HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrd 1096 and Res 05-54 C/Z 04-06, PP 04-32, & TT33120 - Robert Mayer Corp c/o Larry Brose 73100 Country ClubCITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: Approval of a series of applications (change of zone, precise plan
of design, tentative tract map and Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact) to facilitate development of a mixed use
residential (33 single family lots) and commercial (30,550 square
feet) neighborhood commercial center on 8.63 acres at the
northeast corner of Monterey Avenue and Country Club Drive, 73-
100 Country Club Drive.
SUBMITTED BY: Steve Smith, Planning Manager
APPLICANT: Robert Mayer Corp.
c/o Larry Brose
660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1050
Newport Beach, CA 92660
CASE NOS: C/Z 04-06, PP 04-32 and TT 33120
DATE: June 23, 2005
CONTENTS:
Staff Recommendation
Background and Discussion
Draft Ordinance No. 1096
Draft Resolution No. 05-54 �
Planning Commission Minutes from June 7, 2005
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2336
Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 7, 2005
Correspondence from Mr. Carle, Palm Desert Merano Homeowners Association
Legal Notice
Staff Recommendation:
That the City Council waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 1096
to second reading approving Case No. C/Z 04-06.
Staff Report
Case Nos. C/Z 04-06, PP 04-32 and TT 33120
Page 2
June 23, 2005
That the City Council adopt Resolution No. os-s4 approving Case Nos. PP
04-32 and TT 33120, subject to conditions.
Executive Summary:
The applicant seeks approval of a change of zone, precise plan of design,
tentative tract map and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact to
facilitate development of a mixed use residential (33 single family lots)
and commercial (30,550 square feet) neighborhood commercial center.
Specifically, the applicant proposes to rezone the 3.22 acres at the
corner of Monterey and Country Club from PR-7 to PC-2 (neighborhood
commercial). On this property the applicant proposes a 30,550 square
foot commercial center including a 14,731 square foot Walgreens drug
store with dual drive-thru at the corner, a 1 1,764 square foot multiple
tenant building to the center and at the north a 4,030 square foot
commercial building.
On the remaining 5.41 acres zoned PR-7 to the east, the applicant
proposes 33 single family lots with a two-story home on each.
Background and Discussion:
March 1993 Gatlin Development attempted to obtain approval of a 304,433
square foot retail (Wal-Mart) center on 40 +/- acres at the northeast corner of
Country Club Drive and Monterey Avenue. Ultimately, the application was
denied.
May 1994 the Robert L. Mayer Trust filed a two-part application for the
property. It was proposed that a 9.1-acre Iot be created at the northeast corner
of Country Club Drive and Monterey Avenue to be rezoned and designated in
the General Plan for District Commercial. A precise plan application proposed
approval of up to a 100,000 square foot neighborhood shopping center on the
9.1-acre site.
Secondly, the applicant proposed to subdivide the remainder of the site into 143
single family lots which was� consistent with the density permitted in the PR-7
zone.
Staff Report
Case Nos. C/Z 04-06, PP 04-32 and TT 33120
Page 3
June 23, 2005
Ultimately, the tract map (Merano) was approved creating 127 single family
lots. The general plan amendment, change ofi zone and precise plan for up to
100,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial was rejected by the City
Council.
June 1998 F& M Associates processed a request for approval of a precise plan
of design allowing a 87,774 square foot neighborhood commercial center. This
request was denied and the site on the corner remains vacant.
This property was discussed at length by the City Council in the General Plan
Update hearings.
Council discussed mixed uses office/residential and cammercial/residential.
U{timately, on March 15, 2004 City Council on a 4-0 vote (Ferguson absent)
designated this site as a mixed use commercia{/residential specifically excluding
supermarket type uses (see minutes attached).
ADJACENT ZONfNG AND LAND USE
North: PR-7 / single family dwellings
South: PC-2 / shopping center (former Albertsons)
East: PR-7 / retention basin
West: Rancho Mirage / vacant and single family dwellings
Southwest Corner:
Rancho Mirage / neighborhood center
PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING AND ACTION
At the Planning Commission hearing Mr. Carle, President of the Merano
Homeowners Association, spoke and submitted a letter of opposition to the
commercial component of the project (copy enclosed}. The Association prefers
a total residential project consistent with the PR-7 zoning. He raised the
following concerns:
1. Drainage of the project and costs related to maintaining the retention
basin and common streets.
2. Security concerns with patrons of the commercial center.
��
Staff Report
Case Nos. C/Z 04-06, PP 04-32 and TT 33120
Page 4
June 23, 2005
3. Twenty-four (24) hour businesses (i.e., Walgreens and "food joints"}.
4. Parking lot and building lighting impacting Merano residents.
5. Trash problems (rodents, odor and noisy trash pick-ups).
6. Three residences on the south side of Strada Fortuna are immediately
adjacent to the north parking lot and north commercial building.
7, As part of the mitigation to allow left-turn ingress to this project from
south bound Monterey Avenue, Merano residents will lose the ability to
make left-turn movements from their Monterey Avenue access.
Stafif will respond to these concerns in the next section of this report.
The Planning Commission on a 3-2 vote (Commissioners Campbell and Finerty
voting nay) recommended approval of the mixed use project as submitted.
Commissioners supporting the project cited the following as reasons for
recommending approval:
• consistency with the general plan update
• appropriateness of commercial uses at a busy corner
• a beautiful, low scale project
Commissioners opposing the project cited the following:
• No demonstrated need for mare commercial considering the vacant
center on the south side of Country Club and cammercial construction
activity at Monterey and Dinah Shore
• Prefer a mixed use office professional/residential or 100% residential
• Parking lot with trash enclosures and commercial building adjacent to
Merano homes are not residential friendly
RESPC?NSE TO MERANO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIAT{ON C�JNCERNS
1. Drainage: The retention basin east of Via Scena was designed to be farge
enaugh to accept drainage from this site. The appficant agreed to share
ongoing maintenance of the retention area and common private streets.
Staff Report
Case Nos. C/Z 04-06, PP 04-32 and TT 33120
Page 5
June 23, 2005
2. Security: The Merano tract is enclosed by a six-foot high slump block
wall. In other areas of the city where commercial abuts residents we
have not had a history of criminal trespass problems.
3. 24 Hour Businesses: Walgreens on the corner will operate 24 hours a
day. The 24-hour Walgreens at Monterey and San Gargonio has not
resulted in problems to area residents. A condition could be imposed to
limit the hours of operation of tenants on Lot 36 and Lot 36.
4. Parking Lot and Building Lighting: Condition No. 10 in the draft resolution
limits parking lot lights in the north parking area to bollard type fixtures
maximum height ofi four feet and prohibits building lights on the north
side of both buildings.
5. Trash Concerns: Condition No. 12 of the draft resolution requires
approval of trash enclosure locations and prohibits same in the
northernmost row of parking.
6. Three (3) Residents Adjacent to Commercial: The narth end of the
commercial project abuts three residences. The project provides a 20-foot
side landscape setback from the narthernmost building and a 12-foot
wide landscape planter along the north side of the north parking lot.
Additionally, we would note that original purchasers af Merano
residences were advised by the developer of their tract, through escrow,
that the remainder parcel at the corner could be a commercial
development.
7. Loss of Left-Turn Movements to/from Monterey Avenue: The Public
Works Director advises that the ability to make left turns onto Monterey
Avenue is an inherently dangerous move across seven lanes of traffic and
has always been considered "temporary." Public Works Condition No. 25
requires construction of a median across this access thereby restricting
it to right in, right out. Southbound Monterey traffic could still uti{ize this
access to Merano via a"U" turn at the commercial entrance. The new
signal at Via Scena will create a safer means for Merano residents to go
south on Monterey Avenue.
Staff Report
Case Nos. C/Z 04-06, PP 04-32 and TT 33120
Page 6
June 23, 2005
SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is 8.63 acres and has been rough graded. It is currently zoned for
medium density residential. Significant street improvements (an additional traffic
lane on Monterey and Country Club and a free flow right-turn lane� were
installed as part of the Merano project.
ACCESS - CIRCU4ATION
The mixed use project will utilize the existing Via Scena access from Country
Club Drive (full turning movements) for the main access to the 33 residential
lots and add one new access to Country Club Drive and one new access to
Monterey Avenue. The new Country Club access, located midway between
Monterey and Via Scena, will provide a shared right-in/right-out access to the
residential portion and the commercial portion of the project.
The new Monterey Avenue access will provide three-way turning movements
(right in, right out and left in) to the commercial project.
In the commercial part of the site two-way 24-foot minimum wide driveways
provide adequate circulation. Three areas of the parking layout end in dead-
ends. The entry to these areas of the site should be signed to warn drivers of
this condition (i.e., no exit).
In the residential tract a loop street system with 32-36 foot wide streets
provides an acceptable street layout. The streets have built-in traffic calming
through the narrowing of traffic lanes to 24-28 feet.
Public Works has reviewed the access and circulation and finds it acceptable.
ARCHITECTURE
Commercial Center
The commercial center architecture is a desert contemporary style utifizing stone
veneer columns, stucco walls, metal overhangs and trellises, and strategicafly
located awnings. April 26, 2005 ARC granted preliminary approvaf subject ta
minor modifications which will be reflected on the working drawings. The
applicant has already changed the Cape Cod blue areas to sage green.
Staff Report
Case Nos. C/Z 04-06, PP 04-32 and TT 33120
Page 7
June 23, 2005
Heights of the buildings range from 22 fieet to 25 feet on the main structures
with tower elements varying from 28 feet to 33 feet. The tower heights will
need specific approval of the City Council.
Residential Area
The two-story residential units range in height from 22 feet 6 inches ta 23 feet
4 inches. The architecture is a Santa Barbara look utilizing roof tile, stone veneer
accent columns and stucco walls.
Landscaae Desian
All perimeter landscaping wifl be consistent with the City's standards for a
desert landscape theme.
PROJECT DATA
TABLE 1
COMMERCIAL PORTION
Site Area
Building Area
Building Setbacks:
Country Club
Walgreens
On Corner
Monterey
Walgreens
Multi Tenant
Dual Tenant
East
Walgreens
Multi Tenant
Dual Tenant
PROJECT
3.22 acres *
30,550 square feet
88 feet
100 feet from curb
130 feet from curb
83 feet
155 feet from property line
171 feet from curb
22 feet � *
38 feet from curb
45 feet
20 feet
148 feet
ORDINANCE
PC-2 ZONE
5-15 acres
32 feet from p/I (property line)
25-33 feet from curb
66 feet from curb
32 feet from p/I
32 feet from p/l
64 feet from curb
32 feet from p/I
32 feet from p/l
25 feet from curb
20 feet
20 feet
20 feet
Staff Report
Case Nos. C/Z 04-06, PP 04-32 and TT 33120
Page 8
June 23, 2005
TABLE 1 CONTINUED
COMMERCIAL PORTION
North
Dual Tenant
Building Height:
Walgreens
Multi Tenant
North Building
Parking
PROJECT
20 feet * * *
Main 25 fieet
Towers 31 fit & 33 ft
Main 23 feet
Towers 32 feet
Main 22 feet
Tower 28 feet
156 spaces
ORDINANCE
PC-2 ZONE
44 feet (2 x building height)
30 feet
30 feet
30 feet
153 spaces
* The project size is below the minimum prescribed in the ordinance.
*� The norther{y most building is setback 22 feet from the Monterey property line
versus the prescribed 32 feet from an arterial street but does meet the distance
from curb criteria (38 feet firom curb versus 25 feet from curb required).
*** The north yard in this north building is adjacent to existing residential to the
north. In this case the setback is prescribed at twice the building height (e.g.,
2 x 22 feet = 44 required). The setback is 20 feet.
All of these issues can be handled as part of the Municipal Code "exceptions"
process for an acceptable project.
