % hagvaat" now should be aaplaioed uhme it is based on praja! -specific factors as wA as meneral standards (as the project will vat expaae sensitive recxptovs to pobdapft based on a pnr;W i anab*� 2) All answers nsust take acoauot of dw whale action kvdKA brAding off-ske as well as on-sice, Cmuddiva as well as project level, --bred as well as direct, and cansicuction as wrath as operational impacts. 3) Once the lad gpocy has detamined that a particular physical bopect may occur, thus the eheddist answers must indicate whether the impact is pol obAk significant, less than signifiamt wish mit ldxxk, or less than significant. "Patentiatly Significant hopaot" is appaoprinta if theca is anbstantial avidencer that an effect is Ap Wicrakt. if there aka toe or mere "Poteaddly S*xfic at h opact" conies whm the d*mmmbm is v anda, as EM a required 4) "Nega d" Dedwatiaa: Leas TLan SiglrMCGM With boa bcorporaad" apphies wdtda the iococporation of mitigation measwes, boa n duead an affect Sam "Fseotially Si pafrcaat bopece to a "Lass than Significant Impact' The bad sgshcy mast dwavbs dos anit*Wm mnsesea, ad brie ft ewhia howr tbey rodace tits effict to a lase than sigrvficant level (plan nwasmaa fan Section XVML 'Ember Anslyam," may be amt. S) EwUw mdysaa my be used whoa, pursuant to the dwin& pa cgcaoa Ehlt. or other CEQA V r m x -s. ao effect has been arA p 1k,a - b analyad in an earner ER or nefative declardim Section 15063(e)(3)(D). In this caw. a brief discusa w Should ice ogy the fd6wmg: a) Earlier Amlyses Used Idws* and states where they are m+rplabb for review. b) Impacts Adegaatdy Addressed. Identdl which dbels firm the above checklist weer within the scope of and adalu tely analyzed m an earlier docue uM pursuant to applicable bO standards. and state whether such ef%cts was addressed by mitigation measurer based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measearar. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures bw pirated." describe the mitigation ahessurcs which ware incorporated or mfmod faen the eadw dorm M and the must to which they address situps ile conditions for the p mject 6) Lead agencies arc wcouraged to inewporate into the checklist r+efaences to infaanaeien wces for potan W impacts (e.g ill wd pleas, zoning ordinances). Refaeaee to a previously Prepared or outside docutunt should, where appropriate, include a refacm to the page or pages where the stateruavt is substantiated 7) Supporting Infarmation Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sours= used or individuals contacted should be ated to the discussion. 9) This is only a suggested form, and lead agmcies are free to use different formats; howava, lead agm ics should nomvally address the questions form this checklist that are relevant to a pn*d's eavkowmtal effects in whatever format is selected CITY/RVPU B/1999/313785 FORM '•r' Page 3 of 14 9) The consim of each iasno should ideattify: a) the sigmifimm auw a or tbrabold, if any, wed to evabu to each question; and b) the mitipd= xmme idadifiodif any, to reduce the impact to less than SiVatma SAMPLE QUESTION tom. Th. Issues: s'o:6°°" tw�raa.Ih► W16 t An 7br St�ri�ioutw4wm 3wwhmt No t L AESTHETICS. Would dw project: a) Have a dal adverse dl?ect on a seawi vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Substantially damage week resourc a. including, but not ❑ ❑ ❑ limited to, o est, rode awmappu4M and historic baildiop withia a state sw is big)tw�ry ? c) Snbstr dd* degrade theeciating visual clu racte r or quality 01 ❑ ❑ of the site ad its smrmoodinigs? d) Create a new source of su>soacfW light or glare winch ❑ ❑ ❑ would adveseilr affect day or nighttime views m the area? ff. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining impacts to agricultural resources are significant awboumattal effect, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assesument Mold (1997) prepaiW by the California Dept. o(Conssrvafm as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the pry a) Convert Prime Fwndamd, Unique Farmland, or Fan dand of ❑ ❑ ❑ Statewide Importance (Farralard), as down on the maps prepared pn vent to the Fwaland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Rescurces Agamy, to non- agriculo" use? b) Conflict wild existing zoning for agriculturai use, or a p ❑ [] Williamson Act coutract? CITYiRVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "j" Page 4 of 14 1.eairbm Issues: some" leAoti�Ntr Willi La" 7bm Si8ai6eeat No c) htvolve other cbariges in the okbug amvunnmeat whichr ❑ ❑ ❑ X dne to d1 r kmtim es nittllo, could U lull is conversion of / Finllaad, to non-g0vA turd un? M. AIR QUALITY. Whme avulaW the s ivific criteria established by ttW app4cabb aQ quahty nmagement at ar po8Alm cmtrol disarm nay be reWd upon to rndm dw fouawiog deoenAr+�nadons. Wotdd die pmjem a) Catiimt with or obstruct iAaplaAx:statwn of die apphcabb ❑ ❑ ❑ `� _ atr gudity phto� ` b) Violrte any air quality standard or contribute a bstantially 0 ❑ ❑ to an mistieg or projected air quality violation: c) Ramlt m a en mdatively cawiderabb na mmm of any ❑ ❑ [� criteria pAdmt for which die project mpon is noaattaisneot under as q*licabb federal or starve aeabiat air quality stmdud C missions which exceed qu=tWve dx=bokb far oaane ptocwwn)T d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial p gWtant ❑ ❑ ❑ +c m► 011i- iaosa e) Create objectionable odors of ectiag a substantial mnnber of ❑ ❑ ❑ Ample IV. 8I0LOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project a) Have a substantial advase effect, either directly or through ❑ (] ❑ babitat modifications, on any species Mudifled as a candidate sensitive or special status species in local or regional plain, policies, or reaulatioas, or by the Califarnia Depa bma of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? CIi'Y/RVPUBtl999/313785 FORM "P' Page 5 of 14 tw T!u Issoes: Fdrwti* sr:t�.. vri taw USE Me" 34060" Mel b) Have a substantial advasae that ca arty riparian *itat cr ❑ O ❑ other sensitive natural consta Miry identified in low or ragimal plena, policies, rqpbtoerr or by due Caliiacda Dgwb na~t of Fiah and Gam or U.S. Fab and WiWrf' o Service? c) Have a wbdw" adverse mint on. federWYy pratecie I ❑ ❑ I.7 walanda a: dofted by Section. 404 of the Ciao Wear Aet- (wdu&%& but, am Minded to, ran* vernal pool, coastal. etc.) ftaogh and semovaL Mum hydrobxw �anrptioo, or other means? . d) Lebarfaa substr r wuh the mw4ca mse a(my y native O O ❑ resident or migratory fob or wildlib,speciea at wills ob bisWd native resident ar mipso xy vrii&h eonidaM or impede the use of native vyrldlib aursrry silos? e) Conflict with nay local poiiaes or aedinaaoeN protecting D ❑ E3' bWogial rmaw c a, such as a Epee pnn.ervatiaa policy or ordinance? Q Ccatiiat with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ❑ ❑ D Cow"atioo Plat. Natural Cammaaity Conservatim PIkk or other approved bcw1, repauk or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the projat: A) Cava a substantial advaaa chanp in the sigawwanc a of a = ❑ ❑ ❑ historical resource as defined in # 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an ❑ D ❑ archaeological resource pursuant to # 15064.5? c) Dnctly or indirectly desUW a unique paleontological ❑ ❑ ❑ resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human mmains, including those interred outside Q ❑ ❑ Of formal cawaies? CITY/RVPUB/1999f313795 FARM "T' Page 6 of 14 t m lbn Issues: pmwdw� v ttl Lw Thr Hal b�pset iwooeprwi ta�sst VL GEOLOGY AND SOIIS - wouM the p Ciat �►)Eipm PoPb or r 10 POUR" sub 09W admw ❑ ❑ ❑ ' dbcts. ktb bg the risk of