Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout17B Ord 1059 C/Z 03-10, PP 03-11, DA 03-03 University Village - 37001 Cook Street - Rick EvansREQUEST: CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT Consideration of granting second reading to an ordinance for a change of zone and development agreement addendum to Development Agreement 97-2 expanding Planning Area #3 of the Wonder Palms Master Plan, and a resolution approving a precise plan of design for 122,000 square feet of gross leasable office space, 1 10,880 square feet of gross leasable retail including one drive- thru restaurant adjacent to Gerald Ford Drive, a three-story hotel with up to 130 rooms, a height exception for tower elements, and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates thereto, for 23.6 acres at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive, 37-001 Cook Street. SUBMITTED BY: Steve Smith, Planning Manager APPLICANT: Rick Evans 57745 I nterlachen La Quinta, CA 92253 CASE NOS: C/Z 03-10, PP 03-11 and DA 03-03 DATE: April 8, 2004 rescheduled from December 11, 2003 CONTENTS: Recommendation Discussion Ordinance No. 1059 Resolution No. 04-26 City Council Staff Report dated December 11, 2003 with related attachments City Council Minutes of December 11, 2003 Related Exhibits Recommendation: That the City Council waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 1059 approving C/Z 03-10 and DA 03-03. Staff Report Case Nos. PP 03-011 and DA 03-03 Page 2 March 30, 2004 That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 04-26 approving PP 03-11, subject to conditions. That by minute motion the City Council approve the project marketing sign as requested by the applicant. Discussion: This matter was before City Council December 11, 2003 at which time the draft ordinance (No. 1059) was given first reading and the resolution related to the precise plan and second reading of the ordinance was continued until such time as the General Plan process has been considered for this area. In the interim the applicant was requested to refine the issues discussed at the hearing (i.e., height, acceleration/deceleration lanes, setbacks, public art, areas for entry signage, bus stop(s), spine road, hotel design, and adjacency to future projects in the vicinity. REPORT ON ISSUES Hotel: The applicant has presented revised hotel plans to the ARC at its meetings of February 24 and March 9, 2004 (minutes attached). The plans were given preliminary approval on a 6-0 vote. The hotel architecture has been enhanced with additional detailing and stronger entry on the east and west. The building is basically 32 feet in height to the main parapet and 35'6" to the higher parapet. The entry tower element is 42 feet. Art in Public Places: The applicant indicates that relative to the placement of public art on the site he is amenable to providing either one large item or a series of smaller items placed around the site. This should be determined by AIPP and the City Council. The Arts Manager is in agreement with this process. Staff Report Case Nos. PP 03-011 and DA 03-03 Page 3 March 30, 2004 City Entry Sign: The site plan now reflects an area for placement of a city entry sign at Cook Street and Gerald Ford. Pedestrian Bridge Over Cook Street: The site plan provides a "landing pad" for a future pedestrian overpass over Cook Street south of the mid block entry on Cook Street. This location would not be available if the "continuous" accel/decel lane option is selected. If the continuous option is selected, then the plan will need to be modified to provide an alternative location. Acceleration/Deceleration Lanes: December 11, 2003 the City Council asked if there would be an acceleration lane at the mid block access to Cook Street. Ideally, acceleration/deceleration lanes should be non -continuous so that thru traffic and vehicles making turns are separated. The original plan shows a continuous free right -turn lane from east bound Gerald Ford to south bound Cook Street continuing and becoming the deceleration lane at the mid block access. To avoid creating a continuous fourth lane, no acceleration lane was shown. When acceleration/deceleration lanes merge with each other and become continuous, it can be perceived as a fourth (4th) thru lane which in this case could extend the full length from Gerald Ford to Frank Sinatra (one mile). These problems can be somewhat mitigated with striping; however, there is still the potential for driver confusion. The current site plan provides setbacks of 47 to 55 feet from the curb. This plan can accommodate the additional 12 feet of widening, but it will reduce the minimum setbacks to 35 feet and will eliminate the preferred landing pad location for the pedestrian bridge (discussed above). Staff Report Case Nos. PP 03-011 and DA 03-03 Page 4 March 30, 2004 The City Engineer indicated from his perspective both options have pros and cons. If the added acceleration lanes eliminate the best location for the pedestrian bridge landing pad, then that could tilt the argument. If City Council determines that the acceleration lane is required, then the plan can be amended to provide an alternative location for the pedestrian bridge landing pad. Construction of Master Plan Street Improvements: With respect to installation of remainder of the streets in the area, the property owners and city staff have met to work on creation of an assessment district which will fund those improvements. This project can be conditioned that certain street improvements must be installed prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy. SIGN REQUEST The applicant requests approval of one project marketing sign which is to be located at the corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive. The sign is an attractive photo simulation of the project with copy applied reading: "University Village, Palm Desert California... A mixed use retail, hotel and garden office condo development." The sign face will be seven feet high by a width of 12 feet (84 square feet) with an overall height of 12 feet. Two riders (3' x 3' each) will be attached to the upper corners of the main sign. Approval of such a sign is not without precedent in that Desert Crossing was approved with three 48 square foot marketing signs. In this case the applicant seeks approval of one larger sign. Staff recommends that the requested special "project marketing" sign be approved in lieu of typical "land division" signs (M.C. Section 25.68.590). CONCLUSION The general plan process has been completed. This property is designated for commercial development. The project to the south and west will be considered Staff Report Case Nos. PP 03-011 and DA 03-03 Page 5 March 30, 2004 by Planning Commission April 20, 2004 and it confirms the location of Spine Road. The applicant has used the period from December 11, 2003 to address the issues which were raised by City Council (see previous section of this report). Staff recommends that Ordinance No. 1059 be adopted, that the appropriate resolution be adopted approving the precise plan subject to conditions, and that by minute motion the requested project marketing sign be approved in lieu of the "land division" signs. Submitted by: tJaCte Steve Smith Planning Manager Approval: Homer Croy ACM for Devel ment Services Department Head: Phil Drell Director of Community Development Approval: L. Ortega anager (W pd o c s\tm \s r\P P 03-11. cc3 ) ORDINANCE NO. 1059 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM PR-5 TO PCD, AN ADDENDUM TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 97-2, AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS IT RELATES THERETO, EXPANDING PLANNING AREA #3 OF THE WONDER PALMS MASTER PLAN AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF COOK STREET AND GERALD FORD DRIVE, 37-001 COOK STREET. CASE NOS. C/Z 03-10 AND DA 03-03 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the llth day of December, 2003, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by RICK EVANS for approval of the above described project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2231 has recommended approval of said change of zone and development agreement; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 02-60," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project will not have an adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is warranted based on the data provided as part of the University Village Master Plan, the General Plan Update and EIR; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify approval of said request: 1. That the proposed change of zone and development agreement are consistent with the existing General Plan. 2. That the proposed change of zone and development agreement are consistent with all proposed alternatives considered in the General Plan Update. 3. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the change of zone and development agreement. ORDINANCE NO. 1059 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. 2. That C/Z 03-10, attached hereto as Exhibit "A", is hereby approved. 3. That DA 03-03, an addendum to DA 97-2, attached hereto as Exhibit "B", is hereby approved. 4. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, attached hereto as Exhibit "C", is hereby certified. 5. That the property contained within the expanded Wonder Palms Master Plan Planning Area #3 shall be exempted from Ordinance 1047 (the moratorium). 6. The City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby directed to publish this ordinance in the Desert Sun, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the city of Palm Desert, California, and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this day of , 2003, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 2 P.R.-5 P.R.-5 P.C.D., FCOZ, ORD837 P.C.D., FCOZ ORD837 7o OHO P.C.D., FCOZ ORD837 P.C.D., FCOZ, ORD837 P.R.-5 P.C.D., FCOZ, ORD837 I P.C.D., FCOZ, 11 OR 837 P.C.11, 1 FCOZ �P:C:D CFCOZ I � 1 1 �� GER,4LD /� P.C.D., FCOZ FRANK SINATRA DR City of Palm Desert Case No. C/Z 03-10 CHANGE OF ZONE EXHI 1. IT A P.R.-5 P.R.-5 BERGER RD P.R.-5 P.G.D. P.C.D. P.C.D. Proposed Zoning Change P.R.