TABLE 2
MEDIUM DENSITY
ORDINANCE DEVELOPMENTSTANDARDS
RESIDENTfAt PORTION PROJECT PR-7 ZONE PER RESOLUTION 06-16
Site Area
Average Lot Size
Minimum Lot Size
Interior Street Width
Parking
Maximum Density
5.41
5,050 square feet
4,700 square feet
32-36 feet *
2 garage spaces/home
plus driveway
6.01 upa
5-acre minimum
as approved
30-36 feet
2 covered spaces/home
plus half space
7 units/acre
3,500 square feet average
3,000 square feet minimum
per general plan
Staff Report
Case Nos. C/Z 04-06, PP 04-32 and TT 33120
Page 9
June 23, 2005
TABLE 2 CONTINUED
RESIDENTIAL PORTION
Setbacks:
Country Club Drive
Front
Rear
Side Yard
Minimum Separation
Between 2nd Story Elements
Coverage
Building Height
�
PROJECT
2$-36 feet**
15 feet min, 20 feet to
garage
20 feet
5-10 feet min separation
10 feet
10 feet
36%-46%
22.5-23.5 feet
ORDINANCE
PR-7 ZONE
32 feet
20 feet
25 feet
15 feet each side
10 feet
30 feet
25%
24 feet maximum
MEDIUM DENSITY
DEVElOPMENTSTANDARDS
PER RESOLUTION 05-16
15 feet - 20 feet front in
garage
20 feet
5 feet, 10 feet street side
yard
10 feet
10 feet
50%
24 feet - 2 story
Street widths vary from 32 feet to 36 feet with some sections of traffic calming
where they narrow to 24 and 28 feet.
** Setback is acceptable per averaging provisions of code.
ANALYSIS
This property was the subject of considerable discussion during the general plan
update public hearings. Ultimately, the City Council on a 4-0 vote designated
the site "Mixed Use - Commercial/High Density Residential," The current
proposal fits the mixed use designation.
RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT
The 33 single family residential lots are consistent with the current PR-7 zoning
which permits a range of housing types. Previousfy we did not have a specific
policy with respect to medium density housing standards (i.e., lot sizes,
setbacks) and relied on the exception clause of the PR zone.
�ebruary 10, 2005 City Council per Resolution 05-16 adopted the medium
density development standards (copy attached) which established required
minimum lot size f3,000 square feet), minimum average lot size (3,500 square
feet) and revised required setbacks in medium density projects. This residential
project compfies with the PR-7 zone density and with the provisions of inedium
density development standards as follows:
Staff Repart
Case Nos. C/Z 04-06, PP 04-32 and TT 33120
Page 10
June 23, 2005
CRITERIA
PROJECT
MEDIUM DENSITY
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Average Lot Size
Minimum Lot Size
5,050 sq.ft.
4,700 sq.ft.
3,500 square feet
3,000 square feet
Setbacks and building heights are also consistent with the medium density
development standards as shown in Table 2. The lots are rectangular in shape
with a width of 45 feet and a depth of 105-1 14 feet. The units are to be placed
on the lots in a"Z" configuration. On one side there will be a five-foot side yard
from the property line. On the garage side the unit will be set to the side
property line, but by alternating the depth of the garage setbacks (20 feet back
of curb and 50 feet back of curb) the project maintains a minimum separation
between all units of 10 feet.
The PR district permits two-story structures but requires single-story when
immediately adjacent to single story units. The Merano dwellings adjacent ta
this site are single story and are limited to single story pursuant to a condition
on that approval. Accordingly, Condition No. 9 requires that the unit on Lot 33
be limited to single story 18 feet in height.
COMMERCIAL COMPONENT
The applicant proposes a small (3.22 acre) neighborhood commercial center on
the corner. Staff is on record as supporting the three previous commercial
development proposals on the site. Residential development does not belong at
one of the most heavily traveled intersections in the valley.
The reduced size of the commercial component is a result of two factors. First,
there is only 8.63 acres of vacant land, as much was previously used in the
Merano tract and the very significant street improvements which were
previously installed at the Monterey Avenue and Country Club Drive
intersection. The second reason for the reduced size is the requirement for a
"mixed use" project. Both the PR and the PC-2 zone provisions raquire a
minimum five-acre project size. With only 8.63 acres, this is not possible. The
drug store and other small commercial uses wi{I provide convenient services to
the adjacent residents.
Staff Report
Case Nos. C/Z 04-06, PP 04-32 and TT 33120
Page 11 �
June 23, 2005
Even with its reduced size the commercial project as designed has adequate
access, circulation and parking and will create an attractive architectural
statement.
The code specifies two ways to review ihe project setback from Monterey
Avenue. The north building meets the one foot of setback per foot of building
height measured from curbline, but does not meet the 32-foot setback from
property line requirement.
The code also specifies two ways to review setbacks from the adjacent
residential development. First, the code specifies a basic 20 foot setback then
it also requires two feet of setback for each foot of buifding height. The north
building meets the 20 foot basic setback, but not the two feet of setback per
foot of building height. In this instance we feef that the 20 feet of landscaping
is preferable to 44 feet because an area 44-feet wide would likely be used for
parking, driveway or loading which would be more objectionable than 20 feet
of landscaping.
All of these setback shortfialls can be attributed to the project size and can be
approved through the "exceptions" process for an acceptable development.
Landscaping along the perimeter of the site will be a minimum of 20 feet deep,
excluding the eight-foot sidewalk. The Landscape Manager has reviewed and
approved in concept the landscape plan, but notes concerns with certain plant
selections and placement of some species.
As noted previously, certain areas of the parking lot end in "dead ends," This
is due to the limited size of the site and Public Works' requirement for a deep
access throat without driveway access. A condition in the draft resolution
requires that these "dead end" areas be signed "no exit" to warn drivers. Staff
is concerned that lighting in the northerly most parking area has the potential
to impact residents to the north, Accordingly, staff has inserted a condition
limiting parking lot light standards in that area to bol{ard lights maximum faur
feet in height and that there be no exterior lights on the north ends of the mutti-
tenant building (Lot No. 34) and the small northerly most buifding (Lot No. 35).
Sunline Transit requests that a bus shelter be provided on the north side of
Country Club Drive west of Via Scena. The applicant will not be required to
Staff Report
Case Nos. C/Z 04-06, PP 04-32 and TT 33120
Page 12
June 23, 2005
provide the bus pull out, but will be required to design and construct an
architecturally acceptable bus shelter.
CONCLUSION
The project implements the mixed use commercial/residential goals identified in
the General Plan and has been recommended for approval by the Planning
Commission.
RESIDENTIAL
While the residential lot size (5,050 square foot average) is smaller than those
in Merano to the north (6,534 square feet to 10,890 square feet) this project
is a logical transition between Merano and the arterial traffic on Country Club
Drive and it complies with the density goals of the General Plan.
The project as designed and conditioned is consistent with the medium density
development standards and the provisions of the PR district. The overall
neighborhood design wiff provide an attractive and desirable residential
environment.
C4MMERCIAL
The commercial portion of the project has adequate access, circulation and
parking and will create an attractive architectural appearance. The minimum 20-
foot wide landscape planter areas will allow for effective landscape treatment.
Submitted y:
� . � 1
Steve Smith `
Planning Manager ,,�
.,
�
�
F�o er Croy
ACM for Development Services
( Wpdocs�tmisr1pp04-32.cc)
Department Head:
...�� - . ,
~ �R�il
Director of Community Development
Approval:
�
Carlos L. Orteg
City Manager
ORDINANCE NO. 1096
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.
107, THE PALM DESERT ZONING MAP, BY CHANGING
THE ZONE FOR 3.22 ACRES AT THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF MONTEREY AVENUE AND COUNTRY CLUB
DRIVE FROM PR-7 (PLANNED RESIDENTIAL SEVEN UNITS
PER ACRE) TO PC-2 (DISTRICT COMMERCIAL).
CASE NO. C/Z 04-06
The City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN,
as follows:
SECTION 1: That a portion of Ordinance No. 107 referencing Section 25.46.1 of the
Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Map (Chapter 35.46 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code) is
hereby amended to read as shown on the attached Exhibit "A."
SECTION 2: That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, attached hereto
as Exhibit "B", is hereby certified.
SECTION 3: 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 by the Palm Desert City Council this
day of , 2005, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
BUFORD A. CRITES, Mayor
ATTEST:
RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
Subject
Property
City of Palm Desert
VIA
BARBATO 0
1-
STRADA NOVA
I
I PR.-7
I I I
CORTE
SOLE ± SAN MARCO-.
P.R.-7
COUNTRY -CLUB -DR
/ P.C.-(2)
\R; 218000(8)
SAGE.
oWER ORCHIDTREE
jpN *�
Case No. C/Z 04-06
CHANGE OF ZONE
EXHIBITA
SILKTREE.
CT
�,P
P
1 IG S i
CITY COUNCIL
ORDINANCE NO.
Date:
Proposed
Zoning Change
1096
P.R.-7
To
P. C.(2)
ORDINANCE NO. 1096
EXHIBIT B
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NO: C/Z 04-06
APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION:
Robert Mayer Corp.
c/o Larry Brose
660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1050
Newport Beach, CA 92660
A change of zone from PR-7 to PC-2 for 3.22 acres for a commercial (30,550 square
feet) neighborhood commercial center project at the northeast corner of Monterey
Avenue and Country Club Drive, 73-100 Country Club Drive.
The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert,
California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the
environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons
in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid
potentially significant effects, may also be found attached.
PHILIP DRELL DATE
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 05-54
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PRECISE
PLAN OF DESIGN, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
FOR A MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL (33 SINGLE FAMILY
LOTS) AND COMMERCIAL (30,550 SQUARE FEET)
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL CENTER PROJECT ON
8.63 ACRES AT THE NORTHEAST C(JRNER OF MONTEREY
AVENUE AND COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE, 73-100 COUNTRY
CLUB DRIVE.
CASE NOS. PP 04-32 AND TT 33120
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the
23rd day of June, 2005, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of
ROBERT MAYER CORP.; and
WHEREAS, the Pfanning Commission by its Resolution No. 2336 has
recommended approval of the mixed use project; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements ofi the "City of
Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act,
Resolution No. 04-106," in that the Director of Community Development has
determined that the projec� will not have a negative impact on the environment and
that a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be certified; 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 precise plan
and tentative tract map:
PRECISE PLAN
1. The design of the precise plan wil! not substantially depreciate property
values, nor be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
2. The precise plan will not unreasonably interfere with the use or
enjoyment of property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful
purposes.
3. The precise plan will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or
general welfare.
RESOLUTION NO. 05-54
4. The precise plan for the commercial portion of the project will be
consistent with the PC-2 zoning, except for the minimum project size
3.22 acres versus 5 acres, the north building north setback, and the
street setback of the north building 20 feet versus 32 feet from curb all
of which can be approved as part of the "exception" process.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
1. That the proposed project is consistent with applicable general plan as
amended.
2. That the design or improvement of the proposed project is consistent
with applicable general plan, the PR zoning, the PC-2 zoning except for
certain provisions for which an exception is sought, and the medium
density development standards per Resolution No. 05-16.
3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development.
4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of
development.
5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not
likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are not
likely to cause serious public health problems:
7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not
conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access
through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.
8. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not
restrict solar access to the property.
WHEREAS, in the review of this tentative tract map the Planning Commission
has considered the effect of the contemplated action on the housing needs of the
region far purposes of balancing these needs against the public service needs of the
residents of the city of Palm Desert and its environs, with available fiscal and
environmental resources; and
�
RESOLUTION NO. 05-54
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, Exhibit A attached,
is hereby certified.
3. That Precise Plan 04-32 and the above described Tentative Tract Map
No. 33120 be approved, including the commercial project size deficiency
and the setback exceptions noted in the June 23, 2005 staff report,
subject to the conditions, Exhibit B attached.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
City Council, held on this day ofi , 2005, by the following vate, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
BUFORD A. CRITES, Mayor
ATTEST:
RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
3
RESOLUTION NO. 05-54
EXHIBIT A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NOS: PP 04-32 and TT 33120
APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Robert Mayer Corp.
c/o Larry Brose
660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1050
Newport Beach, CA 92660 �
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONlLOCATIDN.:
A precise plan of design, tentative tract map and a Negative Declaration of
Environmenta{ Impact for a mixed use residential (33 single fami{y {ots) and commercial
(30,550 square feet) neighborhood commercial center project on 8.63 acres at the
northeast corner of Monterey Avenue and Country Club Drive, 73-100 Country Club
Drive.
