Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Ord 1059 C/Z 03-10, PP 03-11, DA 03-03 University Village 37001 Cook Street 04-08-2004
REQUEST: 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 0- (1r 1 ") / Retail Leasing Garden Office Sales Informatioin: Informatioin: 1 The Evans Company Lyle Commercial (/60)773-9832 (760)779-0600 Fred Evans 1I T 11'\--.e,' l s',-' it-,'y village-'' Larry Lyle , i11-n t lg .'''. '•,,,,,'-'" ,' ,..- . • ,A foir.,tif ir:;. ri...r,,11 uf!ri.i 'iri( ; in,,-fl yrrlf r''1 (1(1(I) f,•-*,,-,„iiiirit,rli 1 i'0 't• ,• 4, Y. 1, i?, t I, 114.1:4,4 ,1 ,,01-1-, ' ' .i" "' -.....-,,aii. ' ' -".'l'',Mt47.' • •4"-- - , :moL. . • ", 7....... ,:,,,:,..._,,,,,. , . ,,,......... -11. ..... t2 ,, . ., ..,. I- I 4: ':?. • ° '1.. ••• ••--7 *i :i"..$1, -lij*".!*, 11"..' ., 'l',„- '. itikr.''''''I"''''''1411..;^rr,• e 4, " ' .,''''"*" ( ' '"'"..4,-,- ,,..A I - " -'" ' ' '''''''''''''''''''Irtk _--- _"_:-,r,",=___-.---- "- :., • / 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 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: September 2, 2003 CASE NOS: GPA 03-07, C/Z 03-10, PP 03-11 , TPM 31515 and DA 97-2 AMENDMENT #2 REQUEST: Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, general plan amendment from low density residential to planned commercial; a change of zone from PR-5 (planned residential five units per acre); an amendment to the Wonder Palms Master Plan to expand Planning Area 3 from six acres to 23.6 acres; and a precise plan and tentative parcel map for a commercial / office project at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive, 37-001 Cook Street. Said project includes 107,000 square feet of retail (including drive-thru restaurants), a three-story hotel with up to 140 rooms; and one and two story garden offices totaling 135,000 square feet. Project is generally located at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive described as a portion of 653-390-062. APPLICANT: Rick Evans 57745 Interlachen La Quinta, CA 92253 PROJECT OVERVIEW: The applicant proposes a mixed use garden office, retail and hotel complex on 23.6 acres at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive. The project has been submitted in a form consistent with the GPAC recommended land use alternative contained in the General Plan update. Since the application involves land use and design issues, it was felt that an introductory presentation would be helpful prior to further consideration. The six acres of the site immediately at the corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford is within the area covered by the Wonder Palms Master plan (WPMP), Planning Area #3. To facilitate the project, the applicant seeks approval of a general plan and zone change, precise plan and amendment to the WPMP to include the entire 23.6-acre site. STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 03-07, C/Z 03-10, PP 03-11 , TPM 31515 and DA 97-2 AMD. #2 SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 II. BACKGROUND: A. SITE DESCRIPTION: The 23.6-acre site extends 1 ,635 feet along Cook Street to align with signalized Berger Drive on the Cal State site to the east. Along Gerald Ford Drive the site extends west to a future street, Wonder Palms Drive which will align with Technology Drive to the north. The site is vacant with minimal vegetation and drops from south to north. B. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: North: WPMP / Arco and hotel South: PR-5 / vacant East: PR-5 / Cal State site West: PR-5 / vacant C. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING: Presently Low Density Residential and PR-5 III. PROJECT REVIEW: A. SITE PLAN / ACCESS / PARKING / ARCHITECTURE: The property is a 'b' shaped site bounded on the south by Berger Drive (University on the plan), Cook Street on the east, Gerald Ford on the north, Technology Drive (Wonder Palms on the plan) on the west and "Spine Road" on the southwest connecting University to Wonder Palms Drive. The primary purpose of the Spine Road is to provide future internal circulation for the residential community to the south and southwest. The applicant has described the project as an "urban village." It is laid out with buildings and landscaping along the street frontages. Parking and driveways are located to the interior. The main feature of the site plan is "Main Street" which runs along the interior of the perimeter buildings parallel to Cook Street and Gerald Ford. An open space plaza / corridor between retail buildings 1 and 2 creates 2 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 03-07, C/Z 03-10, PP 03-11 , TPM 31515 and DA 97-2 AMD. #2 SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 an appealing entry when viewed from the Cook Street / 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 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 Wonder Palms Drive. Building layout along Cook Street will depend on whether the project is developed with one or two access driveways to Cook Street. (See additional discussion in "Access.") On the two access to Cook Street plan from Gerald Ford south there is a retail building (mirror image to the retail building facing Gerald Ford), a drive-thru pad, an access road which connects directly with the main retail parking area, a retail building, a drive-thru pad, an access driveway and two sit-down restaurant pads, then the signalized University Drive access. This site plan does not include an access from University Drive. On the one access plan to Cook Street there would be two retail buildings, a drive-thru pad, an access driveway, a drive-thru pad, a retail building, two sit-down restaurant pads, and the signalized access (University Drive). This plan shows a direct access from University to the hotel / restaurant area. The southwest corner adjacent to the "Spine Road" will be a three (3) story, 140-room hotel site. 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 Drive. In addition, the site plan provides one 3 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 03-07, C/Z 03-10, PP 03-11, TPM 31515 and DA 97-2 AMD. #2 SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 additional access to Gerald Ford 290 feet east of Technology. This access will be right-in / right-out only. COOK STREET ACCESS ALTERNATIVES: The number of additional access points between Berger Drive and Gerald Ford is an issue. The City Traffic Engineer prefers only one additional access right-in right- out so as to limit conflicts with the traffic flow on Cook Street. The applicant prefers two additional access points as this would improve on-site circulation by dispersing entering and exiting traffic. It would also allow direct access to the new parking area relieving congestion on the "Main Street." There are two separate site plans showing the two access scenarios in commission packets. A traffic study analyzing the impacts of each scenario is in process and will be available for the September 2, 2003 meeting, but was not available as of the writing of this report. The project also has two access points from Spine Road; one into the retail area and one into the office complex and one access from Wonder Palm 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. Whether the project proceeds with one access to Cook Street or two accesses, the on-site circulation will be adequate. The second access to Cook Street would tend to reduce stacking of vehicles exiting the site during peak hours. This on-site circulation improvement will need to be weighed against the impacts it would create on Cook Street flow. 4 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 03-07, C/Z 03-10, PP 03-11, TPM 31515 and DA 97-2 AMD. #2 SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 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. The project building size and parking amount varies slightly depending on whether the project has one or two accesses to Cook Street. PARKING ANALYSIS PLAN A -- ONE ACCESS TO COOK STREET CODE REQUIREMENT PROVIDED 140 Room Hotel @ 1 .1 /room 154 130,000 square foot office Park: 122,000 square foot net after exclusion* 488*** 27,697 square foot office (2nd Floor Buildings 3&5 / 23,542** net after exclusion 94 Retail 90,630 square feet GLA @ 5/1 ,000 453 Total 1 ,189 1 ,189 5 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 03-07, C/Z 03-10, PP 03-11, TPM 31515 and DA 97-2 AMD. #2 SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 PLAN B -- TWO ACCESSES TO COOK STREET CODE REQUIREMENT PROVIDED 140 Room Hotel @ 1 .1/room 154 122,000 square foot net office park* 488*** 23,542 square foot** office 94*** Retail (86,370 square feet/GLA 432 Total 1 ,168 1 ,168 *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, stair wells ***This level of parking does not provide for medical office use • ARCHITECTURE: The retail portion of the "urban village" will utilize "mercantile modern" architecture using smooth plaster finishes in neutral desert colors with patina metal roofs on the arcada. ARC has not seen plans for the hotel, restaurants or office complex. 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." 6 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 03-07, C/Z 03-10, PP 03-11 , TPM 31515 and DA 97-2 AMD. #2 SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 Elsewhere in the narrative the offices are referred to as one and two story. The applicant indicates that it will all be single story. The hotel will be three-stories with a height ranging from 37 to 44 feet. Architecture to be governed by the Wonder Palms Design Guidelines. The Wonder Palms Design Guidelines will also govern the restaurant pads and drive-thru pads. July 8, 2003 ARC gave the applicant preliminary approval to the retail portion architecture to allow the project to go forward. ARC indicated that it expected the architecture to evolve to address concerns outlined in the minutes. The building elevations in commission packets for buildings 1 , 2, 3 & 5 have been modified since they were reviewed by ARC. Buildings 1 and 2 did not have the tower element or the sail-like awnings when shown to ARC. Buildings 3 and 5 have also changed with the addition of more detail and reduced building height. These plans will be referred back for ARC review in the near future. ARC also expressed concern with drive-thrus on pads 3 and 4 breaking up pedestrian flow. Drive-thru circulation on Pad 4 was redesigned with circulation within the parking lot instead of around the building as ARC suggested. PROJECT DATA DISTRICT COMMERCIAL PROJECT Street Setbacks: Cook Street 32 feet 32 feet Gerald Ford Drive 32 feet 32 feet University as approved 63 feet Spine Road as approved 20' - 75' Wonder Palms Road as approved 25' - 62' Lot Coverage 50% 23% 7 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 03-07, C/Z 03-10, PP 03-11, TPM 31515 and DA 97-2 AMD. #2 SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 DISTRICT COMMERCIAL PROJECT Landscape depth from street 20 feet minimum 20' plus, except for area adjacent to pads 1 and 2 = 18 feet deep Building Height: Hotel 30 feet 37 - 44 feet* Office 30 feet single story Retail: Buildings 1 & 2 30 feet 27' with tower to 38'* ** Buildings 3 & 5 30 feet 30', top of parapet* 34' Building 4 30 feet 22' to 28' Fast Food Landscape Area Pad 3 30% 37% Pad 4 30To 37% Pad 5 30% 31 % * Height exception required IV. MASTER PLAN AMENDMENTS: The applicant also seeks approval of revisions to the Wonder Palms Master Plan to: A. Extend the Freeway Overlay area so as to facilitate the drive-thru restaurants on Pads 3 and 4. Response: The 23.6-acre plan is consistent with the land use plan recommended by GPAC and is a logical configuration and size to accommodate the land uses needed in this area. The previous six-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. 8 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 03-07, C/Z 03-10, PP 03-11, TPM 31515 and DA 97-2 AMD. #2 SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 B. The applicant requests a height exception for the hotel to allow 37 to 44 feet of height and retail buildings to 38 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. With respect to the hotel height, plans are not yet available for review. Staff would suggest that the master plan be amended to allow structures on PA-3 to a maximum height of 40 feet subject to confirmation of the architecture by the City Council when those plans are presented. C. The applicant requests provision to allow a 15% increase in building size without additional hearing. Response: Staff suggests that the master plan be amended to define a "minor modification" as an increase of up to 10% in building size being acceptable without additional hearings. This assumes that the request complies with all other provisions. V. DISCUSSION: The project before commission 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 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. The plan does still have a few outstanding issues. 9 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 03-07, C/Z 03-10, PP 03-11, TPM 31515 and DA 97-2 AMD. #2 SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 A. MEDICAL USE PARKING: In discussion with staff, the applicant made a case for approval of approximately 21 ,000 square feet of medical office space to be permitted only in three specific buildings. Mr. Evans suggested that the 10,000 square feet in the office area in retail building #3 could be medical. This building shares parking with the hotel site. The peak medical use hours are the low parking need times for the hotel. Mr. Evans also suggested that an argument could be made to allow 50% of office buildings #12 and 14 (11 ,000 +/- square feet) to be medical office. These buildings are adjacent to the main parking field that serves the commercial portion of the plan. Due to their location so far away from the commercial, these parking spaces will be the last to be used by commercial customers and will offer closer parking than some spaces designated for the office park. Response: The 21 ,000 square feet of medical has a parking demand of 42 parking spaces. We know from experience that restaurants associated with a hotel (i.e., Sonoma Grill and Embassy Suites) can operate quite successfully with a 50% parking adjustment to the restaurant parking requirement. We do not have specific experience with respect to offices sharing with retail / restaurant uses. The applicant agreed to research parking studies which could quantify the extent to which such uses in large mixed use developments can share parking. If there is a demonstrated sharing of parking, then the master plan amendment could recognize it and allow for the medical use without additional parking. Failing that, the applicant would need to eliminate one of the office buildings which Mr. Evans indicated was not acceptable. 10 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 03-07, C/Z 03-10, PP 03-11, TPM 31515 and DA 97-2 AMD. #2 SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 VI. CONCLUSION: There are a series of outstanding issues remaining with this project as described in the foregoing in addition to the need for the Planning Commission to review and take a position on the General Plan update. Staff recommends that the matter be continued to October 21 , 2003. At that time the Planning Commission should have completed the General Plan review and the applicant should have tied down the remaining loose ends (i.e., medical parking and additional ARC review of retail buildings). VII. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission continue this matter to October 21 , 2003. VIII. ATTACHMENTS: A. Legal notice B. Comments from city departments and other agencies C. Development Agreement 97-2 D. Plans and Exhibits E. ARC minutes of 07-08-03 F. Traffic Study G. Applicant's Project Narrative Prepared by: Revie and Approved by: Steve Smith Phi Drell Planning Manager Director of Community Development i Rev' w and Co . Homer Croy ACM for Devel ment Services /t m 11 Staff Report Case No. PP 03-11, TPM 31515, DA 03-03 October 21, 2003 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: October 21 , 2003 continued from September 2, 2003 CASE NOS: PP 03-11 , TPM 31515 and DA 03-03 REQUEST: Approval of a general plan amendment from low density residential to planned commercial; a change of zone from PR-5 (planned residential five units per acre); and a precise plan and tentative parcel map for a commercial / office project at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive, 37-001 Cook Street. Said project includes 111 ,880 square feet of retail (including drive- thru restaurants), a three-story hotel with up to 140 rooms; and one story garden offices totaling 122,000 square feet. Project is generally located at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive described as a portion of 653-390-062. APPLICANT: Rick Evans 57745 Interlachen La Quinta, CA 92253 I. BACKGROUND: This application was continued from September 2, 2003 to allow the General Plan process to catch-up, to allow the applicant to address the medical use parking shortfall, to take revised building plans through ARC, to allow the applicant to work with Public Works with respect to whether among other items the project would have 1 access to Cook St. or 2 and to allow staff to prepare the development agreement and conditions of approval II. REVIEW OF ISSUES The processing of the general plan continues. As of the writing of this report Commission has not taken a position on the University Village Land Use Plan. This may be accomplished at the morning session on October 21 , 2003. Staff Report Case No. PP 03-11, TPM 31515, DA 03-03 October 21, 2003 Cook Street Access The applicant has agreed with Public Works to limit the project to 1 access to Cook Street. That revision to the site plan allows the retail portion to increase in size from 107,620 square feet to 111 ,880 square feet. Medical Use Parking In the project narrative page 8, the applicant addresses the medical use parking shortfall (60spaces). The project addresses its "parking needs through its shared parking agreement." The applicant analyzed the various uses and expected varying peak demand times and concluded that if the medical uses are spread out over the site that adequate parking will be available. The applicant proposes a maximum of 30,000 square feet of medical office use provided in the office building, #12 & 14 and the second floor of retail building #3. The office building 12 & 14 are adjacent to the main retail parking field. The noon retail peak hours coincide with the off peak hours of the adjacent offices. Peak hours for the medical uses occur during lower demand retail periods. The second floor of medical uses in retail building #3 shares its parking with the hotel site which experiences its peaks in the early morning and late afternoon providing medical use parking during the day. Architecture The applicant changed architects and submitted new architecture to the ARC at its September 23, 2003 meeting and again on October 14, 2003. ARC granted preliminary architectural approval to the office and retail components of the project. With respect to the hotel ARC felt that its architecture was conceptually headed in the right direction, but that it needed additional detailing and work which would occur when an actual developer made a specific application to the city. The landscaping will be a "Desert Willow" style. The landscaping plans shown to the ARC were not detailed enough to grant preliminary approval but commission determined that the plant pallet was headed in the right direction. Staff Report Case No. PP 03-11, TPM 31515, DA 03-03 October 21, 2003 V. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission address design issues and continue to November 4, 2003. Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved by: Steve Smith Phil Drell Planning Manager Director of Community Development Review and Concur: Homer Croy ACM for Development Services /t m PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2231 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 97-2 EXPANDING PLANNING AREA #3 OF THE WONDER PALMS MASTER PLAN AND APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN FOR AN OFFICE, RETAIL, HOTEL PROJECT AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF COOK STREET AND GERALD FORD DRIVE, 37-001 COOK STREET CASE NOS. PP 03-1 1 AND DA 03-03 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 2nd day of September, 2003, hold a duly noticed public hearing, which was continued to October 21 and November 4, 2003, to consider the request by RICK EVANS for approval of the above described project; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 02-60," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project was analyzed as part of the General Plan Update, the University Village Plan and the Environmental Impact Report related thereto, and that when the EIR is certified by the City Council, no further review will be necessary; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify recommending to City Council approval of said request: 1 . With the Amendment to the Development Agreement, the proposed location of the office / retail / hotel complex as conditioned is in accord with the objectives of the zoning ordinance and the purpose of the district in which the site is located. 2. The proposed precise plan will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this title, except for approved exceptions permitted through the development agreement process. 3. The proposed location of the office / retail / hotel complex and the conditions under which it will be operated and maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2231 4. The proposed precise plan complies with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City's General Plan as recommended for amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That Development Agreement DA 03-03 amending DA 97-2 is hereby recommended for approval to the City Council. Said case DA 03-03 amends DA 97-2 as follows: Expands Planning Area #3 of the Wonder Palms Development Plan from 11 .2 acres to 23.6± acres as shown on Exhibit "A" attached. ii. Approves Precise Plan 03-1 1 providing for 122,000 square feet of office space, 110,880 square feet of retail including one drive-thru restaurant adjacent to Gerald Ford Drive, and a three-story hotel with up to 130 rooms along with certain amenities, functional areas and parking areas (the "Project") that shall be developed pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, all as more fully described in the Precise Plan attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by this reference. iii. Approval of the proposed uses, setbacks, the density and intensity of use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings and provisions for reservation and dedication of land for purposes as set forth in the precise plan contained in Exhibit "B" and the conditions attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by this reference. iv. Allow as a minor amendment, without further public hearing, an increase in the size of approved buildings of not more than 10% provided said expansion complies with all other code provisions. 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2231 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 4th day of November, 2003, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: FINERTY, LOPEZ, TSCHOPP, CAMPBELL NOES: NONE ABSENT: JONATHAN ABSTAIN: NONEC>L•—•‘:_ )1( VSONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson ATTEST: „,Q,L PHILIP DRELL Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 3 • • \ \ • .\ N t i \ N •\ r i •i N N \, .c., j M itNN • ‘.70 \ o V ! -- . Nam. ! p. l • \N .N ��\�� a�\\\ \ , GERALD—FOR _ O,P \ N4 ,, IN , \ \ S i . _______ - ‘, 1, , sic BERGER RD \ 0 __ , —_, k..)' '\s \\A 0 - Expanded Area of Planning Area #3 of the Wonder Palms Development Plan, Ordinance No. 837 N _—/ W+E S / FRANK SI NA TRA DR 0 300 600 1,200 -- . eet City of Palm Desert PLANNING COMMISSION ��d II EXH IT RESOLUTION NO. 2231 ;a Date: 11-04-03 • Sheet Index OYIE1181T a •WAR IWl REV i t •SEIZED qAa BEV 11 .MEIa[DEOIXSDEEi 10 •IEI'EED OE.ROW ID -ream OEM urr • 1D -WIEDOSSRYllI1E1 ID ilf®ED eBHO 11 .a1113ORIE"Ma AD -ABl®NillWW/ LLL^ Y^I 0 Cl)• 1A UNIVERSITY VILLAGE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 2 3CO 0 'hMUHIT C':CLOY&IC C ITI X 0 2 Z 0 W N w UNIVERSITY VILLAGE DRAWNG REVISIONS *maw 1b NM Cagey Mint WIN Ittip1Wit O EOYaxMls Ot 1Rt0r/ aaa EIemitOmilin aaa MOgElrl lf0 xtpEkM Na aC1nwNs Pali Roan w,gomkg.SAw MU, UNIVERSITY VILLAGE 0•• AMDr(din* PLANNING COMMIS---1 RESOLUTION NO. 22311 . 3 1 i m33313:3 ccn •l EXHIBIT Bs el i I I ®I 1i I Ifi I I 11/Mi 1 __.1I W � . 1 aniaa aaod •i vaao i ...,. C 1 : I liScijl.rmTh— ' lirli**----. ' 11111111111111MIIIIIIR•ft..6 216" . r 1"HI ' 8,111111111.1 — �.__ ___ __,..,_ _.„ .., �? un .. 1 III IIII uT; * IL , Jr. •� w 41.174'—ome '- inISCI-IWAPIP, " 1 r -1 •: iito; 1 =iris"4>-%. s. :1 N. II iipz..- *. . . • ' „,, , •: ... %1141M„, 16 LI.H-w4ms , \ \ % . r , �� ! 1,16 . r�� .• 14,,' •�♦ ♦Y,.' 11 I I I I I l l I I I I ) 4.." \'* 41 I ' • ,`•,.•*s.i ''# 4• ' . „",tI . ♦♦,,R\ 6!` ;V :-♦lam .' • • ti l'b -., Alift 11 \ / Fa 1 -'2. .sss# 44 7 -v.4.,-,.. .ki.1)- \* .-1 .:1-w ,a, ... ,ps. .., .. s/ it ./.1,G xi 52 ° 1 • QC E ,,,`•,�`� III \ �di\• *• � , ,Ii::.I _4. _ i,, `. -4" ip.' = "" 'ram `0: litI,I ' ■ J i. C� �` ,rr i� II 1 , .,... ,.aw'Xn._._ B 0 ', "•,a li.Av 1 r a.p2iR IIiI,„xlI„„lI 7g., . „;.tI,1 s S,;1:ii1 i i ix - - �A ax �f _ 1. i t '. LenIDJ i . / I. 1 MI ,..111111113 1 QIIIIII IPq —� w 1 A - j � S C 3 n,a`a a 30 a 3 e, i§ C en 6g11 1g11 _ 1 1 w - • ill To — Z r' Z 1.PLAZA ELEVATION @ CORNER 0 • PROVIDED MORE INTERESTING ROOF FEATURES TO PLAZA TOWERS g • INCREASED VIEW INTO CENTER BY SCALING DOWN PLAZA ARCHITECTURE g • PROVIDED PEDESTRIAN SCALED PAVILION BUILDINGS WITH OPERABLE STOREFRONTS TO ENHANCE INDOOR OUTDOOR CONNECTIONCn U3 • XI cn . ON ILUON,t POV r. *MNSmUN TRANSmON C RETAl1 C > < RETAIL m O X Z ,,,,„ CORNER TOWER coZ v CORNER TOWER r > Y T O —I - - UNIVERSITY VILLA N iv i REVISED PLAZA ELEVATION LI The Emu Wiry v Y' v ? r v v v • j� 9 ,f 1,11103 REVISED PLAZA PLAN , 41'-0" 1 15'-6" c _ ` .t ` .v1rF L� .heyn Rot*.III McAdoo ,.ear. ' �! (brl�ba • � :�j: . Ilt'7gfll ik7he- IiCsAntel a•.ase.c +.� � i ARCRstaliti MC KC ROARER arm `rt 1r .. �. ARC Preew-Si,w.Peep Rolm WHIM MI KIM KEY SITE PLAN - - - ✓ 1.0 UNIVERSITY VILLAGE PLANNING COMMISS'—'' RESOLUTION NO. 22311 s F. jib' IliiiBil 411' I 99 EXHIBIT Eb ®l �. a I I AI A 6 i ., 1. vcr r �— ro 1 '-S1:: S ".:. 4.:..,.-:,)1,[tim, \*:.:1, !_r_11 '. 11'0 g . I! _71 - 'q 17 b'q d del t At v gam if tA 1: --(=1W ( - N I\ 4 \` / \ v--, , N\ 1 / I lu \ W ,, W 8 J c c w Z d 11 r D Z Z z GI 2'r:4 n 0 - = gin ,_ �: _- _w__R=:4 •-- - MIMI S'olic Bar 8 BrBI ` a 3 ��� - to s t I 4 BABIESD.c Iwllm �: pl Col Col!? THE OLD NICKE brill �' � ��� —�J�,��s r \, \ `� F ,\ A_1�4 ? \` / �11111aN, I/� �1 ���\ - II"11 71 1.RETAIL 1 REVISED COOK STREET ELEVATION(RETAIL 2 SIMILAR) • ADDED PLASTER SIGN FASCIA OVER PIERS TO CREATE VERITY. • MODIFIED CORNER TREATMENT,REFER TO EXHIBIT 1.0 • INCREASED VERTICAL PROPORTION OF STOREFRONT BY EXTENDING STOREFRONT GLASS TO FLOOR. rll • RE-PROPORTIONED AWNING AND STOREFRONTS TO INCREASE INDIVIDUAL TENANT IDENTITY. X 0 I Z W Z • UNIVERSITY VILLAS N Ai7 REVISED COOK STREETELEVATKKI(RETAIL 2 / b'emrM' The Ran •,S�f Jr as AVM S t ,wea lies w.Than rNiIffilfrollbtl Ir i.."---'...at':7',AU.' 46,V." 444,,N ti 1, I PRCRoi�Ll •16W ' Y'Q'YYIL TIT!' t AWN* I••I +� �II 1{{''����FF��� I A4:RrYlen•Si Rol igrYy1►.HM Y71M 111101 KEY SREPLAN J 2.0 UNIVERSITY VILLAGE PLANNING COMMISS'—'I RESOLUTION NO. 223 - b 11 '111522 M ®1 3 Rieiw/. EXHIBIT ®' .P 3s ›. W a tiJiii! i ".11,71„:_=,..=_____74efetetN.:_mmil :5:11.1..:: rep• ; , , A' t_t_..„..i, -, .. - ,v=it ..vi .tom I * ' I l 1, g NI 1K-,ii �: Idi a ti..: IV 8 1_,1 �: 1i ler441111 Mi- If=''il': - '1'A- ''II!li�I: I% 1It - Valliffil- 0. ,li',h I!i61,�1 I4 �1, �' L it'll.7 I — lipi' �Ii; rl 111r111, 1 i', 1.1! I 'j�.\ ., 111.311� YI IN �iriifrok 4d �'I�.Ili . I:1.y'" 0 , .ati 4;, . 41. il 1.>-1. - i. 11111 1 s , • I ,I, r61.I lIli�a' LL =�" m' z S 77-� n �G U U _O �1 w $ CD o � io n .. z � I. - p W 8W r7- w 0 w ' co j § rcW z1 • • 1 Z Z o f I •P I I mo Z^ P I i V/ [ - / / - Y! NORTH WEST ELEVATION g Cn N N. m Cn � � 0 mil/ I _ . . r • r17—i 7 i/t, c ,,_ . 1 m = Z _ASOUTH EAST ELEVATION Z O ID N UNIVERSITY VILLAGt N !i•.. ' REVISED OFFICE 12 EIEVAT10N5,TYP- Cool • •4*7.,c•.1r ..:°;j11 l � 1 Ira'41 Oi ;�'W!Seta t may.�l WCP ...�010 IMES wxm KEY SUE PLAN 4.0 o o o JNIVERSITY VILLAGE hi..ta.. Z BERGER DRIVE I 17T1 = ( ) ( ) ar'illtil 1103"n 1"i; ei) iv I 011i1c 4r ta uD4Sk 1g0,; Wma/p k:•I7T:Z2 1.1 II: 1 Itiktte , i Jo 01 ; • it rkii al 0, lipltak —P4, ut!..: i B ••• • ••• .22 -7---1.T.M.`12..L.• 41...*" .. 0 isle Ilia n) II ioot •611 V-1 ig- igt 0:1 1 g 1 le ONO111F4 ; 110) .F* 0..7_11-r...7 ?: _, 41... — (r, 'A, a I , ! PI =IIt•I 1ll1 i_ o 1 .1 4 N Fo t a • "."S•1k v..4. \i t i„ I:...71', - lit. 21 011* '445' . 41/1` l'•• ''' t......41u 40-:4, 1.•4, • 1#41.110 s?so 0'' ''' I) I , •-• V 4104 la iF ck .) S. VP4,"41,& • 4°0 rff.P.-9""1 ;D: o {!:i. I: 041 A (I., I? *),'‘';i -• It.‘./ .%/' .et• VI% EP • • -1 ,t re i; iv, , A*4:I 11)4r eV -4N . 1 Iti ..,,, ., pi_ 9 - - II,, . .26- ...! •,,,,, 03., . op, 4.-?,it.s. 4.411161111 IP it c'401," 'tSV . tk,+ ig ///‘ ••• 0,-... ok,.. 14 1 ":!..V.:P."' *% %. ..0‘ i 1 11'424,t:tr.:%#*ii OSS4°ttii. 14.**, 040., las 4.•:sv 44; 4111111— -0 - o P.**, r 4:T* &k•s •N° s% 0,4;4' IV.* ''-‘,4... , it-I.__ - .•,-,* ‘, 0 1 o '• ‘ '' • -4- ,-4-teie eols 4..z.,..4 ,ii, :fr.% .n," 194,,,, •,..,..;,,,f• %ea. 0 O, t'x• 0. .. •0 - 40W• 1. 04 ,.....-1 .. 0. ri:- .:." c s:it •*.• tv /4," t.:•4„,„i pyi. fp ,. .f.....son A ti. 4,'Y'S 4$^1811# 1, 40 S40:4 •••re, 0 0 WON" - P.". 4.* •. ..") 1,4441.;, Ig.• 4 ci 0 ii 1 • -, ,..... %,,,o •v s>,>4., •Itz. .. /!I v 0 111),.... - - v 0 .7;41 ' \'',","4, "'$)v1 ,R.S— •e: 4.41,. 4_41PI .,91 ) .1/4. ,•rt s1444,,‘ AO! .11 •Iii.,..4101-1/. T.: 1-1 .1.:71t;i r '• ere.' lc •-•••4•-•-•."' No• lies 1 -I :o li 11-'41 I IP s ,,V # 40017..."....90-140.. _.,.:11 2 8 .1 t I VI ,U Pao ,g etc :11- •_:1 ill i: i .•:. , - o. *. .;,- 1 , *-•-• 4!._ . ! il q ,,,,, rt) ,, '• .-,•-• % 141,' ,c- -1 .d I h I. ' 4 '. ti.4.. ',4ratffr.17. .4Avetts I IL ., A = -I; ile - i .-, .:: q-if ,, tp . e,9 ....• tv- ok.‘,1111 i le V 1 j ir :I k? 4 N ei.. \ Ci Iii. Ct 11._•-' 016 tt . --- •4 ...40 A' g 0' i kto l 1 0- 11-1 i iIrenT 0II:-1II:.idCECigIIi nr•Ntrn iIa isis / V, ' . - 0 g 1 isti.-} p*..m, ___----_,...._ L-- i...irlik-sr, 'le —Nrn •l .3, 1 i i e "---- • . .-• ' 14.,0 co iro g IA g §. GERALD FORD DRIVE __ ____LEN "; 1 ---- ...--- M li f IAP*II f i g NOUN F.1111311111111111111110 11111111111M MAIECCINI3E211[40:0C1]F. J. - 1111111 1 X X 1 ' c 5 V .Ig i 1 i !1 ill I i II 111 111111111 lUIMUBEOWINII (1) I i A MENNE! mom oomommumoo ooa000mmoo© infilIHRIIIHHHHIIII 10 w r, OFIVDI Itiliin 1116-ttlagUi ElECUJEIBUEMIJUD 1111N1111111 i riLift. i ii6, luiquul , , !Itillii / Le cz," iLIEEE. i i 1 - 1, IIIII 1,1 lilikil-141111,,„,- - ,, „ . III InilF1 '' 0; PLANNING COMMISSI RESOLUTION NO. 2231 # i 91 EXHIBIT B W r®.i sI 1 I A 1 i h! iti w 3AI2Ia arA0d a1VIA30 Eta '....1 0 a 0 1-7-e"-:--7-4- - -.. .\* Will MI 1E1111 IM NI MIMI III MI WA, 1 a` _i Ewa i` -imom Iiiiiiii 46_,ill AII, it,_ ` S ti Iry 9*,,, _ .,,:r,,,,, ,,, , I ` ` a `s • • . 9 F ,1,-.-/., .: , r ; ---a diumd \ .4110;t:zf'::44.:,: ::: i'--:4.).::,--;,.• , 1mi 4,-..,,,,,,t,,e,.;;;....,•-•;:s...,..,,-....,;;,:•.--:-.4.,:,...11:-.!,::::,-,..4,:;•411.-:;;,:v--;-,:..,:e_ J,,,: •-",,,,,,,a, ,tr...4w 4 4,`ji,)„UNN.\II\IN\I\I\II i .II\\I♦.I \e • pK - L/ I • tipr , S 1 As II \ \\ Imo, .z:� - Mile I I- 04 •,t,'feani N i LLI LI 04:1,:i.v.,1s.:. -, - lio 11 . &. iti•AW,' ,,,,, i,l.„44 0%,,,': • litill 0 If l'''' 4.4", ‘ '57•1•••',t,• ,ftb ,;o �,� Y ,►;ti; i �_T • s _ ► . ! c ir tirm � � 0 , ,\ 41 1 •. '4 (jI1 CV; Air" do. .�► i ! -2 1 PLANNING COMMISS" ' RESOLUTION NO. 223 1 4 '9PP 11111331 01 EXHIBIT BL I cIiM 1 A x i l hI1 41111 id, 4.0\` / -..� / ..�� ,* 0* ' `.� ,•:)`"! • •.* 0' N*4•171, ...„ :, ‘4,... ..., ,..,, e„),/, .:„ \ „. ,„ , .:(, ,..... ,,...,,,.,„ S.•.' 111116, * A '-:/% Al 0 ... 4._ 4 ra IIIAA^, i . , 4 . 4, .., .0).m»z N./. .cc /7 ./*2 e••••••••••••• .s j.'.. .s'.- / :•..iv 2. ii�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�iisi�i�i °IfAV .V Oirr& "/%'�:.. V / \ . ��� 4•Ait / 444c Iitiiiii,„1/4 , is , -I-&- 1\)\ "I'. 14 W1 •N 1 PLANNING COMMISS RESOLUTION NO. 223'1 E 1 l' 1111533 czi. ®1 i 1 , EXHIBIT EU ez1 1 :1 A to 0 \©v , o . aa AI `,. 17, ;�l i . "-AA- 6 /44 1 1 r Imo^ �: I.I 1 !i I 11 ..trikoNfik:4e-rvA'r 14404, 10�pCi�i> `qv ,..*k.).* 114..4,41k8.4" low-Aral 114, .....„: . Tri . I.. . E i / \ i 410- I . �iii __I � 100 L r O f.1♦v, `�� ♦♦alb ����' \ W PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2231 EXHIBIT "C" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. PP 03-11 Department of Community Development: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the department of community development/planning, as modified by the following conditions: 2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise, said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statues now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permit and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas. Said placement shall be approved by applicable trash company and department of community development and shall include provisions for recycling. 16 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2231 6. All future occupants of the buildings shall comply with parking requirements in section 25.58 of the zoning ordinance. 7. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said landscaping for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which agreement shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. The final landscape plan shall include a long-term maintenance program specifying among other matters appropriate watering times, fertilization and pruning for various times of the year for the specific materials to be planted, as well as periodic replacement of materials. All to be consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801) and the approved landscape plan. 8. A detailed parking lot and field lighting plan shall be submitted to staff for approval, subject to applicable lighting standards. Plan to be prepared by a qualified lighting engineer. 9. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the department of public works prior to architectural review commission submittal. 10. The project shall be subject to all applicable fees at time of issuance of building permits including, but not limited to, Art in Public Places, Fringed-Toed Lizard, TUMF, School Mitigation and Housing Mitigation fees. 11 . That the project shall be permitted medical office use provided said medical office use shall be parked at a rate of six parking spaces per 1 ,000 square feet per Municipal Code Section 25.56.310. 12. That the approval of PP 03-11 shall not be effective until the related Development Agreement (DA 03-03) is approved by the City Council. Department of Public Works 1 . Any drainage facility construction required for this project shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to start of construction. The project shall be designed to retain storm waters associated with the increase in developed vs. undeveloped condition for a 100 year storm. 17 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2231 2. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of any permits associated with this project. Modification of existing signals at Gerald Ford and Technology Drive, and at Cook and Berger Circle West, may be used as credit against these fees, at the discretion of the City Council. 3. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance. 4. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 5. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits. 6. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works. 7. As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance with Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. Offsite improvement plans to be approved by the Public Works Department and a surety posted to guarantee the installation of required offsite improvements prior to permit issuance. 8. Landscape installation on the property frontages as well as on-site shall be drought tolerant in nature and maintenance shall be provided by the property owner. 9. Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust Control and Section 24.20, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. 10. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.44, complete grading plans/site improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. Preliminary landscape plans shall be submitted for review concurrently with grading plans. 18 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2231 11. Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 12. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards, the city's Circulation Network, and the University Village Offsite Street Site Plan dated November 4, 2003 including the following: • Curb, gutter, paving sidewalk on Gerald Ford Drive, Cook Street, Technology Drive, Spine Road, and Berger Drive. • Gerald Ford Drive shall be constructed to a half-street width of 45'on 75'right of way minimum, plus free right turn lane onto Cook Street. • Cook Street shall be constructed to a half-street width of 51' on 75' right of way minimum, plus free right turn lane from Gerald Ford Drive. • Landscaped center median on Cook Street, Gerald Ford Drive, and University Drive. • Signal modifications at Cook and Berger Circle West, Gerald Ford and Technology Drive. • Right turn lanes at all entrances, and on Cook Street at Berger Circle. • Construction of a bus facility with turnout as required by Sunline Transit Agency. • Construct a free right turn lane with deceleration and acceleration lanes on the southwest corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive. Ultimate street improvements on Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive shall be installed prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for Phase 1. Ultimate Street improvements on Technology Drive, Spine Road, and Berger Drive shall be installed prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for any subsequent phase. Rights-of-way necessary for the installation of the above referenced improvements shall be dedicated to the city prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. 13. This project shall be limited to one driveway on Gerald Ford Drive and one driveway on Cook Street, with right turn ingress and egress. The Cook Street driveway may also be provided with left turn ingress subject to final design and approval by the City Engineer. The Gerald Ford Drive driveway may also be provided with left turn ingress subject to final design and approval by the City Engineer. Two full access driveways may be permitted on Spine Road. Driveways and parking lots shall be 19 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2231 inspected by the Public Works Department and a standard inspection fee paid prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 14. Proposed Berger Drive shall match the width of Berger Drive to the east. Proposed Wonder Palms Drive shall be constructed to a width of 52' on 76' right of way to match Technology Drive to the north. Spine Road shall be constructed to a half street width of 26' on 38' right of way minimum, with a 12' raised, landscaped median island. Spine Road shall be widened to provide a minimum of four traffic lanes at key intersections, as determined by the City Engineer. Interim street widths shall conform to the approved rough grading plan. 15. Parcel Map shall be required to erase existing property lines, establish new property lines and make dedications for future street widening. 16. A traffic study has been prepared and accepted for this project. Fire Department Conditions 1 . With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced project, the fire department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Code, NFPA, CFC and CBC or any recognized Fire Protection Standards: The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all buildings per UFC article 87. 2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20 psi residual pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site, 3000 gpm for commercial buildings and 150' from any portion of a commercial building measured via vehicular travelway. 3. Water Plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the water system will produce the required fire flow. 4. Install and complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all buildings with a 3000 square foot total cumulative floor area. The fire Marshal shall approve the locations of all post indicator valves and fire department connections. All valves and connections shall not be less than 25' from the building within 50' of an approved hydrant. Exempted are one and two family dwellings. 20 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2231 5. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and Water- flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per UBC chapter 9. 6. Install a fire alarm system as required by the UBC Chapter 3. 7. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than one 2A1OBC extinguisher per 3000 square feet and not over 75' from walking distance. A `K' type fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens. 8. Install a Hood/Duct automatic fire extinguisher system per NFPA 96 in all public and private cooking operations except single-family residential usage. 9. All building shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall not be less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is required on both sides of the street the roadway must be 36' wide and 32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn-around 55' in industrial developments. 10. A dead end single access over 500' will require a secondary access, sprinklers or other mitigative measures approved by the Fire Marshal. Under no circumstances shall a dead end over 1300' be accepted. 11. A second access is required. This can be accomplished by two main access points from a main roadway or an emergency gate from an adjoining development. 12. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city. 13. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be submitted separately tot he Fire Marshal for approval prior to construction. 14. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when building permits are not obtained within twelve months. 15. Verify all turning radii are a 45 degree radius. 21 ` SUBJECT Tt REVISION MINUTES " ' i 't PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 Commissioner Jonathan concurred with the comments. He said he actually agreed with applicant and thought he made a cogent point when he said the traffic exists and this project wouldn't generate a significant amount of new traffic. This project has two access points, one on Hovley which was a simple right-in and right-out and one on Cook. So right now there was dirt there and that wouldn't be the case forever. He thought the area was fortunate because residential, particularly high density residential would create more traffic than these types of development. Once they accept the fact that it wouldn't be dirt forever and understand that it would be developed in some way, then this might be the least of all evils because it might generate the least traffic with only two access points. The challenge to staff and to the applicant would be to look to the future as Commissioner Tschopp suggested and look at it as an opportunity to avoid future problems as more and more development occurs, not just in this area and not just in Palm Desert, but in Indian Wells and other surrounding communities. For all the reasons that people came to the desert, they didn't manage to keep it a secret and others were coming in, so they needed to deal with it. Chairperson Campbell called for the vote. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, continuing Case No. PP 03-10 to October 7, 2003 by minute motion. The motion carried 5-0. CHAIRPERSON CAMPBELL CALLED A FIVE MINUTE RECESS AT 8:54 P.M. THE MEETING WAS RECONVENED AT 9:08 P.M. F. Case Nos. GPA 03-07, C/Z 03-10, PP 03-11, TPM 31515 and DA 97-2 Amendment #2 - RICK EVANS, Applicant Request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, general plan amendment from low density residential to planned commercial; a change of zone from PR-5 (planned residential five units per acre); 58 FT SUBJECT Tf �� V � REVISION . ,` b 5 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 an amendment to the Wonder Palms Master Plan to expand Planning Area 3 from six acres to 23.6 acres; and a precise plan and tentative parcel map for a commercial / office project at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive, 37-001 Cook Street. Said project includes 107,000 square feet of retail (including drive-thru restaurants), a three-story hotel with up to 140 rooms, and one and two story garden offices totaling 135,000 square feet. Project is generally located at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive described as a portion of APN 653-390-062. Mr. Drell explained that Mr. Smith would give a brief description of the project and then the developer would give a presentation. Mr. Drell said he would make a few comments as to how this project evolved from the City's perspective and how it responds to all of their discussion about the General Plan. Very early in the general plan discussion when they looked at this area it was clear that it would be a long-term benefit to the city and the community and this project to respond to both the needs and the opportunities presented by the university campus. They didn't want this to be just another freeway commercial project or a suburban shopping center. As the university developed, they wanted the influence of the university to go across the street creating a dynamic, high energy urban environment. The problem, and it was a problem all of those property owners would face, was that while five, ten or 15 years from now the university would be the driving force in that neighborhood, right now it wasn't and right now it was the freeway off ramp. So the challenge was to create kind of an internal site plan and architecture that would be economically viable given today's market, which was principally driven by traffic on Cook Street and the interchange, but would be able to evolve over time as the opportunities from the university developed to be that exciting retail environment that would complement the university. 59 T:,e SUBJECT T( MINUTES "" REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 He believed the applicant had succeeded very well in accomplishing that, in creating a project that should be successful given today's market and had the ability to evolve into a different sort of project ten or 15 years from now. He could see some of the retail expanding into some of the offices as that need and desire changed in the future. Behind this project would be a significant residential development and hopefully this project would be able to respond to it as it develops over the next ten or 15 years. He thought they had a very well designed project that could uniquely meet both the demands of today's market and the evolving demands over the next ten or 15 years. He said there were a few issues left unresolved so they would need to continue this project, but in general staff's feeling was that it was a very positive design for the site. Mr. Smith displayed the site plan. He stated that the subject property was bounded by Gerald Ford on the north, Cook Street on the east, the site extended to the current access point into the Cal State site at Berger Drive, which was signalized. Along Gerald Ford the site would extend westerly to a point where it would align with Technology Drive to the north which exists and provides the secondary access into the Hampton Inn and ultimately into the industrial area to the northwest. On the site plan that street was identified as Wonder Palms Drive. It extended southwesterly from Gerald Ford. Berger Drive West, which on the plan was called University, was connected. The two streets, Wonder Palms and University, were connected by a spine road which provided access to this project and was also the main street as part of the residential development to the southwest, which was part of the General Plan Update. He noted for the record that in the staff report staff refers to the area called Planning Area 3 of the Wonder Palms Specific Plan as being six acres. He said it was currently 11 acres and extends along Gerald Ford Drive. There was a parcel on an underlying map that is six acres on the corner, so what they were doing was looking at expanding that PA3 from 11 acres to 23.6 acres. He said he would let the developer describe the project. In the staff report he explained that the applicant 60 SUBJECT T( MINUTES " REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 was seeking approval for 21,000 square feet of medical office. The applicant would prefer 30,000 square feet. He said that office was currently proposed in retail building number three on the second floor and in office buildings 12 and 14 located toward the interior of the site. When staff did their calculations, they were basing it on 50% of each of those buildings 12 and 14. In actual fact they would prefer to have it at 100%. Staff's response to that request was they needed some quantitative information showing the relationship between office users and retail. They knew what the offset was between hotels and restaurants. They had dealt with that for many years; however, staff wanted to see something quantitatively. What the applicant had done up to this point was to provide staff with zones of influence where the areas in various colors showed the main parking areas for the particular uses and then the excess parking in the fringes of those areas. That was the argument they were making at this point; however, they were continuing to look for the quantitative studies staff was requesting. Mr. Smith noted there was an issue with the number of access points to Cook Street. The site planning relative to parking complied with either one or two access points if they didn't mix in the medical office use, which would change the numbers. At 30,000 square feet of medical, they would need to find or account for 60 parking spaces out of almost 1 ,200 spaces. Architecture for the retail portion had been reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission. He noted there were various colored elevations to display. The plans received last week were included in commission packets differed from that shown to ARC back on July 8. The more recent efforts were done in an effort to address issues that ARC brought up at that time. The requested project required amendment to the Wonder Palms Specific Plan. Staff felt it was appropriate to amend the plan to lengthen the commercial development along Cook Street given what had happened since the Wonder Palms Specific Plan was adopted. With 61 ‘,.- , .,,,7. 1 ' SUBJECT IT MINUTES i 1 i i o REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 respect to a height exception, the applicant felt the hotel would need to be in the 37 to 44-foot height range and the most recent rendition of the commercial buildings showed there at 38 feet in height. Staff felt the retail buildings at 38 feet with diversified roof lines created sufficient architectural interest to warrant the height exception. With respect to the hotel, staff did not have building plans for it and staff suggested that the language allow for up to 40 feet of building with City Council confirmation. Mr. Smith stated that the applicant was also requesting provision in the development agreement which would allow for a 15% increase in building size without additional hearing. Staff was suggesting that the language in the development agreement define a minor modification as an increase of up to 10% as being acceptable without additional hearings assuming that the project complied with all other provisions. Based on the commission's action two weeks ago on the Sares Regis project in that the commission was clear that they didn't care to be considering actual projects at the time they were considering the general plan, staff was recommending a continuance to October 21 if that was still the commission's position. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the staff report indicated that all offices would be single-story. Mr. Smith clarified that the 14 office buildings were all single stories. There were 2 two-story retail buildings toward the center of the site and on the second floor there would be offices. Commissioner Tschopp noted that there was commercial shown to the south and on Frank Sinatra to the west there was a big piece of property that wasn't identified. Mr. Smith clarified that the street on the left side of the plan that they were looking at was Portola. Mr. Drell said that the east side of Portola was land purchased by the Redevelopment Agency for a possible third Desert Willow golf course. Commissioner Jonathan noted that staff didn't mention the extension of the Freeway Overlay area and any exceptions or changes. Mr. Smith 62 r r•r SUBJECT TC MINUTES ti d REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 explained that currently it was 11 acres in PA3 and staff was suggesting that it be expanded to 23.6 acres further to the south to align with University/Berger to the south. Staff felt it was warranted to expand the commercial along Cook Street for the reasons that Mr. Drell mentioned. Commissioner Jonathan asked if that would facilitate drive- thru restaurants on Pads 3 and 4. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Wonder Palms allowed drive-thrus. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. RICK EVANS, 71-800 Highway 111 Suite A224 in Rancho Mirage, addressed the commission. He explained that he is a partner in Alliance Retail Partners, the developers of the project. He said they were very new to the desert and just moved from the Newport Beach area and made their home here in the desert because they were so excited about this project. He said that the project has grown with them over the last year in working with staff, Mr. Drell, Mr. Smith and a lot of other staff people. The project was intended to encompass the entire 23 acres as a master plan kind of project. Using a power point presentation, he showed the commission the project location and the surrounding area. The next picture showed an overlay of their project,with the proposed General Plan so the commission could see the relationship between the project and the future General Plan. They endeavored to create a mixed use office, hotel and retail development along the corridor, focused on the freeway and the university traffic. He thought the residential would be a very important aspect to their community that they intended to serve with the project. One important thing about the project was that it was organized by a main street. He said they tried to pay attention to the master plan with regard to residential access to the project. He pointed 63 BJ • itk MINUTES ;,7. .. RESUVISIONECT -1( PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 out the office zone, the hotel zone, the retail zone and they were organized by main street. He noted that there was no central parking area. They intended for people to access the project and come into the project in a way that they could walk and/or drive to their different destinations. He said it was a little difficult to do in the desert because of the heat. But they also thought there was plenty of time during the day when people would traverse as many as five or six different shops or even walk from the office space to the retail for lunch. He showed where they thought the pedestrian traffic zones would be in the project. Commissioner Jonathan asked if main street was a real street. Mr. Evans explained that it was a street with parking on it. It was intended to be an organizing street that people could drive down and park head in. It was intended to set up an organization of main street where buildings would be on both sides of the street, sidewalks were on both sides and they would be looking at the flavor of an old downtown with buildings that evolve over time. Commissioner Jonathan said that in the other drawings he saw it looked like it was just a lane through the parking and not a street with sidewalks. Mr. Evans said he wanted to correct the record in one regard. The office in GLA for the garden office one story was 130,000 square feet. The second floor office above the retail buildings was 28,000 square feet. Rounding the numbers, he said the retail GLA was 90,000 square feet and the hotel was 140 keys. Regarding phasing, he thought it was important for everyone to know early on that they intend to phase the project. Phase 1 would consist of about 50,000 square feet of office and 40,000 square feet of retail. 64 r . SUBJECT TC REVISION MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 Currently access was intended to be from Cook Street and Gerald Ford. At the hotel end of the site was the Berger/University end of the site. The hotel was pictured as an "I" shaped building with a swimming pool in the back and two restaurants in front to support not only the hotel guests, but the other guests. Those were the two sites they saw as sit down restaurants and freestanding pads. He showed the commission a picture of what they thought the exterior of the hotel would look like in the future. The height elevation changes were intended to give them some articulation to the building. It wasn't for building volume as much as it was for just giving the building some stature and prominence. He showed a picture of the elevation views of the restaurants. In this particular case there would be arcades and shading in between. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the hotel area was a numbered phase. Mr. Evans said no, it was just called the hotel phase. They thought it would come along with the second or third phases of the retail. Right now they were seeing the hotel market as being a little soft. He said that he and Mr. Drell had discussed the possibility of another retail use showing up. So in the evolutionary conversation mentioned in the staff's introduction, they felt there were some evolutionary ideas in the project so it could end up being something completely different down the road. While they hoped it wasn't a place holder because they were actively trying to market it for a hotel and the hotel uses they were looking at were very much highway style hotel, business hotel. They didn't want to be in the resort business or compete with that business. They didn't have a golf course or those things, so they saw it as a limited service and maybe limited service with suites. It would be a very nice, very well placed moderate priced hotel. He indicated that he would turn 65 SUBJECT 1( # e REVISION MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 • the floor over to Chuck Crookhall, the President of Shaw Properties and he was their office developer of choice on this project. MR. CHUCK CROOKHALL, Shaw Properties, 160 Newport Center Drive in Newport Beach, addressed the commission. He clarified that he wasn't the President of Shaw Properties, but he would accept it. He outlined the component which he said was the totality of the single story office component. They intended to build 130,000 square feet of gross area in 14 buildings, all single story. As Mr. Evans pointed out when they were doing the phasing, they recognized early out the synergy between the office component and the retail component was very important. Although the area was going to be fabulous over time, right now if they drove there and looked at it, they loved the location, but there was still a little pioneering going on. Being able to go in and provide an appropriate amount of office space and retail space to kick it off would work very well together. He indicated that one of the comments made at the Architectural Review Committee, he thought that the office people that would reside there for daytime activities were going to try to take advantage of the retail element. What they tried to show were walkways and shaded areas that people could get to and from and then feed down to the covered retail areas. He showed a picture of the entry on Gerald Ford Drive and Building Nos. 10 and 12. Then the view of Building Nos. 14 and 12 coming in off of Cook. He said there was a trellised area that would lead down to the retail area on the corner. He said that area was a total of ten acres that would be mapped. The parking would be four spaces per 1 ,000 square feet per code. Mr. Evans stated that they were trying to walk the commission through the project from the hotel to the office and then back down to the retail because they thought it was important for the commission to understand or at least get an introduction to the pieces. He said the next set of pictures was intended to show 66 4 A FT SUBJECT T( C 4 `� REV1SIGN MINUTES 1 # PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 them the layout of main street as well as the architecture of the retail buildings which they did in a great amount of detail. He said they intended to have awnings or some kind of canvas structure or cover of that kind which was shown on the architectural renderings. Some areas were designated as tree-shaded walkways as opposed to mechanical. Mr. Evans showed a picture of Main Street and explained that it was intended to be as much a walking street as it was a connector. They saw it as a connector / organizer for people walking from the hotel. They could walk on either side of the street. One of the comments from ARC was for them to add a little bit more pedestrian-like feel for their fast food pads which they made significant strides on and they still intended to do some more work in that particular area. From the plan in front of them, all of the fast food pads had plazas or patio areas to enhance and keep a free-flowing main street free-flowing kind of feel without it being an in-line kind of a building. He thought they had come up with a very unusual, very street-like downtown kind of feel from the street lights down to way the sidewalks were organized. When they started planning this site, they were asked by staff to insure that they had a feel of the gateway into the city at the intersection of Cook and Gerald Ford. So they took it upon themselves to not cover the corner with buildings that were too close together and to offer a view corridor right up the middle that was bracketed by landscaping, trees and a real strong feeling of corner and views right through the site. He described the buildings at the corner as bookend buildings. He indicated that they added two architectural towers and they weren't really looking at them to be signage towers, but saw them as an architectural treatment. They thought it was important to not only bring the buildings up visually a little higher, and it was one of the things that Mr. Smith brought out about these buildings being a little bit higher than was allowed in the current planning area, but 67 SUBJECT TC "1 REVISION MINUTES • PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 they thought it was important to give better articulation to the buildings down below with towers. He showed the commission another rendering of the plaza. He said the corner of Cook and Gerald Ford they had taken extremely seriously in their planning. They had a meandering sidewalk coming down both sides. There would be a small water feature, something that gave them a feeling of water and there were three spots of water that stuck up in the air that were bracketed by some palm trees and some other trees. It was intended to give another overture to the street. That was something important and a special place to be. He thought another important aspect was there weren't many places where people wanted grass. He noted that he was a grass lover. They opted to have little depressed grass areas where people could sit and lay in the grass and enjoy lunch. It wouldn't be flat, but would be sort of comfortable to have picnics on. As someone walks up the ramp from the street intersection, the project got a little higher and that was where the fountain would be with landscaping. Then they would come across sail- like awnings that bracket both buildings. The awnings were intended to be big shade factors and very colorful. They didn't know what the colors would be. They were portraying them in blues because they really liked some of the warm desert colors that came out from the mountains. The lavenders and some of the earthier blues, taupes and sand colors to give it a lot more of that visual strength. He showed a view within the plaza looking back at the shops, the kind of trellises they would have around the plaza and the seating. He said they planned for the entire plaza to be DG. Not concrete, not asphalt or pavers. He worked with a restaurant for a number of years that had been able to use DG very successfully in patios and around food eating areas. It was very comfortable and was even more comfortable when not delineated by concrete so it became a place to look at. They 68 SUBJECT IT MINUTES ._w 6 . •\I am REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 wanted it to be a place to enjoy sitting with tables and chairs on the DG surface. They actually experimented with some ideas they thought worked exceptionally well and gave them an interesting color pallet to deal with the desert palettes on the ground rather than a harder surface. Commissioner Tschopp asked what Mr. Evans was referring to when he said DG. Mr. Evans said that meant decomposed granite. It could be seen in landscaping zones, but this would be a little bit finer grade and it got compacted with a vibrator and became very firm. He thought it was very much like the desert. So there would be a lot of pots and a lot of character in the plaza, not just the normal pavers seen around in projects and shopping centers in So. California today. And it wasn't experimental. He had seen it used in several very high traffic restaurants, particularly the Houston's chain. In Newport Beach it was in the Gulf Stream Restaurant and they used it in their chain in Rutherford, Napa and a couple of other places and it had been very successful. He said it felt like a patio. It didn't just feel like a commercial concrete zone. He pointed out their first entrance on Gerald Ford and indicated they had future locations for entrances off of Wonder Palms Drive. He said they still had issues with Public Works with regard to entrances. Public Works asked them to consider a single entrance into the project. He said they had resisted it only to the extent that they think the project worked better with the dual entrances, but they did want to see and test what that looked like and worked like and how it organized the main street, what it did for them and what concerns they might have from it. One of the things Public Works asked them to do, which they just finished that day, was to look at their traffic report / traffic study and advance it to the 20/20 version that was in the GPA. Neither version was really overwhelmingly supported by the traffic study. There wasn't a material amount of difference between the current version and the future version. So it seemed to them that 69 '. FT SUBJECT T( MINUTES CI — REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 there was some argument as to whether or not one or two was the right thing to do from the Cook traffic standpoint. From the project standpoint, they continued to believe that the two entrance version worked better. They liked it because it brought customers in for the hotel, got them to park quickly, it wasn't frustrating on the exit, and it was the same way with the office customer. They also asked in the two entrance version, which had been modified from their original, that the entrances be right-in, right-out and left-in for two of them and a right-in and right-out only on the other one. They still needed to work through those questions with Public Works. He repeated that the traffic study didn't support or invalidate either version. He said that when they studied the single entrance version, there were some things about it that were very nice. One example was they would be able to add a little more square footage to the project. The other thing that was nice about the project was they liked the way it organized main street a little bit differently. It required an entrance for the hotel so that people coming up from the freeway could make their right, right- in and that worked out pretty good. When the hotel people exited, they could exit to the spine road, turn and be out. So it was a nice plan as well. He said they needed to have the conversation with Public Works and try to work it out for the best plan. His only comment about it at this point was that it was a toss up between the two. He thought the two entrance plan organized the traffic for the customer better and they would be happier with the project when they were there. The marketing people talking to clients preferred the two entrances. They hadn't resolved it and they just had to figure out which way to go. Today if asked which one he preferred after talking to their marketing people, he would much rather have the two entrance plan. As he told Public Works, if there was a demonstrable safety issue with either one of them, they should go with the one that was safest. 