-5 To P.C.D. CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 1059 Date: 7 ORDINANCE NO. 1059 EXHIBIT "B" ADDENDUM TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DA-97-2 (WONDER PALMS) This Addendum ("Addendum") to Development Agreement DA-97-2 ("Development Agreement") is made and entered into this day of , 2004, by and between the City of Palm Desert, California, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California (the "City"), and , ("Developer"), with reference to the following facts, understandings and intentions of the parties: RECITALS A. On April 24, 1997, the City adopted Ordinance 838 approving Development Agreement DA-97-2 (the "Development Agreement"), attached hereto as Exhibit "A", for a development commonly known as "Wonder Palms". The Development Agreement was recorded in the records of Riverside County, California, as instrument No. 179687 on May 22, 1997 and remains in full force and effect. B. The Development Agreement provides certain assurances that the property ("Property") subject to the Development Agreement as described in Exhibit "B" of the Development Agreement will be permitted to develop according to the Development Plan and Existing Land Use Ordinances, as defined by the Development Agreement, for the term of t.4at Agreement. C. The Development Plan provides for six enumerated Planning Areas and specific development parameters for each Planning Area. D. On day of , 2004, the City approved Precise Plan 03-11 ("Precise Plan") attached hereto as Exhibit "C" which provides for a mixed use commercial development which lies partially within Planning Area 3 of the Development Plan, and partially on property that is not currently subject to the Development Agreement. Specifically Precise Plan 03-11 provides for 122,000 square feet of gross leaseable office space,110,880 square feet of gross leaseable retail including one drive-thru restaurant adjacent to Gerald Ford Drive and a three story hotel ,42 feet in height, with up to 130 rooms. E. Developer owns all the property subject to the Precise Plan, as more particularly described in Exhibit "B" hereto ("Precise Plan Property"). F. City and Developer desire to supercede the Development Agreement, with respect to the Precise Plan Property only, to expand Planning Area 3 to include all of the Precise Plan RMPUB\RWH\225373 1 ORDINANCE NO. 1059 Property including that portion that is not currently subject to the Development Agreement, to substitute the Precise Plan for the development standards for Planning Area 3, and to continue in effect the assurances that the Precise Plan Property will be permitted to develop according to the Precise Plan and Existing Land Use Ordinances pursuant to the terms of the Development Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the authority contained in the Development Agreement legislation, as defined in the Development Agreement, and in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises of the parties therein contained, the parties agree that Development Agreement DA-97-02 is hereby superceded, with respect to the Precise Plan Property only, as follows: SECTION 1. The property subject to this Addendum shall be the Precise Plan Property only. SECTION 2. The Precise Plan shall be the "Development Plan", as defined and described in the Development Agreement, for the Precise Plan Property. Development within the Precise Plan Property shall be in accordance with the Precise Plan and, except as otherwise provided in the Precise Plan, in accordance with Existing Land Use Ordinances of the City as defined in the Development Agreement. SECTION 3. SECTION 4. SECTION 5. Section 5 of the Development Agreement (regarding Mid -Valley Storm Channel Dedication) is deleted. Section 6 of the Development Agreement (regarding Art in Public Places) is deleted. The owner shall be allowed as a minor amendment, without further public hearing, an increase in the size of approved buildings of not more than 10% provided said expansion complies with all other code provisions. SECTION 6. Transfers and Assignments; Effect of Agreement on Title. 6.1 Rights and Interests Appurtenant . The rights and interests conveyed as provided herein to Developer benefit and are appurtenant to the Property. Developer has the right to sell, assign and transfer any and all of its rights and interests hereunder and to delegate and assign any and all of its duties and obligations hereunder. Such rights and interests hereunder may not be sold, transferred or assigned and such duties and obligations may not be delegated or assigned except in compliance with the following conditions: RMPUB\RW H\225373 2 ORDINANCE NO. 1059 (i) Said rights and interests may be sold, transferred or assigned only together with and as an incident of the sale, lease, transfer or assignment of the portions of the Property to which they relate, including any transfer or assignment pursuant to any foreclosure of a Mortgage or a deed in lieu of such foreclosure. Following any such sale, transfer or assignment of any of the rights and interests of Developer under this Agreement, the exercise, use and enjoyment thereof shall continue to be subject to the terms of this Agreement to the same extent as if the purchaser, transferee or assignee were Developer hereunder. 6.2 Covenants Run with Land . (i) All of the provisions, agreements, rights, powers, standards, terms, covenants and obligations contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon the parties and their respective heirs, successors (by merger, consolidation, or otherwise) and assigns, devisees, lessees, and all other persons acquiring any rights or interests in the Property, or any portion thereof, whether by operation of laws or in any manner whatsoever, and shall inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective heirs, successors (by merger, consolidation oi• otherwise) and assigns; (ii) All of the provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitudes and constitute covenants running with the land pursuant to applicable law; (iii) Each covenant to do or refrain from doing some act on the Property hereunder (A) is for the benefit of and is a burden upon every portion of the Property, (B) runs with such lands, and (C) is binding upon each party and each successive owner during its ownership of the Property or any portions thereof, and shall benefit each party and its lands hereunder, and each such other person or entity succeeding to an interest in such lands. SECTION 7. Notices. Any notice to either party shall be in writing and given by delivering the same to such party in person or by sending the same by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, with postage prepaid, to the following addresses: RMPUB\R\VH'225373 3 ORDINANCE NO. 1059 If to City: City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 If to Developer: Either party may change its mailing address at any time by giving written notice of such change to the other party in the manner provided herein. All notices under this Agreement shall be deemed given, received, made or communicated on the date personal delivery is effected or, if mailed, on the delivery date or attempted delivery date shown on the return receipt. SECTION 8. Except to the extent of any inconsistency with this Addendum, all provisions of the Development Agreement are incorporated herein by this reference and shall remain in full force and effect. RMPUB'RW H\225373 [SIGNATURES APPEAR ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 4 ORDINANCE NO. 1059 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Addendum as of the date and year first -above written. "DEVELOPER" "CITY" City of Palm Desert, California, a Municipal Corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California RMPUB\RWH\.225373 By , Mayor ATTEST: Rachelle Klassen, City Clerk City of Palm Desert 5 13 t,AL1r UK1r IA ALL-1' U KYUaL Al.lilr U W LL' IJli1VML' 1V 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ORDINANCE NO. 1059 COUNTY OF COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE On before me, personally appeared ❑ personally known to me - OR - 0 proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature of Notary My commission expires: OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of This form to another document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: Document Date: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Number of Pages: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: ❑ Individual ❑ Corporate Officer Title(s): ❑ Partner — o O Trustee 0 Limited 0 General RMPUB'RW 11\225373 Top of thumb here Signer's Name: ❑ Individual ❑ Corporate Officer Title(s): O Partner — ❑ Limited 0 General O Attorney -in -Fact ❑ Top of thumb here 6 ORDINANCE NO. 1059 o Guardian or Conservator Other: Signer is Representing: RMPUB\RW H1225373 ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: Signer is Representing: ORDINANCE NO. 1059 EXHIBIT "C" Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the California Code of Regulations. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NOS: C/Z 03-10 AND DA 03-03 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Rick Evans 57745 Interlachen La Quinta, CA 92253 A change of zone from PR-5 to PCD, an addendum to Development Agreement 97-2, and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates thereto, expanding Planning Area #3 of the Wonder Palms Master Plan at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive, 37-001 Cook Street. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. PHILIP DRELL DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RESOLUTION NO, 04-26 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN, AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS IT RELATES THERETO, FOR 122,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS LEASABLE OFFICE SPACE, 110,880 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS LEASABLE RETAIL INCLUDING ONE DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT ADJACENT TO GERALD FORD DRIVE, AND A THREE- STORY HOTEL WITH UP TO 130 ROOMS AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF COOK STREET AND GERALD FORD DRIVE, 37-001 COOK STREET. CASE NO. PP 03-1 1 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 1 1 th day of December, 2003, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by RICK EVANS for approval of the above described project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2231 has recommended approval of said precise plan; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 02-60," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project will not have an adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is warranted based on the data provided as part of the University Village Master Plan, the General Plan Update and EIR; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify approval of said request: 1. The proposed precise plan will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this title, except for approved exceptions permitted through the development agreement process. 2. The proposed location of the office / retail / hotel complex and the conditions under which it will be operated and maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 1-) RESOLUTION NO. 04-26 3. The proposed precise plan complies with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City's General Plan and all alternatives considered in the General Plan Update. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. 2. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, attached hereto as Exhibit "A", is hereby certified 3. That the City Council does hereby approve Case No. PP 03-1 1, subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this day of , by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 2 , Mayor RESOLUTION NO. 04-26 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. PP 03-11 Department of Community Development: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the department of community development/planning, as modified by the following conditions: 2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval or the term provided for in Development Agreement 03-03 (DA 97-2 as amended), whichever is greater. 3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statues now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permit and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas. Said placement shall be approved by applicable trash company and department of community development and shall include provisions for recycling. 6. All future occupants of the buildings shall comply with parking requirements provided in DA 03-03. 3 RESOLUTION NO. 04-26 7. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said landscaping for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which agreement shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. The final landscape plan shall include a long-term maintenance program specifying among other matters appropriate watering times, fertilization and pruning for various times of the year for the specific materials to be planted, as well as periodic replacement of materials. All to be consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801) and the approved landscape plan. 8. A detailed parking lot and field lighting plan shall be submitted to staff for approval, subject to applicable lighting standards. Plan to be prepared by a qualified lighting engineer. 9. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the department of public works prior to architectural review commission submittal. 10. The project shall be subject to all applicable fees at time of issuance of building permits including, but not limited to, Art in Public Places, Fringed -Toed Lizard, TUMF, School Mitigation and Housing Mitigation fees. 11. That the project shall be permitted medical office use provided said medical office use shall be parked at a rate of six parking spaces per 1,000 square feet per Municipal Code Section 25.56.310. 12. That the approval of PP 03-11 shall not be effective until the related Development Agreement (DA 03-03) is approved by the City Council. Department of Public Works 1. Any drainage facility construction required for this project shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to start of construction. The project shall be designed to retain storm waters associated with the increase in developed vs. undeveloped condition for a 100 year storm. 2. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of any permits associated with this 4 RESOLUTION NO. 04-26 project. Modification of existing signals at Gerald Ford and Technology Drive, and at Cook and Berger Circle West, may be used as credit against these fees, at the discretion of the City Council. 3. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance. 4. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 5. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits. 6. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works. 7. As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance with Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. Offsite improvement plans to be approved by the Public Works Department and a surety posted to guarantee the installation of required offsite improvements prior to permit issuance. 8. Landscape installation on the property frontages as well as on -site shall be drought tolerant in nature and maintenance shall be provided by the property owner. 9. Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust Control and Section 24.20, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. 10. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.44, complete grading plans/site improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. Preliminary landscape plans shall be submitted for review concurrently with grading plans. 11. Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 5 RESOLUTION NO. 04-26 12. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards, the city's Circulation Network, and the University Village Offsite Street Site Plan dated November 4, 2003 including the following: • Curb, gutter, paving sidewalk on Gerald Ford Drive, Cook Street, Technology Drive, Spine Road, and Berger Drive. • Gerald Ford Drive shall be constructed to a half -street width of 45' on 75' right of way minimum, plus free right turn lane onto Cook Street. • Cook Street shall be constructed to a half -street width of 51' on 75' right of way minimum, plus free right turn lane from Gerald Ford Drive. • Landscaped center median on Cook Street, Gerald Ford Drive, and Berger Circle. • Signal modifications at Cook and Berger Circle West, Gerald Ford and Technology Drive. • Right tum lanes at all entrances, and on Cook Street at Berger Circle. • Construction of a bus facility with turnout as required by Sunline Transit Agency. • Construct a free right turn lane with deceleration and acceleration lanes on the southwest corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive. Ultimate street improvements on Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive shall be installed prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for P . ltimate Street improvements on Technology Drive, Spine Road, and B ger Drive hall be installed prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy or a sequent phase. Rights -of -way necessary for the installation of the above referenced improvements shall be dedicated to the city prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. 13. This project shall be limited to one driveway on Gerald Ford Drive, one driveway on Cook Street and one driveway on Berger Circle, with right turn ingress and egress. The Cook Street driveway may also be provided with left tum ingress subject to final design and approval by the City Engineer. The Gerald Ford Drive driveway may also be provided with left turn ingress subject to final design and approval by the City Engineer. Two full access driveways may be permitted on Spine Road. Driveways and parking Tots shall be inspected by the Public Works Department and a standard inspection fee paid prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 6 RESOLUTION NO. 04-26 14. Proposed Ber• - r Drive all match the width of Ber• - r Drive • the east. Proposed Technology D ive -' be constructed to a width of 2' • 6' right of way to match Technology Drive to the north. Spine Road shall be constructed to a half street width of 26' on 38' right of way minimum, with a 12' raised, landscaped median island. Spine Road shall be widened to provide a minimum of four traffic lanes at key intersections, as determined by the City Engineer. Interim street widths shall conform to the approved rough grading plan. 15. Parcel Map shall be required to erase existing property lines, establish new property lines and make dedications for future street widening. 16. A traffic study has been prepared and accepted for this project. Fire Department Conditions 1. With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced project, the fire department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Code, NFPA, CFC and CBC or any recognized Fire Protection Standards: The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all buildings per UFC article 87. 2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20 psi residual pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site, 3000 gpm for commercial buildings and 150' from any portion of a commercial building measured via vehicular travelway. 3. Water Plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the water system will produce the required fire flow. 4. Install and complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all buildings with a 3000 square foot total cumulative floor area. The fire Marshal shall approve the locations of all post indicator valves and fire department connections. All valves and connections shall not be less than 25' from the building within 50' of an approved hydrant. Exempted are one and two family dwellings. 5. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and Water - flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per UBC chapter 9. 7 RESOLUTION NO, 04-26 6. Install a fire alarm system as required by the UBC Chapter 3. 7. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than one 2A10BC extinguisher per 3000 square feet and not over 75' from walking distance. A `K' type fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens. 8. Install a Hood/Duct automatic fire extinguisher system per NFPA 96 in all public and private cooking operations except single-family residential usage. 9. All building shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall not be less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is required on both sides of the street the roadway must be 36' wide and 32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn -around 55' in industrial developments. 10. A dead end single access over 500' will require a secondary access, sprinklers or other mitigative measures approved by the Fire Marshal. Under no circumstances shall a dead end over 1300' be accepted. 11. A second access is required. This can be accomplished by two main access points from a main roadway or an emergency gate from an adjoining development. 12. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city: 13. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be submitted separately tot he Fire Marshal for approval prior to construction. 14. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when building permits are not obtained within twelve months. 15. Verify all turning radii are a 45 degree radius. 8 RESOLUTION NO. 04-26 EXHIBIT "A" Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the California Code of Regulations. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: PP 03-1 1 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Rick Evans 57745 Interlachen La Quinta, CA 92253 A Precise Plan of Design, and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates thereto, for 122,000 square feet of gross leasable office space, 110,880 square feet of gross leasable retail including one drive-thru restaurant adjacent to Gerald Ford Drive, and a three-story hotel with up to 130 rooms at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive, 37-001 Cook Street. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. PHILIP DRELL DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9 REQUEST: CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT Consideration of approval of a change of zone, development agreement addendum to Development Agreement 97-2 expanding Planning Area #3 of the Wonder Palms Master Plan, a precise plan of design for 122,000 square feet of gross leasable office space, 110,880 square feet of gross leasable retail including one drive- thru restaurant adjacent to Gerald Ford Drive, a three-story hotel with up to 130 rooms, and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates thereto, for 23.6 acres at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive, 37-001 Cook Street. SUBMITTED BY: Steve Smith, Planning Manager APPLICANT: Rick Evans 57745 Interlachen La Quinta, CA 92253 CASE NOS: C/Z 03-10, PP 03-11 and DA 03-03 DATE: December 11, 2003 CONTENTS: Recommendation Discussion Planning Commission Staff Reports dated September 2, 2003 and October 21, 2003 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2231 recommending approval Planning Commission Minutes of September 2, 2003 Related Exhibits Recommendation: That the City Council pass Ordinance No. to second reading relating to C/Z 03-10 and DA 03-03. That the City Council adopt Resolution No. approving PP 03-11, subject to conditions. �i� Staff Report Case Nos. PP 03-011 and DA 03-03 Page 2 December 11, 2003 Discussion: PROJECT OVERVIEW The applicant proposes a mixed use garden office, retail and hotel complex providing for 122,000 square feet of gross leasable office space, 110,880 square feet of gross leasable retail including one drive-thru restaurant adjacent to Gerald Ford Drive, and a three-story hotel with up to 130 rooms on 23.6 acres at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive. The project has been submitted in a form consistent with the GPAC and Planning Commission recommended land use alternative contained in the General Plan Update. The 11.6 acres of the site immediately at the comer of Cook Street and Gerald Ford are within the area covered by the Wonder Palms Master Plan (WPMP), Planning Area #3 and are zoned PCD. To facilitate the project, the applicant seeks approval of a change of zone, a precise plan and amendment to the WPMP to expand the PCD zoning and Planning Area #3 from 11.6 acres to 23.6 acres. The Planning Commission considered this request at their public hearings held on September 2, October 21 and November 4, 2003 and recommended approval 4-0 with Commissioner Jonathan absent. BACKGROUND A. SITE DESCRIPTION The 23.6-acre site extends 1,635 feet along Cook Street to align with signalized Berger Circle on the CaI State site to the east. Along Gerald Ford Drive the site extends west to a future street which will. align with Technology Drive to the north. The site is vacant with minimal vegetation and drops from south to north. B. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE North: WPMP / Arco and Hampton Inn South: PR-5 / vacant East: PR-5 / CaI State site West: PR-5 / vacant Staff Report Case Nos. PP 03-011 and DA 03-03 Page 3 December 11, 2003 C. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING General Plan: Commercial Zoning: North Commercial and Wonder Palms Master Plan South Residential PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Planning Commission on a 4-0 vote (Commissioner Jonathan absent) recommended approval of the project. PROJECT REVIEW A. SITE PLAN / ACCESS / PARKING / ARCHITECTURE The property is bounded on the south by Berger Circle, Cook Street on the east, Gerald Ford on the north, Technology Drive on the west, and "spine road" on the southwest connecting Berger Circle to Technology Drive. The primary purpose of the spine road is to provide future internal circulation for the residential community to the south and southwest. The commercial portion of the project will be located adjacent to Cook Street and Gerald Ford. The office complex is located west and southwest of the commercial. The hotel is located at the southwest corner of the property at Berger Circle and spine road. The applicant has described the mixed use project as an "urban village." It is laid out with buildings and landscaping along the street frontages. Parking and driveways are located to the interior. The main feature of the site plan is "Main Street" which runs along the interior of the perimeter buildings parallel to Cook Street and Gerald Ford. An appealing open space entry plaza will face the Cook and Gerald Ford intersection. All of the retail buildings front onto Main Street and parking is located to the west. This clustering of buildings and parking is designed to promote a pedestrian friendly environment. Although the buildings' primary focus Staff Report Case Nos. PP 03-011 and DA 03-03 Page 4 December 11, 2003 is on the "Main Street," they have been designed with appropriate architectural treatment on all four sides. The Gerald Ford frontage has a retail building at the Cook Street end, a drive-thru pad to the west, an access driveway, and two single -story office buildings further to the west at the future signalized Technology Drive. Along Cook Street there will be two retail buildings, a retail/restaurant pad, an access driveway, a retail/restaurant pad, a retail building, two sit-down restaurant pads, and the signalized access (Berger Circle). The plan provides a direct access from Berger to the hotel / restaurant area. At the southwest corner adjacent to the "spine road" will be a three (3) story, 36-foot high (tower elements at 39.5 feet and 42 feet) 130-room hotel. Proceeding north there are two additional retail (first floor) / office (second floor) buildings then the remainder of the office park (12 buildings, single story varying in size from 6,600 square feet to 12,100 square feet). The project will have a signalized access via Gerald Ford / Technology and Cook Street / Berger Circle. In addition, the site plan provides one additional access to Gerald Ford 290 feet east of Technology. This access will be right - in / right -out only and may provide left-tum ingress upon submittal of a design acceptable to the City Engineer. An intermediate access point is also provided along Cook Street. This access will be right-in/right-out and may provide left -turn ingress upon submittal of a design acceptable to the City Engineer. The project also has three access points from the southwest and west. From spine road there is one into the retail area and one into the office complex, and one access from Technology Drive into the office complex. These accesses provide full turning movements. Main Street on the inside of the perimeter row of buildings connects the various access road points with most of the parking to the interior of the site. Angle parking spaces are located on the ring road which will tend to reduce traffic speed and allow pedestrians to more safely cross the ring road to the shops. Staff Report Case Nos. PP 03-011 and DA 03-03 Page 5 December 11, 2003 The on -site circulation will be adequate. B. PARKING The Municipal Code requires that the mixed use development comply with three parking standards. The requirement for hotels is 1.1 spaces per room; for retail shopping center five spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area, and for general offices one space for each 250 square feet of floor area exclusive of stairways, elevations, landings and mechanical rooms not exceeding 15% of gross floor area. PARKING ANALYSIS CODE REQUIREMENT PROVIDED 130 Room Hotel @ 1.1 /room 143 130,000 square foot office Park: 122,000 square foot net after exclusion * 27,697 square foot office--2nd Floor Buildings 3&5 / 23,542** net after exclusion 488 94 Retail 89,630 square feet GLA @ 5/1,000 449 Total 1,173 1,206 *Excludable area included two 200 square foot restrooms in each building, plus 150 square feet of utility area per building **Excluded area at 15% - elevators, restrooms, utilities, stairwells Staff Report Case Nos. PP 03-011 and DA 03-03 Page 6 December 11, 2003 C. ARCHITECTURE The retail portion of the "urban village" will utilize "mercantile modern" architecture using smooth plaster finishes in neutral desert colors. The applicant's narrative (copy enclosed) indicates that, "The western portion of the site is developed with single -story garden office buildings inter- connected by landscaped pedestrian walkways and parking courts with covered parking. The office buildings are designed in an urban desert village cluster concept. The architecture is defined with soft desert floor colors and deep recessed windows. Entry towers are pronounced by warmer desert hues and trellis cornices at the parapets. Horizontal shade devices provide solar protection at the glass areas." ARC granted preliminary architectural approval to the office and retail components of the project. With respect to the hotel, ARC felt that its architecture was conceptually headed in the right direction, but that it needed additional detailing and work which would occur when an actual hotel developer made a specific application to the City. The landscaping will be a "Desert Willow" style. The landscaping plans shown to the ARC were not detailed enough to grant preliminary approval, but ARC determined that the plant pallet was headed in the right direction. PROJECT DATA DISTRICT COMMERCIAL PROJECT Street Setbacks: Cook Street 32 feet 32 feet Gerald Ford Drive 32 feet 32 feet Berger as approved 80 feet spine road as approved 20' - 75' Technology as approved 35' - 62' Lot Coverage 50% 23% Staff Report Case Nos. PP 03-011 and DA 03-03 Page 7 December 11, 2003 DISTRICT COMMERCIAL PROJECT Landscape depth from street 20 feet minimum 20' plus, except for areas adjacent to pads 1, 2 and 5 = 18 feet deep Building Height: Hotel 30 feet 36 - 42 feet* Office 30 feet single story, 21 '6" Retail: Buildings 1 & 2 30 feet 23' with tower to 35'* Buildings 3 & 5 30 feet 30', top of parapet* 34' Building 4 30 feet 22' to 28' Fast Food Landscape Area Pad 5 30% 31% * Height exception required DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT / MASTER PLAN AMENDMENTS AND ZONE CHANGE The proposed precise plan, change of zone and master plan amendment are consistent with the existing General Plan, all proposed alternatives within the General Plan Update and have been specifically endorsed by the Planning Commission. The applicant specifically seeks approval of a change of zone and revisions to the Wonder Palms Master Plan to: A. Expand Planning Area #3 of the Wonder Palms Master Plan and amend the zoning map expanding the existing PCD designation from 1 1 .6 acres to 23.6 to accommodate -the project as designed. Staff Report Case Nos. PP 03-011 and DA 03-03 Page 8 December 11, 2003 Response: The 23.6-acre plan is consistent with the land use plan recommended by GPAC and Planning Commission and is a logical configuration and size to accommodate the land uses needed in this area. The previous 11 .6-acre site (PA-3) provided commercial development along Gerald Ford. With the Cal State campus on Cook Street it makes more sense to focus the commercial development along Cook Street. B. The applicant requests a height exception for the hotel to allow up to 42 feet of height and retail buildings to 35 feet in height. Response: The increased height in the retail portion results in improved architectural appearance and diversifies the roof lines. In the past this has been sufficient to warrant a height exception. The current hotel plans show a 36-foot high main structure with tower elements of 39.5 feet and 42 feet. ARC determined the plans required additional improvement prior to granting preliminary approval. Preliminary and final approval of hotel plans will be required prior to issuance of permits for the hotel. As presented, the development agreement will allow the hotel as currently designed with a basic height of 36 feet and tower elements of 39.5 feet and 42 feet. Any future modifications to the architecture would need to comply with these limits. By comparison Marriott Courtyard is 44 feet, Hampton Inn is 35 feet and Marriott Shadow Ridge is 35 feet with tower elements to 42 feet. Staff would also note that this hotel site is located 230 feet from Cook Street behind two restaurant pads. C. The applicant requests provision to allow a 15% increase in building size without additional hearing. Response: Staff and Planning Commission recommend that the master plan be amended to define a "minor modification" as an increase of up to 10% Staff Report Case Nos. PP 03-011 and DA 03-03 Page 9 December 11, 2003 in building size being acceptable without additional hearings. This assumes that the request complies with all other provisions. GENERAL PLAN AND MORATORIUM CONSISTENCY The Wonder Palms Master Plan area was specifically excluded from the moratorium. Based on consistency with the General Plan, General Plan Update alternatives and inclusion in the Wonder Palms Master Plan, the proposed project can be made exempt from the moratorium. CEQA REVIEW This project was reviewed as part of the General Plan Update and the EIR. In addition, a project specific traffic study was prepared. The information contained in those documents supports the conclusion that this project will not have an adverse impact on the environment. A Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is recommended for certification. CONCLUSION The project before City Council will create an architecturally attractive major entry statement for persons entering the city via Cook Street. The project has oriented a large open space plaza at the Cook Street / Gerald Ford intersection to provide an immediate impression. As designed, the project will create a pedestrian friendly environment with its "Main Street" with the perimeter buildings shielding pedestrians and persons dining at outdoor restaurants from the traffic noise on Cook Street. The land uses proposed are compatible with the land use plan recommended by GPAC and Planning Commission and will be able to evolve as the area develops. At this time it will be oriented mostly to freeway customers. As the Cal State campus grows and the residential neighborhood around it builds out, the project will be able to adapt to these changes and orient itself to these users. 