The Director of the Department� of Community Development, City of Pafm Desert,
California, has found that the described project wifl not have a significant effect on the
environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons
in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid
potentially significant effects, may also be found attached,
PHILIP DRELL DATE
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPIVIENT
0
�
RESOLUTION NO. 05-54
EXHIBIT B
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE N4S. PP 04-32 AND TT 33120
Department of Communitv Development:
1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file
with the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following
conditions.
2. Recordation of the final map shall occur within 24 months firom 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 alf municipal
ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may
be in force.
4. Prior to issuance ofi a building permit for construction of any use contemplated
by ihis approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits andlor clearance from
the following agencies:
Coachella Valley Water District
Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission
City Fire Marshal
Public Works Department
Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented
to the Department of Building and Safety at the time of issuance of a building
permit for the use contemplated herewith.
5. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Pub{ic
Works prior to Architectural Review Commission submittal.
6. All onsite utilities shall be underground.
5
RESOLUTION NO. 05-54
7. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be instafled 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 fior various times of the year for the specific materials to be planted, as
well as periodic rep.lacement of materials. All to be consistent with the Property
Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801) and the approved landscape plan.
8. The project shall be subject to all applicable fees at time of issuance of permits
including, but not limited to, Art in Public Places, TUMF and School Mitigation
fees.
9. That per Municipal Code Section 25.24.321 the dwelling on Lot No. 33 shall be
single story with height not to exceed 18 feet. The design of the dwelling may
° be approved by the Director of Community Development.
10. That any parking lot lights in the north parking area shalf be bollard type lights
maximum four (4� feet in height and that there shall be no building mounted
lights on the north ends of the buildings on Lot Nos. 34 and 35.
11. That the applicant shall construct a bus shelter to be installed on property
located west of Via Scena on the north side of Country Club Drive.
12. That the applicant shall obtain approval of Waste Management and the Director
of Community Development for location of all on-site trash enclosures. Trash
enclosures shall not be located in the north row of parking in the north parking
area (i.e., adjacent to the rear yards of the existing homes on Strada Fortuna).
13. That the owner shall record a deed restriction prohibiting a food store in excess
of 15,000 square feet on Lot Nos. 34, 35 and 36 of TT 33120.
Riverside Countv Fire Department:
1. With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced
project, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protect+on measures
be provided in accordance with City Municipal Codes, appropriate NFPA
Standards, CFC, and CBC and/or recognized fire protection standards.
C
RESOLUTION NO. 05-54
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial buildings per UFC article 87.
2. A fire flow af 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20 psi residual operating
pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job
site.
3. Provide, or show there exists, a water system capable of providing a gpm flow
of 1,500 gpm for singls family dwellings and 3,000 gpm for commercial
buildings.
4. The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant(s)
(4"x2-1 /2"x2-1 /2"), located not less than 25' nor more than 200' from any
portion of a single family dwelling measured via vehicular travelway and 150'
from any portion of a commercial building measured via vehicular travelway.
5. Water plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that
the water system will produce the required fire flow.
6. Install a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkier system. This applies to ail buildings with
a 3000 square foot total cumufative floor area. The fire Marshal sha(I 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.
7. All valves contralling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and Water-
flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per CBC Chapter 9.
8. Insfiall a fire alarm system as required by the UBC Chapter 3.
9. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than one 2A10BC
extinguisher per 3,000 square feet and not over 75' walking distance. A"K"
type fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens.
10. All buiJdings shall be accessible by an al!-weather roadway extending to within
150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall
be not 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 raads in excess
7
RESOLUTION NO. 05-54
of 150' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn-around 55' in
industrial developments.
11. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates,
barriers or other means, provisions shall be made to install a"Knox Box" key
over-ride system to allow for emergency vehicle access. Minimum gate width
shall be 16" with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6".
12. This project may require licensing by a state or county agency; to facilitate plan
review the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Marshal a letter of
intent detailing the proposed usage and occupancy type.
13. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the City.
14. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must
be submitted separately to the Fire Marshal for approval prior to construction.
15. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or
when building permits are not obtained within 12 months.
16. All elevators shall be minimum gurney size.
Deaartment of Public Works:
GENERAL
1. Landscaping maintenance of any common areas shall be provided by the homeowners
association for the residential portion and the property owner for the commercial portion.
Landscape treatment shall be water efficient in nature and shall be in accordance with
the City of Palm Desert landscape design standards. Applicant shall be responsible for
executing a declaration of Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions, which declaration
shall be approved by the City of Palm Desert and recorded with the County Recorder.
The declaration shall specify: (a) the applicant shall oversee the formation of a property
owners association; (b) the property owners association shall be formed prior to the
recordation of the Map; and (c) the aforementioned landscaping shall be the
responsibility of the property owners association. Landscaping plans shall be submitted
for review simultaneously with grading plans.
2. 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.
:
RESOLUTION NO. os-s4
3. The maintenance of the retention areas shall be by the homeowners association.
BONDS AND FEES
4. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code
shall be paid prior to recordation of fiinal map.
5. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and
79-55, shall be paid prior to recordation of final map.
6. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF).
Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance.
7. A standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits.
DESIGN PLANS
8. Storm drain/retention area design and construction shall be contingent upon a drainage
study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the
Department of Public Works prior to start of construction. Project is required to retain
on-site a 100 year storm.
9. Complete grading and improvement plans and specifications on electronic files shall be
submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance
of any permits.
10. Improvement plans for utifity systems shall be approved by the respective provider or
service districts with "as-built" plans submitted to the Department of Public Works prior
to project finaf. Utility plans shall be submitted to the public works department for
improvements in the public right of way prior to issuance of any permits.
11. Complete tract map shall be submitted as required by ordinance to the Director of Public
Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits.
12. 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.
13. Pad elevations, as shown on the tentative map are subject to review and modification
in accordance with Chapter 26 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code.
14. Waiver of access to Monterey Avenue, and Country Club Drive, except at approved
locations, shall be granted on the final map.
ti
RESOLUTION NO. Q�
15. Project shall retain nuisance waters on-site.
REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION
16. 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.
8' meandering sidewalk required on Monierey Avenue and Country Club Drive.
Rights-of-way necessary for the installation of the above referenced improvements
shall be dedicated to the city with the recordation of the tentative map associated
with this project.
17. (Left blank on original.)
18. All public improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works and a
standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits. No occupancy
permit shall be granted until public improvements have been completed.
19. Traffic safety striping shall be installed to the specifications of the Director of Public
Works. A traffic control plan must be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of
Public Works prior to the placement of any pavement markings.
20. Full improvements of interior streets based on residential street standards in
accordance with Section 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code shall be provided.
21. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public
Works.
22. Applicant shall comply with provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 24.12,
Fugitive Dust Control as well as Section 24.20, Stormwater Management and Discharge
Control.
23. Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to the
Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit for storm water discharges
associated with construction. Developer must contact Riverside County Flood Control
District for informational materials.
10
RESOLUTION NO. os-54
SPECiAL CONDiTIONS
24. Developer shail design and construct a signal at the Via Scena intersection with Country
Club Drive and enter into a maintenance agreement for 25% of the signal maintenance
costs.
25. Developer shall construct a landscaped center median on Monterey Avenue to the
northerly extension of Tract 27882 in connection with the left-turn lane entering the
project from southbound Monterey Avenue. Planning Commission determined that
the developer should only be responsible for paying any amount over and above
that contributed through the assessment district.
//
11
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 7, 2005
. r
- � �.� SUBJE�'T tC
' �� � " R�V15�Ck�i
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-1
(Commissioner Jonathan voted no).
��
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2335, denying Case
No. VAR 05-02. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Jonathan voted no).
�
Case Nos. C/Z 04-06, PP 04-32 and TT 33120 - ROBERT MAYER
CORP., Appticant
Recommendation to the City Council of approval of a series
of applications (change of zone, precise plan of design,
tentative tract map and Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact) to facilitate development of a mixed
use residential (33 single family lots) and commercial
(30,550 square feet) neighborhood comrnercial center on
8.63 acres at the northeast corner of Monterey Avenue and
Country Club Drive, 73-100 Country Club Drive.
Mr. Smith distributed a materials sample board and then reviewed the
main points of the staff report. He also informed Commission that a letter
was received right before the meeting from the Palm Desert Merano
Homeowners Association representing 126 homeowners and read the
concerns listed (copy of letter attached hereto as Exhibit A). Staff
recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
project to the City Council and asked for any questions.
Comrnissioner Jonathan asked for the commerciaf building, identified as
Lot 34, what was at the rear of that buifding. It fooked like there was
something protruding from the rear of the building and asked if those
were loading docks, because he didn't see a road to the back. He was
asking if there woufd be loading activity between the building and the
residentiaf structures. Mr. Drell said there was no access behind that
building. Mr. Smith indicated there was a four to five-foat sidewalk
across the back of the building. Commissioner Jonathan said he just
wanted to confirm that because it looked like there was something
sticking out there. Mr. Drell confirmed that it would either be ernpty or
10
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 7, 2005
;� � aM.
� y,.,.. �� � 5118J��j T�;�
� �� '� R�V�S��N
landscaped space. He said there are doors, so there would have to be a
sidewalk, but there was no vehicle access.
On the residential portion, Commissioner Jonathan asked if either
entrance would be gated. Mr. Smith said it was his understanding both
access points were gated. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there were
any stacking issues on the Country Club entrance. Mr. Smith said no, it
was sufficiently deep, but beyond the turn into the commercial. Mr. Drell
said the gate wouldn't be at Country Club, it would be beyond the
commercial side. Commissioner Jonathan said his concern was when
there was one, two or three cars waiting to get in, do they prevent
someone that using that as an access into the commerciaf portion? Did
staff feef there was enough depth there to accommodate that situation?
Mr. Smith said yes, it was right-in and right-out at that point so most of
the traffic would utilize the fiirst opportunity.
Commissioner Lopez said in looking at the conditions of approval, he was
concerned about the back of the building they were just talking about. He
asked if that was conditioned to make sure that the landscaping wouldn't
all of a sudden disappear for a much wider access back there. Mr. Smith
said it wasn't so conditioned, however, an amendment such as that
would be an amendment to the precise plan and would come back
through the Planning Commission. Mr. Drell asked if there was a standard
condition for the landscaping maintenance agreement. Mr. Smith said
yes, Condition No. 7. Commissioner Lopez asked if that was sufficient.
Mr. Drell said yes, and there was now a very diligent staff following up
an them.
Commissioner �opez asked if the applicant was aware of the sing{e-story
requirement for Lot 33. Mr. Smith said yes. Commissioner Lopez asked
for confirmation that there was no plan or layout for that lot yet. Mr.
Smith confirmed there was no plan.
On that same subject, Chairperson Tschopp said that the way it read in
his report it is one unit. He asked if they were talking about one unit
being iimited to single story. Mr. Smith said yes. Chairperson Tschopp
asked if the other units that would be two-story backing up to Merano
were not part of the conditions. Mr. Smith explained that there are no
other units immediately adjacent to Merano. There is a street around that
side of the property. That is the exception.
11
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 7, 2005
�
�
�; � °� 3 JUOJ�i�� �
�. ���,r.. - ' �
� � �j T "' R�VISIQN
Chairperson Tschopp asked about the left turn distance from Monterey
to the intersection. He assumed it was deemed not a problem. Mr. Smith
indicated that Public Works Department worked at length with the
applicant's engineer to come up with this access configuration.
Commissioner Campbell noted that the Architectural Review Committee
appr.oved the buildings, the strip mall and the others the way +t was
presented. Mr. Smith indicated that was not the way it started out. He
confirmed this was a lot better than it started out. It went through
several iterations.
Chairperson Tschopp oaened the public hearing and asked the applicant
to address the Commission.