ktss, imjnry at death krahir g i) Rupon afa laio m aott>tq mb faun, as de aammd m the O ❑ 13 ' most recant Akpist-P" Ew&gatsias Fmk Zoe io6 MW issued by the Stam Ge ftia for the area a based on adner aubdmdd mvidom ofa, kwm fa W Refer to Dwm= of ' Mines ad Geokw Special PW3Ucmdm 42. iu) So=$ «imk poonmd ? ❑ O C] iii seianio-aetded Brormd 669% inc a fma liquefsdim? o o o iv •? Lmw>dee ❑ o ❑ �+ ' b) Remh in subdmd d soft ar+oaion osr the loss of toprod? ❑ ❑ O ' c) Be located on a pWaSic unit or soil tbet is uastabl% or due ❑ D ❑ w m ld becapre ale as a resell of the project. and Potentially rm* in m- or off4ta lamddidia, lateral ' *= din& subaitla>e., liquefacfim or couRm? d) Be located on axpansive anvil, as dcfiaed in Table III-1-B of 0 D O �. the U" m Building Code (l "4), creating subda AW risks to life or property? e) Have soil: incapable of adequately mppoatink tine um of ❑ CJ ❑ septic tasks or ake madve waste water disposal systms wbere sewers are trot availabb for tba disposal of waste watat ' V11. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would tine Pr'o1� a) Create a sipifncaat bazard to the public or the environonent D C] ❑ through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous ' mdaiala7 . tCITY/RVPUBlt " 999/313785 FORM 1" Page 7 of 14 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 d Ll H lsssra. Si Amw b) Cruces a t>ptiSaatat hazard to the public or the esvitraan m ❑ dm sh teaemi* Ala apses and aoadm aosMom kvoiviau the release a[bumdoms mataid: into the eavirarlraooc? • c) Emit ba=dau emiaiane or bade ha ndoars or ac d* ❑ bun does matm k mbstmocm or waste witlsis me. qoa w omile of m ads ar praposad school? d) Be located on a abe wbirb is bwki ed an a list of baaWaas ❑ rodamals.sbn Compiled pursaaat to ©wmmsaoit Code mcdoo 639 as sad, n a result, would it Create a 34pificud bawd to the public or d w sw sasneet? e) For a prajat baited within an airport land uas plan or, ❑ where suet a pin hu sot been adoptedwithin hm miles of a public airport or Public use airport, woom as prgat molt is a:afdy hated for peopia imft or wadmgis the pncject area? Lew flea Midi t.asTla� i�oorpsearl Yir�et ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ t) For a project wdbm the vmItyr of a private awsbV6 waukl ❑ ❑ (3 the project result m it safety hazes d for people nm&m or warldm� in the p:ajact arcs? g) hapsk imicameatatkm of or physically k tares with m ❑ ❑ ❑ adopted cmapm y respmose Plan ar enscrVency avaaratice Plsr? b) Elose people or sbuctLw= to a m1pufmw risk of low t ❑ ❑ ❑ injury or deatb mvolving wildlard fires, mckxbnp where wmands as adpecot to urbaaixed areas or vAme residwAm are Wermixed with wiLllands? Vill_ HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY, Wald the Phi a) Violate arty wata quality stWAM& or waste discharge ❑ ❑ ❑ mom? C1TY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM " 7" Page 2 of 14 tras'liierr Ils11Es: 1''�oeearir>lhr �� i.eas't� No .I�PM b"M b) Sulisbab+dty depiede Sroundwater supplies or inbert v D D )OC substarxi* with roundaatar 1rI WIN ao& that tbare would be a net deficit is aquifer vdume or a Iowa of the local raundwatar Wile lard (as. the moduction no of pig nearby walks would elrop to a k J whxh would ad support wastiog told users or pinned mow for wb & parents Jim been viinted)? a) Snbrtaondally sibcw dw ad drainage patters of the sib ar ❑ ❑ 13 on, including dirarf6 the alteration. of the coots, of a atevn.aor err rives, in. a msamear wtrich rraoid resWt is substantial erosion. or smatim as- a o8'-sibs? d) Sub Mddly alter the ebdsting draiaape pedbera of die cite a O D .0 are. bdu ft iuougb ire akw Lion of tie eaerse of a strum err Hives, or submwady iacrew the rat or mount of wrface runoff in a n.unm which would amilt is flooding on.