70 ri SUBJECT T( MINUTES '� REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 The other thing he wanted to talk about was the parking Mr. Smith talked about and the influence zones for parking. He had been fortunate enough to be in the business for a long time and had developed a lot of retail projects around the country. Some of his most favorites were in So. California and Irvine. In those particular experiences he learned more about parking than he ever thought he would learn. There was still a big curve out there for everyone. Parking was without a doubt a big question. Mr. Smith asked them last week about parking and how they could come up with a methodology for dealing with the parking for medical office to justify the 30,000 square feet. They heard from a lot of people that it was a sensitive issue. He said they did a parking count with the architect and it was very simple. He showed the areas that were designed for parking for the single story offices. He pointed out the buildings that they were requesting as garden office. That was about 22,000 square feet. Those 64 spaces in that zone were what he called in the donut hole because the area below it was parking for retail at five spaces per 1,000 square feet. If everyone was there at the same time to use the place, based on what they all knew about parking right now, there would actually be a donut hole of about 60-80 or 50-80 spaces that were out there. He noted that doctors' offices close at noon and people were out of there at 11:30 a.m. and they didn't get back in until 1 :30 p.m. So the retail to medical office overlap was very small during the peak for this project which was primarily going to be lunch time. For the medical office they were requesting and the two-story retail in the other zone, the main street zone of retail parking influence with parking at five spaces to 1 ,000 square feet, again they had excess parking primarily due to the fact that they had a very time of day helper when it came to parking in the hotel. It was a very simplistic point of view and one developers used a lot when doing mixed use projects. The 30,000 square feet that they were asking for was less parking than that demonstrated on the 71 r.. ' 7 FT SUBJECT 1T MINUTES tr REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 plan. He said he owed Mr. Smith a parking lot study that was done by ICSC and ULI. Mr. Evans asked for any questions and indicated that they were present to request approval of the project. He knew there were some conditions that they would probably have to levy on the project. Wonder Palms was almost 50% covered by a current development agreement. Staff said consistently that the intersection was going to be commercial and not residential. The residential delineation on it was an old plan and not the current GPA. He said it matched the current GPA to the nines and they knew that the conditions were probably going to be the entrance conditions for Public Works and working with Mr. Smith and Mr. Drell on the medical office parking ratio and justifying that. He said they knew they had some questions that they had to go back to ARC about. He thought they probably should have gone back to ARC before they went before the Planning Commission, but they were under the impression that they were going to do that after the Council meeting. This was a project that from a design standpoint would not stand still. It would be up front, objective and approach the customer, the city and everything they had learned over the year was important about the Cook Street gateway. Commissioner Finerty thanked Mr. Evans for his presentation and explained that the reason she was not commenting was because they had not yet gone through the general plan amendment process. They hadn't heard testimony in favor of what the residents and citizens of Palm Desert would like. She said she would be more comfortable commenting when they saw the project back on October 21 . Commissioner Jonathan concurred. The lack of response was a function of the time and the fact that they had been there four hours, but it was also the fact that Mr. Evans referred to the new general plan. They didn't have a new general plan and the commission didn't know what that would be yet. They only had the existing one and didn't know where the new general plan would go. It was an unknown. Mr. Evans 72 SUBJECT Tf REVISION MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 might have been talking to others, whether it was to the Council or other levels who have opinions or expectations, but from the commission's perspective, they didn't have that. Once they crossed that bridge, they would have typical concerns. He did with regard to some of the parking issues, internal circulation issues, the access and one of which was whether to have one or two access points on Cook, but there were also some other access issues. Some parts of the design he really liked, but others looked a little too Orange County/Newport Beach which were lovely communities, but that wasn't Palm Desert and they needed to perhaps find a balance of something that was refreshing to the desert and didn't necessarily need to be the same thing they already had, but in his opinion they didn't necessarily want to go overboard in terms of creating more of a metropolis type retail center either. So there were some design issues and issues about the two and three stories. Commissioner Tschopp said if the applicant was asking for opinions, if this was zoned commercial and if the applicant was just looking for comments, not knowing what the general plan would be, he thought it would be appropriate to get some feedback. The applicant was obviously spending some time and effort on it. He thought it was appropriate for the commission to give general type comments. First, he hoped they would change the name Wonder Palms. Mr. Evans said they actually had been waiting to find out what the name would be on the GPA. The name was currently a place holder. Mr. Drell explained that Wonder Palms Drive was a historic name for either Frank Sinatra or Gerald Ford. Mr. Evans said they picked it up only because of the existing development agreement. Giving general comments, Commissioner Tschopp said if commercial was going in there, University Drive that lines up with Cal State, he wasn't too enthralled by the lack of any real corner designation there or 73 r, A -,. SUBJECT TC , : i : i, - REVISION MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 any kind of architectural element on that corner. The City and the State have a huge investment there in the Cal State campus and high hopes for it so he hoped that what went on across the corner would mirror that on those corners. The way Cook Street is set up now, he didn't think it was very pedestrian friendly so people coming out of that university would probably drive their cars across unless something was done to encourage pedestrians. Mr. Drell said they discussed at some appropriate time installing a pedestrian bridge across Cook Street because Cook Street would be a virtual freeway with six lanes. When there was enough traffic from the university to warrant it, that's when they would consider it. Mr. Evans said they had actually discussed ideas about the sidewalk and he wasn't against the meandering sidewalk along Cook Street, but it seemed to him that where they were and what they were doing there, that the sidewalk really belonged in front of the shops to encourage people to walk across the street to walk in front of the shops. To walk across the street to walk in between the buildings and street wasn't as much fun as walking slightly up the curb and down the main street, so they had talked about it at ARC and it was an element they needed to get a handle on. Regarding pedestrians across the walk ways, Commissioner Tschopp commented that knowing how that worked in some of the other developments in the city, they come up to those driveways and entry from Cook and it just became a barrier so somehow that needed to be addressed. He knew that the university spent tremendous amounts of time looking at the winds out there, which could be extreme and hoped Mr. Evans did the same thing at this location because that would in some ways dictate the architecture. At certain times of the year, that's one of the worst places in the valley. The hotel was only a concept, but it didn't do much for him architecturally at this time. It looked to him like a very cheap hotel and being across the gateway he hoped they would see something a little better architecturally. 74 '8"`' rinTSUBJECT T( I 1 I I ' REVISION MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 He also noted that it looked like Main Street was actually phase two and not phase one. Mr. Evans said it began in Phase 1 . Commissioner Tschopp noted that the real gist of it was not done until Phase 2. Mr. Evans said that was correct. Commissioner Tschopp thought the Main Street concept was great. He really liked that and hoped that somehow in Phase 1 it was incorporated a little more because sometimes things got delayed for years and he'd like to get that pedestrian access going. He asked how wide the walkways would be throughout the project. He hoped they truly looked like walkways and encouraged people to walk and not where they would be fighting bumpers of cars and only a few trees. Mr. Evans said they were 20 feet on both sides. He said they really tried to put space in that zone so they had the overhangs, the awnings, the shade, and the stores were sort of tucked back a little bit and then they had more of the street scene in front of that. Commissioner Tschopp commented that some of the best areas in Palm Desert like on El Paseo and in other cities, were the ones where people could walk down and people were outside dining. He hoped Mr. Evans really encouraged that because there was nothing more fun than to people watch sometimes. He also hoped that the University was in the loop. Mr. Evans said they had two or three meetings with Peter Wilson before he left and they had his support throughout the project and they worked with him on some of the access questions and access issues. They also had worked with the Cornerstone Development people behind them and the Hampton Inn person across the street. He said they saw themselves as their own little 75 k T tier SUBJECT It MINUTES Li _ REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 neighborhood that they were trying to nurture up and grow and build. The more people they could talk to the better off they were and the better they felt. Commissioner Tschopp commented that in a lot of the projects the concepts were great, but then sometimes putting them into actual practice didn't work. He thought the Main Street and the pedestrian friendly concept was very good if the General Plan review went that way. Mr. Evans thanked him for his comments. Commissioner Lopez said he found it a very exciting project. The potential, the vision, and the possibilities if everything fell into place. He pointed out that the entrance or gateway to the city on Cook Street would be pretty neat. Regarding hotel occupancy and usage, if in fact the project was full and people were there, it would be a destination. It would be a draw and a destination very similar to the River. The River has driven occupancy up at Rancho Las Palmas Resort and it increased 5% after the River opened. People who wanted to be at that location stayed at Rancho Las Palmas. It could be the same thing with the proposed hotel. He echoed the concern regarding the look of the hotel. He thought it looked very simple, but was something they were going to work on. Mr. Evans said they had a hard time designing it. He said the one thing that had been thought through a lot on the hotel was the exterior shape and it was primarily dictated by wanting to stay as close to within the guidelines as they possibly could and still keep some articulation. They saw a lot of stone in the right places. He said they actually found some better stone than the cultured stone. They found real stone in Arizona that was done like cultured stone that was really fabulous. When they got into the up close locations, it was a product that they really wanted to use rather than the cultured stone that always looked fake up close. They were looking at a lot of products that were different in the market. They suggested to Public Works and Planning a 76 .,!.: 1 . rSUBJECT T( y I ``I - REVISION MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 • couple of weeks ago a different kind of asphalt material that allowed for retention of water within a parking lot that was very interesting and positive. They were starting to look at things like that. They thought their DG idea was a different idea and worked. It looked good, it was easy to take care of, it was maintainable and people would feel like they were in a desert park scene. They had a ways to go on some of their architecture. He said he was very excited about the project. Chairperson Campbell stated that the site had a lot of potential and a lot of good features to it. Regarding the retail buildings on Cook Street, they would be seeing the back side of the buildings. She asked how they were going to draw customers into the center. Mr. Evans said they tried to make the backs of the buildings on Cook Street and Gerald Ford look like the fronts of the buildings. They had gone to a great deal of effort to give it character in an unusual way. He showed renderings and said they were basically fake facades. The idea was to incorporate storefront- like signage rather than someone plastering or nailing a neon sign to the back of the building and organizing it with awnings and columns. He said ARC really recommended that they try to keep them open. The windows were really show windows and were not really windows unless there was a restaurant and then they could have real windows that faced out. He said they could even be murals. So all along Cook and Gerald Ford on all of their buildings that face those streets, that element was going to be incorporated. He said they expect the corner buildings to be restaurants with seating and umbrellas where people could sit, enjoy and relax. Chairperson Campbell thought the feature on the corner of Gerald Ford and Cook was a very nice feature and she said there was some nice public art to go there. 77 t-410A �~~T SUBJECT R. MINUTES 4 y. REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one. Chairperson Campbell left the public hearing open and asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Chairperson Campbell, by minute motion continuing Case Nos. GPA 03-07, C/Z 03- 10, PP 03-11, TPM 31515 and DA 97-2 Amendment #2 to October 21, 2003. Motion carried 5-0. The commission thanked the applicant for a good presentation. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES No meeting. B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE No meeting. C. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE No meeting. D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE No meeting. 78 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 14, 2003 MINUTES that we can get a broader consensus. We could continue it and we'll hopefully have the full contingent at the next meeting and get the opinion from everyone. Commissioner Hanson stated that maybe everyone would have a chance to go out and look at the building in person. Commissioner Vuksic compared the restaurant to the Clint Eastwood movie, High Plains Drifter, with all the primary colors on the buildings. It looks very un-natural. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez to continue the request to all the commissioners to visit the site. Motion carried 4-0-0-3 with Commissioners O'Donnell, Gregory and Oppenheim 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: Preliminary approval of revised elevations for commercial/retail buildings in Wonder Palms Master Plan of Development. LOCATION: Southwest corner of Gerald Ford and Cook Street ZONE: PCD Rick Evans, applicant, was present and stated that he has returned to the ARC in response to the questions that were raised by this commission the last time we met. Revised plans were included in the commissioner's packets for their review. Chuck Crookall, who is doing the office portion, was also present to talk about phase I and overall phasing. Michael Robinson, architect, was present as well as Tal Jackson, landscape architect to make a presentation. Mr. Crookall stated that nothing has changed on the original site plan except some circulation issues. They intend to break the project up into estimated phasing. Phase I will include office/retail. Phase II will tie in with the retail. What was not discussed at the last meeting was five G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR031014.MIN 8 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 14, 2003 MINUTES office buildings ranging in size and he intends to map these buildings for sale. He's trying to tie the office buildings in with the retail by adding a trellis component. Trash enclosures have been incorporated throughout the entire project. 75% of the parking in the office component is going to be covered. They intend to use fabric for the covering. This will create an eyebrow across some of the buildings. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the eyebrows. Mr. Crookall stated that they'll have covered parking principally along the front of the buildings and adjacent to the buildings. As you look towards the building it will look like eyebrows. There won't be any eyebrows on the building. Mr. Drell stated that the applicant would like to use a fabric awning covering the parking. Mr. Crookall stated that the material will be similar to what was used at the Palm Springs airport. It's a very durable material and they will blend it in with the color scheme of the project. Spencer Knight asked if it's the teflon-coated material or pvc- coated material. Mr. Crookall commented that he wasn't sure which way they were going on that. Mr. Knight commented that pvc won't hold up. Mr. Crookall stated that they'll use the teflon-coated material. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the equipment will be screened from view on the roof. Mr. Crookall stated that the equipment will be hidden behind the parapet. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the roof access location. Mr. Crookall commented that access is through the interior of the building. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the two elevations for the office buildings look very nice. Mr. Crookall stated that every building in the first phase will reflect these elevations. Phase II and III may be slightly different. Michael Robinson asked the commission if he should address the plans, page by page. Commissioner Hanson suggested that he hit the highlights. She asked if they had addressed the bus stop issue yet. Mr. Jackson stated that there's a bus stop across the street and right now they're talking to Sunline about how the route is going to be handled. Commissioner Hanson asked about the sidewalk along Cook Street. Mr. Jackson stated that the sidewalk remains along Cook Street. Mr. Robinson commented that he has revised the courtyard space. Previously, there was concern about the plaza becoming too narrow and closing up visibility into the center. Therefore, they've stepped the buildings down and created little pavilion buildings that are off the main tower with the idea that they'll be more open-type buildings. There may G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR031014.MIN 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 14, 2003 MINUTES be doors that fold open allowing a free circulation through them. Hopefully, this will include a portion of the seating for a restaurant. Mr. Drell asked if the signage will really be as it's shown on the plans. Mr. Robinson commented that there will be a lot more effort placed in the design of the pavilions and the signage will be integrated into the buildings. The idea is to have a big signage element for the restaurants that are below. How it ties into the building will be worked out more in detail. Commissioner Vuksic stated that if it was well done, it would add a nice texture to the top of the element. Mr. Drell stated that currently our ordinance prohibits signs above the eave or top of the parapet. Mr. Evans commented that they felt that because the pavilion buildings are the lowest of all the buildings, he prefers the sign on the roof. With a smaller letter than normal, it gives a huge amount of identification for a quality tenant that really shows off nicely at the corner. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he felt that it looks better with the sign than without the sign, which says a lot. Mr. Evans stated that it's a very European sort of engagement of the signage. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that the signs will come in under a separate submittal. Commissioner Hanson commented that she likes the pitched roofs on the buildings, rather than the flat roofs. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the plans don't show the glass on the tower element and he wondered if the glass would be recessed. Mr. Robinson stated that the intent is to have glass on the higher tower that wraps down to the ground. The glass would be recessed from the face of the building. Commissioner Vuksic commented that it looks like the glass on the lower pavilion element is recessed a couple of feet. Mr. Robinson stated that the glass on the tower element would typically be recessed approximately 8"-12" so that there's shadow across the face of the glass. It was probably a little clearer on the larger set of plans, which were shown to the commission at a previous meeting. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the pavilions had 2' x 2' columns with the glass recessed about 18". He asked Mr. Robinson if he thought that this would be aesthetically preferable to have the glass recessed that amount on the larger tower element or to have it recessed less than that. Mr. Robinson stated that the more that they recess the glass, the better it's going to appear. Commissioner Vuksic asked if they could recess the glass at least 18" instead of 8"-12". Mr. Robinson stated that 12"-18" probably won't be a problem. Commissioner Vuksic stated 18" is the preferable amount of recess. Mr. Robinson commented that that would probably work out. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR031014.MIN 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 14, 2003 MINUTES Mr. Robinson stated that the retail 1 and 2 buildings have been revised. He has broken up the awnings, changed the storefronts for a little more vertical proportion and connected the stone piers with another fascia element to break that away from the rest of the buildings and put stone around the tower to give it a more vertical feel and individual character. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the changes have made a huge improvement. They've done a lot to reduce the overly strong horizontal feel and by breaking down the glass into small pieces, they've enhanced the verticality of it. This is well done. He asked about the material for the pitched roof. Mr. Robinson stated that they'll use a metal type of material on the pitched roof. Mr. Robinson stated that they've reiterated the roof form of the center court onto the main tower. Stone has been wrapped around the porte couchere. The glass will be recessed to create shadow lines. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he has real concerns about the hotel. Right now it looks very flat and boxy. The entry element looks like a token thing that has been added to the tower element and it still has a very big, flat wall with windows stuck in it. The elevations need quite a bit of work. Mr. Robinson stated that because of the nature of the hotel, there's a pretty strong rhythm of rooms. He's broken up the building on the edges to create dimension and then the middle is broken up in the middle with the porte couchere and the roof. There's a big frame around the entry that will be pushed out from the building. They have recessed the windows and they've projected eyebrow-type shade elements on the windows of the typical rooms. The eyebrows project approximately two feet to create shadow lines. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he may have put himself at a disadvantage by representing this in such a working drawing kind of way. It might look a lot better with shadows. It looks awfully stark. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that they haven't made any substantial changes, except for the entryway. Mr. Robinson stated that there will be an operator for the project and he's going to have a limitation of what he wants to do as well. We have to push him to a certain extent to get as much as we can but we need to be open and negotiate as well. Mr. Drell stated that there's no specific hotel yet. The goal is to set a benchmark to say that we're looking for something like this or better. To get into too many fine points may be a waste. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it's possible that a hotel owner could come in and say that they want to do it exactly like this and this has already been approved. It needs to meet a standard. Even kept as generic as possible, it still needs to meet a standard. Mr. Drell stated that this is the biggest building in the project and it should not be approved as a specific building, but the architectural G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR031014.MIN 11 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 14, 2003 MINUTES character should be approved. The design should be consistent with the vocabulary of the rest of the center. Mr. Evans stated that what he is requesting is overall master plan approval of the project. What he's requesting in phase I is a more specific approval for the architectural detail. He sees the hotel design as being one step beyond schematic, but it's certainly not a step into design development. He's looking for approval on the concept of the hotel, overall height of the hotel and basic design elements. This is a character study of what a hotel might look like given the style of architecture of the center. This will be the subject of its own review process. Commissioner Vuksic commented that they went way beyond the site plan. If they had just come to the City with a site plan, we would've asked for more. Mr. Drell stated that they need more than a site plan. They have to have enough buildings to show that this is the character of the center. I think they've done that. Commissioner Vuksic stated that in the case of the hotel, what the applicant would really like at this point is for us to say that it's okay to put a hotel there and it can have this many rooms. Mr. Evans stated that he would be happy if they would say that the architecture is the minimum requirement, as opposed to the only requirement. He's done a lot of research on the hotel. They realize that it's going to be the dominant building on the site, they also think the flavor of it has a good balance with the university buildings that are going up on the other side of the street. They've tried to pay attention to those elements, not just a building standing alone. He'd like the ARC to approve this as a minimum standard, as opposed to the ultimate standard. He feels that they've gone a long way to accomplish a lot more with the hotel. The operator is going to have to come in and work with the ARC. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he would approve the general massing and concept. This means that the height of it, the fact that they have a three-story element that runs the length of the building with some softening elements that are not as massive on the ends to soften it up and that they're doing something to punch out the entry. Those are massing elements. It's just a matter of articulating them a little better. He couldn't approve the elevation. Mr. Evans thought that they were saying the same thing and connected with what he was saying. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the hotel operator would also have to have any changes approved by Mr. Evans as well as the ARC. Tal Jackson reviewed the site plan with the commission. Mr. Drell commented that the only purpose of having a curbside landscape strip is if it's wide enough to put a tree in it. To have curbside landscape G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR031014.MIN 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 14, 2003 MINUTES strips with desert landscaping has no purpose. A tree would start to show the boundary of the street and visually bring the landscaping toward the highway. Mr. Jackson stated that he understood through the Public Works Department that trees can't be placed between the sidewalk and curb. Mr. Drell stated that if they have enough room, they can. Commissioner Lopez stated that a lot of times people are constricted by space. Mr. Drell stated that they have lots of room. Commissioner Lopez stated that a small tree can grow to be 25'-30' wide so you always have L-shaped trees that hang over into the street. Mr. Drell commented that some of our prettiest streets have trees lining them. The prettiest street in the desert is on Cook Street between Fred Waring and Highway 111. Part of what trees do is break up the massive expanse of concrete and asphalt. Commissioner Lopez stated that you can set a tree 20' back and it'll still come right to the curb. If you have the room, then adding trees would work but a lot of times there are space constraints. Mr. Drell commented that they have 35' feet between curb and building. Look at streets with trees and streets without trees. The streets with trees look more attractive. Instead, they're putting the trees right up against the buildings, which are just going to screen the buildings that we're making look so wonderful. The trees belong closer to the street and not so close to the buildings. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the desert landscape is beautiful. Mr. Evans commented that from his standpoint, he's got to have trees in the right places. He's not at the level to know exactly where they're going to be. What he's trying to represent is a landscaping plan that meets the characteristics that Mr. Jackson and Ms. Hollinger have talked about over the last few weeks to try to settle it down so that it makes sense. He feels that where they need to put money in trees is along the sidewalk. His first choice is Main Street. The second place is the parking lot where people need shade for cars. The third place is to enhance the streetscape. The debate of where they're going to go depends on where they have space near the meandering sidewalk. He wants to look at it from a strategy standpoint, as opposed to just an isolated area. It may mean that he'll have to talk to Ms. Hollinger in Public Works about a few more trees that aren't even currently allowed under the water restriction issues. Mr. Knight stated that there is no leeway there. Mr. Drell stated that they have plenty of trees, but they need to place them in appropriate places. They might even have too many trees unless they want to use palm trees. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR031014.MIN 13 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 14, 2003 MINUTES Commissioner Van Vliet commented that it's nice to have a variety of trees for screening, such as along Cook Street toward the freeway. Mr. Knight stated that the landscape plans don't include enough information for him to approve them at the preliminary level. Mr. Evans stated that he's trying to meet the requirements of the ARC and that's what he's asking for. When they go to Planning Commission, they'll have a feeling that the staff and ARC are comfortable with the project and that they've met their requirements and have good communication with the City. Mr. Knight stated that the Public Works staff probably won't be comfortable with these plans going to the Planning Commission. The landscape plans are too vague. Right now, based upon what he sees, they won't pass the water calculations. He would have to guess at the shrub content and they have fountains in front, which will be a point of issue. Mr. Smith asked Mr. Knight if the tree palette was in the range of being acceptable. Ms. Hollinger stated that she doesn't have a current landscape plan. Mr. Jackson stated that he faxed a list to Ms. Hollinger. Ms. Hollinger commented that she needs to know where the plants are going. Mr. Knight stated that on a project this big, it's too early and too vague to give it preliminary approval. He could give it a nod and say that they're headed in the right direction. Commissioner Lopez suggested that they run some preliminary water calcs. This will let them know how many low water plants and low water trees they'll need. Mr. Jackson stated that the majority of their plants are low to moderate water use plants. These plants were selected from the palette that they received from the City. Ms. Hollinger stated that she needs quantities. Mr. Jackson stated that they're on a conceptual level with the landscape plans. Commissioner Lopez stated that he felt that they're heading down the right path. Ms. Hollinger concurred. Mr. Evans wanted to know what he has to do to get to the point where staff is comfortable with the landscape plan. He's tried to work through these issues and he's just sort of scratched the surface. Mr. Drell stated that they have to get into greater detail, especially on the larger planting areas. He suggested that they start with the corner to show what the basic density and mix of plant material. On that, they can run their water calcs so that they can get an idea of what they have to do for the remainder of the project. They have to produce a detailed landscape plan, which is almost at the working drawing level to get the idea of what they have to do overall to ultimately meet the requirements. Mr. Knight stated that his concern is that they have to be far enough down the road with the landscape design so that when they go to the Planning Commission, if there are any changes, they're not G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR031014.MIN 14 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 14, 2003 MINUTES significant. It's much better to address landscape issues at this point, then after the Planning Commission reviews the plans. Commissioner Hanson suggested that the landscape architect choose a section and do the water calcs on that area so that he can start to figure out what he might be doing from there. They're not saying that the whole site needs to be done right now. Commissioner Vuksic suggested that they pick a typical spot to start with. Mr. Evans stated that this project has been designed as an overall cohesive plan. He's laid out the grading, buildings and all of the ADA issues. Basically, they have a landscaping plan that meets at least conceptual standards set by the City. It if takes 2-5 weeks to get the water calcs completed, then those calcs will hold up the project. Mr. Knight commented that the Public Works Department is not looking for construction drawings. They're asking for a concept for how the shrubs are going to be laid out. They need numbers. Preliminary plans do not have water calcs on them. The reason why they don't require water is because they have plant numbers. They can take an estimate and see if the plan will work. Right now, they have no way to tell. If they had plant numbers, they'd have something to work with. This has been communicated to the landscape architect. Construction documents are far beyond what they ask for in preliminary plans. Mr. Jackson asked that from a planting standpoint, does Mr. Knight want the quantities shown on the plan in a laid-out form. That's a construction document level plan. Mr. Knight stated that they aren't construction documents. A construction document package includes a lot more detail. Mr. Jackson stated that he designed the landscaping at the Marriott's Shadow Ridge and he had to lay out every shrub at an early stage and he certainly hopes that this isn't the case with this project. Some of the site elements are going to change so he doesn't want to get too detailed in his landscape plan. Mr. Knight commented that he just wants to know the general idea of where the landscaping is going, then he can give him a nod. If they want some kind of stamp that says that this is approved, the first stamp is for preliminary approval. If this is not resolved here, then the Planning Commission will be made aware that the plan has not approved. We've had situations like this where we've given conceptual approval, Planning Commission has approved the plans and then they couldn't plant what the conceptual plans had stated. Commissioner Hanson stated that it doesn't take that long to count trees and shrubs. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that typically the landscape plans really do follow behind preliminary approval. The ARC could give preliminary approval of architecture only. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR031014.MIN 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 14, 2003 MINUTES Mr. Evans suggested that the concept of the landscape plan could be approved subject to water calcs with plant quantities to follow, subject to the approval of Public Works. We know it's subject to construction drawings. It's a well landscaped project, the concept is desert friendly and water friendly. He's heard a lot of comments about palm trees. Ms. Hollinger has been very helpful. She has suggested 3-4 street trees that are more water friendly. He commented that he wants a project that people in Palm Desert will really like. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the evolution of the project has been really great. He could see that an effort was made to take what was good from the discussions and improve in those areas and it really shows. It's nicely done. Mr. Evans commented that the ARC has been very good about being patient with his learning curve and he expressed his appreciation. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for preliminary approval of architecture for retail and office selection and determining that the hotel elevation is acceptable from a massing and conceptual perspective with the understanding that further review will occur when the actual end user is known. The landscaping is headed in a generally acceptable direction, subject to further work with respect to water calculations, as well as tree and shrub quantities. Motion carried 4-0-0-3 with Commissioners O'Donnell, Gregory and Oppenheim absent. C. Miscellaneous A representative from KESQ TV, Bob Velans, Director of Engineering, was present and asked the commission to review plans for a communications antenna. Mr. Urbina stated that his case has not been scheduled at this point. Mr. Smith stated that the proposed antenna is located on Melanie Place. Mr. Urbina presented a photo simulation to the commission which showed two palm trees and a tower. Mr. Smith suggested that the commission give Mr. Velans some preliminary input and no action will be taken at this time. Mr. Velans stated that there is an existing tower with antennae. Their business has changed, as well as the FCC rules and regulations, therefore, the current tower is no longer sufficient to support the upgrades that they have to put in place to fulfill their obligations to the FCC and the community. They're putting in a new television transmitter for Spanish-speaking programming and they have to have a larger dish to handle it. The proposed height of the tower is G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR031014.MIN 16 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 MINUTES APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CAPTAIN COOK'S SEA GRILL, Dee Dee Wallquist, 72-191 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of exterior color change. LOCATION: 72-191 Highway 111, Captain Cook's Sea Grill ZONE: PC-3 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for continuance at the applicant's request. Motion carried 6-0-0- 1 with Commissioner O'Donnell 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: Preliminary approval of revised elevations for commercial/retail buildings in Wonder Palms Master Plan of Development. LOCATION: Southwest corner of Gerald Ford and Cook Street ZONE: PCD Mr. Smith stated that the proposed project encompasses approximately 23 acres. The ARC reviewed plans for this site in July 2003. The matter went to the Planning Commission two meetings ago. It looked considerably different than the plans that are being shown to the commission today. The applicant has changed architects and, hence, has changed architecture. The matter will go back to the Planning Commission on October 21, 2003. The applicant is asking for consideration of the revised design. Michael Robinson, architect, presented the revised plans. Commissioner Gregory asked Mr. Robinson to explain the changes that have been made in concept and how it affects the site plan. Mr. Smith stated that the applicant came to an agreement with Public Works to have one access point from Cook Street, instead of two. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030923.MIN 18 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 MINUTES Mr. Robinson stated that the plan includes office space, a hotel, main street and a corner plaza. They've addressed comments that were provided at the last meeting. He tried to reenforce the Main Street idea and pedestrian circulation. They have added more decorative paving and have added cross walks which may help slow down traffic and create a more pedestrian friendly sort of environment. They tried to provide more linkage from retail to office through a covered trellis idea that extends over to decorative paving. They've added trellises that open into outdoor seating areas for the drive through restaurants. The drive through was wrapping around the building on two sides. Now they've pushed the building towards the parking area so it's less visible from the entry into the center. It also allows the patio and outside dining to go against the main street so there's more activity. They're talking about adding trellises over the drive through area. They've spent some additional time trying to figure out what the public space is going to be between the retail 1 and retail 2 buildings. The office buildings have a 12' setback to allow them to move in and out, which is similar to how the retail buildings are being designed. They have included covered parking for 75% of the parking spaces. They've taken out the palm trees and added shade trees. Based on the elevations, they're located so that they have a direct relationship with the architectural elements. Palm trees are focused on key areas, such as the project entries, where the office terminates, etc... There have been some adjustments made to the plaza area. A model was shown to the commission. Previously, the buildings were the same and there was a big plaza but there was no real communication between the buildings. After thinking about how the buildings would be used and how the courtyard would be used, they decided to rotate the elements in order to squeeze down the area and create a space for restaurant tenant so they could have outdoor seating. Towers were implemented to create a gateway feature that may be visible from the freeway. There's been a lot of work that's been going on with the plaza and how it relates to the corner. There's an interesting relationship between how the larger courtyard on both sides is sort of squeezed by the retail section so that the activity and buildings start integrating with the public space a little better than what they had previously proposed. The towers are not thought of as building elements but more as graphic ideas that symbolize the gateway to the project. By lighting underneath the towers to create more of a glowing piece, it would be visible going down the street, inside the center and also from the freeway. In addition, as you're going down Main Street, the towers would act as a point of reference. Therefore the towers are a reference point, a graphic element and the gateway into the center. They also help link the buildings together. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030923.MIN 19 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 MINUTES Mr. Robinson stated that they were encouraged to put a meandering sidewalk along Cook Street. They would like to change the sidewalk so that the sidewalk pulls pedestrians into the main street area where there's more activity and pedestrian friendly ideas, as opposed to a busy street and there's no areas to stop and shop or no shade. There site plan still shows a sidewalk but there's a new alternate plan that eliminates the sidewalk on Cook Street. Mr. Drell stated that there will be a sidewalk. Mr. Robinson stated that they want to do it as an alternate and bring it into the plaza area. Mr. Evans stated that the idea of the sidewalk along the street might be considered as a sidewalk that runs in front of the stores instead. Mr. Drell asked if they talked to Public Works about this. Mr. Evans stated that he talked to Mark about it yesterday. He said that the concept of considering that was reasonable in his mind. He's talking about it from a merchandising standpoint as much as it is a street scape standpoint. His perspective of Cook Street is that it's a busy street and it's not going to be as shady as the sidewalk along the front of the shops. He's happy to put a sidewalk on Cook Street. Mr. Drell stated that he's almost absolutely sure that the Council will insist that there will be a sidewalk on Cook Street. Commissioner Gregory stated that he's concerned that there may be some liability in the event of a slip and fall. If the general public is using the property and there is an accident, will the applicant be liable. Mr. Evans commented that a shopping center is a quasi-public entity and he has liability insurance just for the general public. Mr. Drell stated that architecturally the center is going to have an open face to Cook Street and the college. We do not want to reproduce our backwards restaurant design and get obsessed with the inside of this project. The outside of this project still has to be two faced. Also, remember that nine months out of the year we don't care about shade. When you make your money, shade isn't that important. Don't obsess with the fact that it's shady or not shady. Architecturally, the streetscape has to look like a front and sidewalks are part of that. Twenty years from now there may be so much interaction between the college and the shopping center that those stores might start turning around. Commissioner Hanson stated that they should also keep in mind is the people who are probably going to be using those sidewalks are going to be college students who are probably running to get a bus. To force them to have to go into the project and not be able to see when the bus is coming may be an issue. Also, they're going to make their own pathway through the landscaping anyway. That's really something to consider. Those are the type of people who are going to be using the sidewalk, not your average shopper. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030923.MIN 20 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 MINUTES Commissioner Gregory asked about some of the parking areas that are in non-circulation areas. If you happen to drive into some of the parking areas, you can't get out. He wondered if there were a trade off for that in a sense of a more enhanced pedestrian environment. Mr. Drell stated that the marketing goal for this project is to get people to park and find the most convenient place to park and then walk down the street. Commissioner Hanson commented that she's seen the more "age challenged" people who live here do crazy things when it comes to parking. She has seen people turn in on the opposite way into a diagonal parking space, which could be a major issue. Mr. Evans stated that if he makes the parking at 90°, he's trying to keep the street narrow and slow. At the last meeting, it was suggested that they make an effort to slow down the traffic, which is what they've endeavored to do here. After studying other urban shopping complexes similar to the proposed complex, they have found that the angled parking does slow the cars down. Mr. Drell commented that the angled parking makes it look more like a street and less like a parking lot. No solution is absolutely perfect. You can't prevent people from doing stupid things all the time. Commissioner Hanson stated that she wondered if they allowed for something in the middle of the road. It could be something decorative such as ballards. Mr. Robinson stated that the idea was to keep the road narrow to invite pedestrians to cross easily. Commissioner Hanson commented that the hotel looks like it's stuck in the back corner and she wondered how much visibility it has if there are buildings in front of it. Mr. Robinson stated that it's a three-story building which is located on the highest part of the site. The restaurant pads work as a group around the hotel and are one-story buildings. Commissioner Vuksic commented on the diagonal access between the offices and the retail center. They had talked about what happens at the office end because it wasn't doing what it seemed like it was intended to do. Mr. Robinson stated that he added a trellis which will help break up the two parking bays to smaller parking. They added decorative paving to encourage people to walk there. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they really haven't done much. Mr. Robinson stated that it's a garden concept and they've proved sidewalks throughout the office complex. Commissioner Gregory remarked that he wondered if there was still a missing element where they show two trees at the apex and suggested adding some form of objects (i.e. site furnishings) so that there appears to be a gateway to the office project. This area needs a lot of study. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about delivery areas to all the retail spaces. He wondered where all the big trucks go and unload. Mr. Drell asked if the tenants will have big trucks. Mr. Robinson commented that G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030923.MIN 21 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 MINUTES the tenants have small spaces and delivery times could be limited to certain areas. Trash pick-up would be through the back. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it's critical that the backs of the buildings look as good as the front. Commissioner Hanson commented that the pictures that were presented to the commission show some really cool forms, but they seem to be lacking in the proposed architecture and wanted to know why. Mr. Robinson stated that they're trying to create a traditional urban village. They want it to look like the buildings were built over time and move up and down and are sort of pushed together. There are similar elements but they would be different colors and different heights. The more outrageous the shapes are, the more contemporary it gets and they're trying to keep it more traditional. Commissioner Hanson asked why they presented pictures showing different forms. Mr. Robinson stated that the pictures are supposed to be a representation of the feeling of the project and aren't to be taken literally. Commissioner Hanson commented that they should've told the commission this. After reviewing the entire book, she felt that the architecture was cool but when she looked at the proposed architecture, she was disappointed. It's important to add some of the elements from the book into the architecture, or take the pictures out. Mr. Drell stated that most of the architecture at the Gardens at El Paseo is very ordinary, but it has a few surprises such as the trellis elements that poke out to the street. These are the signature apostrophes that you remember when you see the project. That is what is lacking with this project. Commissioner Hanson stated that everything is too much the same. Mr. Robinson stated that he's trying to create a backdrop for the tenants to create their own identity. Commissioner Hanson stated that they should do a little more to pump up the architecture. They have a start with the ins and outs and ups and downs, which is always something that the commission looks for but it needs to go one step further. It doesn't have to be everywhere. Mr. Drell commented that the trellis elements at the Gardens are the signature elements and they only occur in two spots and they don't relate to any of the tenants but they define the overall character of the project. Having signature tenants isn't a substitute for that. The proposed project needs an overall architectural statement that grabs people as they're coming down the street before they focus on who the tenants are. Commissioner Hanson stated that they shouldn't forget about Cook Street. The Cook Street elevation lacks architecture compared to the inside of the project. This is what people will see first and if that's not interesting then you've lost them and it doesn't matter what the inside looks like. Commissioner Vuksic commented that it looks like they got a little tired when they designed the Cook Street elevation. There are some really nice compositions in most of the project. Mr. Drell G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030923.MIN 22 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 MINUTES suggested adding a few bold architectural statements to define the character of the project from the street. Mr. Evans stated that he's dealing with a corner that will have a huge visual statement. The elevation is about 125' long that's really the back. They're doing something to it to make it look like a front. They've chosen to put their emphasis on the plaza and the way the look is on the corner and the way the look is at the entrance. While they can add some things that were suggested, there are economic limitations to certain things. They need to put more money into the plaza in a project of this kind. This is a huge undertaking. They've tried to narrow the buildings so that it makes it more intimate. The tower elements define the corner. Mr. Drell stated that they have a half mile of frontage and it needs some explanation points. Commissioner Hanson stated that it doesn't need a lot. The ends are fine but the rest is boring. Commissioner Vuksic stated that part of it has to do with the proportion of it. It looks like they skimped a little bit on vertical elements. Commissioner Hanson stated that the hotel looks boring. Mr. Drell questioned the applicant's decision to put shade trees in the main street, which sometimes is good but sometimes it becomes a battle with the tenants. Shade trees require constant pruning. Mr. Robinson stated that they were thinking about using pepper trees that are more lacy. Mr. Drell stated that lacy doesn't work. Commissioner Hanson commented that there are wind issues to think about. Mr. Robinson stated that they had date palms along the main street but they were concerned with water usage, therefore, they decided to use shade trees. Commissioner Van Vliet commented on the Cook Street overpass, which is elevated, and people are looking down on the proposed project. He wanted to know where the mechanical equipment would be located. Mr. Robinson stated that there is a section in the submittal that shows the basic concept. They will be roof mounted but below the parapet. If you're up above them, you will see them. They're going to group the equipment in certain locations. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the equipment will be visible if you're dead level with the top of the parapet. Mr. Robinson stated that you will not see them. Mr. Evans commented that even from a 10-12% angle you won't see them. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that you'll clearly see the equipment from the top of Cook Street as you come down the hill. Commissioner Vuksic asked about roof accesses. Mr. Robinson stated that the ladders are all internal. Commissioner Vuksic asked the commission if the only issue they have are the Cook Street and Gerald Ford elevations. The commission concurred. Commissioner Gregory commented that architecturally the general philosophy is that the G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030923.MIN 23 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 MINUTES interior elevations of the retail center look acceptable. The hotel, Cook Street and Gerald Ford elevations need more work. Mr. Evans stated that he sees the hotel as a business hotel. They would like to see something a little bit more aristocratic, as opposed to glitzy. They want it to be warmer than the Residence Inn. They don't want it to feel like an apartment building. They want it to come alive with some stone, color and texture. It does need to be taken to another level. They like the idea of the small awnings that stick out over each of the windows. They have popped up the center a little bit higher in the middle and made it a little bit more dominant and moved the portico out and made it a lot stronger. On the right and left, they've intentionally popped out those buildings on both sides. The patio on the second level will pop the building out a lot stronger. They like the understatedness of the hotel. Commissioner Hanson stated that there's another hotel out there and this is similar to the Hampton Inn. Commissioner Gregory suggested using enriched materials. Commissioner Hanson stated that it just doesn't work and comes out very flat. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if there will be individual air conditioners for each room. Mr. Drell stated that they're flush with the building. Commissioner Hanson commented that there's still something missing from the hotel. The porte couchere could be punched up and made stronger. It's too much the same and too flat. She suggested adding an interesting element to it. Mr. Evans commented on the patios and didn't know if they were going to be private patios or if it was going to be a plaza with mass seating with tables, chairs, umbrellas, trees and shade. He didn't know if it was going to be private dining spaces at this point. Every shopping center that he's built (i.e. Fashion Island, Spectrum) has 10'-12' wide patios. They're more intimate. Nine months is a long time, but it's not a long time. They're going to be using the inside more than the outside. Making it too big and not giving them enough space on the inside to be able to cool down when you need to wouldn't work. They need business twelve months of the year. If they were building this for a nine month project, they wouldn't be building it. They're building it because they believe they can get people to use the place twelve months of the year. That's what their objective is. The shade trees are important. They originally thought that the palm tree idea was important visually, but now they feel that eventually shade trees can be more important than palm trees. He knows that shade trees are going to be trouble. They get hacked up if you're not careful and they intend to be very cautious about those things. The corner can be widened but it's going to make the outside even bigger, even though they're going to move the corner in and do the right turn. The plaza is going to get bigger on the outside. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030923.MIN 24 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 MINUTES Commissioner Gregory suggested that the applicant revise the plans for the corner and show it to the commission. If Mr. Evans feels strongly that it works better with a more intimate setting, then show it that way. Mr. Drell asked the applicant for computer pictures of the corner. Mr. Evans stated that the pictures will be based on the input from the ARC. These will be ready for the next Planning Commission meeting, not the next ARC meeting. Mr. Evans asked for comments on the office portion of the project. Chuck Crookall stated that they have 130,000 square feet of office space. Mr. Drell asked if all the office buildings will be uniform architecturally. Mr. Crookall stated that they will be uniform. Mr. Drell stated that it belies the village concept and turns it back into a company town. The uniformity will be in stark contrast to main street. When you look through from the commercial district to the less than commercial district there should still be diversity. If that's the theme of the project, then maybe that theme should carry through to the office project property a little bit. It should still have that same "built-over-time" illusion and not look like it was brand new. Commissioner Hanson commented that the windows need to be recessed more than what they are in order to give the same depth. The buildings are large and they need more offset on the glazing. The thing that's lacking in the office buildings is that they're all too much the same and there isn't the level of material use that's apparent on the retail buildings and is important. Mr. Crookall stated that they intend to phase this project in three phases. Commissioner Hanson stated that their level of materials has to go up. Using a stucco box, not using some of the awnings, not using more of the metal trellis doesn't show enough interest. It doesn't relate to the retail as much as it should. Mr. Crookall stated that he understands the comments. The type of construction is steel beam, lath & stucco. Commissioner Vuksic commented that it looks like tilt-up construction. It can't look like that. Commissioner Lopez commented that he noticed some trash locations in some areas but not in all areas. Some areas should have outdoor seating for people to sit down and eat lunch or smoke. He wasn't sure where the bus shelter will be. Mr. Evans commented that he's working on getting a meeting with Sun Bus to work out a bus stop location. So far, the proposed location is not acceptable to Planning, Public Works or himself. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to continue the request to allow the applicant to revise plans. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner O'Donnell absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030923.MIN 25 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 8, 2003 MINUTES B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: PP 03-11 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RICK EVANS, 13 Esplanade, Irvine, CA 92612 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of elevations for commercial/retail buildings in Wonder Palms Master Plan of Development. LOCATION: Southwest corner of Gerald Ford and Cook Street ZONE: PCD Mr. Drell stated that the location of the proposed project is at the corner of Gerald Ford and Cook Street. Rick Evans, applicant, stated that there was a substitute site plan that he wanted to hang up so that the commission could see it. They were trying to work out a better distribution of parking for the project. Mr. Drell stated that they don't have anything that shows the whole property including Merrick's property. Across the street is Arco and the Hampton Inn & Suites. The City has purchased 170 acres across the southwest corner of this section, which will probably be a golf course. In the middle of the section will be a residential property, which has yet to be master planned. He hopes to get the whole area master planned. The site slopes approximately 80 feet from the bottom to the top of the residential property. There's a sand ridge midway through the section. The direction that was given to Mr. Evans on how to design the project was that the market and land uses that are obvious today are going to change radically in fifteen years when the residential area develops and the university develops. The university becomes the real engine and may include a sports arena. The future opportunities are very different from what they are today. Designing a project where the basic ground architecture works today but didn't foresee evolving into a different sort of project once it was oriented towards the university and also a whole neighborhood behind it. What they came up with was the concept of creating an internal street. Some buildings will face Cook Street, but the real action is going to be on the internal street. There will be offices G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030708.MIN 8 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 8, 2003 MINUTES toward the rear of the property and parking distributed throughout the site including angled parking on the street. They also created architecture that wasn't monolithic in style. Mr. Evans stated that he's spent a lot of time with staff developing the concept of the project. They've taken it to a level of detail that probably should be a little bit further when it comes to signage. When it comes to the overall project, what they're trying to demonstrate is an inter- relationship of different parts of this project to the total. Office is a very important function and it's planned to be 135,000 square feet of garden office. At University Drive, there is a three-story 30'-35' tall all-suites hotel. From University through the office product at the top of the site there is a usable walking street. They've tried to disperse the parking so that it had parking to serve each of the individual elements as they stand alone. Main Street is the important thing. Office is also important because it's intended to be a generator of customers, traffic and activity within the site. The hotel is intended to be the same way. They've done a mixture of restaurant pads and fast food because they thought a mixture for the different purposes, time of day, etc... is going to be really important to the way the product gets used. They've also tried to incorporate a variety of building shapes. The exterior of the building along Cook Street is intended to show that the buildings are not one sided. They want the buildings to literally feel like there's no back side to them. There's a point where the back has to be the back, but they've tried to disguise it as much as possible. There are two-story buildings with office on the top floor and retail on the lower floor. This is intended to mimic a downtown street. Michael Robinson, project architect, and Tal Jackson, landscape architect, were present to address the commission. Mr. Robinson has done a lot of projects in Irvine Ranch. Mr. Jackson has done a lot of work in Las Vegas, Newport and Palm Desert, including Marriott's Shadow Ridge. Mr. Evans has tried to pull together a team that could embrace the ideas the Mr. Drell and staff were suggesting for the last six months. This is the "anti-strip mall" concept. One of the reasons why they're trying to get two entrances on Cook Street and one entrance on Gerald Ford is because they want the traffic to be dispersed to those little pockets and for people to walk from there. This is not a strip mall where you drive in one big, long entrance similar to Desert Crossing which is a nice project but it's designed strip mall style. There's a big, open, wide entrance where cars come in and move around the place and then leave. The proposed project is completely G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030708.MIN 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 8, 2003 MINUTES different from that style. It's intended to distribute traffic evenly. Design guidelines were distributed to the commissioners. Michael Robinson, architect, stated that one of the key elements of the site is the main street of the urban village. The concept behind the urban village is how they've dealt with the architecture so that buildings don't stand out and become architectural art pieces, but they're more set into the idea that the buildings look like they've been built over time and are more historical and tie in with the landscape. Basically, what sets off the main street are the entries with highlighted paving and a median strip that dies into an area where there will be directional signage. There will be 45° parking to provide for easy in/easy out access and direct communication to the store fronts. The idea is to have convenient parking which is easy to get in and out of, integration of landscaping and trying to encourage a pedestrian-type of orientation. All the areas in front of the buildings are covered. They're either arcades that are integrated in with the architecture or they're parts of the building that step out over the sidewalk to create shaded areas. The columns provide areas for vines to grow up. The hotel has been integrated in with two high-end restaurant pads. In between the two restaurants would be outdoor patios for each tenant. The two-story buildings have a covered arcade below. Some points on the second floor would be coved back so that there would be a terraced area. The idea is to do different detail on the parapets. Some would be more decorative and large and some would be simple. They're looking at different ways to incorporate more open trellis work for landscape material to grow on and allow some sun to filter through. Commissioner Gregory expressed concern regarding future signage on the east elevation. It appears that on some buildings the signage might be placed pretty high on the facade, especially on the right side on the two-story elements. He wanted to know if those buildings would have signage. Mr. Robinson stated that the signage will be on a single level. Mr. Drell stated that they need to see how signage will go on the buildings, even conceptually. Mr. Evans stated that he believes that they're going to have to have great signage on these buildings to make them work the right way. One of the difficulties with retail is that they can design the methodology, location and size but they're trying to leave the result to be a little bit more creative. He has hired a sign designer who did all the signs for the Irvine Spectrum Center and Fashion Island. The reason why he did that is because he thinks that the way to get the best result out of the sign program, once the criteria has been agreed upon, is to let the image of the merchant show G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030708.MIN 1 0 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 8, 2003 MINUTES through, yet keep it in control with size, dimension, shape, color, etc... That can make the solution dynamic rather than static. Commissioner Oppenheim commented that the applicant talked about the image of the merchant and questioned why they created a dramatic sense of entry and had fast food on pad #3 and #4. Mr. Robinson stated that there's a need for the fast food to have access. Mr. Drell stated that pad #3 is right in the heart of the street and people are not going to walk past it. He could possibly see pad #4 working. He asked the applicant if they could put pad #3 somewhere else on Gerald Ford. Mr. Evans stated that mixing it up is a good idea. He stated that his wife taught him that when you're in a kitchen you walk in a triangle. A lot about these buildings are that triangle. He doesn't think that people will walk past pad #3 but he does think that it's an important element in the highway overlay that they acknowledge the need to have people arrive and park and not get involved in the whole center if they don't want to. Commissioner Gregory commented that the drive-thru on pad #3 is contrary to what they're trying to promote with their grand scheme. Mr. Evans did not agree. This is one issue that they haven't struggled with, primarily because he knows that the marketplace need is there. They had to find the right place for the fast food restaurants. There are probably three really good pad merchants out there to serve this area very well. They don't need ten of them to do it. Commissioner Gregory stated that this is a different argument. He's talking about the drive thru lane. Can people park their cars and manage to get out of the car and walk into that particular fast food restaurant? Mr. Evans stated that they're capable of doing that in all of them. Commissioner Gregory stated that the pads are closer to the intersection for that particular market, i.e. people driving on the freeway wanting a fast food place to go to. Mr. Evans stated that it's also for the local person who is trying to get to work and want to be quick, in and out. He may have a very high style kind of an operation (coffee) and they will do very well here. They'll have tables and chairs and outdoor seating. If you look at the place as it unfolds, the intention behind it is to have what you need and have it dispersed evenly and not destroy the triangular kind of motion that was previously described between the three buildings. Mr. Drell suggested that he do something special to the fast food restaurant to make it feel like it's a part of the street. Perhaps they could enhance the paving of the drive thru lane to create a motor court for the cars to drive through but when cars aren't there it would almost look like it's part of the front. Usually we try to hide the drive thru aisle but here he doesn't think they should do that because they're hiding the building and then it looks like the back of something. They should do G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030708.MIN 11 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 8, 2003 MINUTES the opposite and enhance the drive thru aisle visually so that it looks like a lane that cars are driving on sometimes and sometimes not. When the cars are not there it would look like part of the front. Commissioner Gregory stated that they're spending a lot of time on this, which is probably important but he doesn't want the commission to focus on one specific item. Mr. Robinson stated that they've gone to a lot of effort to provide design criteria for the tenants who are going to build the pads out. They will, in the end, have a real consistent feel for the movements, architecture and the colors. Tal Jackson, landscape architect, stated that they've broken the landscape into different zones which is outlined in the design guidelines. Essentially, the project perimeter, which encircles Gerald Ford, Wonder Palms and University Way utilizes more traditional desert plantings. He has introduced a meandering sidewalk in response to what is across the street. He has introduced canopy trees and Mexican palms. The entry portals coming in along Cook Street and Gerald Ford will have date palms, canopy trees and accent paving which will bring you into the project with directional signs indicating which way to go. He sees the entries as being very important because they disperse traffic in different directions. The main street idea allows for 60° parking on a two-way street. They've narrowed the street as much as possible to eliminate the back top effect, especially during the summer months, and to allow for pedestrian flow along both ends with a canopy tree that sets up the old town/downtown feeling. There is an external walk to the whole street scene as well as the walk underneath the canopy arcade. In reality, the arcade will be used more than the exterior portion. The date palm is the secondary, more vertical tree in the backdrop and will be used as an accent to the retail area. It sets up a really nice, stately street scene that leads the hotel user to the retail edge and the retail user to the rest of the project area. The idea is to provide customers with a really nice pedestrian walking experience. As you're on 1-10 looking down at this center you'll be able to see the street lights and trees and palms all lining the streets at night. This is another reason why they ended up with a site plan the way they did, as is the future response to the university and long-term planning. They're going to create an urban village that's going to be a pedestrian friendly area for users from the university to come over and long-term for the neighborhood as well. Planning down the road and how this project is going to interact with both uses is very important. Commissioner Gregory commented that everyone keeps talking about the "street scene" . Other than seeing a large number of planting bays, G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030708.MIN 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 8, 2003 MINUTES arcades and deep sidewalks, which he thinks is wonderful, he wonders if there are any means to encourage people to feel comfortable walking across the street. At the project entries there are enhanced paving areas, but he doesn't know how this feels like a street scene other than having a lot of trees. Mr. Jackson stated that by narrowing the street it promotes interaction. Commissioner Gregory commented that the planter on retail #4 at the entry going north/south could be moved a little bit to the left to make a more interesting focal point for traffic going in that direction. Mr. Drell suggested moving the planter over so that it becomes the end of a crosswalk. Commissioner Gregory asked if lighting will be ambient-type of lighting. Mr. Jackson stated that it would. Mr. Drell stated that he feels that the project, in terms of his goals, is 90% there. However, they have the same awning style bridging different buildings, which defeats the purpose of having the buildings look like they're different. There has to be some tweaking of the details because it still looks like an urban village built over time but designed by one architect. Mr. Evans stated that this is a very good point. They've talked about this issue in endless amounts of time. They felt like until they've received some direction from the commission, it would be hard to get a little bit too serious about that. If the commission looks at the design guidelines, they'll see that they address the idea of awnings in a very unique way. The buildings need to have covers, some of them need to have filtered light, some need to have trellises with vines on them, some will be metal, some will be slatted metal and some will be standing seam. What they're trying to achieve through that is when they get into their real design development, the challenge of the awnings will become a bigger part of it and will include the way the signs work. They have an idea but the challenge should hold the concept of the old buildings that are built over time. The other thing that they think that they can do very well is to keep a uniqueness of awning to a particular building. The one thing that they love to use but can't use here is glass. Mr. Drell stated that what we're seeing is just a snapshot in time and as the project evolves those issues will be addressed. Commissioner Gregory asked Diane Hollinger if in the two-story building area and also the right side of retail #4, and other areas, where there is no opportunity to meeting the shading requirements, can there be some sort of trade off or is that something that they should be aware of now? Mr. Drell stated that the requirement is that one in three of the total spaces in the project be shaded. The shade requirement is overall and there can be areas where the visibility is more important. Commissioner Gregory asked about the parking area between the hotel and the two-story retail #3. Mr. Drell stated that there should be G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030708.MIN 13 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION J U LY 8, 2003 MINUTES additional shading in this area. Commissioner Gregory commented that right now it appears to be sparse. Mr. Drell stated that they should be sure that there is additional shading in areas where visibility is not a problem and where there is going to be a more transient shopper, where visibility may be more important, they may want to use palm trees to give some shade but really get the heads above the signage. Ms. Hollinger stated that if they're in a retail center, then every storefront needs visibility, therefore, there won't be room to put trees. Mr. Drell stated that there's lots of space where they're showing no shading at all and these areas can be shaded without any problem. Ms. Hollinger suggested minimizing the amount of palm trees. There's still a low water use ordinance and they've got tons of palms on the plans and it's not going to work. Mr. Drell commented that they have too many trees on Cook Street. There's no point in making the buildings look like fronts and then covering them with a forest. Commissioner Gregory asked if it was understood that with the fast food restaurants they will be looking for a greatly enhanced effort architecturally to make them "happier" as opposed to "happy". Mr. Robinson stated that there will be consistency of architectural detail. Commissioner Gregory commented that he wants even more because they really have to be snappy. In the past, when we've dealt with drive thru lanes we've tried to hide them somewhat and here they're not, which is okay, but make them look really good. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he had some things to add to the list of things to be wary of and that they'll be looking for. The direction of the architecture looks good. He sees hints of Larchmont Street in Hancock Park in Los Angeles where he can imagine the angled parking aisles where you would want to run across the street. It would be nice to see a lot more of it because he just sees hints of it. It's very important to submit roof plans so that the commission can understand what's going on. They'll be looking at different heights of elements and how they work. Do they just go back a little ways and stop? Are they complete forms? They want to see that they have parapet heights that will conceal mechanical equipment and how they're getting up to the roofs. Are the utilities well screened? Francisco brought up an interesting point about something that he's seen before on drive thru lanes. What they have is a classic drive thru that wraps around the building, but maybe there are some possibilities to do that in a way that's more creative so that the drive aisle is only on one or maybe two sides of the building and then it somehow spits out instead of surrounding the building. The ARC will be looking at things like the parapets. Are they different? What are the proportions? Some areas look pretty massive. On the plan there's a little pop-out that looks like it goes all the way up to the roof and the cornice detail carries on across. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030708.MIN 14 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION J U LY 8, 2003 MINUTES Is that really what it's going to look like? These are examples of things that the commission will be looking at. Mr. Robinson stated that the next submittal will show the location of the signage. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they will be looking at flashing details so that they don't have metal cap flashing on everything. Mr. Evans stated that the color range was chosen because of the color of the sand and the mountains and tried to draw a contrast that's not a conflicting kind of contrast. Mr. Robinson showed the commission the color board. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the colors look nice. He noticed something about 8'/2 wide parking spaces and wondered if that's what they're going to be. Mr. Robinson stated that they're 9' in width. Mr. Evans asked the commission for comments on the office product. The architecture is all part of the design guidelines because the buildings haven't been designed at this point. However, he wanted to get some input on that particular item. Commissioner Gregory asked if the office park would be done in phase II. Mr. Evans commented that it would be part of phase I. Fred Evans showed the commission the different phasing aspects on a site plan. Commissioner Vuksic commented on the walkway. Mr. Jackson stated that the idea is to collect people at a certain point and bring them into the retail area. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he doesn't see that at all on the plan. It looks like they've completely ignored it. Mr. Jackson stated that they haven't worked on the landscape concept of this area. Once this is done it will show how pedestrians will be picked up and pulled into that area. Mr. Evans stated that Chuck Crookhall is President of Shaw Properties. Shaw is their office partner in this project. They've spent more of their time trying to get a good balance of the parking so that the shaded parking would be their primary objective. They will have quite a bit of covered parking including carports. Commissioner Gregory asked if the office portion is part of this particular application right now and do we have enhanced plans to review? Mr. Evans stated that the office portion is part of the application. Mr. Drell stated that they're talking about a conceptual plan of a pretty ambitious project. Most of the comments made by the commissioners has to do with details. The applicant wants to go to the Planning Commission to be able to get significant entitlements to know if they can do a project like this at all. Before they start getting down to the fine points of how the paving is going to look on the aisle on the fast food restaurant, they're probably going to go to Planning Commission and the City Council relative to getting approval to do this use on this property. Part of their application involves changing the configuration of the commercial zone on this G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030708.MIN 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 8, 2003 MINUTES corner. The ARC should look at the project globally now in terms of an overall architectural concept, overall site plan and overall theme. He's not sure if they can call it preliminary approval but it would be approval of the theme and the master plan so that it can go on to the Planning Commission and City Council and they can get their basic land use entitlement secured. Then it will come back to the ARC to work out the details that have been coming up in this discussion. Commissioner Gregory asked if they can give some kind of approval on the office area without really seeing specifics. Mr. Drell stated that they could give approval based on consistency with the architectural style of the buildings that the commission has seen. Mr. Evans stated that they can also review the design guidelines. Commissioner Gregory stated that he wasn't expecting to be responding to that part now. He wanted to know if they're looking for approval of the use of the area, circulation, massing of the buildings, overall architectural direction and style. Every time he sees one of those angled access spines he is concerned because usually they don't work that well. Desert Willow is an example where the architects laid out a spine and you can't see anything because it's planted. The proposed pedestrian spine doesn't really go into anything and circulation is a little "funny" there. Francisco Urbina introduced himself as one of the planners and stated that he and Steve Smith, Planning Manager (who was not present) reviewed the project site plan and elevations and wanted to share some of his comments and Mr. Smith's as well. Design can be a very subjective thing. If you ask five different people you get five different opinions. Their general perception on the elevations submitted was that they appear to be rather boxy and rigid. They would like a little bit more creativity and pizzazz. This is a major gateway entrance into the City of Palm Desert and the architecture that they approve for this area will, in a way, set the tone for the hundreds of acres of vacant land in the area. The impression that he and Steve Smith had was that this type of architecture is too commonly found in other parts of Southern California. They didn't think that it was distinctive enough for this prime entrance into the City. Regarding the drive thru lanes, they felt that the drive thru on pad #3 should be relocated. Mr. Drell commented that they've already discussed that. Mr. Urbina wanted to know what is at the other terminus of this visual aspect. Mr. Evans commented that when they started working with the whole office project, one of the things that they felt really strongly about is the importance of this project to the retail. As the project evolved, they've shifted the office product around to enhance as much as possible. The pedestrian walkway draws the people from the office park and brings them down to the retail area. This is different from Desert Willow. Commissioner Gregory asked if people are expected to be walking G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030708.MIN 16 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 8, 2003 MINUTES there in any form of numbers. It's mostly a visual thing, let's face it. You're not going to have that many people using it. Mr. Evans stated that he feels very strongly that it's going to happen. He could pick up 10-15 more parking spaces without it. Commissioner Gregory stated that he's not knocking it, but it looks like a tried and true element that they've seen many times and then it just peters off. Mr. Evans stated that the office workers won't want to leave their parking place when they leave the office to get something to eat. Commissioner Gregory stated that his point is that it almost looks like two different projects stuck together with a spine that goes nowhere. Mr. Drell stated that they have to clearly connect it together. Commissioner Vuksic stated that ideally that would become a pedestrian spot and the inlet into the parking would actually be somewhere else. Mr. Evans stated that if you look at the gateway aspect at the corner of Gerald Ford and Cook Street he was asked specifically to keep the buildings away from the corner and to do something important in that location. He thought that the landscaped zone down the middle would be very inviting as people drive by and look up towards the parking area. Commissioner Gregory commented that he feels like they're going around in circles. He likes it, but it stops. Mr. Drell stated that the direction is that the pedestrian spine can't just end. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the square footage reflects the shapes. Mr. Robinson stated that it does. Commissioner Vuksic stated that this concerns him because they're fairly tight. If that's the square footage and they have architecture that they want to add to the outside, they may not have the room. If one building is 9,550 square feet and that's what they need, they haven't given themselves a lot of room for pop- outs and ins and outs between that envelope and the parking. They would end up with less than that square footage unless they have very little buffer between the parking and the building in an effort to make it look nice. He suggested that the architect be careful of that. Commissioner Lopez commented that the applicant should do preliminary water calculations for the landscape design. They'll save themselves a lot of time and will find out what trees they can and can't use. Think about locations for monument signage. Show locations of bus stops. Show locations of trash areas. Morton's did a nice design for a trash enclosure where it was designed as part of the building and is not visible from the parking area. Where is the drainage going to be located? Mr. Drell stated that he would hate to see deep recessions or big black holes. They should find drainage somewhere else or do what they did at Costco and use sub-parking lot drainage fields. He would hate to see what happened at The Gardens on El Paseo where the heart of the project became a drainage ditch. Commissioner Lopez commented that the roads in shopping centers can become raceways. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030708.MIN 17 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION J U LY 8, 2003 MINUTES Stop signs will probably be put in certain places, but they should try to reduce the speed of cars traveling through the shopping area. He wasn't sure why the sidewalks come to the street curb. Mr. Drell stated that this is a next to a highway where people are driving 60 mph. There won't be any parking on this street so what would be the purpose of the sidewalks coming to the curb? Mr. Evans stated that they just used it as a design element at this point. Mr. Drell commented that he would rather see it not meandering and have a consistent sidewalk. Ms. Hollinger commented that the Public Works Department likes meandering sidewalks. Mr. Drell stated that Public Works is not designing this project. Meandering sidewalks probably make more sense in a residential project. Mr. Evans wondered if they should even have sidewalks on Cook Street in certain places because they want the customer to walk through the project as opposed to along the street. Commissioner Oppenheim commented that she sees a lot of parking and a lot of office buildings. It's an exciting project but she's not convinced that the "village feel" is there yet. It looks flat. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez granted preliminary approval of master plan subject to (1) reconsider location and/or design of fast food restaurant on pad #3, (2) increase parking lot shading, per City requirements, (3) submit roof plans, (4) show parapet cornice and cap flashing details (no exposed sheet metal), (5) submit more detailed landscape plan, per City requirements, (6) sign locations need to be identified on elevations, (7) show how pedestrian landscape spine through parking lot connects to future office park, (8) show monument sign locations, bus stops and trash enclosures, and (9) response to comments should be submitted for review prior to preparation of working drawings. Motion carried 4-0- 0-3 with Commissioners O'Donnell, Hanson and Van Vliet absent. 2. CASE NO.: PP 03-06 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SARES-REGIS GROUP, GREG ALBERT, 18825 Bardeen Avenue, Irvine, CA 92612 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of architecture for a 320-unit apartment complex. LOCATION: East of Monterey, north side of Gerald Ford ZONE: PR-5 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030708.MIN 18 UNIVERSITY VILLAGE MIXED USE RETAIL AND OFFICE DEVELOPMENT SOUTHWEST CORNER OF COOK STREET AND GERALD FORD DRIVE REVISED OCTOBER 9, 2003 Introduction Alliance Retail Partners proposes to develop a 23.6 acre mixed use, retail, garden office and hotel project at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive in Palm Desert, California. The project will be developed with uses and area densities allowed in the guidelines of the existing Wonder Palms Development Agreement adopted as Ordinance No. 838, dated April 24, 1997 (the Development Agreement). Project Description The planned mixed-use complex promotes the concept of a new urban desert village representing a prominent gateway to the City of Palm Desert. The gateway focal point has been developed at the corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive with book end structures framing an inviting vista sloping up from the corner plaza, across the entire site. An intimate town-like setting is emphasized by the corner pedestrian plaza and the primary retail district along Main Street, extending from the corner to the anchoring office and hotel components. The Main Street circulation promotes excellent pedestrian and vehicle circulation, further enhancing the village concept. The mixed-use project specifically complements the uses of the adjacent University and also well serves surrounding freeway, residential and commercial users. Development Agreement Amendment Request Planning Area 3, comprising an area of 11.2 acres of the proposed project site is located within the boundary of the Wonder Palms project area and is covered by the Development Agreement. The remaining 12.42 acres are currently proposed to be zoned for commercial development in the General Plan Amendment preferred alternative draft. At the recommendation of Staff, the project has grown to include this additional area to accomplish the long-term goals envisioned for this corner site. Over the past year, the development has been planned with the encouragement and guidance of Staff in order to maximize the short-term and long-term vision of the city for this corner. Our request for this project to be processed within the Wonder Palms Development Agreement is being made with the mutual understanding of the Developer and Staff that this process is consistent with City Council's directive that the Wonder Palms Project Area has been exempted from the entitlement moratorium. The directive supports the City's intention that good projects consistent with the General Plan Amendment, such as this one, should not be delayed by the GPA approval process. All aspects of this project are consistent with the City's vision for this corner site, the General Plan Amendment Draft and the Wonder Palms Development Agreement. The General Plan Amendment is currently only in draft form and will take considerable time to take effect. To process our applications under the GPA potentially could result in a long delay that would be an undue hardship and could put the project at considerable risk. RECEIVED ED ii 2003 Wonder Palms Narrative 10-09-03 O1 mi_TTilTY UE VELJ'DIGPN 1'DEPAR'1'ktE" ('r T`;Or PK L,'✓ Alliance Retail Partners Wonder Palms Project Narrative Revised 10-09-03 Accordingly, Precise Plan, Architectural Review Committee and Tentative Parcel Map applications have been submitted for approval subsequent to our amendment request to City Council. As part of our applications, the following requests are made: • A three-way (right-in, right-out, left-in) intersection with median cuts at the primary entrance locations from Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive, respectively. • A provision to allow the size of any specific building shown on the site plans submitted with this application to be increased up to 10% to be processed as a minor modification of the development agreement within the Development Services agency. • Accommodation of drive-thru restaurant use on three parcels on the site. Two of these are located on each side of the proposed project entrance along Cook Street. The third location is located on the east side of the proposed project entrance off of Gerald Ford Drive. • An exception to the 30-foot maximum building height and 40,000 square foot maximum floor area requirements of the PC2 general zoning provisions to accommodate the 44- foot height and 140 rooms of the planned hotel. Note that the 44-foot height is the tallest height of the building but is provided only at the primary entrance to provide architectural interest. The corner tower elements are 40 feet high. The typical parapet height of the building is 37 feet, 4 inches and applies to a majority of the building structure. • An exception to the 30-foot maximum building height requirement o f the PC2 general zoning provisions to accommodate the 34-foot height of the planned Retail Buildings 1 and 2. Note that the 34-foot height is the tallest height of the building but is provided only at the tower element de architectural interest. The typical parapet height of the building varies from 22 feet to 27 feet and applies to a majority of each building structure. • Allowance for the site to be parked per the submitted site plan. Zoning The Development Agreement specifies that the PA3 planning area shall be developed using the general provisions of the PC-2 (Planned Commercial Center— District Retail). In addition the Development Agreement provides specific guidance in the development of architectural themes as well as landscaping and signage styles. It is the Developer's intent to develop this project within the provisions of the Development Agreement with the minor exceptions noted above. Site Concepts Art in Public Places The project contemplates a major feature addressing Art in Public Places to be located in the interior plaza at the corner of Main Street, fronting Retail Buildings 1 and 2. We contemplate commissioning an artist to design the feature specifically for this location and purpose. Page 2 of 10 Alliance Retail Partners Wonder Palms Project Narrative Revised 10-09-03 Gateway Corner Feature Taking advantage of the existing grade elevation, a view corridor has been created across the entire length of the central area of the site. Viewing from the northern crest of Cook Street between Interstate 10 and Gerald Ford Drive, the urban complex emanates from the low-rise corner, with both grade and building elevation rising to culminate at the twin office buildings at the pinnacle of the site. Main Plaza Directly behind the corner gateway is the pedestrian plaza which serves as a gracious gathering area to serve merchants and customers, and support the pavilion retail buildings. The plaza will be appropriately appointed with landscape and hardscape features befitting a project of this scope. A concept for future expansion, including subterranean parking levels with additional topside retail space is being designed into the site plan now as an extension of the new urban village concept. Main Street Main Street is the primary circulation boulevard which links the retail and office and hotel districts to the gateway plaza. Traveling south from the plaza toward Berger Street, the retail district is oriented along both sides of Main Street, providing an Old-Town village atmosphere along the street between the plaza and the 140-room hotel which anchors the south end of the site. Anchors The mixed-use site functions similar to a regional mall in that the retail space is anchored by the office component to the west and the hotel to the south. The office and hotel components replace the retail anchors of a traditional mall and provide the mixed-use development appropriate for this location. Site Circulation The site contains frontage to public streets on all sides, including Cook Street to the east, Gerald Ford Drive to the north, Spine Road and Technology Drive to the west, and Berger Drive to the south. Main entrances from Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive feed traffic onto a main circulation road, Main Street, extending from Berger Drive and the hotel at the south end, through the corner plaza, to Technology Drive at the western end of the site. A secondary circulation road bisects the office development, starting at its intersection with Main Street at the Cook Street main entrance, passing through the office development and terminating at Main Street at the west end of the site. A third entrance to the project Main Street from Berger Drive between Cook Street and Spine Road allows access into the hotel and the retail district. Two additional site entrances access the office development from Spine Road. The Developer is requesting a three-way (right-in, right-out, left-in) intersection with median cuts at the primary entrance locations from Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive, respectively. The center of the plaza contains linear pedestrian walkways along the Main Street linking the plaza retail buildings with the hotel at the south end and office at the west end of the site. A landscaped pedestrian paseo also extends across the central parking area to link the plaza to the office area. Page 3 of 10 Alliance Retail Partners Wonder Palms Project Narrative Revised 10-09-03 Planned Structures Site Coverage The site coverage ratio for this site is 22.9%, below the limit of 50% allowed in the PC-2 general provisions specified in the Development Agreement. Due to the large scale and long-term phasing of this development, the Developer is requesting a provision to allow the size of any specific building shown on the site plans submitted with this application to be increased up to 10% to be processed as a minor modification of the development agreement within the Development Services agency. A major modification with public hearing would not be required for this level of building size change. The enlarged structures would otherwise adhere to the project design guidelines submitted as part of this application. Building Uses The retail, office and hotel uses are allowed in the PC-2 general provisions specified in the Development Agreement. Proposed areas for each use are presented in the table below. Use Area (GBA in square feet) Area (GLA in square feet) Retail 121,700 111,880 Office 130,000 122,000 Hotel 140 Keys NA Retail Facilities A total of 121,700 square feet (GBA) of multi-tenant retail space is planned for construction in three phases. Retail Buildings 1 and 2, each with a floor area of 16,850 square feet, frame the corner gateway into the project. Retail Buildings 4 and 6, 8,300 and 9,000 square feet in floor area, respectively, are located along Cook Street to the south. Retail Buildings 3 and 5, with 27,750 and 23,250 square feet of area, respectively, are also located south of the corner plaza on the west side of Main Street. Retail buildings 1, 2, 4 and 6 are one-story structures of Type V wood frame construction. Retail Buildings 3 and 5, representing the final phase of construction, are two stories in height with second story office space, further enhancing the urban street setting. Five pad building sites, with floor areas ranging from 3,500 to 5,000 square feet are located throughout the site. The Developer is requesting accommodation of drive-thru restaurant use on three parcels on the site. Two of these are located on each side of the proposed project entrance along Cook Street. The third parcel is located on the east side of the proposed project entrance off of Gerald Ford Drive. The Developer is requesting an exception to the 30-foot maximum building height requirement o f the PC2 general zoning provisions to accommodate the height of Retail Buildings 1 and 2. Page 4 of 10 Alliance Retail Partners Wonder Palms Project Narrative Revised 10-09-03 Hotel Site A three-story, 140-bed business/overnight stay hotel is planned for a 1.9-acre site at the corner of Berger drive and Spine Road, at the south end of the site. The Developer is requesting an exception to the 30-foot maximum building height requirement o f the PC2 general zoning provisions to accommodate the height of the planned hotel. Office Facilities One-story garden office structures are planned to be constructed in three phases with a total floor area of approximately 130,000 square feet. Each phase contains several similar buildings, ranging from 6,000 to 14,000 square feet. The structures will be variations of a common theme with similar Type-V wood frame shear wall construction. The buildings are divisible to provide flexibility for the user. Depending on market conditions, the office space may be leased or it may be sold as condominium units. A portion of the buildings, containing floor area up to 20% of the total square footage of the project, may be used as medical office space. Project Phasing The retail buildings will constructed in three phases as follows: Phase 1 The two corner pavilion buildings and Building 4 along Cook Street, south of the plaza Phase 2 Building 6 along Cook Street, south of the plaza Phase 3 Buildings 3 and 5 on the west side of Main Street, north of the hotel (two-story) The office element will be constructed in three phases as follows Phase 1 Office Buildings 10-14, located along the southwest side of the central parking area opposite the plaza. Phase 2 Office Buildings 4-9, located at the western end of the site. Phase 3 Office Buildings 1-3, located at the southern end of the parcel The hotel will be constructed as a separate phase with timing dependent on sale of the hotel site to a suitable operator. Similarly, the five restaurant pad structures will be constructed as suitable users purchase or lease each of these sites. Architecture The site is situated at the "Gateway" to Palm Desert, California and embraces the intersection with twin symmetrical one story retail pavilion buildings. The buildings are separated at the corner, providing strong vistas through the lower plaza at the intersection and the upper plaza focusing axially on the office buildings at the rear of the site and the hotel at the south end of the site. The site access is defined by palm-lined Main Street, connecting visitors along both Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive. Building design, massing and articulation is described as Page 5 of 10 Alliance Retail Partners Wonder Palms Project Narrative Revised 10-09-03 "Mercantile Modern" and will be achieved through the interplay of each of the building facades, landscaped trellises, arbors, and street furniture. 