MR. LARRY BROSE with the Mayer Corporation, 660 Newport
Center Drive, Suite 1050 in Newport Beach, California, addressed
the Commission. He thanked staff. He said they had a late, last
minute crunch getting everything in so they could be at the
meeting tonight and staff did an outstanding job performing to get
this an agenda, which was very important to them.
As a clarification to Commissioner Jonathan's question on the
Country Club entry, he indicated it is an exit only for the
residential. Cars would not be going westbound on Country Club
to turn right to be stacking there ta canflict with the traffic
movements in and out of the commercial. There was also a
manned pedestrian gate for that linkage to allow their future
residents an easy access over into the commercial so they can
walk instead of getting into their cars.
They concurred with staff's recommendations with a few
c{arifications. Specifically, in Community Development Condition
No. 13 where there is a prohibition of a"food store" in excess of
15,000 square feet, they would see in the minutes from the
Council action when giving this a mixed use general plan
designation, there was a limitation of a supermarket. If they go to
the ordinance for PC-2, supermarket is specifically spelled out as
an aiiowed use, so his suggestion was a clarification fram "food
store" to "supermarket" so that there was no question from either
side.
12
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 7, 2005
� ;,� � ' SUB�E�Ci �t:
� � , ._:' � w
��V�CJ��
� �
Commissioner Jonathan asked if he was drawing a distinction from a
food store and grocery store.
Mr. Brose said he read food store unless it changed.
Commissioner Jonathan said maybe he just didn't understand his
comment.
Mr. Brose said the point was that in the Council's action it was
specifically limiting a supermarket, which in the code a
supermarket is an allowed use in this zoning designation.
Mr. Drelf said it is allowed, but to use this designation and be consistent
with the general plan they had to create a condition that would delete
that as a permitted use.
Mr. Brose said he was still agreeing to the limitation of no
supermarket, it was just the semantics. Is it called a supermarket
or a food store to be consistent with the code.
Mr. Drell said the important number is the 15,000 square feet. He didn't
believe there was any absolute definition of what a supermarket is. It has
changed over the years. The important distinction is the size. At some
point in time, when does a food store become a supermarket? Practically,
on this site given the three acres they physically couldn't put in a
supermarket anyway. But just to be clear, 15,000 square feet would
allow certain specialty food stores like Trader Joe's and at what point
does that become a full service grocery store? Staff thought 15,OQ0
square feet was a reasonable defining point when a specialty food store
becames a grocery store.
Commissioner Jonathan clarified that the applicant was not objecting to
the condition, he was just seeking clarification. �
Mr. Brose said that was right. Regarding Community Devefopment
Condition No. 9, there was a question on the single story
component. In a perfect worid they would love to keep a twa-
story unit there for fots of good reasons. It would be an arphan
unit and they would rather not have to design a single-story
comp'onent. With the suggestion being to keep the condition
13
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 7, 2005
�� .. �
� �, ��,..�� ;., �lBJE�1' TC
��� � '� _ '° R�VIS14i�1
unless they were able to get approval in some written format from
the immediately impacted neighbors in the Merano tract which
would allow for the two-story unit. So the onus would be on them
to go to their neighbors to see if they would approve, allow, or not
object to the two-stary component. If that was not the case,
because the point was made that they have not taken a single-
story component through architectural review, if they were unable
to get the neighbors' approval or the neighbors' buy off, they
would like to take the single-story floor plan just to the Community
Development Director instead of having to go back through ARC.
So the single-story campanent woufd be substituted with two-
staries if the neighbors al{owed it. If not, take the singfe-story fioor
plan back to the Community Devefopment Director,
Public Works Condition No. 16, he read the condition as
somewhat limiting. He understood in practice that it doesn't occur
that way, but how he read it was that unless and until all of the
rights-of-way are dedicated, and that would be through the
recordation of the map, the most common practice was that they
would not be able to pull any permits for the project, including a
grading permit. As the Commission knew, the process typically is
that the map takes a little bit longer than a rough grading permit.
Assuming Palm Desert allows the pulling of the grading permit and
the causing of the rough grading of their site, he wanted to
propose that the language be revised to prior to the issuance of
Certificate of Occupancy or some other milestone down the road,
instead of the map recordation for when they could pull their
permits.
For Public Works Condition No. 24, he didn't understand what it
meant to have a maintenance agreement far 25% of the cost.
They were to design and construct the signa! at Via Scena at
Country Club and enter into a maintenance agreement for 25% of
the cost. He asked if that really meant 25% of the cost of the
maintenance or 25% of the signal. He wasn't sure.
Mr. Joy replied it was 25% of the cost of the maintenance of the signal.
Public Works Condition No. 25 where they were conditioned to
construct the center median on Monterey to the northerly
14
MINUTES =*� a � � ��g jE�T TC;
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION �`, - �' R.�V1Slt�i
JUNE 7, 2005 '
,� :
extension of Tract 27882, he assumed that meant the Merano
subdivisian.
Mr. Joy said that was correct.
Mr. Brose said they were okay with that; however, he understood
from a meeting he had with the engineer of record at the Merano
subdivision and Joe Gaugush, that in fact the existing assessment
district that they also participate in had as a line item the
improvements of that median and he understaod from that
meeting that that was the next improvement that the assessment
district was going to fund. He didn't know if there was a shortfall
or if they were looking for them to substitute in for the
assessment district, he would rather not do that seeing as the
dol{ars were already there and they were already paying for that
now in the assessment for their property.
Mr. Joy said they might have to look into it a little further. It was the first
he had heard abaut the assessment district itself. He knew there was talk
about having that access onto Monterey Avenue closed so that the
Merano residents would not be able to turn southbound onto Monterey
Avenue, but would allow a left turn from southbound Monterey into his
project. It would need to be researched.
Mr. Brase said they could take a look at that. The assessment
district also had as a line item the cast for the installation of the
signal at Country Club and Via Scena. That was sometime in the
90's and he knew the dollars allocated back then probably
wouldn't cover the costs today.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was an existing assessment
district.
Mr. Brose said yes.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if it was funded.
Mr. Brose said yes.
15
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 7, 2005
� �
J SUB,IE-CT TC
' ,; _�' ' � �
� � �� � " R�ViS1Q�d
Commissioner Jonathan said it was Mr. Brose's understanding that it
included the median on Monterey.
Mr. Brose said yes.
Commissioner Jonathan indicated that what Mr. Brose was suggesting
is that Condition No. 25 be modified to indicate that the developer would
construct and pay to the extent that it is not covered by the assessment
district.
Mr. Brose said that was correct.
Mr. Joy said that would leave the {anguage vague enough so that they
could research that the assessment district actually is for that purpose.
Commissioner Lopez said there was also an understanding that the
assessment district also covers the signal.
Mr. Brose said that was correct; however, he believed the district
was 1994, 1995 or 1996, the mid 90's, and some of the dollars
were spent doing a slurry on Monterey that wasn't in the
assessment district, so the dollars have shifted around and time
h�sn't been their friend with costs. To be honest with them, he
didn't know how many dollars remained, but he did know that the
two line items for the median and the signal were in the
assessment district.
Mr. Drell said that in the discussions he has had, the presumption was
that these conditions would apply to expenses above and beyond what
is left in the assessment district. The engineer was aware of the district
and there's money there, they were just acknowledging that there would
be more money required to finish these two items. These monies are
available to get them part way,
Mr. Brose concluded and said he was present to answer any
questions.
There were no further questions of the applicant and Chairperson
Tschopp asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of the proposed
project.
16
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 7, 2005
_� � � �
� n � T �° � :.� SUBJE�T �'C
- � " "' REVtS1�IN
MR. HANK GORDON, 33 Churchill Lane in Rancho Mirage, said
that his company would be develaping the commercial portion of
the application. He wanted to make two points clear to them.
When the staff inember from the Planning Department said there
would be a drive-thru, this was not particularly a drive-thru. These
were prescription pickup windows. People couldn't drive through
and order things from the drug store except prescriptions.
Regarding the questions that Commissioner Lopez raised about the
rear doors, he stated that all of the loading is dons through the
front doors. The accesses are through the front doors. The
purpose of the rear doors was for fire exiting required by city code.
When a unit is 1,500 feet or larger, two exits are required. That
was the only purpose of the rear doors.
Chairperson Tschopp asked if anyone wished to speak in OPPOSITION
to the proposed project.
MR. MICHAEL CARLE, 209 Strada Fortuna in Palm Desert,
addressed the Commission. He stated that his property is adjacent
to the proposed development by the Mayer Corporation. He didn't
know if the Planning Commission was aware of it, or who was on
the Planning Commission at the time, but he had been on the sales
task force for Diamond West Homes that developed Merano. At
the time the Mayer Corporation awned that property; it was called
Avondale and they sold it off to Diamond West Homes and he
came on board. He also bought a house there.
At the time they were selling Merano properties to homeowners,
it was stated to the homeowners that the property was zoned R-7.
Mayer Corporation at one time tried to go back in with the
Lucky's(Albertson's store that is now vacant across the street
from Plaza de Monterey. That was turned down by the City
Council.
He said he wanted to go through a couple of things that are
concerns for the homeowners of Merano. He said he is the
president of the homeowner's association. The present plan the
Mayer CQrporation came up with on the commercial side of the
development, even the mixed use zoning they were here for
17
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 7, 2005
�, �
� � � ;�'� �, SUB1��'fi Tf.
� M � °' t���l#SlO�d
tonight, they couldn't see why there would be a need for more
commercial buildings on the corner of Monterey and Country Club.
There was a white elephant across the street right now that is
vacant which was the old Albertson's store and there is plenty of
space there. Some of the tenants have already gone out of
business there as well since the anchor stare moved over to
Rancho Mirage.
There was plenty of commercial space that would be built down
the street. They would have the Sam's, the Wal-Mart, Lowe's.
Merano would like to see Mayer Corporation develop this for what
it was intended to be developed, R-7, seven units per acre
residentia{, and allow the whole parcel to be developed residential.
They wanted to stuff 33 houses on a portion of this lot and then
squeeze in this commercial site. What if the Walgreens didn't go
in there? Then they have retail on both of those other buildings
which they already discussed tonight. The one at the northeast
corner on that property, you can't space it on there. The
gentleman explaining the plan said that building did not fit on
there. Then there is another strip mall adjacent behind these new
houses going in there and he didn't see where they could validate
having more commercial building on that parcel when it looked to
him that they were just trying to stuff on this project more
commercial buildings. Is there a need for it? When the main
objection to the homeowners, the 126 homeowners that live in
Merano, is that it is zoned R-7, they would like to see it stay R-7
built with residential and have the whole lot built residentially.
That's what the master plan originally called for, Mayer
Corporation elected not to develop that residentially. They're the
ones that made the decision not to develop that into residential
properties when they went through with Merano.
Basically from the standpoint of the Merano homeowners, he said
they were opposed to seeing anything ather than residentia{ going
onto that parcel. There is plenty of commercial space vacant right
acrass the street that they have been looking at vacant for about
two years; since Albertson's moved over to Rancho Mirage. They
have that and all sorts of retail space over there that is vacant.
Now they were going to aflow a zoning change to go in and allow
r��3
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 7, 2005
�.
=� ' " SUBJ��T TE;
� � � '° R.�VISlt�rl
them to build more commercial retail space? He didn't see where
the justification was on that.
Yes, the residential property plan looked good. That was fine. It
looked good to Merano homeowners. They've tried to work with
them and this was the best thing they've come up with so far. He
said this was the third go around with the Mayer Corporation and
they had been present at the meetings when they've tried to
develop this land and every time, in some way, it has some
commercial with it. He asked why they couldn't have all
residential? That was basically what the homeowners from Merano
were going to say.
As far as the homeowners allowing them to go in and build a one-
story structure within a two-story development and every other
house in there is two-stories, that didn't make any sense. That
didn`t make sense to them at all. They asked the Mayer
Corporation when they presented to the Board of Homeowners
from Merano, who has been maintaining Via Scena? They have.