- or off -site? e) Crate or coutribute nnwewmw vrluh would excad the ❑ D ❑ eapa kyof or plasened storm wares draiaape systems or provide substantial sdddsood sourm of polbod runofV f) Otherwise substantially degrrede water quality? ❑ 13 ❑ g) Place housing within. a 100.ym flood hazard area as O D ❑ mapped. an a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood lnn.rrance Rate Map or other flood hazard delinestioo asap? h) Place: wtdm a 100 *vwr flood hazard an suu *m wbwh Q ❑ Q would unpedc or redirect flood flows? i) Expose, people or stsucteue s to a sipni knot risk of ieaa, D ❑ O injury at death kmdK rg &*din& including flooding as a vault of the failure of a leave o or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsuouni, or mudilow? ❑ ❑ D CITY/ WPUB✓1999/313785 FORM "I" Page 9 of 14 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 hum: IX LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would du prtlject: a) Physically divide m established oomrmroity? b) CwM with any applicable lard nm plw poiiayy, or raguladoa of an apaay with juriadicdoa over the p c jeot (iochr ft bat not United to the pmaral plan, Pilo, twat oo®tal propram, or maing ordonce) adopted for the purpose ofavaidims ar mkwom m coviromaaotal aBeat? c) Conflict with my applicable habitat oanaarvatim plan or ad" aornmasdiy camaysdm Pin? X MWE RAL RESOURCES. Would tine project a) R uk in the lossof availability of a imawn mioetd resoam that would be of vdue to'dw woo= and the residents of the state? b) RmA in the less of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recamy site delineated on a locd'aewrd plan, specific plan or other lead un plan? Xt. NOISE Would ilia project result in: a) Exposure of persam to a genaatioa of noises laveb in excess of sundards established in the Iced Sm rd plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 0 b) EVosme of persons to or generation of wwassive gro+ dmw vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase is ambient now levels m the project virility above levels costing without the Mod? d) A substantial taoparary or periodic increase in ambiert noise levels in the prgcd vicinity above levels existing without the project? LOW Tr S�/iitiena !► V tt LMM Ttw 1�MiaM1a No 1 0 0 ❑ �t a ❑ o � 0 0 0 ,Y( O O O o o ❑ o a o 'K CITY/RVPUH/1999/313785 FORM «J" Page 10 of 14 '1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 lums: e) For a projeuot Wftd vAda an airport lead use piss or, wbom sock a p1m bas ant Loos within two miles of a public akpart orptA& ume airport, would the prcpa exPon Pmb randigi d'*akinf in the Pipet an to e�oceaaive aaisa lauds? fl For a p cpd widum the vacmay of a pnvade air UW6 would the project euPaapeople rounding or vmmking in the pnpd sea to oassmive wise laves? )a POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project a) l wkm submardial population growth is as sea, either &mcdy (for a mwb by proposing mw•boaaos and businesses) or lad nxdy (for example, throngb axmm ion of road or other irdr chne)? b) Displace suubasaatid numbers of maxaM housing, neoessit the construction of replaocumat bu sing c) Displace subswrtid auabai a�ipoopia,nacessitatingthe construction ofreplacemc bmmg daa►bom? XIIL PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the Wgoct: a) Result in substantial advase Or" impacts Assorted with the provision of new or physically -hared Savauummotd fw iidm need for new or pbyaicaliy dtered govelrnrneatd facilities, the construction, of which could cause sigificmt anviromnea al impacts, is area► to maintain acceptable savice ratios, response time- or other performarae objectives for say of the public mviccar. Eire protection? Police Protection? Schools? CITY/RVPUBJ1999l313795 Page I 1 of 14 Lm TLw W"m ❑ X 0 13 FORM "I" i si.ar ta>�rioa a*dmw Nab bopma