3� Staff Report Case Nos. PP 03-011 and DA 03-03 Page 10 December 11, 2003 During discussion on the moratorium City Council expressed a desire that the City not unreasonably delay processing projects that are generally consistent with the existing and proposed general plan land use designations. The northerly 11.6 acres of this site are commercial within the Wonder Palms Master Plan. The precise plan is conditioned so as not to become effective until the development agreement receives second reading. Submitted by: Department Head: Stele Smith Ph I Drell Planning Manager Approval: Homer Croy ACM for D o pment Services Director of Community Development Approval: Carlos L. Ortega City Manager (W pd o c s\tm is r\P P 03-11. cc2 ) �5 _s. University Village Palm Desert City Council Meeting December 11, 2003 Commissioners present: Robert A. Spiegel (Mayor), Buford A. Crites (Mayor pro tem) Jean M. Benson, Jim Ferguson, Richard Kelly Present for Developer: R. Evans, F. Evans, J. Beardall The staff report was presented by Steve Smith, consisting of project data and land use. Request for one drive-thru pad on Gerald Ford was presented. Expansion of Panning Area 3 from 11 acres to 23.6 acres and approval of Precise Plan was requested. Request made to approve the entire project with possible proviso of future approval of Hotel. Crites: Can this wait until General Plan is approved? P. Drell: Project conforms to General Plan of commercial areas and worthy of consideration, per discussion during moratorium. Public Hearing Rick Evans reviewed project highlights noting that the developer has worked with Staff on project successfully with staff for past year: • The developer brought this project forward because it was consistent with the commercial corner that is envisioned by the City and was without controversy as to the appropriate use for this site. The site currently has a development agreement in place. • The site was originally a six -acre corner site but the developer was encouraged by staff to expand the project to 23.6 acres, master planned with surrounded uses including University. • Name "University Village" is place -holder only. • Forma corner rendering: -Free right turn - View of corner — inviting entrance - Cook and Gerald Ford building rear elevations appear as storefronts - Landscaping levels are below level limited by City water use calculations - Office product is one-story garden office condominium - 2-story retail/office product with office over ground level retail. - 3-story Hotel with 130 rooms • Main Street Forma rendering - More dense — Old town feel _3---1 University Village City Council Meeting 12-11-2003 Questions from Council members Kelly: P. Drell: City has other office projects where frequent delivery traffic is an issue. Does the developer plan to limit deliveries? The projects Kelly is referring to seem to be more industrial in nature, probably like those further South on Cook St. The City has no other office product like this. The area south on Cook is zoned differently. This project doesn't allow any industrial uses. Ferguson: Does project have consolidated UPS, FedEx? R.E.: Two locations - One at arbor; another at central location (missed specific location. Crites Is there and acceleration lane south of the Cook St. entrance? R.E.: As shown on plan — No. P. Drell Acceleration lanes don't work in these location types. Crites: Do the restaurants across from hotel contain patio areas: R.E. Yes, as shown on plan Crites: R.E.: Crites: Is the Paseo Trellis landscaped with vines? Yes — a possible vine example would be bougainvillea Warned of typically poor trellis landscape — dead vines evident at other projects. Need adequate maintenance. Crites: Is there a specified location for City entrance signag R.E. No, not currently Crites: R.E. Crites: Why do we want to modify building square footage to 10%? To allow user flexibility. The Council could choose not to grant this (R.E. acknowledged). Crites: Regarding Art in Public Places, has the developer met with Arts staff? R.E.: Yes, we are working with staff and reviewing options, including art types, artists and appropriate application with Art Staff leadership Crites: The project may need Art application in more than one location. Crites: Why building weight exceptions R.E.: The pavilion buildings are monumental and act as the gateway into the project and enhance the feel of a gateway to the city. The towers help to prevent a uniform, squatty look. For the hotel, the tower provides an improved look for the 130-room, three-story building. Ferguson: The project contains how many square feet? R.E.: 250,000 square feet plus the hotel Ferguson: How may will be employed? R.E.: 500 in the office product, 26 in the hotel and approximately 275 in retail. Total 800. Page 2 of 4 University Village City Council Meeting 12-11-2003 Ferguson: The City is interested in expanding its Childcare program, sharing costs with major use centers like this project. Would developer agree to discuss such a program? R.E.: Yes. Kelly: Are there any acceleration lanes on Cook St. planned from the SWC of the Berger/Cook intersection? R.E.: Such lanes are possible but not planned by us. That corner is not part of our project. Kelly: Are there any Sunline bus stops planned? R.E.: Rick Evans — One stop on Spine Road; and a second on Cook, south of the Berger intersection are planned. Kelly: entrance. The project should have an acceleration lane south of the Cook St Benson Please explain the project parking. Rick Evans: Rick showed how the parking was distributed across the site with all destinations served, eliminating long walks to any particular point. 75% of the office parking is covered. There were no other speakers wishing to comment. The public hearing was closed. Council Comments: Benson: The purpose of the Moratorium was to prevent having to approve such projects before approval of the General Plan amendment. I don't support a vote on the project tonight. Spiegel: We should look only at Phase I at this time. Kelly It is the Council (us) that approves the General Plan amendment. This project is consistent with the Plan. If we want to modify the project and approve it, we can. A mixed use project of office and retail is a good idea. This is an ideal project for this area, now and later as University grows. The project supports the University. I support the project. Ferguson: I support the project. It has some evolving to do. The acceleration lane from the Cook St. entrance is needed. I'm not sure about the need and timing of Spine Road and the amount of commercial retail acreage. I propose motion to consider Phase 1 of the project tonight and approve consider the hotel and other phases later. Crites: I support a first reading of the case tonight with second reading at GPA first reading. Page 3 of 4 University Village City Council Meeting 12-11-2003 P. Drell: The applicant is asking for approval of land use and general parameters to develop the hotel, not the building per this specific drawing. The future operator will apply for approval of a specific hotel design. R.E.: The project is designed as a phased, master planned project. We need approval of the Precise Plan for the entire project. Kelly: Will Spine Road be constructed in Phase I? R.E.: No, the Spine Road is not planned to be constructed with Phasel. An assessment district to build the roads is being put together by the current property owner, ART. Kelly: It seems consistent with our policies and past actions to require that all of the roads be put in with Phase I. P. Drell That's impossible to do. Other property owners are also involved. Kelly: You've coordinated the efforts of several property owners before to get similar roads built, including work on Cook and G. Ford. We can do it here. Ferguson: I amend my motion to eliminate the Phase 1 restriction (consistent with Crites suggestion above -first reading tonight for entire project and second reading after first GPA reading.). . Crites: Second — The developer should note and work through issues. Project continued to GPA first reading. Voted and passed: 5-0 Page 4 of 4 4 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 24, 2004 MINUTES John Vuksic stated that they have a very gently curved roof on the building. The roof material that was previously approved was a urethane foam roof with gravel on it. He'd like to change it to a standing seam metal roof because it's a better quality roof. You can't really see the top of the roof, but you can see the edge. If you're back far enough you can start to catch the top of the roof. They've never used a gravel roof on a project like that and they're not sure how perfect it's going to be. If there are rifts in it, they'd be a little concerned about it. The standing seam metal roof will be galvanized. Commissioner Hanson asked if it would be reflective. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it has a dull finish and would not be reflective. Commissioner Hanson stated that it's fine. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Gregory for approval of standing seam galvanized metal roof material to replace the previously approved polyurethane insulated textured roof. Motion carried 4-0-1-1 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Van Vliet absent. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: PP 03-11 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RICK EVANS, 71-800 Highway 111, Suite A224, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of revised elevations for a hotel building in the Wonder Palms Master Plan of Development. LOCATION: Southwest corner of Gerald Ford and Cook Street ZONE: PCD Rick Evans introduced Michael Robinson, architect. Mr. Evans stated that they attempted to come back with some refinements to the elevations for the hotel, including rear and end elevations. Mr. Robinson stated that basically the hotel was designed for consistency with the other retail buildings with some up and downs, ins and outs and movement so it's not just a flat building. Parts of the building are setback and use different colors to create a village idea. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040224.MIN 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 24, 2004 MINUTES Mr. Smith commented that the ARC reviewed conceptual plans for the hotel in September of 2003. There are freestanding restaurants in front to the east. The location is at Berger and Cook Street, but it's setback 250' from the street and is at the southern limit of the overall development of 25 acres. Commissioner Vuksic asked how far the third floor is setback from the first and second floor. Mr. Robinson stated that it's setback approximately 18". Commissioner Vuksic stated that he has a couple of concerns. One concern is the design of the entry structure. It should look like it belongs to the rest of the hotel. Even if it did, he's concerned about it aesthetically on its own. It looks very top heavy. The mass above the glass line and eye brow is too heavy looking. He's not convinced that this is an acceptable design solution for that element. Mr. Robinson asked if it would be better to take some of the elements and proportions and put them into the entry. They were trying to create the idea that the entry would be a separate type of building. Commissioner Vuksic commented that that's okay, but if you took it on its own he didn't think it's "there". He asked the architect if he thought it was nice and if he was happy with it. Mr. Robinson commented that he thought that it was a big improvement to what they had done before. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he liked what he was saying and if you look at it in context, it ties in okay. It's close but it needs to pull up a little bit. Mr. Robinson commented that he could eliminate the eyebrow, or recess it or leave it flush and then raise the windows up. Commissioner Vuksic agreed and commented that he didn't think it was a big deal but they need to "massage" it a bit. He stated concern on the rear elevation and how long it is and how little is going on there. That is going to be visible from public areas. Mr. Evans stated that it'll be across the street from a park. Commissioner Vuksic commented that there isn't enough happening on the rear elevation. Mr. Robinson stated that there's one plane with another plane setback. There's another plane pushed out in front to create shadow. There is a big attempt to move up and down and in and out. The idea is trying to move the building in and out and create shadow lines. The building is approximately 300' long. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the planes are a couple of feet apart and the building is as long as a football field. Mr. Robinson stated that on the side portion they're pulling back about 8'-10'. Commissioner Hanson asked if they had enough room at the back entrance to push it out a little bit further. Maybe they could replicate the arch with some stone out further so that it's almost like a covered entrance into it. The rear entrance is too simplified. It's not strong enough to read "entrance". All you read is the mass of all the windows, G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040224.MIN 1 1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 24, 2004 MINUTES as opposed to something much stronger. Mr. Evans commented that from a business point of view, the design is not necessarily to have an entrance at the rear. The closest hotel that's similar in terms of rooms and basic box is the Hampton Inn. What they've attempted to do on the back side of the hotel is to replicate a little bit of the front entrance, but there is a concern on the part of all the operators that they're talking to is that this will become too major of an entrance. It needs to make a statement that it's not a back of a building, similar to what Mr. Robinson did on the retail buildings on Cook Street. Everything has to have a back. When you're building in the round you have to give it some tweaks. To be able to move it out a little bit further probably wouldn't be a problem and to put the same kind of arch as the front probably wouldn't be a problem because it's not really a cost issue. It's more of an aesthetic issue. The other option is to eliminate it completely and end up with a very small, simply stated pair of doors in one of the bays, which would be a good secondary entrance/exit for the daytime person. The rear doors will be locked at night, as all the hotels are. Commissioner Hanson commented that she felt that what Commissioner Vuksic was saying, and she agreed with him, was that it reads with too much of all the repetition of the rooms and what entrance is there now isn't enough to break up the elevation. Maybe it's a matter of taking those stone elements on the main entry and maybe it's something out in front along the sidewalk that maybe is more of a landscape element. It could be a disconnected element. Something has to stop your eye from reading the complete horizontal elevation with no interest. Mr. Robinson suggested keeping the entry very simple and popping it out a couple of feet and then adding something to the landscape. Commissioner Hanson stated that something minor can be done to fix it. The front is nice, but it's not reading as well on the back. Mr. Drell asked if they intended to add awnings to the west elevation. Mr. Robinson stated that he's left the windows deeper. Mr. Drell stated that in the afternoon, deeper doesn't do much for you. They'll have tremendous heat gain from the glass. Commissioner Gregory asked how much the windows are recessed. Mr. Robinson commented that they're recessed 18"-24". Mr. Evans stated that to put awnings on the west side would have minimal additional effect. They like the idea that the building is clean and would like to let some of the landscaping hold onto it. They took the patio rooms on the ends off because it wasn't clean enough. They were afraid that it was going to be too difficult to maintain, which could have an effect on maintenance and also the eventual look. He's really happy with the fact that the commission has pushed them to this level. One of the reasons why they decided to come back before they went back to the City Council is to be able to get G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin1AR040224.MIN 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 24, 2004 MINUTES approval of the concept that they're after and whatever changes they have to make and move forward. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they don't want to design the building by committee. Commissioner Hanson stated that where it says "Suites Hotel" at the top left side, is that that element maybe has a little punch to it and repeating an element that they might have elsewhere. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the colors are very effective. The composition of the front is nice. They should break up the back in the same way that they did the front, but they don't have to create the same kind of huge entrance. They need to break the very, very long horizontal elevation at the rear. Commissioner Gregory commented that the building is simple and clean but they have a long roof line that they're always trying to work with. Will this building look industrial because of this? At the least, they should enhance the feeling of the larger structure towards the left on the backside so that it reads as an element with a little more articulation. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with revised plans. Motion carried 5-0-0-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet absent. 2. CASE NO.: PP 03-21 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PRES DEVELOPMENT, 1201 Dove Street, Suite 100, Newport Beach, CA 92660 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised plans for sixteen industrial/commercial buildings. LOCATION: Monterey 10 Business Center; S.E. corner of Dinah Shore Drive and Leilani Way ZONE: Commercial/Industrial Mr. Smith stated that this project went before the ARC a couple of months ago and the applicant has returned with revised plans. Mr. Urbina stated that the previous materials board had three different colors of slate and now the applicant has reduced it to one color, which is Tight charcoal grey. This will be incorporated into some of the inset elements. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin1AR040224.MIN 13 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 9, 2004 MINUTES LOCATION: 41-505 Carlotta Drive ZONE: PR-10 cURIECT TC fiL4lSIOW Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5- 0-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: PP 03-11 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RICK EVANS, 74-000 Country Club Drive, Suite H-2, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of revised elevations for a hotel building in the Wonder Palms Master Plan of Development. LOCATION: Southwest corner of Gerald Ford and Cook Street ZONE: PCD Mr. Smith introduced Rick Evans, applicant, who was present to discuss the revised elevations for the hotel. Mr. Evans stated that the packets that were distributed to the commissioners show two different front elevations for the hotel. One shows the original elevation and the other shows the revised elevation. They added some popped out elements. Commissioner Vuksic stated that something they had on their previous submittal, which he doesn't see on either elevation was an eyebrow above the entry, but this is good. The only thing he's disappointed in is that they had talked about something with a little bit more mass that was coming out, rather than just a trellis element. It looks nice, but not exciting. Commissioner Gregory asked if the trellis could be beefed up a little bit. They did address the commissioner's request to pop out the rear elevation element. Mr. Evans commented that they addressed all of the requests of the commission. They added a retaining wall to the revised elevations. Commissioner Hanson stated that the wall is not indicated on the site plan. Mr. Evans commented that he realized that and described its location. Commissioner Gregory asked about the material for the trellis. Mr. Evans stated that they're going to try to use wood. The Marriott in Rancho Mirage (Rancho Las Palmas) put up a G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin'AR040309.MIN 14 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 9, 2004 MINUTES st,if l rT Tr i EvlSiON whole new system of trellises and he's looking at what they've done and how long they've lasted and what they look like up close. They've looked at a couple of other places where they've fallen apart. If wood is not going to be durable enough, then the trellises could be a series of metal trellises. He wants it to take on the shape of the chunkiness of wood so that it's not a little piece of metal or a little piece of wood. He's investigated TREK. On the TREK, if you don't build a steel frame it will get limp in the heat. It's a good looking material but you have to build a structure to support it. Commissioner Van Vliet suggested using steel or some kind of metal for the trellis. Commissioner Hanson stated that the columns on the trellis element are too skinny. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for preliminary approval of revised plans for the hotel. Motion carried 6-0. 2. CASE NO.: PP 04-04 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ALFRED COOK/BRIAN GOTTLIEB, 45-120 San Pablo, 2C, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval for a 25,000 square foot professional office building. LOCATION: 43-100 Cook Street ZONE: SI Mr. Smith stated that this project is located on the east side of Cook Street just as you're coming out of the wash area as you're proceeding north. PhD Joy stated that this is a piece of property that most people didn't realize could be developable or even available to purchase. People took it for granted that it was owned by the water district, but it's a separate piece of property. Going north on Cook Street as you're coming out of the wash, it's up on the hill. The building portion of the property is actually raised 20'-22' above Cook Street. Mr. Joy passed out exhibits to the commissioners that show the line of sight. Ms. Hollinger has reviewed the landscape plans and made some changes. Mr. Smith stated that the garage entry is located on the north side of the building. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about access from Cook. Mr. Joy stated that there will be a left-hand turn. Commissioner Hanson asked if you'll be able to see the building from Cook Street. G:Planning\Donna Quaive►\wpdocslAgmin\AR040309.MIN 15 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2003 Councilman Ferguson said he had asked the City Attorney before the meeting if this was a prospective only ordinance, and he said it was. He said he had participated in the discussion here based on that premise. Now staff is saying it is clarification of existing policy. He said he had a client who he was aware may be the subject of one of these retroactive cleanups, and he did not want to be participating in discussion if in staffs view the Council was now setting existing policy through this new ordinance. He said he wanted to be sure this was prospective in nature. Mr. Drell said it was his position that the City has always had this requirement, that significant changes to exterior buildings has always been subject to review by the City. The language in the ordinance was not as explicit as both staff and the City Attorney would have liked, and this amendment makes it explicit. Mr. Erwin stated that this is prospective in nature. B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE; DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ADDENDUM TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 97-2, EXPANDING PLANNING AREA #3 OF THE WONDER PALMS MASTER PLAN, A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN FOR 122,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS LEASABLE OFFICE SPACE, 110,880 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS LEASABLE RETAIL, INCLUDING ONE DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT ADJACENT TO GERALD FORD DRIVE; A THREE-STORY HOTEL WITH UP TO 130 ROOMS; AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS IT RELATES THERETO, FOR 23.6 ACRES AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF COOK STREET AND GERALD FORD DRIVE (37-001 COOK STREET) Case Nos. C/Z 03-10, PP 03-11, and DA 03-03 (Rick Evans, Applicant). Planning Manager Steve Smith reviewed the staff report in detail. He said the Planning Commission had considered this in public hearings held on September 2, October 21, and November 4. On a 4-0 vote, with Commissioner Jonathan absent, the Commission recommended approval. Upon question by Mayor Spiegel, Mr. Smith responded that Council would be approving the entire project, perhaps with the proviso that the Council might want to see the hotel development come back through Council at some future time. He said staff did not have final preliminary architectural plans on the hotel because the applicant did not have an operator for the hotel. Councilman Crites said there was a planning area, and this application seeks a change of zone to a little bit more than double that. Mr. Smith agreed. Councilman Crites asked if, from a planning perspective, there was any reason this could not have waited until the General Plan process has been completed to see its fit with the adjacent areas. 31 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2003 Mr. Smith said that perhaps it could have waited. He said the plan before Council was consistent with the current General Plan. Mr. Drell said there was no planning reason to either do it or not do it. It was based on discussion during the moratorium, and there was some feeling that projects where this was a commercial corner were at least worthy of review and judgment if they were substantially consistent with both the existing General Plan and all of the conceivable alternatives and were also consistent with the Planning Commission judgment. In this case, because of all of those factors, it was felt it was appropriate to bring it to Council at this time. Mayor Spiegel declared the public hearing open and invited testimony from the developer. MR. RICK EVANS, 71-800 Highway 111, Suite A224, Rancho Mirage, spoke as co-owner of The Evans Company, developer of the site. He said they had been diligently working on this project for the last year and had worked through all of the issues faced with staff, Planning Commission, and Architectural Review Commission. With regard to Councilman Crites's question about if there was any planning reason this project could not have waited until completion of the General Plan process, he said they had brought this forward with the spirit that this site has consistently been thought of by staff and everyone &se they had spoken to in the City as a commercial park. It was also consistent with all the other planning alternatives, even those being reviewed in the future. He said the project was originally inspired to be a six -acre project at the corner of Cook and Gerald Ford, and with much discussion with staff and the landowner they are purchasing the land from, they determined it was better to expand the project into a major planning area as opposed to one single corner. That was another reason they felt the planning of the project was consistent and sensitive with what the City=s desires and wishes are in the planning area, notwithstanding the fact that the General Plan amendment had not been approved. They had named this project University Village at this point in time, and he urged the Council to see that name as a placeholder as opposed to a name that they saw as a consistent long-term name. He said they had picked that name to be consistent with what they saw on the General Plan amendment where it currently has the name "university" in it. He reviewed the site plan, noting that with regard to the rear of the buildings, they had endeavored to make them attractive and feel more like store fronts than the rear of buildings. Landscaping was consistent with the requirements of the City with the new water calculation ordinance. The project would have the feeling of an old town main street, although the buildings would be a little tighter. The concept of the project was a little contrary in retail because they would not be using traditional anchors like WalMart or Robinsons May or Macy's. Instead they were using a condo/office project and a hotel as anchors to the retail. He described the hotel with the two restaurants to the west, and the main street would go right down the middle, parallel to Cook Street. There would be one 32 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2003 single entrance in and out along Cook Street. The main plaza would be the heart of the project and it was intended to integrate at the edge of the parking lot driveway. Across that driveway was the end of the spine of arbors that lead to the entrance to the office project. The center feature that was an odd - shaped star was intended to be the project's art in public places statement. They were asked by staff and had agreed to consolidate the art and public places for the entire project into one major location as a major statement. Councilman Kelly expressed concern because he has seen situations where areas are office complexes and then someone moves in with several delivery trucks; next thing you know the area is covered with utility vehicles and delivery vehicles, and this is not really what he would call an office complex. He asked what could be done to prevent that from happening here. Mr. Drell said if Councilman Kelly was referring to areas on Cook Street, they are, in fact, industrial zones that offices infiltrated into for various reasons. He said there was no comparable office project like this in the City. Typically, there are small isolated office buildings, and he did not think there was a problem with delivery vehicles or semi -industrial things going on in them. He said this particular area is an office zone and it will not allow those sort of uses. Councilman Ferguson noted that at his office building, there is a UPS box, a mailbox, and other types of things so there are no FedEx or UPS trucks parked out there and instead they pick up once a day. He asked if there was any type of consolidated delivery of service points for this project. MR. EVANS responded that they had not yet gotten to that level of planning. He said he did feel there needed to be a consolidated zone for those traditional UPS, FedEx, California Overnight, etc. There were several locations they had discussed for this, one of them being on the main street of the office. Another alternative would be at the end of the arbor spine that goes up to the office so it can be shared. He added that they needed to get into design development to consider it more seriously, but they felt from a customer convenience standpoint, they needed to be very serious about providing convenience services such as that. Mayor Pro Tem Crites noted that where there are entrances to the main street, he did not see any acceleration lanes. MR. EVANS responded that as you exit off of the property on Gerald Ford, there is no acceleration lane at that location, and this had been agreed up by both the developer and Public Works staff; however, on Cook Street, there is a combined acceleration/deceleration lane that is further set back along that street. 33 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2003 Mayor Pro Tem Crites noted that on the graphics he had, it showed a deceleration lane on Cook Street but no acceleration lane. Mr. Drell said it was his understanding that acceleration lanes are not well - used and that in essence people were encouraged to start entering traffic before it is clear. Mayor Pro Tem Crites said he felt it was important to have an acceleration lane on Cook Street because traffic is traveling at 60 miles per hour, and people would be trying to enter the traffic from a standing still point. MR. EVANS said the design was intended to be an acceleration/deceleration lane combined that doesn't require people to weave out early than they need to. Councilman Kelly agreed with Mayor Pro Tem Crites. Mayor Pro Tem Crites said it was his understanding that the restaurants across the street from the hotel would both have patio areas facing the street, and Mr. Evans agreed. Mayor Pro Tem Crites addressed the trellis which the graphics showed as having leafy vines which would be comfortable and cool. Mr. Evans noted they felt it would be a product like bougainvillea because it is a thick, fully -blooming plant. Mayor Pro Tem Crites suggested that the developer reconsider because there had been other commercial projects with similar plans, and the bougainvillea had not done very well. MR. EVANS said they do want the trellises to be covered and if they find the landscaping will not be sufficient to give good shade for that promenade, they intend to double up the baffles in the arbor to accommodate that so there is shade. He said their feeling was that it should be a wood baffled product, even though it requires a little more maintenance. Mayor Pro Tem Crites asked whether staff had discussed with the developer a space for City entry signage on the property, and Mr. Evans said they had not. Mayor Pro Tem Crites noted there was a category that allowed the developer to grow the project by 15% without coming back in, and Mr. Evans responded that they had agreed to 10%. Upon further question by Mayor Pro Tem Crites as to why the City would want to do that, Mr. Evans responded that currently in the Wonder Palms development agreement, it is allowed to be 15%. They said they may find they have a small tenant who wants to be in a building that is too big, and it would be advantageous to make that building a little smaller and then make the other building next to it a little bit bigger. The biggest hitch in that would be parking because they were still required in the agreement to meet the parking requirements over all the project. With regard to public art, Mayor Pro Tem Crites said it was his understanding the developer intended to concentrate all the public art in one spot. Mr. Evans agreed and said they had had several conversations with 34 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2003 the City=s public arts staff and discussed both that opportunity and different artists. He said they were currently in the artist selection process and were trying to determine the best direction to take. Councilman Kelly said he felt this was a large area to have only one piece of public art, and Mayor Pro Tem Crites agreed. Mayor Pro Tem Crites noted that the developer was also asking for height exceptions, and he asked the developer to justify that request. MR. EVANS said they saw the two towers at Cook and Gerald Ford as architectural statements, and they were not intended to be anything more than that. Because of the way the buildings sit on the land and the way they look from that angle, they felt they needed a monument kind of look to them. They were handsome buildings, and they were