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. The retail components of the site follow the same palette of colors, materials and finishes. The twin pavilion buildings at the intersection of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive embrace the Main Upper Plaza and reinforce the "Gateway" concept for the City of Palm Desert. Pedestrian circulation is defined by wide covered walkways in front of shop space. The building materials are smooth exterior plaster finishes in neutral desert floor colors and covered arcades. Layered stone is utilized as an accent material at selected tenant entries, project portals and column elements as well as the office development areas. The use of the stone interplays the rough stone finish against the smooth exterior plaster finishes to create a warm inviting desert architectural character that defines University Village Center. The subsequent additional out parcels shall be governed by the proposed University Village Design Guidelines and the existing Wonder Palms Development Agreement as the projects are defined and developed. The individual building sites shall conform to the strict design guidelines that will govern all the design aspects within the University Village development that include but not limited to colors, materials and finishes. Landscaping Retail: • Canopy trees at parking lot end islands and islands throughout the parking field provide shade to the user. • Main Street is lined with flowering accent or evergreen canopy trees for visual indication of main drive aisles. • The corner retail plaza is handsomely planted with character trees that celebrate the desert, intermixed with desert style ground plane planting with seasonal and textural interest and a colorful rock mulch for accent. • Accent trees are used to provide additional shade where needed. • The center parking lot paseo connection from the retail zone to the hotel is shaded by a tightly spaced bosque of trees providing a pedestrian scale while enhancing and shading the walk connection between retail and office. • Architectural elements such as trellises receive dual plantings of evergreen and deciduous vines with profuse flowering year around adding shade, color and fragrance for the user. Page 6 of 10 Alliance Retail Partners Wonder Palms Project Narrative Revised 10-09-03 Hotel: • Palms and trees accent the entry porte cochere area for a sense of arrival and add scale to the hotel structure. • The perimeter landscape includes parking areas shaded by canopy trees with a mix of desert style tree plantings. The supporting backdrop ground plane includes small pockets of turf bordered by shrubs for seasonal and textural desert plantings and the continuation of the rock mulch used throughout the development. Office: • A series of colorful bosque of trees lines the paths between office buildings, providing both shade and filtered light for the user. Full color and summer flowers are visually and fragrantly appealing. • Patio courtyard trees indicate the entry to each office building while providing cool shade to the courtyards. • Larger evergreen canopy trees are located at transition points between office clusters as way-finding nodes. • Shrub plantings celebrate the desert with a mixture of textures, colors and varying heights to add a sensory experience for the user. Perimeter Street Scenes • Sidewalks undulate gently along the various street scenes, with shade canopy and accent trees between the walk and development. Trees are concentrated in areas where screening is important and used to frame important views into the project. • Desert shrubs and groundcover plantings are patterned along the walkway with the same rock mulch used within the development for continuity. Landscaped area coverage exceeds the 15% requirement in the PC-2 general provisions and the 30% requirement for drive-thru pad use in the Freeway Zoning Overlay provisions specified in the Development Agreement. Please refer to the table below. Area Landscape Coverage Per Plans Pad No. 3 37% Pad No. 4 37% Pad No. 5 31% Site Total 22% Page 7 of 10 Alliance Retail Partners Wonder Palms Project Narrative Revised 10-09-03 Parking A shared parking agreement will be enacted over the entire site, maximizing the parking flexibility. Differing peak hours of the various users of the site will also contribute flexibility in parking the site. The development is parked consistent with the standards of the City's off-street parking ordinance with a site plan that provides an overall total of 1,189 parking spaces. The office areas, including the second floor office areas of Retail Buildings 3 and 5, are parked at a ratio of 4 per 1000 square feet of gross useable area as defined by ordinance. The retail parcels are parked at a ratio of 5 per 1000 square feet of gross leasable area. The hotel is parked at a ratio of 1.1 spaces per room. Covered parking with appropriate landscaping is provided. Increased Parking Required for Medical Office Medical office space is proposed for Office Buildings 12 and 14, and the second story of Retail Building 3; a total leasable area of approximately 30,000 square feet. The project addresses its parking needs, including those for proposed medical office space, through its shared parking agreement. An analysis of the shared parking conditions expected on site indicate that, because of the varied uses and resulting different peak demand times, sufficient parking is available for medical offices planned in Office Buildings 12 and 14; and on the second floor of Retail Building 3. The parking analysis indicates 64 spaces available for medical office space in the office parcel and 26 spaces available to the Retail Buildings. These spaces are sufficient to address the increased medical office parking requirement. The Developer is requesting amendment of the Wonder Palms Development Agreement provisions to allow the site to be parked per the submitted site plan. Signage The sign program for this project is divided into two sections: 1) Project Identification (no tenant ID), and 2) Retail Tenant Identification. The project identification will consist of various low rise architectural monuments which will mark and emphasize the site at the corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive (Signs A & B) on the site plan. The two entrances from Cook and Gerald Ford Drive respectively, will be marked with appropriate non-tenant monument signs as shown on the site plan (Signs C & D). These monuments establish the location of the mixed use center with no reference to tenant locations. These monuments will be tastefully designed incorporating materials that enhance and support the architecture of the project. Retail tenant signage is provided primarily in specific uniform signage zones above each store front and in similar zones above the window bays fronting Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive. These will be supplemented by low rise monument signage to provide exposure for retail tenants not located in buildings fronting the major public streets. The location of these additional monument signs is along Cook Street in front of the inline retail buildings. The Developer will institute a strict approval process for each tenants sign design prior to submission to the City, in order to sustain a superior graphic design and quality for this project. Interior directional signage will guide the traveler from the circulation road to each facility. Page 8 of 10 Alliance Retail Partners Wonder Palms Project Narrative Revised 10-09-03 The Developer will submit a detailed sign package submittal for approval under a separate permit. CRITICAL ISSUES General Plan Amendment The proposed project is consistent with the elements of the latest available draft of the General Plan Amendment. In particular, the land use is consistent with that allowed in the General Commercial classification, as specified for the subject site in the Plan Amendment. The mixed- use project promotes the policies of the Plan Amendment, including integrated development planning and uses complementary to the University within the University Park Plan Area. Additional Site Issues The City Engineer is recommending the following improvements be constructed as part of the project: • A bus stop with turnout, if required by Sunline Transit Agency, at a location to be determined. • Acceleration/Deceleration lanes at all entrances and at Berger and Technology Drives. These may cause our setbacks along Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive to be less than those required by code. Planning staff has indicated that our setbacks would remain acceptable but require an exception. Architecture and Landscaping At the present time, the building architecture and landscaping are intended to represent the modern desert themes desired by Staff, ARC and the Planning Commission. Although we have taken steps to address specific concerns of ARC and Staff, we understand that additional modifications may be required to develop the best alternatives for the project. We believe that these modifications are minor in nature. Thus, we look forward to discussing the project in detail with ARC on October 14 and are confident we are delivering the desired project. Public Safety Issues The Palm Desert Police Department recommends that a mitigation fee be paid to provide for the increased law enforcement required by this project. Project Schedule At the Planning Commission Hearing on September 2, 2003, consideration of the project was continued until October 21, 2003. Addressing comments from the Commission as well as those of Staff, the project is scheduled to be reviewed by ARC on September 23, 2003. If required, modifications will be made to address ARC concerns with our goal being to receive ARC approval before October 21, 2003. Following Planning Commission approval we expect to proceed Land development is expected to commence in the second quarter of 2004. Site development and building construction is scheduled to commence during the second or third quarter of 2004. Page 9 of 10 Alliance Retail Partners Wonder Palms Project Narrative Revised 10-09-03 Request to Staff Time is of the essence for this project and we are at a critical juncture. Due to the nature of its land acquisition transaction, this project has a finite timeline. Delay in obtaining the necessary entitlements will result in the project losing its economic feasibility. It is imperative that the required entitlements be obtained in the next 60 days to ensure the project's viability. We respectfully request Staff's best efforts in supporting our project in its presentation to and discussion with the Planning Commission and City Council. Page 10 of 10 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: October 21 , 2003 continued from September 2, 2003 CASE NOS: PP 03-11 , TPM 31515 and DA 03-03 REQUEST: Approval of a general plan amendment from low density residential to planned commercial; a change of zone from PR-5 (planned residential five units per acre); and a precise plan and tentative parcel map for a commercial / office project at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive, 37-001 Cook Street. Said project includes 111 ,880 square feet of retail (including drive- thru restaurants), a three-story hotel with up to 140 rooms; and one story garden offices totaling 122,000 square feet. Project is generally located at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive described as a portion of 653-390-062. APPLICANT: Rick Evans 57745 Interlachen La Quinta, CA 92253 BACKGROUND: This application was continued from September 2, 2003 to allow the General Plan process to catch-up, to allow the applicant to address the medical use parking shortfall, to take revised building plans through ARC, to allow the applicant to work with Public Works with respect to whether among other items the project would have 1 access to Cook St. or 2 and to allow staff to prepare the development agreement and conditions of approval II. REVIEW OF ISSUES The processing of the general plan continues. As of the writing of this report Commission has not taken a position on the University Village Land Use Plan. This may be accomplished at the morning session on October 21 , 2003. Staff Report Case No. PP 03-11, TPM 31515, DA 03-03 October 21, 2003 Cook Street Access The applicant has agreed with Public Works to limit the project to 1 access to Cook Street. That revision to the site plan allows the retail portion to increase in size from 107,620 square feet to 111 ,880 square feet. Medical Use Parking In the project narrative page 8, the applicant addresses the medical use parking shortfall (60spaces). The project addresses its "parking needs through its shared parking agreement." The applicant analyzed the various uses and expected varying peak demand times and concluded that if the medical uses are spread out over the site that adequate parking will be available. The applicant proposes a maximum of 30,000 square feet of medical office use provided in the office building, #12 & 14 and the second floor of retail building #3. The office building 12 & 14 are adjacent to the main retail parking field. The noon retail peak hours coincide with the off peak hours of the adjacent offices. Peak hours for the medical uses occur during lower demand retail periods. The second floor of medical uses in retail building #3 shares its parking with the hotel site which experiences its peaks in the early morning and late afternoon providing medical use parking during the day. Architecture The applicant changed architects and submitted new architecture to the ARC at its September 23, 2003 meeting and again on October 14, 2003. ARC granted preliminary architectural approval to the office and retail components of the project. With respect to the hotel ARC felt that its architecture was conceptually headed in the right direction, but that it needed additional detailing and work which would occur when an actual developer made a specific application to the city. The landscaping will be a "Desert Willow" style. The landscaping plans shown to the ARC were not detailed enough to grant preliminary approval but commission determined that the plant pallet was headed in the right direction. Staff Report Case No. PP 03-11, TPM 31515, DA 03-03 October 21, 2003 V. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission address design issues and continue to November 4, 2003. Prepared by: Revie ed and Approved by: Ste a Smith Phil Drell Planning Manager Director of Community Development Revie and C r: Homer Cro ACM for velopment Services /t m MY Of PUIOI OH ,11 tlt 73-510 FRED WAKING DRIVE PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92 2 60-2 5 7 8 AISPIN. • TEL: 760 346-061 I FAX: 760 341-7098 info@palm-desers.org CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NOS. PP 03-11 AND DA 03-03 AMENDING DA 97-2 AS AMENDED 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 an amendment to the Wonder Palms Master Plan to expand Planning Area 3 from 11.6 acres to 23.6 acres; and a precise plan for a commercial / office / hotel project at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive, 37-001 Cook Street. Said project 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 corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive described as a portion of 653-390- 062. o Subject O Prope SINATRA DR FRANKS/NAIRA DR SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, December 11, 2003, 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 concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk November 27, 2003 City of Palm Desert, California CITY Of Pfllffl DESE " 1 i ripe in • 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92 260-2 5 7 8 ,....1.) 1 TEL: 760 346-061 I ;i:f. : �I FAX: 760 341-7098 info@palm-deserr.org CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NOS. GPA 03-07, C/Z 03-10, PP 03-11, TPM 31515 AND DA 97-2 AMENDMENT #2 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by RICK EVANS for approval of a Mitigated Declaration of Environmental Impact, general plan amendment from low density residential to planned commercial; a change of zone from PR-5 (planned residential five units per acre); an amendment to the Wonder Palms Master Plan to expand Planning Area 3 from six acres to 23.6 acres; and a precise plan and tentative parcel map for a commercial / office project at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive, 37-001 Cook Street. Said project includes 107,000 square feet of retail(including drive-thru restaurants),a three-story hotel with up to 140 rooms; and one and two story garden offices totaling 135,000 square feet. Project is generally located at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive described as a portion of 653-390-062. 4 fi, 0 o J 0 Subject O Prope FRANK SINATRA DR FRANK SINATRA DR ci H 1 WJ ' SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 2, 2003, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL, Secretary August 21, 2003 Palm Desert Planning Commission LIt VIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FOF.... 1 . Project Title: University Village mixed use project 2. Lead Agency and Name and Address: City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 3. Contact person and Phone Number: Stephen R. Smith, Planning Manager Department of Community Development (760) 346-061 1 ext. 486 4. Project Location: Southwest corner Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Rick Evans 57745 Interlachen La Quinta, CA 92253 6. General Plan Designation: Commercial 7. Zoning: PCD and PR-5 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary.) Mixed use retail, office and hotel project on 23.6 acres. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary.) NORTH: Hotel and Service Station EAST: Cal State San Bernardino WEST AND SOUTH: Vacant 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): None CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 PAGE 1 OF 14 FORM "J" ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Air Quality Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Hazards&Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning • ❑ Mineral Resources 0 Noise ❑ Population/Housing O Public Services 0 Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities/Service Systems 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION(To be completed by the Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent.A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. O I fmd that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant or"potentially significant unless mitigated"impact on the environment,but at least one effect 1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects(a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION,including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,nothing further is required. — Si at�lre � . d Date ) 4 Printed Name For CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "T' Page 2 of 14 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: I) A brief explanation is required for all answers except"No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A"No Impact"answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved(e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact"answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards(e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved,including off-site as well as on-site,cumulative as well as project-level,indirect as well as direct,and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur,then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation,or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact"is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more"Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from"Potentially Significant Impact"to a"Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures,and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level(mitigation measures from Section XVII,"Earlier Analyses,"may be cross- referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(cX3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are"Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts(e.g. general plans,zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate,include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form,and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however,lead agencies should normally address the questions form this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "J" Page 3 of 14 9) The explanation of each isst could identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any,to reduce the impact to less than significance. SAMPLE QUESTION Less Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not 0 ❑ ❑ limited to,tress,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quaLty ❑ ❑ ❑ of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which ❑ ❑ n would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In detennining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997)prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of ❑ ❑ ❑ Statewide Importance(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a ❑ D ❑ Williamson Act contract? CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "T' Page 4 of 14 Less Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mingation Significant No Impac Impact Incorporated Impact c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, ❑ ❑ ❑ due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY. Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable ❑ 0 ❑ air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially ❑ ❑ ❑ to an existing or projected air quality violation? • c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any 0 0 ❑ critena pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ❑ concentrations? • e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of ❑ >41 ❑ ❑ people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through El ❑ 0 habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "T' Page 5 of 14 Less Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No lmpac Impact Incorporated Impact b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or ❑ ❑ ❑ I� other sensitive natural community identified in local or l`y regional plans,policies,regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected ❑ ❑ ❑ wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool,coastal, etc.)through direct removal, filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native 0 0 0 resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting ❑ ❑ l] biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ❑ ❑ 0 Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ❑ 0 0 ,K historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an ❑ 0 0 g archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ❑ ❑ ❑ resource or site or unique geologic feature? , d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside ❑ ❑ 0 Z of formal cemeteries? CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "T' Page 6 of 14 Less Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS --Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse ❑ ❑ ❑ 154 effects, including the risk of loss,injury or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the ❑ ❑ ❑ most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ D .0if, iii Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ❑ W iv Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 0 0 0 c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that 0 0 0 1'2 would become unstable as a result of the project, and Y�X potentially result in on-or off-site landslide,lateral spreading, subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of ❑ ❑ ❑ g the Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of ❑ 0 0 12.1 septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ❑ 0 0 A through the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous materials? CITY/RVPUB/1 999/3 1 3 7 8 5 FORM "T' Page 7 of 14 Less Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ❑ ❑ ❑ through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely ❑ ❑ ❑ �(( ha7ardous materials,substances,or waste within one- quarter 7� mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous ❑ ❑ ❑ materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result,would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ❑ D ❑ where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would ❑ ❑ ❑ the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an ❑ ❑ ❑ adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ❑ ❑ ❑ injury or death involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ ❑ ❑ requirements? CITY/RVPUB/1 999/3 1 3785 FORM "T' Page 8 of 14 Lcss Than Issues- Significant Potentially With Lcss Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ❑ ❑ ❑ substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g.,the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or ❑ ❑ ❑ area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or ❑ ❑ ❑ r� area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the ❑ ❑ ❑ rg capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage 7`` systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 0 Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ 0 g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as ❑ ❑ ❑ mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which ❑ ❑ ❑ would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ❑ ❑ D injury or death involving flooding,including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM"T" Page 9 of 14 Lcss Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Miugation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ I' b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,or ❑ ❑ ❑ IR regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including,but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program,or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or ❑ 0 ❑ natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ❑ ❑ ❑ resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important ❑ ❑ ❑ 1;7- mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific;plan or other land use plan? XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in ❑ ❑ ❑ excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ❑ ❑ ❑ groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? �P c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in ❑ ❑ O tPthe project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient ❑ ❑ 0 Cg noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "T' Page 10 of 14 Less Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, Cl ❑ ❑ where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would ❑ ❑ ❑ the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,either ❑ ❑ ❑ directly(for example,by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly(for example,through extension of road or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ❑ ❑ ❑ rJf necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ❑ ❑ ❑ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? 0 ❑ ❑ Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "J" Page 11 of 14 Less Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ XIV. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional ❑ ❑ ❑ parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require ❑ ❑ ❑ the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relationIT4 El ❑ ❑ to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system(i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of ❑ ❑ ❑ service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including either ❑ ❑ ❑ an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature ❑ ❑ ❑ (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ 0 ❑ CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "T' Page 12 of 14 Less Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 0 0 Z 0 g) Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or programs CI CI 0 supporting alternative transportation(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or CI CI 0 wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the O CI0 project from existing entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment El 0 0 CA provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity 0 0 to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM"T' Page 13 of 14 Lcss Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality El 0 � of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat or a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually 0 limited,but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will D 0 � cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM"T' Page 14 of 14 INITIAL STUDY CASE NOS. PP 03-11 AND C/Z 03-10 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST COMMENTS AND POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES (CATEGORIES PERTAIN TO ATTACHED CHECKLIST) I. AESTHETICS c. The site in the present condition can be termed as aesthetically offensive due to blow sand problems. The proposed development must be approved by the Palm Desert Architectural Commission. d. New light will be produced but future development will be required to prevent lighting spill over. In addition, the requirement for an engineered lighting plan per Ordinance No. 826 will assure that this conditions is fulfilled. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES a, b, c. The site is vacant desert with minor amounts of native desert vegetation. The site has never been used for agricultural purposes nor shown on maps as agricultural. III. AIR QUALITY a & b. During construction, particularly grading, a potential dust problem is a short term impact. Project will require preparation and implementation of PM 10 plan. Because the site is already an urbanized setting its development will not result in an overall deterioration of ambient air quality. This conclusion is supported by the discussions relating to air quality contained in a draft environmental impact report prepared for the North Sphere Specific Plan. Completed development of the site will result in less dust leaving the site then currently occurs with the site's vacant condition. c. Development of this site will not result in any climatic changes. This is due to its size and identified uses. d. The proposed development does not call for uses which would create substantial pollutant concentrations. e. The proposed development does not call for any odorous land uses. INITIAL STUDY CASE NOS. PP 03-11 AND C/Z 03-10 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a. The property is in the designated area of the Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard. This project will eliminate all fringe-toed lizards within the project boundaries. Pursuant to the Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan, the loss of lizards and habitat can be mitigated by payment of a $600 per acre fee for each acre development. Project will be conditioned to pay said fee. Mitigation fee will be used by Nature Conservancy to purchase land in special preserves. The Coachella Valley Preserves will create suitable habitat for lizards as well as other species. The site may contain other dune species which are of statewide concern (i.e., Coachella Valley Milk Vetch). A multi species habitat conservation plan is being prepared by CVAG which will establish preserves and conservation practices to insure the future survival of these dune species. b. No riparian habitat present on site. c. No wetlands habitat present on site. d. No migratory fish or wildlife present on site. e. No local policy or ordinance protecting biological reserves other than that delineated in item (a) above. f. See (a) above. The dune species of concern are not migratory in nature. The site has been designated for development with mitigation fees within the Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES a-d. The cultural resource study performed as part of the North Sphere Specific Plan found no evidence of any cultural, archeological or historical significance on this site. In addition, state law requires that should any evidence be found during construction, construction must cease and the site cleared. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS a (i-iv). The area is subject to earthquakes and seismic shaking. Various studies have concluded that with proper building design which is required by the Uniform Building Code people will not be exposed to substantial adverse effects. 2 INITIAL STUDY CASE NOS. PP 03-11 AND C/Z 03-10 MITIGATION MEASURES The City of Palm Desert grading and building permits procedures require detailed geotechnical reports addressing grading specifications and the settlement and expansive characteristics of on site soils. All structures must be designed to UBC requirements to insure that buildings are constructed within the acceptable level of risk set forth herein for the type of building and occupancies being developed. b. Development will reduce blow sand erosion which is common in this area. There is no topsoil present. c. See mitigation measure above. d. See mitigation measure above. e. Sandy soil is capable of supporting septic tanks but they will not be used as sewers are available. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a. Site and immediate area are not subject to routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. b. Project will not create health hazards or potential health hazards. c. See (b). d. The site has not been identified on the list of hazardous materials sites. e. Site is not within two miles of a public airport. f. No private airstrip in area. g. Project will not interfere with city's emergency response or evacuation plan. h. Project will not increase the fire hazard in area with flammable brush, grass or trees. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY While any development results in the use of water and therefore reduces the amount otherwise available for public water supplies, the Coachella Valley Water District 3 INITIAL STUDY CASE NOS. PP 03-11 AND C/Z 03-10 assures that there is sufficient water supplies to accommodate this growth. In addition, the Coachella Valley Water District plans to construct additional water facilities in the Palm Desert area to accommodate current and future development. a. Project will be required to comply with Palm Desert Master Plan of Drainage and the grading ordinance. b. Project will use water provided by CVWD and will not interfere with groundwater recharge. c, d, e. Water will be redirected to drainage facilities designed and constructed to accept the water from the site. f. Project will not substantially degrade water quality. Project will comply with NPDES requirements. g. Site is not within a 100-year flood hazard. h. See (g). Area is not subject to flooding. j. Area is flat desert land not subject to seiche, tsunami or mud flow. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING a. The site is designated for commercial use which is the use proposed. b. Project is consistent with the General Plan. c. Property is not subject to habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan, other than that discussed in Section IV (al ). X. MINERAL RESOURCES a. No known mineral resources. b. No locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on local general plan. 4 INITIAL STUDY CASE NOS. PP 03-11 AND C/Z 03-10 XI. NOISE a, b, c, d. Construction of the mixed use project will increase ambient noise level. All uses on the site will be required to comply with the city noise ordinance. MITIGATION MEASURES Strict adherence to construction hours and days will be required. Additional measures to mitigate traffic and operational noise will be required. Noise to be mitigated so that noise levels set in the General Plan Noise Element are not exceeded. e & f. Project is not within two miles of a public airport or in vicinity of a private airstrip. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING a-c. The site is currently vacant, commercially designated land, so the project will not displace people or dwellings. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES The property is presently vacant and serves no productive use. A commitment to urban uses was made as the area surrounding the study area has been developed and the general plan designated for commercial development. Infrastructure improvements (i.e., streets, utilities) have been made and are adequate to serve the proposed development. The proposed land use would increase the economic productivity of the land in terms of land efficiency and greater economic return generated from these uses versus the current state of the land. Fire and Police Protection Police and Fire service have indicated that they can service the proposed project. Schools The project will be required to pay school mitigation fees per state law at time of building permit issuance. 5 INITIAL STUDY CASE NOS. PP 03-11 AND C/Z 03-10 Parks No impact. Other Public Facilities Libraries and other public facilities are adequate to serve the project. XIV. RECREATION No impact. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC a-g. The project will result in additional traffic being attracted to this area. Existing street capacity is adequate to serve the proposed use. A traffic study prepared for the project determined that with proper mitigation the additional traffic impacts would be reduced to a level of insignificance. Specifically, the project will be required to widen both Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive to three travel lanes and install a free flow right-turn lane from east bound Gerald Ford to south bound Cook Street among a series of other required items. See Public Works Department conditions. Project will not impact air traffic patterns. Street design and intersections will be designed to meet all city standards and the project will not include incompatible uses. The project will take access from Parkview Drive. Emergency access will be provided via the same points. There will be a demand for additional parking facilities which will be supplied by the project on site in compliance with city code. Off street sidewalks will be provided for pedestrians and bicyclists. Street improvements will minimize traffic hazards to motor vehicles. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS a. Project will not exceed limits. b. CVWD has indicated ability to serve this project. 6 INITIAL STUDY CASE NOS. PP 03-11 AND C/Z 03-10 c. Construction of said facilities are currently under review. They will occur with or without this project. d. See (b) above. e. See (b) above. f. Landfill space is available in the immediate area and long term will be available at Eagle Mountain. g. City will enforce these statutes through Environmental Conservation Department. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a. See IV (a). b. None. c. None. 7 WONDER PALMS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY A. Purpose of Report and Study Objectives The purpose of this traffic impact analysis is to evaluate the Wonder Palms development from a traffic circulation standpoint. The proposed development is located south of Gerald Ford Drive, east of Portola Avenue, and west of Cook Street in the City of Palm Desert. Study objectives include (1) documentation of existing traffic conditions in the vicinity of the site; (2) evaluation of existing plus cumulative development (2005) and existing plus cumulative development (2005) plus project traffic conditions; and (3) determination of on-site and off-site improvements and system management actions needed to achieve City of Palm Desert level of service requirements. B. Executive Summary 1. Site Location and Study Area The project site is located south of Gerald Ford Drive, east of Portola Avenue, and west of Cook Street in the City of Palm Desert. Exhibit 1-A illustrates the site location and traffic analysis study area. The study area includes the following intersections: 1-1 • EXHIBIT 1-A LOCATION MAP _ -,1L,„ DINAH • SHORE DR. L _ ••w gR'4'F > • RRo N W z N ►W- \ z coR GERALD FORD DR. ♦ 9/�,QO �l�1 I-10 FWY. :NI ,lit,,,` u; / 0 cc Li FRANK SINATRA DR. • • —_ T,9 vi 00 RO�j. p 09 O O v o J W COUNTRY CLUB DR. 1 LEGEND: •=INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATION C WONDER PALMS FOCUSED TIA,Palm Desert,California-01256:01 URBAN 1 —2 r I r. t Portola Avenue (NS) at: • Gerald Ford Drive (EW) • Frank Sinatra Drive (EW) Technology Drive (NS) at: I-_ • Gerald Ford Drive (EW) Northerly Driveway (NS) at: • Gerald Ford Drive (EW) I ITNI Cook Street (NS) at: • 1-10 WB Ramps (EW) • 1-10 EB Ramps (EW) E , • Gerald Ford Drive (EW) . Easterly Driveway#1 (EW) • Easterly Driveway#2 (EW) • Berger Street (EW) • Frank Sinatra Drive (EW) • Country Club Drive (EW) Gerald Ford Drive (NS) at: I L • Frank Sinatra Drive (EW) El Dorado Drive (NS) at: • Frank Sinatra Drive (EW) L2. Development Description Proposed Land Use: The currently proposed site plan illustrates that the project site is to be developed with a 100 room hotel, 66,000 square feet of shopping center, 11,000 square feet of fast food restaurant, and 151,000 square feet of general office buildings. 