Parks? O D ❑ Odmr p Aft facdifw? ❑ ❑ ❑ 1 MV. RECREAnON. Would the project a) Mama the m of addWS ndohmbood and reg ad O O ❑ parks or other roaomiomd fad*W rah dud mbataoU physical dcto moradaa of the fiteiW wmM amm or be acodarated? b) Dm ft =*mb Or=Wn O ❑ Cll the c000ucdmaraxpow=of" amtiooal hcftn ' which bm m adverse physxaal dFAet oa the amiroarneat? XV. UMSPORTAnON / TRAFFIC. Would tba' project: a) Causer an iecreaae it traffic whidi is substaatird m rdatiae Q ❑ D too the aciriinug traf6a load a w capacity (A the soft sy:tom (i.e., I=* is a in +mMW tha numbir of vddah trips, the vdema to apsa w foo oa ' toads, ar conam" at it.1moedion)? b) Bxooed, either individually ar cmnulatively, a lord of p p ❑ service standard coMished by do coumy eonla" =wgemW agency for desipated road: or hig)rways? c) Result in a chap in air ttWU patterns, mchdrog c idw ❑ ❑ ❑ an ire m traffic Wids or a rhmp m location chat results in sub"" risks? d) Substantially bwan buwds due to a desip feature ❑ ❑ 0 �] (e.g. slurp curves or darrgac+ons irMmvfions) or incompatible uses (&&. farm equipm mt)? e) Result in ' a A=? CITYIRVPUH/1999/313795 FORM " r IPage 12 of 14 - LrThm ► , lssuaa: penavddly VA& LAs 7bm No 1 la►poot L►oorpoeand lewd Result in kadequate Parlda6 capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ g� Cciodl c wish adepted policies, plans, apt nip wo ❑ ❑ ❑ , suppo tiag Ahmn lef" tr�pa-ta- (e.&, Us msaotrrs, bkycl*racks)? JNI. UTII.1?IES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. would tiro point A) bow wwwwatar tresumot mqA=Uvds area ❑ ❑ ❑ applipMe Regirmal water Quality CWW Board? ' b) Requim cc unk in the consbuctiao of am wstar or ❑ ❑ ❑ wapawatar geatmaat Bias or ex;palioa ofodsting ' %cilwaa, the ouratto bm of wbich oonld awe sipifiaat iroeasnc i i i affecut ' c) Requbs or raspk in the conswictim ofnew atom wan ❑ ❑ ❑ drainage facilities or agwnioo of existing fatalities, dw conso uctioa of wbub Gould sons significant eaviroaanattal effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the ❑ ❑ ❑ project 6om ansting at do neroa and resanees, or are new at expanded aditk ments needed? ' e) Result is a deta winstion by dw wastawater aeabmant ❑ ❑ ❑ provides wbich serves or may servo the project that it has ' adequate capacity to serve the pwject's projected danand w additwa to the provider's mustias Consutma u? ` n Be served by a landfill with mdficicat permitted capacity ❑ ❑ 1, ❑ to aaoornmedate the project's solid waste disposal n eads? g) Comply with fedend, state, and local statutes and ❑ ❑ ❑ regulations rclatod to solid waste? CITY/RVPUB/19"/313Tg5 FORM 67 ' Page 13 of 14 LOU Thm him' pQwmd#lbr W16 Lance 3i/i6um W"Pbft swfiow No b XVH. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project home the potam to deptade the +g "W D D ❑ of die arvieom ent, substantially wim the babitat or a fob ar wildlife specirn;, came a fob or wildlife pops bdm w atop bdowsalt= levels. thrmm to a plait or animal cohmaahoity. iodises tbeataubet a restrict dw rasps of a race or andanpaed plant ormimat or db ubme iwportant examples of the major periods of Cahlbrais history ar prchistory? b) Does doe project here bapacts that ore bW ivW= ly D D D limited, but aamhlaaivdy oamWerable? (iively masiA, Md' msme that the inhamumad duets of a project are considerable wbm viewed in connection with the effaces of past projects. the effew of odw Carl" project, and the effeects of probable htura projects.) c) Does the project bave ahvinoamantat dterss W" wm ❑ ❑ ❑ 10, cause a bstantud adverse effects on 1mw bums. adwr dirodly ar indirectly? C I TX/R VP'UB/ 1999/313785 FORM "J" Page 14 of 14 a CITY OF PALM DESERT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community DevelopmeqA From: Mark Greenwood, P.E., Director of Public Works Date: November 