afraid if they stayed down too low, they would look to squatty and really not stand up to the test. Another reason they felt they would work well in this location was that the site slopes upwards, and the elevation difference between the corner at the plaza level and at the rear of the site was about 25 or 30 feet. Mayor Pro Tem Crites said if the project did not have those two towers, it would have a more open view scape back toward the remainder of the property. MR. EVANS said that could be so, but he would like to go back and redesign the buildings a little bit more if they did not have the towers. With regard to the hotel, the height exception would actually put a little "hat" on top of the building, which they thought was nice. It made for a much more pleasing elevation. He noted that the Architectural Review Commission had not yet seen the rendering he was just showing the Council, but it would be taken to that body once the developer has a hotel operator. Upon question by Mayor Spiegel, he said this would be in Phase II, and it was also subject to some further review by Architectural Review Commission. Upon question by Councilman Ferguson, he responded that there would be approximately 400 to 500 office workers and 275 retail employees at the project. For the hotel, he estimated 26 workers. Councilman Ferguson asked if Mr. Evans would be amenable to discussing participation in the City's after school programs as discussed earlier in the meeting, and Mr. Evans responded that he would. Upon question by Councilman Kelly relative to the southwest corner of Berger, Mr. Evans responded that no acceleration lane is currently planned, although there is room to allow for it. Councilman Kelly asked whether there were any SunLine requirements for bus stops. Mr. Evans responded that several meetings had been held with SunLine, Public Works staff, and Planning staff. Currently the bus stop locations being planned for the area 35 L51 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2003 included one along the spine road at the rear of the project closer to the office and a second on Cook Street. Mr. Drell added that it was staffs position that the appropriate location for the Cook Street bus stop would be past the Berger intersection, and it would serve both the college and the project. They had also discussed with SunLine ultimately having the bus route run through the spine road which eventually connects to Portola and would serve both the residential development on one side and the commercial on the other side. Councilman Kelly stated that acceleration and deceleration lanes along the whole length of Cook and this project, it will give a lot of flexibility if there is a need for bus stops later. He said he would not vote in favor of the project if it did not have that. Upon question by Councilmember Benson, Mr. Evans responded that the parking was scattered, and they felt it was balanced very well throughout the entire site. He said they had worked hard to not have one major parking lot except in the center zone. On the office side, it was parked four to one, and about 75% of those were assigned parking for the office employees and were covered parking. In the evenings, they could be used by retail, although he did not think it would be used that much because it was so far away. Mayor Spiegel invited additional testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this project. With no further testimony offered, he declared the public hearing closed. Councilmember Benson stated that with some modifications, she felt this would be a good project. However, she felt it was important to wait until after the General Plan process has been completed. Mayor Spiegel said he did not feel Council should vote on the entire project at this time. Phase I could be considered now, and when the hotel is ready to come on board, then the Council can look at the rest of the project. Councilman Kelly stated that the Council is the body that will give final approval of the General Plan, and this is probably what is going to be recommended. If there are modifications made to take care of the traffic problems, he felt this would be an ideal project for this area with its mixture of retail and office. It would also be easy to modify this project to change over time to pick up the needs of the University. Councilman Ferguson said he felt this was a great project, and he liked the planning and thought that went into it, although he felt it needed to evolve a little bit more with things like acceleration/deceleration lanes, child care issues, etc. However, it was just a piece of a puzzle. No matter how great the piece looks, unless you have the balance of the puzzle, you don=t know how it fits. He said he did not know what the other commercial designations 36 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2003 were going to be and whether it would alter the mix. He said the spine road looked great for the project, but he did not know how it would fit in with the potential road work for the balance of the project. He said he would be willing to vote to approve the project subject to final passage of the General Plan and consistency between that General Plan and this piece of the puzzle. Mayor Pro Tem Crites said one thing that might be done is to have first reading of the ordinance for the zone change and hold the second reading until adoption of the General Plan. In the meantime, all the issues discussed at this meeting could be refined. Upon question by Councilmember Benson, Mr. Drell stated that there was currently no hotel operator. When a hotel operator comes and actually designs a hotel, it will be subject to a separate precise plan. What Council would be doing with regard to the hotel at this point would be to consider the number of rooms and whether from a design point of view tower elements could be 42 feet in order to give a prospective hotel designer/developer the physical parameters for how to design a hotel. The actual design would then be reviewed through the normal City process. Upon further question regarding three stories, he said the request was for three stories, and it would not be possible to accommodate 125 rooms on that pad with only two stories. Three stories was what the City had been approving in hotels of this type, such as Hampton Inn, Courtyard, Fairfield Inn, etc. He said Council could reserve any judgment on the hotel if it so chooses until it can actually see the real design; however, it would be a lot easier for the developer to talk to prospective hotel developers if he could indicate what the parameters are for the building. Councilman Ferguson said he agreed with Mayor Spiegel's suggestion to approve Phase I because the developer is ready to go and there is a sense of urgency for that phase. He also liked Mayor Pro Tem Crites's idea of passing this on first reading so that the developer can tend to the "little clean- up issues." With regard to the City's moratorium, the Council and the City Attorney had tried to assure people that the moratorium was not anti -growth. He felt this was a good project, and although he would still like to see how it fits with the rest of the puzzle, he did not want to hold up private sector development. MR. EVANS noted that with regard to the Phase I limitation, the project had been designed as an integrated project. Phase I of the retail was the corner, and there were other phases of the retail and two other phases of the office. He said they really could not go forward until they receive complete approval. Upon question by Councilman Kelly, he said the spine road would probably go in with an assessment district. The current owner of the land, American Realty Trust, was currently going through the process of creating an assessment district in that area. Upon further question, he said their plan for 37 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2003 Phase I was not to put in the spine road but to put in the street elevation from Technology to Gerald Ford up to Berger. Mayor Pro Tem Crites said he was still willing to pass a first reading of the zone change and continue the precise plan and second reading until the General Plan process has been considered for this area. He also wanted to see the issues discussed at this meeting refined, including adjacency of other developments. Councilman Kelly noted that an assessment district was formed for Gerald Ford, Frank Sinatra, Cook Street, and Portola with four lanes and medians because of growth factors. He said it seemed to him if that was the right philosophy, the right philosophy here would be to put in Technology Drive and the spine road and Berger Drive in the first phase of this project. Mr. Drell noted that completion of those roads involves other property owners and other projects, regardless of what happens with the General Plan. Those property owners are currently in the process of trying to pool their resources and install those roads. Councilman Ferguson moved to waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 1059 to second reading and continue Resolution No. 03-124 and second reading of the ordinance until such time as the General Plan process has been considered for this area, asking the applicant in the meantime to refine the issues discussed at this hearing (i.e., height, acceleration/deceleration lanes, setbacks, public art, areas for entry signage, bus stop[s], spine road, hotel design, and adjacency to future projects in the vicinity. Motion was seconded by Crites and carried by a 5-0 vote. C. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND MARK AND JODIE RATLIFF (CONTRACT NO. C22190) (JOINT CONSIDERATION WITH THE PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY). Mr. Ortega noted the staff report and recommendation in the packets. Mayor/Chairman Spiegel declared the public hearing open and invited testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this request. With no testimony offered, he declared the public hearing closed. Mayor Pro TemNice Chairman Crites moved to waive further reading and adopt: 1) City Council Resolution No. 03-125, approving the sale of property by the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency to Mark and Jodie Ratliff for development pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan for Project Area No. 1, As Amended; 2) Redevelopment Agency Resolution No. 486, approving a purchase and sale agreement and escrow instructions with Mark and Jodie Ratliff for development pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan for Project Area No. 1, As Amended. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by a 5-0 vote. 38 CITY OE PIM OESERT 73-51C FREI) WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346-061 I FAX: 760 341-7098 info@ palm-desert.org CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. PP 03-11 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by RICK EVANS for approval of a precise plan for commercial / office / hotel project at the southwest comer of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive, 37-001 Cook Street. Said property includes 110,880 square feet of retail (including one drive-thru restaurant), a three-story hotel with up to 130 rooms; and one story garden offices totaling 122,000 square feet. Project is generally located at the southwest comer of Cook Street anf Gerald Ford Drive described as a portion of 653-390-062. SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, April 8, 2004, at 4:00 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 conceming all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission (or city council) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk March 28, 2004 Palm Desert City Council