The Merano homeowners. They've been paying to maintain that
street, maintain the water retention basin, maintain the landscape
and now all of a sudden they would get the new development and
who would help them rnaintain that? Where was their water runoff
going to go? Is it going into their water retention basin they've
maintained over all these years? They asked the Mayer Corporation
that. They asked Transwest Housing, who proposed to build them,
if they wauld pick up some of the cost of the maintenance of the
retention basin. To him, that didn't make sense for them to have
paid all these years to maintain that retention basin.
City water runs in there. That was fine. It runs off of Country C1ub
Drive. All the water that would came off of that project would go
into their retention basin. Who wou{d maintain that if samething
went wrong? Where down the line does the Merano homeowners
have to pick that up if something were to go wrong with that
retention basin if it gets clogged up? The City isn't going to come
out and do it. It wasn't the City`s responsibility. ft would fall back
onto Merano homeowners.
19
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 7, 2005
�''' � � � SUBJE�t Tf
� �( Y �.5' -� .
� �� '" ��V�Slt�#'1
To allow them to build a, one-story structure in a two-story
development didn't make sense. And then they have mo�e
commercial going in. What about the traffic? What about the
noise? What about the security issues that would face not only the
new homeowners here, but the existing Merano homeowners?
What about them that have already been there? There's security,
traffic, noise, rodents. Who knew what would go in that retail
section? There could be food joints going in there. They don't
want to be backed up against something that will be a China Jo's
or a Chinese restaurant or something in that strip mall. And it very
likely could be because once they get it built, it's there and they
cauld lease it to whoever they wanted to and it woufd be a food
source of some sort in there.
They would have security issues. What about the lighting on the
commercial property 24/7? And that's a 24-hour Walgreens.
What about the lighting issue to the Merano homeowners and the
new residents if they go in there? And the traffic flow pattern on
Monterey. What would happen to their back gate that goes onto
Monterey? If that went through and they allowed that median to
go in there, would that cut off their access to go south on
Monterey Avenue? It probably would, so they would only be able
to go right out of their back gate. They only have one entrance,
Via Scena. They have to come down to Monterey and Country
Club to go through that light to go south onto Monterey. He didn't
see where this plan had really been well thought out as far as the
existing Merano homeowners, the new homeowners when they
did go in, and how that affects everyone else.
Mr. Carle asked about the flow from the stop light and the
assessment district that the Mayer Corporation is talking about.
There was an assessment district. The money was set aside back
in the 1990's. Yes, the money was set aside. Are they going to
put a light up there? Are they going to put a light at the end of Via
Scena to allaw Merano homeowners to go east on Country Cfub
Drive? And there's also a light down at Suncrest that allows those
people to get into Suncrest. There's the distance between those
two {ights and then they would stop again at Monterey Avenue
and Country Club. He didn`t see where that all fell into the mix.
20
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 7, 2005
� S�1BJ��T T�':
g �� �.� �` R��i,i��
- ��
Basicaily, the issue before them as homeowners of Merano was
the commercial. One, lights burning 24/7. His property would be
right up against this commercial piece. If he was one of the other
homeowners, yes, he wouldn't be too opposed. Yes, it's blocking
off all their views, but at least they've got residential behind their
property. There are three homeowners, himself, Shirley, and Jill
Lvvingfloss that will be buffered up right against this commercial
and they will deal with them. What about security? Anyone could
hop over that block wall into any one of their backyards. There's
a security issue there. What's in place to make sure that doesn't
happen? There are delivery trucks and trash bins that will be there.
He certainly didn't want to be woken up at 7:00 a.m. with trash
trucks emptying out their garbage with their trash receptacle and
where it is placed. To him it didn't make a lot of sense to aifow it
to go mixed use when it was zoned R-7.
He just wanted to bring that up to the Planning Commission and
appreciated their time. The� secretary of the Merano Homeowners
Association submitted a letter to the Planning Commission and he
thought they would be given a copy. lt was given to the clerk. He
asked them to please read it through and see some of the other
concerns the Merano homeowners have because he didn't address
them all this evening. He thanked them. (A copy of the letter is
attached hereto as Exhibit A.)
Chairperson Tschopp asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in
OPPOSITION to the application. There was no one. Chairperson Tschopp
asked if he had any rebuttal comments.
Mr. Brose addressed the Commission. He said they've had many
go arounds, as Mr. Carle had referred to, on the application here.
The application that was originally submitted, and the Gommission
might remember him standing up before them pleading during the
General Plan process for commercial designation on the corner of
the property, which they did recommend to City Council and it
was denied. They were before them today with a mixed use. They
have gane through many iterations and gone through many
architectural review committees on the project. They befieved it
was a sound project. They believed they've met many peoples'
concerns on the property.
21
............. ..
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 7, 2005
_ � � sus���Y �'r:
� . �'� " R�uiSlO�N
There were a couple of issues that were brought up. Lighting.
They don't intend to and wouldn't have lighting 24/7 on the
commercial center. �4ny lighting they had would be conditioned
through the design review of having down lit low level lighting. He
thought Palm Desert was one of the dark sky cities.
With regard to the retention basin, the property currently drains
into the Merano retentian basin, as does the Desert Greens golf
course to the north of Merano. So there was a relatively large
tributary area. They met with the Merano Board of Directors a few
months ago. They did discuss the issue of maintenance and shared
maintenance for the retention basin for the landscaped areas that
they presently maintain in the street, in the parkways, and they
were certainly willing to work with them to help improve what
might be a deficient basin, as well as the long-term maintenance
of the basin and the landscaping on the common street they would
share. He asked for any questions. fThere were none.)
Chairperson Tschopp closed the public hearing and asked for Commission
comments.
Commissioner Finerty said they have been through a lot with this corner
and she would say that they had it half right now. Half right meaning the
residential. Throughout the General Plan process and all the other
renditions that have come before them she has always been against
commercial and she hadn't changed her mind. She was still against
commercial. She agreed with most of Mr. Carle's points of view and it
was kind of the same story, different application. There was no need for
additional commercial with the empty building across the street and
commercial backed up to all these residents just didn't blend toward the
kind of development she would like to see in Palm Desert. If any kind of
a mixed use were to be allowed, she wauld prefer office professional,
perhaps as a buffer backed up to Monterey and Country Club. fdeally,
though, she concurred that it should all be residential. For that reason,
she was opposed.
Commissioner Jonathan noted that the staff report indicated that the
Council on March 15, 2004 voted unanimously (Councifperson Ferguson
was absent) to designate the site as a mixed use cammercial/residential
area. Staff in the past, as indicated in the staff report, had recommended
22
MfNUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 7, 2005
sr.rw�r
�� '•�. -' �
_ � SUBJE�� Tt.
� "� " R�11l�S1QN
approval of commercial use on that corner no less than three times.
That's one of the busiest intersections in the Coachella Valley. His
personal opinion was that any element of residential was inappropriate
for that corner, but because of concerns of the residents the applicant
has through time, time and time again, made accommodations and he
believed has reached a point that is consistent and in ag�eement with the
General Plan as supported by the Council and by staff. !n accordance
with that land, he didn't think they could ever hope for anything better.
It is a beautiful project, the commercial element is very attractive and
relatively low scale, the residential element is very attractive. It is
medium density and in many respects is preferable to high density, so he
thought that was a reasonable cornpromise and accommodation. Based
on the zoning, based on the General Plan, based on staff's support,
based on Council's support for this use at that location, and based on the
design that the applicant has implemented, he was strongly in favor of
the praject before them.
Commissioner Lopez thought that both commissioners were correct in
that they have gone through many phases with this particular location
and he tended to concur with Commissioner Jonathan that this is one of
the busiest intersections we have in our community right now and he
could not imagine having his backyard or a backyard backing up to that
particular intersection on a day in and day out basis. The mixed use
option on this particular application was one that seemed to fit well with
the plan. There was a buffer between that corner and the remaining
residential areas in that particular area.
He was concerned about Lot 33 and the single story use. He believed
that condition should remain. He didn't think there was a lot of room for
flexibility on that condition anly because they might get the okay from
the current owner and then the next owner could be mortified by what's
there and he thought it wauld hurt the resale value. Overall, he thought
the mixed use plan was as good as anything they had seen so far and he
wa.s in favor of the recommendation.
Cornmissioner Campbell agreed that they have discussed th'is corner
many many times. This is the best that has been prop�sed. The thing
that she objected to was the bui{ding to the north. 1t probably didn`t work
out on paper if that building wasn't there. She objected to granting a
variance and noted that they didn't approve a variance for a previous
23
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSIUN
JUNE 7, 2005
_ �..
� � '� SUB,IE�'t i'�`.
� R�V1SI(x�l'
agenda item because of the closeness to the residential neighbor. Also,
Lot 33, the one story home, as far as she was concerned, she would
rather have not just one, one-story home there, because if there is a two-
story home right next to it, if they are upstairs they can look into these
other people's yards. So some of those homes, three or four of those
homes, she felt should be one story homes so that it would be farther
away from the residential area at Merano.
She knew they couldn't say what this commercial could have, but again,
she agreed with Mr. Carle with regard to food. They had a problem with
Sagewood when they complained about the odor from a restaurant near
them and this would app{y to the same project. So she was really yes
and no with regard to this. Again, she could see that they have a lot of
commercial that is vacant across the street, but yet it is a very busy
corner. She didn't know if they could have any say on what should go in
there and what shoufdn't go in there. She said she really was opposed to
it and wauld rather have al1 residential.
Chairperson Tschopp said it is mixed use residential zoning at this time
and it is consistent with the General Plan. Truthfully, if they looked at
that corner, in his opinion it was not residential friendly and he truly
thought the whole corner should probably be more commercial. But given
the limitations of the zoning placed on it by the Council back in 2004, he
thought this was a great attempt to try to work into the mixed use
zoning, the buffer of homes next to some commercial buildings that he
thought were as well placed as they could be given the limitations on the
land, the access and so forth. So overall, he was in favor of it. He wasn't
crazy about the circulation, but he would trust at this time the engineer
and the staff in looking at the circulation through there and so forth.
Overall, he thought it was a good attempt given the limitations placed on
this land and he was in favor. He did nat have a problem with two-story
homes because they typically didn't impact a view as bad as the
landscaping. And trees seemed to most times impact {andscaping more
than a second story home did, so he wouldn't have a problem with the
developer being able to discuss with the adjoining three neighbors, and
if they had a consensus to build a two-story, they ought to go forward.
The next owners would be able to see what they would get and probably
would have it easier than the current owners. So given that, he was in
favor of the project. He asked for a motion,
�
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 7, 2005
-� � � � sus��-c�r �'r.
� ' � - — R�v��iaN
Action: .
Commissioner Jonathan said he would make a motion for approval to
include modification to the Department of Community Development
Condition 9 to enable the applicant to obtain design approval through
Community Development rather than going back through the full process
through ARC; Public Works Condition No. 16 to enable the applicant to
obtain a grading permit at an earlier trigger point to the satisfaction of the
Planning Department; and Public Works Condition No. 25 to clarify that
the applicant is responsible only for those casts not covered by the funds
that exist in the assessment district.
Mr. Drell asked if he wanted to add a candition refative to their
participation and maintenance of the retenti�n basin. Commissioner
Jonathan said yes. Commissioner Lopez seconded the motion.
Chairperson Tschopp called far the vote. Motion carried 3-2 {Commissioners
Campbell and Finerty voted no).
It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner
Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2336, recommending
to City Council approval of Case Nos. C/Z 04-06, PP 04-32 and TT 33120,
subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 3-2 (Commissioners
Campbell and Finerty voted no).
Mr. Drell noted that this was a recommendation to the City Gouncil and there
would be a hearing scheduled before City Council.
IX.
MISCELLANEOUS
A. Status Report on Valet Parking and Outdoor Music at Augusta
Restaurant.