14, 2012 Subject: Whole Foods (PP12-223) Traffic Study Public Works staff has reviewed the plans and associated information relative to the proposed Whole Foods location and have determined that a traffic study is not required. If there are any questions regarding this matter, please let me know. /bl cc: Christina Canales, Assistant Engineer Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner '—I 1 —11 .."I'l 41- N aJ 0 cc CL gg: 0 z 7. a ol 2 1, :R � ..N �: .1H � � ou-f �- ■ 88W96C'619'=3 0917C*96C'619 euoqdalel 1OZ9'[W6 D!Ujoj!loD '0691(l uDS '00[ apS joaijSqjY[ 3VO1 SKAPHOV lllOZ)Yq ?003 A38WV Ep ye ,, ... u co, OWD u i9 u ci a ¢g g 0 WHO ONIUYM a3mi lfl---------- R gR 11 Iiing J�jnl gong g N .,Mi h IRA 884£We'619 XDJ 09K 96C'619 GUOL49191 IOZS'1O[66 oplopIOZ) '0601(1 uiDS '001 a41nS laajj54141 gto[ S1D3IIK8V 1110nN NOOD A3d8MV uj n 9 >- IJ!"Iliq w I N w !E �� � z 50 E ­� g� :5 u ( u -. uA um, -5 Ry') m 121 w Wua ONfNVM 0333 . .... . .... Ut HM 1:7 MIR q- M I xzTT MOM 99VE'96C'619 09VC'96C'6t9 auoqdajGj [M'IM6 DIUJOJ!100 '0001 UDS '001 ajpS {aoilSqlVi gpol U0311H38V ITODN �000 AMUMV 00 U Z9 Q 2 CV) 0 Po vt5 %51 S84C'96C'6t9 XDJ 084£'86C'619 Guot4daial tOZg'[Ot66 Djujopoz) 'o5ai uoS '00 L e4!nS �aajjS �4V StC)t vi SID311HOdV 1119Z)Vq )1003 1.9MV g V Jj P 1z 00 U �K hill 11 g 0, 0 0 p I. a ie . . .............. . S - — ------------ �1tit A 1 V1, 111-11, AL— *M= 0 LD 4v 0 10 0 A 0 884£'86£'6 t 9 0911EWE'619 auOL4daial [OZ9'[OtZ6 DjWOjjjDZ) '06910 UDS '001 QjjnS IG94SL141,[ 9401 SI3311HONV ' 1110ON NOOD 1,3N9MV 1Z :j Aq H! 0 rt M 0 A2 ...SFi R u Ul z 0 a 0. 64 *1 z IN gig 1, i 717M 15 tiff!" It'll I I @] rvj a I E H H LE On IIJ LIEN E Z M L-1 A CM© N R N M M Ic QMN z w 0 89tlC'e6C'619 'XDd OW 96C'619 am4dalal IOZ9'10166 OP10003 '00914 UDS '00[ aflnS 19GAS 4141 9401 SIDDPHDW 1119OVq A000 AJaMV M00,56 K :2n 3:0 0 1- 143 4 1 go 0 9w 0 P, EEB 0EE00E190 (09HE Igg 0 1 CI ICI C: I IT 0 ol 0 > 0 1cti+�i r�i Q- Jry 61 J Lk J, 10 11 0 I Kax: 9 so ........... OEM 0 L* 0 10 lz 99K"866*619'xDJ 0RK'966'M9 GLJoqdajai tOZ9'1W6 quioppo 'Oboi(iuDs 'oot *4jnS �,goilSqjVt 3VO[ SIDDIIHDdV ITOOW A003 h,MOMV 0 1L 0 "00 u u ey HIM, �z P11,104 Ig loll OSE EI00EI0E910 [M591 (ENEEMOMOMMMMEM] mum s , z 0 z o lei !q jq pal Nil ILL !W'o A v yo, I-P Nos o 15 Igo I& > -<r6b6w*6:r+ ru 7 7 7 7 7 Z Z Z E E < < < < < < < < < u u u u u u C) u u z < z z z z z z z <Z Z Z 0 (D Z Z Ed Ed Ed id id ( id IA180 ONWVM 08A h�H4 1�� UM 1 2 s U) LLJ 0 2-1 z 0 0 :2 LU M 2 2f LU 0 M C CL uj AMgg HIM .... ... ... . 10 9 OTS .0 0 a 0 0 (Djel(Doe 0 a 0- If -TIA 0 G 0 0 0 o 0 o - - --------- \x w I I J o Hm --------- -- ega 8 H41! !,� C-� i9 -- . ........ .. . - tI- I pope m ui z ui w z W 0 0 z < Z Lu EL I m 6 lSONri1 0 "0 96 lhi 0, ni oe n. a Is a Aj ..... ..... I a N .. ...... . . . . . ........ .... C) CL j- I Air-) -I! 0 qe )(D a 0 0 07 (D 0 a (D 0 ------ A C Is HIM < 2 E co < 0 a) E CL 0 a- ccru 4 I S Zjl "0 05, uu 121- Lij CL uj f V n CL o 0- 0000 O eGIO(D-8 8 0 0- 'JAI 1,111PI .................... N Nil 4 0 0 G (D 0 0 0 0 0 ---- - - ---------- - - - - --- ---------- - I 8 Ou L; M- I U� IL LIJ CL ca 94 C, z W < .. ...... ... 10-11-Iff"R I fill 00 0 - - ----------- - �,08009010 98E-)(D e (D Q) JI A G E) (D 0 0 0 00 — ------ — - -------- -- I 0 CL 2- LLJ 0- Fw z uj IL . ... .... — - -- ------ A... 4 (D 0 G (B I (D e L—L 0 ------ --- - - - - ----------- ....... ..... --- CIO �j 6 6 -7 CD uj a- c) Z' z cr- UJ V cr- CL JAP,z se .-I L A -M 4 *- 0 0 G (D 0 0 0 0 0 C.-) 0 ty . ........ ... 9ANG ONNVM (13W a O:� 'OF I 5-pr- 3<� lu: ZQS LU Q- If, z "C uj CL I A m I j I I I I P — — - — - - - - - - - - -------------- lip ol o jejejejel o ooc>oo 8 08 I'M - -------- ------- - - - ------- ...... .... o 0 e 0 0 0 8 0 0 G o BA180 OWAft (198:4 (D �fo c - I 0 0 I IP� on L CL LLI EL C) 1 Zi Lli