1-3 3. Principal Findings a. Required Level of Service: The definition of an intersection deficiency has been obtained from the City of Palm Desert General Plan. The City of Palm Desert Plan states that peak hour intersection operations of Level of Service "C" or better are generally -- acceptable. Therefore, any intersection operating at Level of Service "D" or worse will be considered deficient. b. Level of Service With Cumulative Development: For existing plus cumulative (2005) conditions, the study area intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable Level of Service during the peak hours with the improvements as shown on Table 5-1. c. Level of Service With Cumulative Developments Plus Proposed Development: For existing plus cumulative (2005) conditions plus project traffic conditions, additional improvements are needed at study area intersections (see Table 5-2). The proposed development is projected to generate a net total of approximately 9,158 trip-ends per day with 707 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 817 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. Other developments that are approved or being processed concurrently in the study area include the following: • Light Industrial Park (2 locations) • Desert Gateway • 2000-068 Sport's Complex • 2000-080 General Office Building • 2000-018 University/College • 2000-078 High Turnover(Sitdown) Restaurant 1-4 For existing plus cumulative (2005) conditions with or without project traffic conditions, traffic signals are projected to be warranted at the following study area intersections (see Appendix "C"): Portola Avenue (NS) at: • Gerald Ford Drive (EW) El Dorado Drive (NS) at: • Frank Sinatra Drive (EW) Based on discussions with City staff, traffic signal plans are currently being prepared at the intersection of: Technology Drive (NS) at: • Gerald Ford Drive (EW) 4. Recommendations Site-specific circulation and access recommendations are depicted on Exhibit 6-A and are described below: • Northerly Project Driveway at Gerald Ford Drive — Restrict access to right turns in/out and left turns in only. • Cook Street at Easterly Driveway #1 - Restrict access to right turns in/out only with left turns in only. • Cook Street at Easterly Driveway #2 — Restrict access to right turns in/out only. ._ 1-5 • Construct a 150 foot westbound left turn pocket at the intersection of Technology Drive and Gerald Ford Drive serving the site. • Construct a 150 foot westbound left turn pocket at the intersection of the Northerly Driveway and Gerald Ford Drive serving the site. • Construct a 150 foot northbound left turn pocket southbound right turn pocket at the intersection of Cook Street and the Easterly Driveway#1 serving the site. • Construct a 150 foot northbound left turn lane at the intersection of Cook Street and Berger Street serving the site. • Construct Gerald Ford at its ultimate half-section width as an arterial between Technology Drive and Cook Street in conjunction with development. • Construct Cook Street at its ultimate half-section as an arterial between Gerald Ford Drive and Berger Street in conjunction with development. On-site traffic signing and striping should be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project site. Sight distance at the project entrances should be reviewed with respect to standard Caltrans and City of Palm Desert sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape and street improvement plans. I 1-6 The project shall participate in funding of off-site improvements which are needed to serve cumulative future conditions through payment of appropriate fees (City fees and TUMF). OP3SV&O Te-" °(--°(-)Y( 6C-1(2- / I — III. I - I - I - II. 1-7 j SUBJECT T( ® REVISION I ' PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003 VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR None. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case Nos. GPA 03-07, C/Z 03-10, PP 03-11, TPM 31515 and DA 03-03 - RICK EVANS, Applicant (Continued from September 2 and October 21, 2003) Request for approval of a general plan amendment from low density residential to planned commercial; a change of zone from PR-5 (planned residential, five units per acre) to PCD (planned community development); and a precise plan and tentative parcel map for a commercial / office project at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive, 37- 001 Cook Street. Said project includes 111,880 square feet of retail (including drive-thru restaurants), a three-story hotel with up to 140 rooms; and one-story garden offices totaling 122,000 square feet. Project is generally located at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive described as a portion of 653-390-062. Planning Manager Steve Smith stated he had passed out an updated Resolution for the Commission's consideration. The changes were basically reflected on page 2 relative to the size of the commercial aspect of the project, which had been reduced. The number of hotel rooms had been reduced from 140 to 130. The square footage difference on the retail portion was a reduction of approximately 1,000 square feet. Several other typographical corrections had been made as well. 2 SUBJECT IC if A REVISION MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003 He noted that Mr. Evans had given him a letter requesting some changes relative to street widths and other public works issues. A meeting had been held this afternoon with Public Works and Mr. Evans' engineer, and he asked City Engineer Mr. Greenwood to explain what had been agreed upon at that meeting. Mr. Greenwood stated that a layout had been distributed to the Commission, and it basically presented the conditions of approval in a picture format. The conditions had been revised a number of times, and staff felt it would be better to show them on a plan. Essentially what had been worked out at the meeting were minor details. He said there were several things the Commission should be aware of. One was the fact that this project does accommodate six lanes on Gerald Ford, which was a major finding of the General Plan Traffic Study, that Gerald Ford needed to be six lanes. Cook Street also needs to be six lanes, and that was accommodated as well. The free right from Gerald Ford onto Cook was accommodated, and that was shown on the plan. One of the issues that might need to be discussed was the bus bay on Cook Street. Sunline has indicated they want to see it just about where the street is labeled "Cook Street" where there was a bubble in the curb line on the west side on the plan. Neither the developer nor Public Works staff felt that was the appropriate spot, and it was felt the bus bay should be just south of Berger Drive. The reason was that from staff perspective, locating the bus bay within the weaving area from that acceleration lane coming off the free right and within the right turn lane for the project driveway was not really an ideal location. That location would also tend to draw pedestrians across the street mid-block, and this was not really a good idea on a street with a 50 mile an hour speed limit. Locating the bus stop south of Berger Drive would put the bus stop very near to a signalized intersection and would be a better location, and he thought the developer agreed with that. The one issue that they tried to resolve at today's meeting was the alignment of Berger Drive with the existing Berger Drive on the east side of Cook Street. He had not had a chance to review this layout presented, but the engineer said that he thinks he has it worked out. He said it looked like it was possible that this might work. However, there was one issue for the Commission to be aware of, and that was that the College has a 29-foot wide center median on Berger Circle Drive east of Cook Street. This plan reduces that nose down to about five feet. It goes from being an entry statement kind of median down to a finger of concrete. The way it was presented, there was 3 SUBJECT Tl REVISION MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003 something of an impact that needs to be judged whether it is acceptable or proper. Other than that, he felt everything here was pretty straight forward with nothing unexpected. He also mentioned that the all of the improvements on Gerald Ford and Cook Street would be with Phase I of this project. Technology, Spine Road, and Berger Drive would all be completed with Phase II of this project, and this project was a multi-phase project, with two, three, or four phases. The Spine Road improvements would not happen up front, but they would happen at the first building on Phase II. Commissioner Tschopp asked whether it was incumbent on the Commission to accept the Sunline recommendation or if the Commission could make a statement that it does not feel it is correct in that area. Mr. Greenwood responded that he felt staff could work with them. He said it was an interesting situation because it is the City's Public Works Department that locates the bus turnouts, and Sunline locates the bus stops. It has happened where the bus stop has not been located at the bus turnout, specifically on Washington Street, although generally they do follow the bus turnout with a bus stop. Mr. Drell noted that it was his understanding there is not currently bus service at all on Cook Street. Mr. Greenwood responded that there was service to the College on a very limited schedule. Mr. Drell added that apparently Sunline picks up almost no one. He anticipated in this area that the level of service and location of bus stops will change significantly as it develops and as the demand develops. It will probably not be known entirely where the appropriate bus stops are until that happens and we see the final design of the University on the other side and the final design of the rest of the master plan that is going to occur to the south. In the interim, it was best to wait and see what makes the most sense and once there actually is a route designed to know which side of the street, where it's going, etc., before a lot of permanent street improvements are made. Mr. Smith noted that the City Attorney's office was working on an amended development agreement which will incorporate most of the findings contained 4 mimeo SUBJECT TC MINUTES icy~ REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003 in this resolution. That was still coming, but it would be presented to the Council as part of the recommended action. Mr. Drell stated that one of the unresolved issues was reconciling the parking supply relative to the medical offices, and the applicant had agreed to reduce the medical office entitlement down to meet the parking supply, and it was now in compliance. Staff and the applicant believed there will be joint use efficiencies that will occur once the project is completed between the office use and the retail use based on their differing peak demands. Mr. Smith said that meant Condition #11 would be amended, which had provided for the 30,000 square feet of medical to verbiage that staff will work on relative to what Mr. Drell outlined. Chairperson Campbell asked Mr. Smith to review again what Phase I will entail. Mr. Smith stated that basically it was the project at the corner of Cook and Gerald Ford. Mr. Evans indicated that Phase I was about 50,000 square feet of office and about 45,000 square feet of retail. Phases II and Ill they had not been able to predict when they may happen. Those phases matched the parcels and were tentative parcel maps. They tried to keep the whole thing in concert. He said a question was asked by Commissioner Tschopp at the last meeting what happens if the hotel phase happens before Phase II or Ill, and he said that would trigger the completion of any and all the Spine Road and Berger and Technology. He said they had to be cognizant that there may be a demand for it to go ahead further earlier, which the adjacent land owner may require. He said this was what they thought was the best way to reflect on what Phase I would look like and then let Phase II trigger the rest. Commissioner Tschopp asked whether ARC had given approval yet to this project. Mr. Smith responded that portions had been approved, the retail portion, but not the hotel. Commissioner Tschopp asked about the left turn from Cook Street into the center, asking whether it would hurt or change any traffic patterns on Cook Street. 5 SUBJECT TC d 1 Fa REVISION MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003 Mr. Greenwood responded that this was one of the items that had a lot of discussion, and he felt they had an acceptable situation presented here. Upon question by Commissioner Tschopp as to how many cars would stack up on Cook Street to make the left turn, Mr. Greenwood responded that he did not have the dimension for the driveway into the project, but he thought it was about 200 feet long, and this would accommodate about eight cars. Mr. Drell said that once the center is built out and people understand how it works, you will see people entering from the back, turning onto Berger, and driving along the Spine Road as opposed to winding your way down Main Street with your car, which will not be easy because it is being shared with pedestrians. The easiest way to get to the parking field is to go the Spine Road and then straight down the aisle that takes you into the main parking field. The advantage of this project was that it has six driveways, which is unusual. As an example, Desert Crossing effectively has only two driveways, and the mall effectively has three or four. With so many ways to get into this project, the idea was that people will ultimately disperse their access so that one of them should not get overloaded. Commissioner Lopez expressed concern with the eight-car stack-up on Cook Street in Phase I and said he could foresee that as being a problem because it could back up right into the intersection of Berger, although Berger will not be an intersection until Phase II. Mr. Greenwood stated that the left turn off Cook will be the only access just during Phase I. Assuming this project moves along reasonably quickly, the traffic volumes on Cook Street were currently relatively low, so capacity is very good. He said he could not imagine we would ever see this turn lane stacked up with eight cars within the next four or five years. Within that time it was anticipated that Spine Road would be built, either by Phase II of this project or by some other surrounding project. He said he felt it would be a comfortable situation there, assuming the timing worked out. Mr. Drell said we might want to have some contingency relative to Berger. Mr. Evans stated in devising this plan, they looked at the question that was brought up, and their feeling has been that the right turn, the queuing lane that was agreed to with Public Works, was more than adequate to deal with the Phase I traffic for three reasons. The traffic on Cook Street during that period of time was not at the anticipated 6 SUBJECT TC. MINUTES REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003 five-year level, much less the 20-year level, which was what the design was for. Number two, the traffic that is queuing up from Gerald Ford will have an alternate ingress off of Gerald Ford, so that traffic will be picked up by the Gerald Ford entrance with a right turn in. Basically, the accommodation for that right turn in and that queuing that was referred to, there is traffic generated from 1-10 as opposed to traffic generated from the regional roadway system. Commissioner Lopez stated that he was referring to the left-hand turn in, going north on Cook Street, into Phase I. Mr. Evans said going northbound on Cook Street was the reason they felt they were providing adequately because the queuing and stacking in there is not going to be a huge factor. Commissioner Lopez said he hoped this would be so successful and would be such a destination. He said the developer was going to go through the first phases of success where everyone wants to come and see what this is, and he was concerned that because of that, in the early stages, the access off Cook Street and the left turn should be given some consideration as to how many cars can stack up on there. If this is a successful place, it's Saturday afternoon, and it's prime season in the Valley, there will be more than eight cars stacked up. Although Cook Street can handle the traffic, we're talking about a left hand turn, and he felt consideration should be given to that. Mr. Drell asked whether it would make sense to have a contingency that if that problem does, in fact, occur, it would trigger at least development of Berger up to that driveway so you at least get access off of Berger. Mr. Greenwood responded that this would be fine. Mr. Drell stated that it could be determined by the City Engineer if significant traffic congestion is occurring. He added that if that is actually occurring, then Phase II is not long to follow. He said it was very likely that Berger and the Spine Road might get built with Phase I in conjunction with the development of the infrastructure for the balance of the master plan. Commission Tschopp asked where exactly the median was that was discussed by staff for decrease. 7 rT SUBJECT IC. MINUTES ; �; : 6 REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003 Mr. Drell responded that it was north of Berger, and it was one of the restricted right turn in, left turn out, median control structures. It would allow northbound to go left turn in but did not allow northbound left turns to exit. It was adjacent to the only access off of Cook Street, and it was approximately mid-way between Berger and Gerald Ford. Mr. Greenwood said he also wanted to make sure the median on Berger on the College side does not get lost in this discussion. He wanted to make sure the Commission understood the change to median island was to reduce it from the current 29 feet in width. In order to make the streets line up with the land plan, that median nose will have to be reduced down to five feet wide for a length of 100 feet. It goes from being a major entry statement at the College to being just a ribbon of concrete. He said there was a push and pull between those land uses on the south edge of the project and this median on the College side. It seemed strange to tie those together, but that was what was happening. Mr. Drell stated that Berger was a private street, and the ability to do that was contingent upon agreement by the University, and he did not believe this latest design had been run by them. Chairperson asked Mr. Greenwood what he would recommend on the other side of Berger and said the City wanted to have a grand entrance to the University. Mr. Greenwood agreed and said what was being presented was the five-foot nose. He asked the Commission what it wanted. He asked if it was acceptable to go across the street to this entry statement and make a major change there or attempt to do that in order to make these roads line up, or if an attempt should be made to do that in some other way. Mr. Drell said the plan showed two through lanes on Berger, and he asked why that was the case. Mr. Greenwood responded that what was really wanted there was two left- turn lanes and one through lane out of the College, with space reserved in case there is a heavy traffic flow, and a second west-bound through lane could be added. 8 ris SUBJECT T( MINUTES �y, � t " REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003 Mr. Drell said we do not want to encourage a heavy flow across Berger because that is entering a residential neighborhood, and he did not think there should be any contingency or encouragement of a heavy flow into that residential neighborhood. He said the Spine Road was just a two-lane road with a bike lane, and he did not know why we would ever want to have a cut- through situation to a residential collector. Mr. Greenwood stated that was why we want to do it as one lane now. If the volume develops to where it is causing a traffic problem, we would have the ability to go to a second lane. Mr. Drell asked if having just one through lane would change in any way the geometry of that median. He said he felt it was not only unnecessary but undesirable to have two through lanes, and traffic should be discouraged from going there at all costs rather than accommodating it. Mr. Greenwood responded that a lot of variations of this intersection had been seen, and there may be other ways to do this. Mr. Drell asked if the extra footage by having just one through lane could be added back to the median. He said the primary destination for people leaving the University is either going north or south, and it should not be going through the residential neighborhood. Traffic through the neighborhood should be limited to people whose destination is that neighborhood, and that should be handled by one lane. The purpose of the Spine Road was to service the residential area, not to relieve congestion at that intersection. Mr. Greenwood responded that his concern was that Spine Road has an as yet undetermined amount of residential development scheduled, and without a traffic study, we don't know what that volume will be. He said his gut feeling was that one lane was ultimately tolerable and probably at a pretty good level of service. The difficulty was in the geometry, making the right lanes line up with the right lanes across the street, and it was more an issue of geometry than traffic volume. Commissioner Tschopp asked if there were any concerns that if Spine Road becomes a priority road, traffic trying to make turns would back up and create more problems on Spine Road. He said he felt that would impact what happens at the corner of Cook and Berger. 9 SUBJECT TC MINUTES Itl i i r REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003 Mr. Greenwood said staff anticipated that the intersection of Spine and Berger would have some kind of control, probably a stop sign. Technology and Spine would probably be stop controlled all the way around, and at those stop controlled intersections, it may be necessary to widen it out and provide a second through lane and a left turn pocket or right turn lane, depending on what the movements are. He said a preliminary traffic study had been prepared by one of the developers in this area, and it showed the volume on Spine Road at about 5,000 vehicles per day, based on very rough projections. Even if they are off by 50% and it is 10,000 per day, that can be accommodated by a two-lane road. He said the 5,000 per day assumed no cut-through traffic, and it was just the volumes generated within this section of land. Assuming there would be some cut-through traffic, the volume could be higher. He said in staffs discussions with the developer, it was agreed at a staff level to optimize Gerald Ford and Cook and make them really nice arterial streets with excellent capacity and scale Spine Road more to the local collector it is intended to be, so it should be able to handle the traffic we want to be on that road. Gerald Ford and Cook Street will be able to handle the traffic we want on those roads. Mr. Drell added that there would be additional right-turn lanes at the intersections to handle the potential stacking that would occur at those locations. Commissioner Tschopp stated he felt this will be a successful project, and at build out there will be many people coming north on Cook. Given that the main entrance is at the Berger intersection, traffic will enter the project on Berger. The first driveway to the right takes you down the main street area, which is not really conducive to traffic or to get to the center parking aisle, so they will probably then proceed on to Berger and use Spine Road to come in through the back. That will add a tremendous amount of traffic, and he asked if that was adequate planning to meet those needs. Mr. Drell said the peak traffic coming in and out of the residential area will be in the early morning and late afternoon, while peak traffic coming in and out of the center will be more midday. It is important to balance all the various considerations, and staff felt this was the appropriate solution. There will be a lot of traffic coming from all directions to this project, and the idea was to have enough driveways throughout the project so that dispersion of that traffic should avoid any impact in any one location. 10 SUBJECT TC F - REVISION MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003 Commissioner Tschopp felt the entryway into the University was a good statement that needs to be made and kept as it is. Given that we do not have an existing Berger Drive yet, is there any way to work with the west side of Berger Drive as opposed to serving the existing Berger Drive. Mr. Greenwood responded that this can be done. A side effect was that it would really affect the land plan for this development. Commissioner Tschopp asked whether Berger Drive was laid out right now or if constraints were being imposed because there are two separate owners on opposite sides of the street. Mr. Drell responded that on the west side, there was technically one owner right now. He said there was no land plan on the south. If whatever we do involves or requires any modification of the College side, a discussion will have to be had with them to figure out how that will be accomplished and whether they agree to it. He said the idea was whether there is room to expand the curb at the College to the south a bit to preserve that median. Mr. Greenwood said the difficulty was that it was the west-bound through lane that needed to be lined up. The problem was that Berger Drive on the east side was a very unusual design with a 29-foot median island, and it was hard to match up to that without duplicating that width exactly. Chairperson Campbell noted that the public hearing was open, and she asked that applicant to address the Commission. MR. RICK EVANS, 57745 Interlachen, La Quinta, said he felt most of the open issues had been discussed, and Mr. Smith had brought to the Commission's attention the letter he had submitted today which addressed certain adjustments in the resolution which subsequently his engineer had further conversation with Mr. Greenwood. He felt the had probably resolved all of the open issues from his standpoint, with the adjustments being made to the bus stops and the suggestions and recommendations from that angle, the changes on Gerald Ford and Cook Street, the new hundred-foot radius at the intersection of Gerald Ford and Cook, and to varying degrees a lot of the adjustments made in this project over the last couple of months. He noted that at their last meeting, Berger was not on center on the east side of Cook Street. They went back last week and redesigned that end of the project to squeeze as much as they could out of it to line it up. He said they 11 SUBJECT TC o REVISION MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003 had a four-foot dimension they needed to make up in order to align with the east side, the University side, of Berger. That process lost them ten hotel rooms and 1,000 square feet of space in those two retail buildings in order to preserve the parking. They also created an additional buffer of another ten parking spaces. They wanted to go in a little over-parked from Code because things happen. A lot of changes and adjustments had been made, they worked well with staff, and they appreciated all of their input. He said Berger had been a moving target since they began this six months ago. From their standpoint, they had made it as wide as they possibly could without having a detrimental effect on the project. He offered to answer any questions. Chairperson Campbell said she would be interested in knowing exactly where the drive-thru restaurants would be. Mr. Evans responded that three were included on the plan. There were two on Cook Street, one on the south side of the entry, one on the north side of the entry, and one on Gerald Ford. Chairperson Campbell asked what kind of buffer there was going to be between Cook and the restaurants. Mr. Evans responded that one of the buffers added on Cook Street was on Pad #3, which had a buffer from the driveway with landscaping and enhanced paving. He said when they implement their landscaping program, they felt they would need to analyze even further to ensure that there is the right landscaping effect. Most importantly, there is no window on that side, it is the exit, and there will not be stacking standing there all the time. There will just be exiting cars from the drive-thru entrance. On the other side, they reversed it so that the drive-thru is on the right-hand side of Pad #4 so that when people pick up their product, that area is buffered from a lot of the view of the street. Mr. Drell said in the northern one, the one on the north side of the Cook Street entrance, the drive-thru lane does not go around the building, and it is just a circulation aisle in the parking lot. It leaves the building both engaging front and back both on the main street and on Cook Street. Where we have building engaging those streets, there is no buffer necessary at all. 12 SUBJECT Tt. MINUTES LA I r ' I wa REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003 Commissioner Tschopp noted that traffic going into Pads 3 and 4, using drive-ups, then empty back out onto Main Street. He asked if that would impair pedestrian traffic or impact that in any way. Mr. Evans said no and added that they had designed it to be two cars more than what the McDonald's scheme is for acceptable stacking, and he believed that number was eight. He said that was the most difficult case in their experience. Commissioner Tschopp stated that when the cars exit, they will exiting out onto the main street. Trying to increase and promote pedestrian traffic, he asked if the applicant had a concern that that traffic exiting the drive-ins are going to impact the pedestrian or come in conflict with that. Mr. Evans responded that they did not anticipate that to be an issue. He said while there would be exiting there, they felt it queues very nicely with the surface level of the restaurant, whichever one it happens to be, and the queuing will be, just by design of a fast food restaurant, metered in a way that allows the traffic to not stack up on the parking lot and allows adequate separation. Also, that is a two or three mile an hour situation there, it is not a speed situation. Upon question by Commissioner Finerty, Mr. Evans responded that the plan had always been to have some kind of enhanced paving in the plaza. She asked if any thought had been given to locating the main restaurants at the entrances instead of focusing on the entrances both on Cook and Gerald Ford with fast food drive-thru's. Mr. Evans responded that they had them in several places, although they opted to have them this way because experience had shown that the restaurant people really did not have a big need for the main entrance locations. He said down at restaurant Pads 1 and 2, they have a very good proximity to the entrance off of Berger, and they were designed to service that end of the project as well as the hotel and some of the local traffic. He said they saw even more restaurants at the main plaza corner. Commissioner Finerty asked if that meant Pads 1 and 2 were sit-down restaurants, and Mr. Evans agreed. He said he saw one as being a three meals a day restaurant (breakfast, lunch, and dinner), which would be something like Mimi's or Coco's. He saw the one next to it as being somewhat more limited in service, probably lunch and dinner, perhaps 13 SUBJECT MINUTES _ TC. REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003 something like PF Chang's or Macaroni Grille. He said they envisioned the locations at both sides of the plaza at the corner of Gerald Ford and Cook to be sit-down restaurants, probably two meal a day restaurants. Commissioner Finerty said in her mind the corner of Cook and Gerald Ford was the main entrance, and there would be a sit-down restaurant on each side. Mr. Evans agreed. She said that meant there would be four sit-down restaurants and three fast food restaurants with drive-thru's. Mr. Evans agreed this is what would be at those particular locations, although he did not necessarily feel it was limited to that. He said that was what they saw at this point. He said Retail #1 and #2 were designed as multiple-tenant buildings, and they saw the lineup of merchants in these two buildings as going from three to four thousand square foot restaurant down to a one thousand square foot salon. He said they had actually intended and designed the two low pavilion buildings to be restaurants, and they expected them to be able to operate with a patio that is not only out in the plaza but also their own patio. They had operable doors, and they expected those doors to be opened and closed in inclement weather. The concept was that on a day that is beautiful, they will be able to open those doors to allow diners to sit outside. On a day where it is windy, rainy, or too cold, those diners will still be able to have a nice dining experience. Commissioner Finerty noted that a few meetings back discussion had been held about the parking plan and the medical use, and the applicant said he was not going to let all the medical use get in the way of the project. She noted that the medical area had been reduced so that the applicant will be in compliance with the parking. She asked if the applicant could live with Pads 3 and 4 not being drive-thru's and not having that exception that would require expanding the freeway overlay zone to allow drive-thru's. Mr. Evans responded that this would be a very difficult thing for them. The financial model for this project really requires it. Also, the leasability of any more retail on this intersection in the foreseeable future was rather difficult to predict. A lot of it depends on the growth in the neighborhood, and they had tried to adapt themselves to the idea that not everything that is there today will be the same thing that is going to be there tomorrow. A plan was shown last time that included the expansion. They saw a building that replaces a parking lot, and that becomes below grade parking. They also saw these fast food pads, 15 to 20 years from now, as going away and becoming more intense retail uses. Part of that was not only an economic 14 SUBJECT IC — REVISION MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003 hardship on the project today, but in the future it would eliminate perhaps the ability for them to grow the project in the market rate condition that it needs to be able to grow in in the future when they anticipated the University to be more and the neighborhoods to be bigger. Commissioner Finerty said the applicant talked about one of the nice things about the project being the fact that one can walk everywhere, and the purpose of Main Street was to have both the cars and pedestrian-friendly use. She felt that was inconsistent with wanting three drive-thru's. Mr. Evans appreciated what she said but said we also have to recognize the market condition, that this is a freeway-oriented site, becoming less so in the next two to six years. He said he felt as the developer that he had to be very cognizant of market conditions that make a project financially viable. They also had to have a good merchandising mix for the project, and they saw that as a very important aspect. While fast food was a very important aspect today, it may not be as important in 15 years. Commissioner Finerty noted that in Palm Desert, there are really no drive- thru's, and most fast food restaurants are walk-in. She said they are rather successful and that there is probably every fast food restaurant known to man in the City except for In-n-Out. Mr. Evans said he would not have recommended doing this kind of a project with this idea on Highway 111; however, this is 1-10, and they were a freeway-oriented project to a certain degree. This project will have three customers: those generated by 1-10, those generated by the neighborhoods, and those generated by the office workers. Being able to accommodate people in a multi-faceted way was an important aspect to a project like this. Not being able to accommodate them for a quick meal was a big loss for a project like this. Chairperson Campbell said with regard to the drive-thru, she really did not understand why it was so important to have drive-thru's. She said it was okay to have fast food, but she did not know why a drive-thru was needed. She felt it took the same amount of time to park and go in to get the food as it did to drive through. She said when she travels, she can go to a fast food restaurant, but she would rather go in so she can use the restroom. 