Mr. Drell said there was further correspondence befinreen Public Works and
the operator of the valet about the permit. As a result of that, the valet
withdrew from the restaurant, so for the last few weeks there hadn't been
valet services. The owner of the restaurant believed it was now complete
chaos and people were choosing now to park on the street rather than to
brave the chaos of the parking lot. He informed the owner that what she
needed to do was make application for a revised permit. If that revised permit
25
�,�C t-1� �,(� t T` t�� r r
Paim Desert Merano Homeowners Assaciation
President: Michaet Carte
Secretary: Irwin Sandler
. 245 Strada Nova
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Te1: 760-861-2328 Fa�c:760-779-5372
�� � �1hh�Q CO�IN111�S10�1 RbA'�1�
tl �o U? � �.:�it�:rl�lii*fr °iifi`�
7-f-33, ao
Monday, June 06, 2005 � -+ �
To Whom It May Concem:
This let#er represents the voice of one hundred t� iwenty sac home owners in �e
residential development of Merano, which is located directly adjacent to the 8.63 acres
on the comer of Monterey Ave and Country Club Drive propased for a zoning cf�ange, as
requested by the Mayer Corporation.
This is not the first time that a request for a zoning change has been put before you.
C�riginally the request was for the errtire parcet of land. That request was denied. The
Merano residential devefopment is the result of tt� original zoning initiative within the
Palm Desert Master Plan. The Mayer Corparation votuntarily chose to leave the
remaining 8.63 residentia! a�res undevetoped. H�vever, a few yea►s ago another
request for zoning change came to you asking for the remaining 8.63 acres to be zoned
commerciaf for the then proposed Lucky/Albertson project. Tha# request was also
denied.
Now the Mayer Corporaiion is requesting a mad�cation of the zoning for partiaf
commercial and partial residential development The homeawners of Merano object to
any zoning change from that clea�ly established in the Palm Desert Master Plan. .
The new Albertson's in Ranctio Mirage has teft the Pk�za de Monterey anchor store
empty for at least finro years. What is to became of the vast space in the middle of a
struggling shapping matl?
What could be the compelling reasan for a zoning change? Within twa miles south on
Monterey there are already fully developed commercial centers and, to the north, on
Monterey and Dinah Shore, construction is under way for a Super Wal-Ma�t, Sams Club,
Lowes and others. The proposat before you indicates a Waigreens as the anchor.
What's to become of the Walgreens across f�om the Westfietd Shopping Mall?
Surely there is already enough commercial developmerrt for the comer of Country Club �
and Monterey. The Palm Desert Master Plan clearly indicates the comer lat adjacent to
the entrance to Merano was to be residerrtial. What is the ovemding reason for making
a change?
We have attached a history of the proposais to date and points of opposition for any
devefopment other than that of the agreed zoning of residential.
Sincerely,
�� � � �''� ..
----�.,�. ,-
� f
Merano Board of Directors
; ;a �
June 7, 2005
History
• The parcei of land which is the subject of this hearing was part of a single
parcel which includes what is now the residential community of Merano.
• Prior to the deveiopment af Merano, the City of Patm Desert refused a
zoning change request that would have permitted a REGIONAL
SHOPPING CENTER on the entire site.
• The City upheld its own Master Rlan and retained the R-7 zoning for the
entire site.
• The owner then chose to develop Merano, a cor�forming use of the land,
on approximately $/ of the site and requested a zoning change to
commercial for the remaining'/4 of the parcel that is the subject of tonight's
hearing.
• Again, the City of Palm Desert upheld its own Masfer Ptan and permitted
the development of Merano as a cor�forming residential community but
refused to change the zoning fior the 8.63 acre portion that is the subject of
this hearing and retained the R-7 zoning for the entire parcel.
• The owner has made numerous attempts at putting a commerciaf
developmerrt/shopping center on this land including a request for a zaning
change to commercial that was the subject of a hearing before this
commission and City Council during the summer of 1998.
• Again, the City uphefd its own Master Plan and denied the request for a
change of zoning from R-7 to commercial.
• Since then, the Robert Mayer Corp has made additional presentations to
the Board and residents of Merano seeking support for a zoning change
request. Each and every requesi has resutted not oniy in a Eack of support
by the owners of homes in Merano but in an overvvhelming outpouring of
oppositaon to the request.
• The land is stiil zoned R-7.
• The construction of the proposed 2-story homes immediately backing up
to the proposed commercial buildings and a commercial parking lot is an
ill-conceived plan.
• The PtAZA de MONTEREY is a retail neighbortraod shopping center and
is (ocated directty across Country Club Drive--on the south east comer of
Mon#erey Avenue and Country Ctub Drive. This commercial center is and
has been targeiy vacant for an extremely iongtime—in some cases in
excess of 1'� years. Wi#h the amount of pre-existing vacant commercial
space aiready at this intersection, there is absotutely no justification or
competiing reason to support the requested change of zoning from the
City of Palm Desert's Master Ptan to atlow the blight of an unneeded,
urnvarranted, and unwanted additiona! strip mail at this intersection.
• The owners of homes wi#hin Merano, like the other residents of Paim
Desert, look forward to the day when the vacant iand o� fhe northeast
comer of Monterey Ctub and Country Club is properly developed.
However, this mixed use project is not the proper deve�opment ptan for
this strictly residential R-i property.
On behaff of the 126 homeowner's of Merano, we ask that the Planning
Commission continue to uphoid fhe zoning of the Paim Desert Master Plan and
deny tne request for a change of zoning far this mixed use projeet.
va Sc:ena
Traf�c congestion
Ca►st of maintenance due to deterioration from higher usage
Cost of 4andscaping
Vehiculaf noise
Vehicular lights
Gate secuMy
Traffic Signals
Parkinq l.ot
Lighting for lo#
Lighting for security devices (strobes etc)
Noise of cars/homs
Nase of peopte and shopping carts
Delivery trucks
Trudc reverse waming signals
Soecific Retail Concems
Location close to Merano wali
Security
Noise of eampressors, air ccmditioning systems, and ventitation systems
Vermin
Shopping carts
Excessive deGvery traffic and noise of trucks
Location of loading dodcs and inhenent noise problems (trudc reversing homs)
24/7 Operation
Litter
Cooking smells
Other tvoes of business which miaht be +ncluded
Service stations
Restaurants
Fast food
Take-out food operaiions
Arcade game type businesses
Others types of nuisance businesses
Plans for Nearbv Proaerties
Ovrrr►ership of other Mor�terey Ave/Country C[ub ['kive intersectian properties
Plans for the vacant �t in Rancho Mirage
Direct effeats on Merano homes
Blodcage of views
Excessive noise
Security concems both at gates and walls
Increase costs of maintenance of roads
24R operation inftinges on enjoyment of homelproperty during leisure hours
Aesthetic concems
Diminishing property values
Who does aroposed center benefit?
In the view of the boarcl of directors and homeowners of Merano, the onfy beneficiary is
the Mayer Cor�ration
- C11Y Of P���.�1 DESERT
73—St0 FRED WARING DA/VE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA �22C70-2j�8
TEL: ]60 34G—o6i x
Pex:76o 341-7098
info�'s palm-deser[.org
ClTY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NOS. C/Z 04-06, PP 04-32 AND TT 33120
NOT►CE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing wil! be held before the Palm Desert Planning
Commission to consider a request by ROBERT MAYER CORP. for approval of a series of
applications (change of zone, precise plan of design, tentative tract map and Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact) to facilitate development of a mixed use residential (33
single family lots) and commercial (30,550 square feet) neighborhood commercial center on
8.63 acres at the northeast corner af Monterey Avenue and Country Club Drive, 73-100
Country C�ub Drive.
I
- - ---__ . .. -...__ __--
q
�
/
�
� I �
Y
SA�D public hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 7, 20Q5, 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 far 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
May 26, 2005 Palm Desert Planning Commission
��.Y V n � K�T-GLUB'DR �
Subject
Property
City of Palm Desert
����
��
�_.
\
STRADA NOVA
� I I I i� � 1_._�
�r .
��A \ ��P:R.-7 ���
BARBATO, 0 \ COr�7,c � CORTE J
I = � �5��� SAN MARCO
W —Qa� �
> ''� —� - _ — J
a � �
}� ST RADq � p0 RT.UNp' —
W, I I I -� I
� �
W � , P:R:-7
�
Z CORTF
o P.R.-7 � � �
� � a
Z
� \I �
COUNTRY-CLUB-DR
P. C.-(2)
�
S� �R� 2� SOOO�B)
�G SAG
r ev� � ��°o
� y �°�
�
ORCHIDTREE
Mpp ���WER CT I ,
Case No. C/Z 04-06
CNANGE OF ZONE
1�:�� Ii1 1 I.�)�I� C
�
\ Q4�
00 �
�SILK'r � E
CT
�
GP
��
����
P.R.-7
Proposed
Zoning Change
���`
P.R.-7
To
P.C.(2)
PLANN/NG COMMISS/ON
RESOLUT/ON NO.
Date:
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: June 7, 2005
CASE NOS: C/Z 04-06, PP 04-32 and TT 33120
REQUEST: Recommendation to the City Council of approval of a series of
applications (change of zone, precise plan of design, tentative tract
map and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact) to
facilitate development of a mixed use residential (33 single family
lots) and commercial (30,550 square feet) neighborhood
commercial center on 8.63 acres at the northeast corner of
Monterey Avenue and Country Club Drive, 73-100 Country Club
Drive.
APPLICANT: Robert Mayer Corp.
c/o Larry Brose
660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1050
Newport Beach, CA 92660
I. BACKGROUND:
March 1993 Gatlin Development attempted to obtain approval of a 3�4,433
square foot retail (Wal-Mart) center on 40 +/- acres at the northeast corner of
Country Club Drive and Monterey Avenue. Ultimately, the application was
denied.
May 1994 the Robert L. Mayer Trust filed a two-part application for the
property. It was proposed that a 9.1-acre lot be created at the northeast corner
of Country Club Drive and Monterey Avenue to be rezoned and designated in
the General Plan for District Commercial. A precise plan application proposed
approval of up to a 100,000 square foot neighborhood shopping center on the
9.1-acre site.
Secondly, the applicant proposed to subdivide the remainder of the site into 143
single family lots which was consistent with the density permitted in the PR-7
zone.
Ultimately, the tract map (Merano) was approved creating 127 single family
lots. The general plan amendment, change of zone and precise plan for up to
STAFF REPORT
CASE NOS. C/Z 04-06, PP 04-32 AND TT 33120
JUNE 7, 2005
100,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial was rejected by the City
Council.
June 1998 F& M Assaciates processed a request for approval of a precise plan
of design allowing a 87,774 square foot neighborhood commercial center. This
request was denied and the site on the corner rernains vacant.
This property was discussed at length by the City Council in the General Plan
Update hearings.
Council discussed mixed uses office/residential and commercial/residential.
Ultimately, on March 15, 2004 City Council on a 4-0 vote iFerguson absent)
designated this site as a mixed use commerciaf/residentiai specifically excluding
supermarket type uses (see minutes attached).
A. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:
North: PR-7 / single family dwellings
South: PC-2 / shopping center (former Albertsons)
East: PR-7 / retention basin
West: Rancho Mirage / vacant and single family dwellings
Southwest Corner:
Rancho Mirage / neighborhood center
B. SITE DESCRIPTION:
The site is 8.63 acres and has been rough graded. It is currently zoned
for medium density residential. Significant street improvements {an
additional traffic lane on Monterey and Country Club and a free flow
right-turn lane} were installed as part of the Merano project.
II. CURRENT PROPOSAL:
The applicant seeks approval of a change of zone, precise plan ofi design,
tentative tract map and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact) to
facilitate deve{opment of a mixed use residential (33 single family lots) and
commercial (30,550 square feet) neighborhood commercial center.
2
STAFF REP4RT
CASE NOS. C/Z 04-06, PP 04-32 AND TT 33120
JUNE 7, 2005
Specificaliy, the applicant proposes to rezone the 3.22 acres at the corner of
Monterey and Country Club from PR-7 to PC-2 (neighborhood commercial). On
this praperty the applicant proposes a 30,550 square foot commercial center
including a 14,731 square foat Walgreens drug store with dual drive-thru at the
corner, a 1 1,764 square foot multiple tenant building to the center and at the
north a 4,030 square foot commercial building.
On the remaining 5.41 acres zoned PR-7 to the east, the applicant proposes 33
single family lots with a two-story home on each.
A. ACCESS - CiRCULATION:
The mixed use project will utilize the existing Via Scena access from
Country Club Drive (full turning movements) for the main access to the
33 residential lots and add one new access to Country Cfub Drive and
one new access to Mon�erey Avenue. The new Country Club access,
located midway between Manterey and Via Scena, will provide a shared
right-in/right-out access to the residential portion and the commercia!
portion of the project.
The new Monterey Avenue access will provide three-way turning
movements (right in, right out and left in) to the commercial project.
fn the commercial part of the site two-way 24-foot minimum wide
driveways provide adequate circulatian. Three areas of the parking layout
end in dead-ends. The entry to these areas of the site shoufd be signed
to warn drivers of this condition (i.e., no exit).
In the residential tract a loop street system with 32-36 fioot wide streets
provides an acceptable street layout. The streets have built-in traffic
calming through the narrowing of traffic lanes to 24-28 feet.
Public Works has reviewed the access and circulation and finds it
acceptable.
3
�
STAFF REPORT
CASE NOS. C/Z 04-06, PP 04-32 AND TT 33120
JUNE 7, 2005
B. ARCHITECTURE:
Commercial Center
The commercial center architecture is a desert contemporary style
utilizing stone veneer columns, stucco walls, metal overhangs and
trellises, and strategically located awnings. April 26, 2005 ARC granted
preliminary approval subject to minor modifications which will be
reflected on the working drawings. The applicant has already changed the
Cape Cod blue areas to sage green.
Heights of the buildings range from 22 feet to 25 feet on the main
structures with tower elements varying from 28 feet to 33 feet. The
tower heights will need specific approval of the City Council.
Residential Area
The two-story residential units range in height from 22 feet 6 inches to
23 feet 4 inches. The architecture is a Santa Barbara look utilizing roof
tile, stone veneer accent columns and stucco walls.
Landscaae Desian
All perimeter landscaping will be consistent with the City's standards for
a desert landscape theme.
PROJECT DATA
TABLE 1
COMMERCIAL PORTION
PROJECT
ORDINANCE
PC-2 ZONE
Site Area
Building Area
Building Setbacks:
Country Club
Walgreens
On Corner
3.22 acres *
30,550 square feet
88 feet
100 feet from curb
130 feet from curb
5-15 acres
32 feet from p/I (property line)
25-33 feet from curb
66 feet from curb
�
STAFF REPORT
CASE NOS. C/Z 04-06, PP 04-32 AND TT 33120
JUNE 7, 2005
COMMERCIAL PORTION
Monterey
Walgreens
Multi Tenant
Dual Tenant
East
Walgreens
Muiti Tenant
Dual Tenant
North
Dual Tenant
Building Height:
Walgreens
Multi Tenant
North Building
Parking
PR(JJECT
ORDINANCE
PC-2 ZONE
83 feet 32 feet from p/I
155 feet from property line 32 feet from p/l
171 feet from curb 64 feet from curb
22 feet ** 32 feet from p!I
38 feet from curb 32 feet from p/I
25 feet from curb
45 feet
20 feet
148 feet
20 feet
20 feet
20 feet
20 feet * * *
Main 25 feet
Towers 31 ft & 33 ft
Main 23 feet
Towers 32 feet
Main 22 feet
Tower 28 feet
156 spaces
44 feet (2 x building height)
30 feet
30 feet
30 feet
153 spaces
* The project size is below the minimum prescribed in the ordinance.
** The northerly most building is setback 22 feet from the Monterey property line
versus the prescribed 32 feet from an arteria! street but does meet the distance
from curb criteria (38 feet from curb versus 25 feet from curb required).
*�* The north yard in this north building is adjacent to existing residentiaf to the
north. In this case the setback is prescribed at twice the building height (e.g.,
2 x 22 feet = 44 required}. The setback is 20 feet.
All of these issues can be handled as part of the Municipal Code "exceptions"
process for an acceptable project.
5
�
STAFF REPORT
CASE NOS. C/Z 04-06, PP 04-32 AND TT 33120
JUNE 7, 2005
RESIDENTIAL PORTION
Site Area
Average Lot Size
Minimum Lot Size
Interior Street Width
Parking
Maximum Density
Setbacks:
Country Club Drive
Front
Rear
Side Yard
TABLE 2
ORDINANCE
PROJECT PR-7 ZONE
5.41
5,050 square feet
4,700 square feet
32-36 feet *
2 garage spaces/home
plus driveway
6.01 upa
5-acre minimum
as approved
30-36 feet
2 covered spaces/home
plus half space
7 units/acre
28-36 feet*'� 32 feet
15 feet min, 20 feet to 20 feet
garage
20 feet 25 feet
5-10 feet min separation 15 feet each side
Minimum Separation 10 feet
Between 2nd Story Elements 10 feet
Coverage 36%-46°k
Building Height 22.5-23.5 feet
�
��
I11 �
10 feet
30 feet
25%
24 feet maximum
MEDIUM DENSITY
DEVELOPMENTSTANDARDS
PER RESOLUTION Q5-16
3,500 square feet average
3,000 square feet minimum
per general plan
15 feet - 20 feet front in
garage
20 feet
5 feet, 10 feet street side
yard
10 feet
10 feet
50%
24 feet - 2 story
Street widths vary from 32 feet to 36 feet with some sections of traffic calming
where they narrow to 24 and 28 feet.
Setback is acceptable per averaging provisions of code.
ANALYSIS:
This property was the subject of considerable discussion during the general plan
update public hearings. Ultimately, the City Council on a 4-0 vote designated
the site "Mixed Use - Commercial/High Density Residential." The current
proposal fits the mixed use designation.
A. RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT:
The 33 single family residential lots are consistent with the current PR-7
zoning which permits a range of housing types. Previously we did not
have a specific policy with respect to medium density housing standards
C
STAFF REPORT
CASE NOS. CIZ 04-06, PP 04-32 AND TT 33120
JUNE 7, 2005
(i.e., lot sizes, setbacks) and relied on the exception clause of the PR
zone.
February 10, 2005 City Council per Resolution 05-16 adopted the
medium density development standards (copy attached) which
established required minimum lot size (3,000 square feet►, minimum
average lot size (3,500 square feet) and revised required setbacks in
medium density projects. This residential project complies with the PR-7
zone density and with the provisions of inedium density development
standards as follows:
CRITERIA
Average Lot Size
Minimum Lot Size
B.
PROJECT
5,050 sq.ft.
4,700 sq.ft.
MEDIUM DENSITY
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
3,500 square feet
3,000 square feet
Setbacks and building heights are also consistent with the medium
density development standards as shown in Table 2.
The PR district permits two-story structures but requires single-story
when immediately adjacent to single story units. The Merano dwellings
adjacent to this site are single story and are limited to single story
pursuant to a condition on that approval. Accordingly, staff recommends
that the unit on Lot 33 be limited to single story 18 feet in height.
COMMERCIAL COMPONENT:
The applicant proposes a small (3.22 acre) neighborhood commercial
center on the corner. Staff is on record as supporting the three previous
commercial development proposals on the site. Residential development
does not belong at one of the most heavily traveled intersections in the
valley.
The reduced size of the commercial component is a result of two factors.
First, there is only 8.63 acres of vacant land, as much was previously
used in the Merano tract and the very significant street improvements
which were previously installed at the Monterey Avenue and Country
Club Drive intersection. The second reason for the reduced size is the
7
STAFF REPORT
CASE NOS. C/Z 04-06, PP 04-32 AND TT 33120
JUNE 7, 2005
requirement for a"mixed use" project. Both the PR and the PC-2 zone
provisions require a minimum five-acre project size. With only 8.63 acres,
this is not possible. The drug store and other small commercial uses will
provide convenient services to the adjacent residents.
Even with its reduced size the commercial project as designed has
adequate access, circulation and parking and will create an attractive
architectural statement.
The code specifies two ways to review the project setback from
Monterey Avenue. The north building meets the one foot of setback per
foot of building height measured from curbline, but does not meet the
32-foot setback from property line requirement.
The code also specifies two ways to review setbacks from the adjacent
residential development. First, the code specifies a basic 20 foot setback
then it also requires two feet of setback for each foot of building height.
The north building meets the 20 foot basic setback, but not the two feet
of setback per foot of building height. In this instance we feel that the 20
feet of landscaping is preferable to 44 feet because an area 44-feet wide
would likely be used for parking, driveway or loading which would be
more objectionable than 20 feet of landscaping.
All of these setback shortfalls can be attributed to the project size and
can be approved through the "exceptions" process for an acceptable
development.
Landscaping along the perimeter of the site will be a minimum of 20 feet
deep, excluding the eight-foot sidewalk. The �andscape Manager has
reviewed and approved in concept the landscape plan, but notes
concerns with certain plant selections and placement of some species.
As noted previously, certain areas of the parking lot end in "dead ends."
This is due to the limited size of the site and Public Works' requirement
for a deep access throat without driveway access. A condition in the
draft resolution requires that these "dead end" areas be signed "no exit"
to warn drivers. Staff is concerned that lighting in the northerly most
parking area has the potential to impact residents to the north.
Accordingly, staff has inserted a condition limiting parking lot light
�
STAFF REPORT
CASE NOS. C/Z 04-06, PP 04-32 AND TT 33120
JUNE 7, 2005
standards in that area to bollard lights maximum four feet in height and
that there be no exterior lights on the north ends of the multi-tenant
building (Lot No. 34) and the small northerly most building (Lot No. 35).
Sunline Transit requests that a bus shelter be provided on the north side
of Country Club Drive west of Via Scena. The applicant will not be
required to provide the bus pull out, but will be required to design and
construct an architecturally acceptable bus shelter. �
IV. CONCLUSION:
The project implements the mixed use commercial/residential goals identified in
the General Plan.
RESIDENTIAL:
While the residential lot size (5,050 square foot average) is smaller than those
in Merano to the north (6,534 square feet to 10,890 square feet) this project
is a logical transition between Merano and the arterial traffic on Country Club
Drive and it complies with the density goals of the General Plan.
The project as designed and conditioned is consistent with the medium density
development standards and the provisions of the PR district. The overall
neighborhood design will provide an attractive and desirable residential
environment.
COMMERCIAL:
The commercial portion of the project has adequate access, circulation and
parking and will create an attractive architectural appearance. The minimum 20-
foot wide landscape planter areas will allow for effective landscape treatment.
V. RECOMMENDATION:
That Planning Commission adopt the findings and Planning Commission
Resolution No. , recommending to City Council approval of Case Nos. C/Z
04-06, PP 04-32 and TT 33120, subject to conditions.
0
STAFF REPORT
CASE NOS. C!Z 04-06, PP 04-32 AND TT 33120
JUNE 7, 2005
VI. ATTACHMENTS:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Prepared by:
Draft resolution
Legai notice
Initial Study
Environmental Checklist
Camments from city departments and other agencies
Plans and exhibits
-������? �..P �
. - -
Steve Smith
Planning Manager
Review and Concur:
Homer Croy
ACM for Development Services
/tm
Reviewed and Approved by:
�...,� �
Phil Drell
Director of Community Development
10
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2336
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE
FROM PR-7 TO PC-2 FOR 3.22 ACRES, A PRECISE PLAN
OF DESIGN, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR A
MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL {33 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS) AND
COMMERCIAL (30,550 SQUARE FEET) NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL CENTER PROJECT ON 8.63 ACRES AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF MONTEREY AVENUE AND
COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE, 73-100 COUNTRY GLUB DRIVE.
CASE NOS. C/Z 04-06. PP 04-32 AND TT 339 20
WHEREAS, the Pianning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did
on the 7th day of June, 2005, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the
requsst of ROBERT MAYER CORP.; 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. 04-106," in that the Director of Community Development has
determined that the project will not have a negative impact on the environment and
that a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be certified; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all tesfiimony
and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning
Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify the
recommendation of granting approval of said change of zone, precise plan and
tentative tract map: �
CHANGE OF ZONE
1. The requested change of zone is consistent with the mixed use
cornmercial / residential genera! plan designation.