15 SUBJECT TC f REVISION MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003 Mr. Evans agreed with Chairperson Campbell and said he would rather go in himself, but he felt they were in the minority. A good example was Starbuck's, which is starting to create drive-thru facilities. He said they had just met with the Starbuck's people last week on this and another project, and the answer was that 30% of the customers are now using the drive-thru because they are in a hurry and they want something quick and they believe that is the quick way. He said most people think of drive-thru restaurants as being like McDonald's and Burger King. The fast food business is changing, and as you read the paper you see how they are working hard to change. McDonald's is starting to create better meals than they've ever created before, so they cannot be put in the genre of lousy food like we did even two years ago. They have to be put in the genre of they expect that they will do a better job and be a better product. But there is that customer who wants to swing in and swing out and get the job done and go on to their next spot. He said they had looked at this project to try to blend a lot of uses. The office use is an important blend for them. This is not a Wal-Mart center or an Alberton's center. He said they looked for traffic generators when they put together the merchandising scheme. The office product is, in fact, a traffic generator. The hotel product was, in fact, a traffic generator. The residential was also a traffic generator, as was the highway customer that is quick on and quick off of the highway, and that was a very important aspect of the project because there will a lot of people getting on and off that freeway to go to the gas stations. Medical office was high on their list, but it was not so high that it should jeopardize the project. He said they had come in with a recommendation with the encouragement of Mr. Drell and the staff to say they currently are approximately 37 cars over-parked according to Code. That was not enough to provide the required parking for the medical office, but it was enough to provide the required parking for about 20,000 square feet of the 30,000 requested. On the medical office, if the project quantity of medical office rises and falls on available excess parking, that is a fair way to deal with the issue of the six to one parking ratio. Chairperson Campbell said she wanted to make sure the hotel would be built and not have the project stop with Phase 1 without the other phases being built. Mr. Evans said he felt Phase 1 was a done deal for them as long as the Commission is willing to accept it on its merits. The hotel phase was not a current phase, and they did not have a transaction with a hotel. They had activity on Phase 1 that is different than the hotel. He said they did not plan 16 -T SUBJECT T ' MINUTES g hI " REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003 for the hotel to be built and have nothing else built. They did not see it as the first thing that happens on the project. He said he felt the phasing plan shown was indicative of that. The one thing they could not predict was whether the hotel phase would be built before Phase 2 or 3 with the office and/or the rest of the retail. It was possible that may happen and trigger Phase 2 before the rest of the office and the rest of the retail. Given that and market conditions and the housing being planned around them, he did not think there was going to be any delay on the whole thing. He said they were being very cautious, conservative, and fair. They also conceded the fact that right now the right thing for the corner is the project that is Phase 1. As time goes on and more people are in the neighborhood, Phase 2 and Phase 3 will become attractive as the market conditions improve. Chairperson Campbell said she did not want to see just Phase 1 be built and the rest be left barren land, with somebody else needing to come along and take up where this applicant left off. She said she hoped this would not happen. Mr. Drell added that the problem was that right now it is in the middle of nowhere. He said what you don't want is for a project to be over built initially beyond what the markets can support, and then the whole thing collapses. By definition, the project will have to grow and evolve as the neighborhood grows and evolves around it. The greatest appeal of the project is the Main Street. Today it is a freeway-oriented project because that is where the traffic is generated. The Main Street becomes attractive when residents and the University start growing up around it. To a certain degree, what happens at Desert Willow is going to be a determinant. If we get those hotels built in Desert Willow, suddenly there is a greater mass of customers in the neighborhood. Upon question by Chairperson Campbell, Mr. Drell responded that the Commission is not voting on Phase I, it is voting on the master plan for the whole project. Probably the only indeterminate aspect of the project right now is the hotel. Mr. Evans is not a hotel developer. He has provided a pad for the hotel, but that is something that would have to come back to the Commission. Or if there was any significant change in any of the phases as they were to be built, those would also come back to the Commission. The Commission was voting on the whole project. We are in an optimistic business and always assume that the plans we approve will get built, although there is never a guarantee that anything gets built. He believed this 17 • gm SUBJECT TC MINUTES I ti REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003 was the right project for this location given its unique variety of market demand. It was very likely that as Phase 2 and Phase 3 evolve, they will be different than the Commission was seeing now, and in those cases, they would come back to the Commission. MR. MIKE MARIX, 128 Vista Monte, Palm Desert, said they owned the balance of the property here. He supported Mr. Evans' program. He had once concern and said he had not seen the site plan for some months. This was the first update he had see, although that was his own fault. When the project was first discussed, the hotel was going to be in the middle of it. Discussion was held relative to view corridors and heights. The hotel had now been moved, and he had some concern about a 35-foot building adjacent to residential directly west of it. He said they had not yet established the elevation directly of those residential pads to the west, but he would not like to see the view be the third floor of the hotel. He asked the Commission to consider this in the course of approving grading plans and the like. Mr. Drell said he believed in the master plan submitted, directly west was the park and the public facilities. One of the reasons the park was there was a significant need to take up grade for the shopping center since it has to be relatively flat. He said the grading plan showed a significant grade, and he thought the residential pads could be 20 or 30 feet above the grade of this project. An interesting architectural problem was how to deal with rooftop equipment of all the buildings, given the fact that the residential lots will be considerably higher. How that rooftop equipment is screened is a different problem than we are normally used to where we're looking at eye level. Mr. Marix added that he does support this project and felt it would be complementary to what they are going to do. So far they have had good talks and sensitivity about adjoining uses. MS. KIM HOUSKEN, 73-237 Somera, said she was not well-versed in this project, although she had read up on it a bit. She was intrigued by the idea of a Main Street and felt it was a great idea. She felt a pedestrian friendly area was a wonderful idea, especially with family restaurants. She concurred with Chairperson Campbell and Commissioner Finerty that it seems a contradiction to have fast food restaurants where you're encouraging people to stroll. Mr. Evans himself said this was not a speed situation turning onto Main Street, but "fast" meant "speed" and people wanted to get in and get 18 • r-1 put SUBJECT IC MINUTESi I " REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003 out. The location was a major entry into the City, and she questioned whether this was something we want to have coming into Palm Desert. In her mind, when she heard the term fast food, she started to think about strip malls and nail joints, and it goes downhill really quick. In terms of this major entrance to the City, she felt it should be carefully thought out as to what will be put there. She added that there still seemed to be a lot of questions, including about what kind of restaurants, and she thought of Denny's when hearing about a three meals a day restaurant. She did not think this was the kind of restaurant that should be out there. With regard to the hotel, she was not sure what type there would be —would it be like a Motel 6? She added that there were a lot of unanswered questions, and with the General Plan still be amended, it would seem prudent to continue this case until we see what direction the City Council will take with the General Plan. Chairperson Campbell declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Finerty agreed with the last speaker that this is an intriguing project, and it was an interesting concept with the Main Street. As we have gone through the process, this was something she would like to see. Unfortunately, she could not support it at this point for a number of reasons. She had never been particularly thrilled with the architecture, and she understood that the applicant had changed architects. This project, because of all the little stores packed together, was the opposite of the big box concept, but the architecture to her reminded her of a bunch of little boxes. She said she knew there were no landscaping plans yet, and we really do not know what the hotel will look like, and Architectural Review Commission was still looking at it. With regard to the height issues for the hotel and retail and requesting exceptions for a 34-foot height, she was not seeing where the benefit of anything architectural was helping with the extra height, because it still looked like a bunch of little boxes to her. She was concerned about the entire surface being dg, and she was not convinced that would hold up and work. She was appreciative of the fact that the applicant had come into compliance with the parking. Her main objection was the gateway to the City, and this would not be her idea of a gateway as the main entrance to Palm Desert: a) because of architecture; b) because of the fast food. She was not a fan of fast food restaurants and had never supported fast food drive-thru restaurants with all the applications that had come before the Commission, and she could not do so now. She understood with the Wonder Palms agreement Pad 5 was already allowed for the drive-thru; however, Pads 3 and 4 do require an exception that she could not support. 19 SUBJECT TC MINUTES f t "tai REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003 She said it was hard for her to live with all the fast food restaurants, and making them drive-thru's on top of that was an intolerable situation. Palm Desert has done well without drive-thru's, and she thought that was an image she would like to see continue. Additionally, the locations of the fast food restaurants, Pads 3, 4, and 5, right at the entrance, again that would not be what she would want to see when you enter. That was not her idea of a gateway to Palm Desert, which has that resort atmosphere so that when you enter somewhere you're not going to see this fast food on both sides as you enter off of Cook. If changes could be made to accommodate her concerns, she felt it eventually could be a nice project, but for right now, she would not be able to support it. Commissioner Tschopp said this project was on a very busy intersection adjacent to an Interstate, and across the street from a university that will grow to some significance over time. He said he felt it would be a mistake on the part of the Commission to tie the developer's hands and tell him what types of restaurants and businesses to put inside. He felt the market would require fast food restaurants. He said he was not enamored with the location of them, but in looking at the plan he was not sure where else they would go. The market does require fast foods, and many years back in college, he remembers they ate fast food. He felt this was convenient to the College and to the Interstate, and he did not have a problem with that. He thought the entryway was actually beautiful. Standing in the intersection looking up through the project, he felt it was a good look for that area, and he felt the developer had done a good job given the environmental constraints that are out there, including the wind. With regard to the architecture, he felt it could work out there. Overall, he felt the plan was compatible and was consistent with the current projects out there and with the proposed development. He felt it would be a good fit and hoped it would work the way it has been envisioned with the Main Street walkway, etc. If the Commission were to approve it, he would like to have the conditions to mitigate any problems that occur on Cook Street with the left-hand turn lane, why we only have Phase 1 included, and he would also like to make sure we maintain the median to the College's satisfaction across the street. He felt an entry into the College as well as this project needed to be a statement and should be maintained. Commissioner Lopez said he also saw this a little differently from the standpoint of the overall project. The medical office and the lines for parking and the reduction and limitations of that, it was his understanding we would 20 r SUBJECT -R. MINUTES r r r REdtS10N PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003 have to reword Item #11, and he asked if that was something that needed to be done this evening or if it was something staff would work on. Planning Manager Steve Smith said he had some language that could be used. Commissioner Lopez said he would look to staff to make that appropriate change. The development agreement Item #12 would need to be submitted to the City Council for approval prior to anything else being moved forward on this. The concerns regarding the hotel developer were concerns he also had, but he also knew that we are in an environment right now where hotels are not developing. With few exceptions in our community right now, hotels are doing terribly, and this destination resort usually lags one to two years behind what happens normally in the normal hotel environment. It takes a little bit longer for the recessions to hit here, and it also takes a little bit longer for them to move out. He did not know what would go there, but he would rely on Architectural Review to make sure the project looks great. Experience told him that there is a chance we will be sitting there with that property the way we're looking right now at Desert Willow. It has been there forever, and no one has jumped on it even for one dollar, so it could be a challenge for the future. He believed the concept was correct and the location was good. The usage of restaurants across the street to help support the people who would be staying in that location was fine. Knowing where the project will be located, he said there was a need and it made sense for fast food drive-thru in Phase 1. He would really recommend that in the future phases we carefully take a look at Pad 3 and see if that makes sense. That particular pad has the opportunity to have a negative effect on the entire project as it pertains going down Cook Street. Pads 5 and 4 he felt were pretty well hidden. Overall, he felt it looked fine architecturally. With the proper changes on some of the conditions of approval, he felt good about it. Chairperson Campbell said she liked the project very much and felt it was a great entrance to the City. Her only comment would be in regard to the fast food restaurants. She did not mind Pad 5 because it did not seem that it would have more through traffic like Cook Street has, but she had a problem with Pad 4 being a drive-thru restaurant. She agreed with Commissioner Lopez on Pad 3 and did not feel it should have a drive-thru restaurant. She really did not like the drive-thru on the corner of Dinah Shore and Monterey and felt it would look terrible. As far as everything else was concerned with 21 _ SUBJECT IC t MINUTES ice+ e REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003 the parking and the medical buildings, she did not have any problems with that. Mr. Drell said what he heard was that there were three votes in favor of fast food on Gerald Ford and maybe the fast food on the north side of the entrance but not on the south side of the entrance. He asked if there was a good elevation of either of those Cook Street fast foods, and he felt perhaps if the Commissioners saw a very specific view of what it might look like form Cook Street, it might change their minds. The fast food on the north side of the entrance should look no different than any other store because the drive- thru aisle is not differentiated. He said the one on the north side of the entrance was not circled by the aisle and was just a building next to a parking lot and an aisle in the parking lot that people drive through, which they do all the time in a parking lot. Commissioner Tschopp asked if when the Commission approves a pad for a restaurant, they are saying it could be a drive-thru. Commissioner Finerty stated that drive-thru's are not allowed in the City. Mr. Drell responded that this was not true. The City has a specific zone which specifically allows it at major intersections next to the Interchange. Commissioner Tschopp said it was his understanding when the Commission approves a restaurant pad, it is not stating that it has to be something like a Ruth's Chris and it could be a Taco Bell 2. Mr. Drell responded that we do not have the ability to approve tenants. Land uses are approved as well as physical development. Commissioner Tschopp said if the problem with Pad 3 is with the drive-thru, hopefully the architecture could handle that or perhaps see if the Commission wants to look at eliminating the drive-thru on that pad, leaving it as a restaurant pad and stating that it wants the architecture to be compatible with the rest of the center. Mr. Drell responded that he was sure it would be. The issue was what level of approval does the Commission want to confer. The Commission can confer any level it wants. It can require that the drive-thru's, which the Commission has not yet seen elevations of, be brought before the 22 • SUBJECT it iy. 11. REVISION MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003 Commission. The problem Mr. Evans has is that to finance the project and start the project, he has to know he has certain tenants of some sort, and that is based on what he expects to get from certain drive-thru restaurants. He asked how the developer could ease the Commission's mind as to the final appearance of those at this stage. Mr. Evans said they had endeavored to put together a balanced project, not slanted in one direction or the other. Their experience said that the neighborhood that is going to be around this project would fully utilize all the uses that have been planned. As mentioned by Mr. Drell at the last meeting, when they started working on this corner, they were working solely within the Wonder Palms development agreement, which really was 11 acres of this project currently. They were encouraged by staff to abandon the idea of a gasoline station and four fast food pads on the six acres, and they encouraged them to look at something that had a lot more vision attached to it. They endeavored to pull together a project that had balance, that met conditions, that was unusual. He said this was an unusual and upcoming area, a growing area. They endeavored to create balance of the project, not only visual balance but also merchandising balance. There were a lot of different customers out there. They were not like himself and Chairperson Campbell where they go to a fast food restaurant not for the drive-in but for the food and for the relaxation and a spot to relax for a bit before getting back on the road. He said there are people who go to fast food restaurants because that's where they like to go, while there were people who preferred to go to a sit down restaurant. There were people who do all different kinds of things. This is a big project in a big corner. They felt the fast food in this case offers great balance. He said what he would be willing to do, if it was of any interest at all, was to have Phase 1 approved and deal with the fast food pad on the Phase 2 portion of the site as a future question that would have to come back for approval rather than taking it off the site plan. Perhaps the market condition would change for the developer in that time period and make more sense to do that. He said his experience showed that across the street from a brand new university, across the street from brand new middle income, young families, near a freeway, across from the Hampton Inn, down from the Courtyard, down from the Residence Inn, there was a big demand for this kind of product. He felt that while the Commission was correct in saying it is not in many other places in the center of the City of Palm Desert, they recognized that, and it was not a debate nor reason for them to justify anything. They were looking solely at market conditions and saying that from a market condition standpoint, financing of this project 23 SUBJECT Tf MINUTES - REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003 standpoint, it is an economic hardship on them to knock those fast food pads out. Commissioner Finerty said it was not the fast food pads, it was the fast food drive-thru's on Pads 3 and 4. Mr. Evans said there were not that many restaurants in the market. If those were made into sit down restaurants, their experience was that those locations they want on the plaza, where they want this really nice, easy dining, comfortable restaurant on the plaza, were not going to be there. Commissioner Finerty said if the drive-thru were removed, they could still have their Burger King or whatever, it just would not include the drive-thru feature. Mr. Drell said part of the reason the freeway overlay zone was created which allowed drive-thru restaurants was to provide the property owners in Palm Desert the same ability to attract restaurants and commercial as the property owners on the other side of the freeway in the County. Given a choice of locating their In-n-Out Burger on the north side of the freeway or the south side of the freeway, they're going to go on the north side if it means giving up the drive-thru on the south side. The other issue he felt was important was that what we're suggesting Mr. Evans do in terms of design of this sort of project was unconventional. This was not a project that lenders are used to seeing. It doesn't have the big anchor. It doesn't have an Albertson's, Wal-Mart, Target. This is an unconventional project that a lender will have to be creative to finance. What they will be looking for, in the absence of a Wal-Mart or Target or Albertson's, is what they call "credit tenants". Who are the sort of tenants that we know will be successful? If they are not as successful as Mr. Evans, what sort of tenants are we sure will be successful that will at least additionally carry the project. That is why there are so many projects with gas stations on the corner. When lenders see the gas station, they say well the money he might not make or the time it takes to develop success for the rest of the project, he will be able to be carried along, in essence, by the gas station. That is why almost every project you see has a gas station or a bank or a big box. The things we find most attractive about this project are the things that scare most lenders. They want to see what is familiar, what they know will be successful. What they know will be successful is a gas station or fast food. They know that can carry the project, especially in the beginning, and that will induce them to lend money on those 24 SUBJECT it MINUTES % FT. REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003 aspects of the project for which they are more uncomfortable, which are those aspects we find most intriguing, most exciting. Unfortunately, in the financial community, you can't have one without the other. This project has pretty much rejected most of those things, the big box, the gas station, the drug store, the supermarket. It will need something of known financial value that the lender can hang his hat on, and what is left is the fast food restaurants. Over time, he felt those parking lots that support the drive-thru can disappear, mainly because their value as frontage on Cook Street will be far more important as a building. Hopefully by then this project will be a great success. Commissioner Tschopp said as he understood the rest of the Commissioners, they were not opposed to restaurant pads going there. They were opposed to the drive-thru's. To offer some type of compromise, he asked if we could require that the drive-thru's be sufficiently screened by vegetation, with the specifics to be left to the Architectural Review Commission to ensure that the drive-thru's and the plantings are sufficient to screen them. Commissioner Finerty said when the Wonder Palms ordinance (No. 838)was adopted back in 1997, the City Council at that time had no drive-thru's, and the one area that they decided could have drive-thru's was this freeway overlay zone. They set down different criteria that needed to apply. These criteria do talk about screening with landscaping and that the menu boards be screened and out of public view. But they also said that drive-thru restaurants should be limited to the portion of the property north of Gerald Ford Drive. That is where Pad 5 is covered, but Pads 3 and 4 are not, and that is why exceptions were needed. Mr. Drell said that there was no question that doing the project would require an amendment to Wonder Palms. But he believed the freeway overlay zone was applied here as well as to Monterey and Washington. He said it was a given that the standards of Wonder Palms were being modified to fit the geometry of this project, mainly because it was determined that while the Wonder Palms plan showed most of the commercial frontage on Gerald Ford, there was no disagreement that it was more appropriate to be on Cook Street. The issue came down to design, and it could either be left up to the Architectural Commission or the Commission could require that it come back here to determine whether the requirements for the architecture and landscaping are satisfactory. 25 ,...�.9111 _ SUBJECT TC- : 6,0/ 11 MINUTES REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003 Commissioner Finerty said Mr. Evans wanted a decision at this meeting, and the Commission does have the ability to make its decision now. Mr. Evans could then take it to the City Council, which is where it needs to go anyway. Mr. Drell stated that development agreements do need to go to the City Council. Commissioner Finerty said that rather than waiting for ARC to look at something or to show the Commission what the drive-thru's are going to look like, the applicant might as well get all that stuff and take it to the City Council. Mr. Drell said he would suspect that the Council will want to see those pictures before they proceed as well. They will want some assurance, even if it is a generalized standard, that this is the standard that the final project will have to meet. They will need some visual representation of how those drive-thru's are going to look. Chairperson Campbell said she would feel comfortable having the fast food on Pad 4, which is adequately screened, but no drive-thru. For Pad 5, she would feel comfortable having a drive-thru fast food restaurant. With regard to Pad 3, that was something that would come back with Phase 3. Mr. Drell said that there would be no guarantees, and the applicant, if he had a fast food tenant there, would have to come back and go through the process. Commissioner Finerty said that the only drive-thru then would be what Wonder Palms calls for, and that is a drive-thru on Pad 5. Upon question by Mr. Drell, Chairperson Campbell said she did not want a drive-thru on Pad 4 because it is right there on the Main Street. Mr. Drell said it would not look any different than a sit down restaurant at that location because the building abuts the street and it is adjacent to a parking lot. The fast food aisle is no different than an aisle in a parking lot. Chairperson Campbell said we will have to go ahead and see how it is adequately screened. Also, we have been talking about the University Village, and the people in the University and in the neighborhood will be riding bikes. She asked if bikes can go through drive-thru's. 26 L. SUBJECT Tt a REVISION MINUTES �' � � � '� ,. PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003 Mr. Drell said right now there is no neighborhood, there is no University, and there are no bicycles. There will be bicycles five to ten years from now. Unfortunately, the project cannot wait for that in order to get financed. The project has to respond to today's market and then be able to evolve into tomorrow's market. If we cut it off at the knees, it will not respond to any market. Chairperson Campbell said if there is a drive-thru on Pad 5, you are not impaired by all the parking that you have on both sides of the Main Street. It seemed it would be easy in and easy out, whereas on Pad 4, it is a little more complicated. When you are driving out, you go into all of the parking area. Commissioner Lopez said when you look at Pad 4, the people pull into the driveway as they would to park their car and go into a fast food restaurant. However, instead of parking, they pull up to a window, get their food, and pull out. That is where he felt this was unique and where it was different. If it is well-bermed and landscaped along Cook Street, there really isn't any difference being a fast food restaurant or being a fast food restaurant with a drive-thru. He said this was not a drive-thru that goes around the building and becomes exposed as it does on Monterey Avenue. This is going to be situation where they are adequately sheltered, and they are really in a parking lot. They just happen to drive up to a window in that parking lot, get their food, and leave. On Pad 5, that is really not an issue. With Pad 4, he did not think it was a situation where you will have an unsightly view of cars lined up as you do on Monterey. He said he felt it was important to get Phase 1 off on the right foot. After that, everything else will fall into place. Pad 3 in Phase 3 probably won't even be there because it wasn't in the beginning. The early plan did not include a Pad 3 in Phase 3, it was a parking lot area. He said perhaps part of the compromise could be to approve Phase 1 tonight, with the other phases and the hotel to come back to the Commission for approval. Mr. Evans said it was difficult at this point to envision that there will be a building there. The only thing that could be conceivably different is that they could find a tenant that would go there that really wouldn't need or want a drive-thru. What they were suggesting in the master plan concept, that particular pad would have to come back to the Commission for further approval based on their ability to justify a need. To disenfranchise all of the phases from what they were presenting would really put an unusual burden 27 • • SUBJECT it 1 REVISION MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003 on them, and they could not go out and market anything without their entitlements on this. They were phased, but they were master plan phased. Commissioner Finerty asked if it would be advantageous if the Commission voted on the entire project tonight as presented, and then the applicant could take it to the City Council. Mr. Evans responded that this was not spirit in which he came here tonight and it was not the spirit in which he was talking. Mr. Drell said the suggestion was that the southern pad for the fast food would, in essence, be put on hold, and there would be no approval for that. He said there was no debate about the office plan or about the balance. It was already understood that in terms of the hotel, all we're talking about is the location of a hotel. The hotel will have to come back when it is finally designed by the hotel developer. To go a step further, it would be acknowledged that there will be a fast food restaurant on the north side of the entrance, but the Commission wants to see the design prior to it proceeding to be assured it is complying with the requirements of the Wonder Palms plan. Commissioner Tschopp agreed with Commissioner Lopez about Pad 4 and how that drive-thru is just an extension of the parking lot to some degree and does not have the flavor of a true drive-thru. If he understood Mr. Evans correctly and the concerns of the Commissioners on the drive-thru, we are looking at a master plan here, and he would hate to see the whole thing held up because of the drive-thru on Pad 3. Perhaps it could be approved subject to, if Mr. Evans wanted a drive-thru on Pad 3 at a later date, he would need to come back for conditional approval on that. Chairperson Campbell said agreement had been reached on that, but they were now talking about Pad 4, which is the problem. Commissioner Tschopp restated that this is a unique development, and the Commission should feel very fortunate to have this type of development coming into the City on a very viable corner. There is a lot of big box development going on in this valley, and there are a lot of big boxes still looking for places to play. He said he would hate to see an opportunity like this go down the road because we got hung up on a drive-thru that can be adequately shielded from the road. 28 • • SUBJECT T tI � � REVISION MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003 Commissioner Tschopp moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the master plan as presented, with the amendments to mitigate the traffic concerns on Cook Street that may arise, that the median be maintained on the Berger side of the street, that if the applicant desires a drive-thru on Pad 3 he would need to come back to the Commission for a conditional use permit, and that Pad 4 be adequately screened from the street so that the drive-thru is not visible from Cook Street. Motion was seconded by Lopez. With a vote of 2-2, with Commissioner Jonathan ABSENT, the motion FAILED. Mr. Drell stated that because the motion failed, the Commission could forward this case to the Council as no action or it could be continued to the next meeting when there will be five Commissioners present. Upon question by Commissioner Finerty relative to his preference, Mr. Evans responded that he prefer having the matter continued. Commissioner Finerty asked if it would be a hardship for Mr. Evans if the Commission continued it to the first meeting in December. She said if Mr. Evans got his decision then and had all of his pictures, he could go to the City Council the first meeting in January. Mr. Evans agreed. Commissioner Finerty moved to, by Minute Motion, continue this matter to the meeting of December 2, 2003. Motion was seconded by Campbell and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Commissioner Jonathan ABSENT. Chairperson Campbell reopened the public hearing. Mr. Evans asked if his understanding was correct that the drive-thru issue was the only question to resolve. Commissioner Finerty responded that this was not the only issue from her point of view. She noted she had listed her issues, and whether Mr. Evans chooses in that month's time to address them was up to him. Mr. Evans offered a suggestion that the drive-thru be eliminated on both Pads 3 and 4 and let those be restaurants, whether they be fast food or not. If they have a user that is going to require drive-thru, they can come back for some kind of conditional use permit on that pad. He suggested that in order to keep this ball moving, they would go back and work on the drive-thru element and bring it back to the Commission at some point in time for the purpose of the Planning Commission's approval of the master plan of the 29