PRECISE PLAN
1. The design of the precise plan will not substantially depreciate property
values, nor be materially injurious to properties or improvements in, the
vicinity.
2. The precise plan will not unreasonably interfere with the use ar
enjoyment of property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof fior lawful
purposes,
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2336
3. The precise plan will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or
general welfare.
4. The precise plan for the commercial portion of the project will be
consistent with the PC-2 zoning, except for the minimum project size
3.22 acres versus 5 acres, the north building north setback, and the
street setback of the north building 20 feet versus 32 feet from curb all
of which can be approved as part of the "exception" process.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
1. That the proposed project is consistent with applicable general plan as
amended.
2. That the design or improvement of the proposed project is consistent
with applicable general plan, the PR zoning, the PC-2 zoning except for
certain provisions for which an exception is sought, and the medium
density development standards per Resolution No. 05-16.
3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development.
4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of
development.
5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not
likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are not
likely to cause serious public health problems.
7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not
conflict with easeme`nts, acquired by the public at large, for access
through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.
8. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not
restrict solar access to the property.
WHEREAS, in the review of this tentative tract map the Planning Commission
has considered the effect of the contemplated action on the housing needs of the
2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2336
region for purposes of balancing these needs against the pubiic service needs of the
residents of the city of Patm Desert and its environs, with available fiscal and
environmental resources; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of Palm Desert, California, as follows:
1.
2.
That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings
of the Commission in this case.
That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, Exhibit A attached,
be recommended to the City Council for certification.
3. That Precise Plan 04-32 and the above described Tentative Tract Map
No. 33120 be recommended for approval to the City Council, including
the commercial project size deficiency and the setback exceptions noted
in the June 7, 2005 staff � report, subject to the conditions, Exhibit B
attached.
4. That Change of Zone 04-06 changing the zone for 3.22 acres at the
northeast corner of Monterey Avenue and Country Club Drive from PR-7
to PC-2 be recommended to the City Council for approval, Exhibit C
attached.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Ptanning Commission, held on this 7th day of June, 2005, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: JONATHAN, LOPEZ, TSCHOPP
NOES: CAMPBELL, FINERTY
ABSENT: NONE '
ABSTAIN: NONE
DAVID E. TSCHOPP, Chairperson
ATTEST:
�.- � �o�� .
PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
�
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2336
EXHIBIT A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
4
��
CASE NOS: C/Z 04-06, PP 04-32 and TT 33120
APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Robert Mayer Corp.
c/o Larry Brose
660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1050
Newport Beach, CA 92660
PROJECT DESCRIPTION�LOCATION:
A change of zone from PR-7 to PC-2 for 3.22 acres, a precise plan of design, tentative
tract map and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for a mixed use
residential (33 single family lots) and commercial (30,550 square feet) neighborhood
commercial center project on 8.63 acres at the northeast corner of Monterey Avenue
and Country Club Drive, 73-100 Country Club Drive.
The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert,
California, has faund that the described project will not have a significant effect on the
environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons
in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid
potentially significant effects, may also be found attached.
_ ��..,f�
June 7. 2005
PHILIP DRELL - DATE
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2336
C���l f=3 � i=3
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NOS. PP 04-32 AND TT 33120
Deaartment of Communitv Develonment:
1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file
with the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following
conditions.
2. Recordation of the final map shall occur within 24 months from the date of final
approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval shall
become null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the
restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal
ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may
be in force.
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated
by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from
the following agencies:
Coachella Valley Water District
Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission
City Fire Marshal
Public Works Department
Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented
to the Department of Building and Safety at the time of issuance of a building
permit for the use contemplated herewith.
5. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public
Works prior to Architectural Review Commission submittal.
6. All onsite utilities shall be underground.
4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2336
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. The project shal! be subject to all applicable fees at time of issuance of permits
including, but not limited to, Art in Public Places, TUMF and School Mitigation
fees.
9. That per Municipal Code Section 25.24.321 the dwelling on Lot No. 33 shall be
singie story with height not to exceed 18 feet. The design of the dwelling may
be approved by the Director of Community Development.
10. That any parking lot lights in the north parking area shali be bollard type lights
maximum four (4} feefi in height and that there shall be no building maunted
lights on the north ends of the buildings on Lot Nos. 34 and 35.
11. That the applicant shall construct a bus shelter to be installed on property
located west of Via Scena on the north side of Country Club Drive.
12. That the applicant shall obtain approval of Waste Management and the Director
of Community Development for location of all on-site trash enclosures. Trash
enclosures shall not be located in the north row of parking in the north parking
area (i.e., adjacent to the rear yards of the existing homes on Strada Fortuna).
13. That the owner shall record a deed restriction prohibiting a food store in excess
of 15,000 square feet on Lot Nos. 34, 35 and 36 of TT 33120.
Riverside Countv Fire Department:
1. With respect fio the conditions of approva! regarding the above referenced
praject, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures
be provided in accordance with City Municipal Codes, appropriate NFPA
Standards, CFC, and CBC and/or recognized fire protection standards.
C�
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2336
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial buildings per UFC article 87.
2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20 psi residual operating
pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job
site.
3. Provide, or show there exists, a water system capable of providing a gpm flow
of 1,500 gpm for single family dwellings and 3,000 gpm for commercial
buildings.
4. The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant(s)
(4"x2-1 /2"x2-1 /2"?, located not less than 25' nor more than 200' from any
portion of a single family dwelling measured via vehicular travelway and 150'
from any portion of a commercial building measured via vehicular travelway.
5. Water plans must be approved by the Fire Marsha{ and include verification that
the water system will produce the required fire f{ow.
6. fnstall a compfete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This appfies to all buildings with
a 3000 square foot total cumulative flaor area. The fire Marshal shalf approve the
locations ofi 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.
7. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and Water-
flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per CBC Chapter 9.
8. Install a fire alarm system as required by the UBC Chapter 3.
9. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than one 2A10BC
extinguisher per 3,000 square feet and not over 75' walking distance. A"K"
type fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens.
10. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within
150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall
be not 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
7
�
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2336
of 150' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn-around 55' in
industrial developments.
11. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates,
barriers or other means, provisions shall be made to install a"Knox Box" key
over-ride system to allow for emergency vehicle access. Minimum gate width
shall be 16" with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6".
12. This project may require licensing by a state or county agency; to facilitate plan
review the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Marshal a letter of
intent detailing the proposed usage and occupancy type.
13. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the City.
14. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must
be submitted separately to the Fire Marshal for approval prior to construction.
15. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or
when building permits are not obtained within 12 months.
16. All elevators shall be minimum gurney size.
Denartment of Public Works:
GENERAL
1. Landscaping maintenance of any common areas shall be provided by the homeowners
association for the residential portion and the property owner for the commercial portion.
Landscape treatment shall be water efficient in nature and shall be in accordance with
the City of Palm Desert landscape design standards. Applicant shall be responsible for
executing a declaration of Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions, which declaration
shall be approved by the City of Palm Desert and recorded with the County Recorder.
The declaration shall specify: (a) the applicant shall oversee the formation of a property
owners association; (b) the property owners association shall be formed prior to the
recordation of the Map; and (c) the aforementioned landscaping shall be the
responsibility of the property owners association. Landscaping plans shall be submitted
for review simultaneously with grading plans.
2. 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.
0
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2336
3. The maintenance of the retention areas shall be by the homeowners association.
BONDS AND FEES
4. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code
shall be paid prior to recordation of final map.
5. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Reso�ution Nos. 79-17 and
79-55, shall be paid prior to recordation of final map.
6. The project shall be subject to Transporfiation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF).
Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance.
7. A standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits.
DESIGN PLANS
8. Storm drain/retention area design and construction shall be contingent upon a drainage
study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the
Department of Public Works prior to start of construction. Project is required to retain
on-site, a 25 year storm and conform to the Merano Drainage Master Plan. If the existing
retention basin is used, then a sub-surface nuisance water retention/infiltration system
shall be installed and the developer shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the
owner of the basin.
9. Complete grading and improvement plans and specifications on electronic files shall be
submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance
of any permits.
10. Improvement plans for utility systems shall be approved by the respective provider or
service districts with "as-built" plans submitted to the Department of Public Works prior
to project final. Utility plans shall be submitted to the public works department for
improvements in the public right of way prior to issuance of any permits.
11. Complete tract map shall be submitted as required by ordinance to the Director of Public
Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits.
12. 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.
13. Pad elevations, as shown on the tentative map are subject to review and modification
in accordance with Chapter 26 of the Palm Desert Municipal Gode.
�7
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2336
14. Waiver of access to Monterey Avenue, and Country Club Drive, except at approved
locations, shall be granted on the final map.
15. Project shall retain nuisance waters on-site.
REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION
16. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert
Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with app(icable City standards.
8' meandering sidewalk required on Monterey Avenue and Country Club Drive.
Rights-of-way necessary for the installation of the above referenced improvements
shall be dedicated to the city with the recordation of the tentative map associated
with this project.
17. (Left blank on original.)
18, All public improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works and a
standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits. No occupancy
permit shall be granted until public improvements have been completed.
19. Traffic safety striping shall be installed to the specifications of the Director of Public
Works. A traffic control plan must be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of
Public Works prior to the placement of any pavement markings.
20. Full improvements of interior streets based on residential street standards in
accordance with Section 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code shall be provided.
21. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public
Works.
22. Applicant shall comply with provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 24.12,
Fugitive Dust Control as well as Section 24.20, Stormwater Management and Discharge
Control.
23. Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to the
Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit for storm water discharges
10
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2336
associated with construction. Developer must contact Riverside County Flood Control
District for informational materials.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
24. Developer shall design and construct a signal at the Via Scena intersection with Country
Club Drive and enter into a maintenance agreement for 25% of the signal maintenance
costs.
25. Developer shall construct a landscaped center median on Monterey Avenue to the
northerly extension of Tract 27882 in connection with the left-turn lane entering the
project from southbound Monterey Avenue. Planning Commission determined that
the developer should only be responsible for paying any amount over and above
that contributed through the assessment district.
ll
11
1
�
V1A
BARB4T0
i r—�O
�
a
�
�
�
Z
0
�
Subje�t
- Property
4;
—�.
�
IIII_IIAIIIII
STR`ADA N 4V � �
� L� I I I
� � � I I I
�o P R• �l� CORTE J
l
� SOLE ,�AN� MARCO �
—_
� ��
� ST��A � FO R'f1J Np .�
I / — I
� -
P.R:-7
�
CORT�t►
P.R.-7 p�{ I �
� �
:
,\ � �
. .
COUNTRY CLUB-DR
P. C.-(2)
�
City of Palm Desert
,_� ��
•�+�r .:;
..�.
�N�-�.�,� � � �
�� �R; ?� s000�s
�+` SAG
�j;e�'� ���oa
� y o�
�
� WER ORCHIDTREE
Case No. C/Z 04-06
CHANGE OF ZONE
������� �
04`
aoo
��
�
�
s�L�REE _
CT
4p
J�
�����
P� �s w /
Proposed
Zoning Change
���
P.R.-7
To
P.C.{2)
PLANN/NG COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 2336
Date: June 7, 2oos
CITY Of P�l�l DESERT
�3—SIO FRBD WARING DR1VE
PALM DfiSfiRT,CALIFORN[A 922i0-2575
raL: 760 346—o6x:
Pnx:76o 34i-7o98
info�palm-desett.org
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NOS. C!Z 04-06, PP 04-32 AND TT 33120
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning
Commission to consider a request by ROBERT MAYER CORP. for approval of a series of
applications (change of zone, precise plan of design, tentative tract map and Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact? to facilitate development of a mixed use residential (33
single family lots) and commercial (30,550 square feet) neighborhood commercial center on
8.63 acres at the northeast corner of Monterey Avenue and Country Club Drive, 73-100
Country Club Drive.
."'� .. , �I
� � ��i`�
� ■■�//II
�►j� . . ,�. _
���```�.
.. t- •__
— . , . ,... , ,,
�
�
i� � 1..--�
�
SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 7, 2005, 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 pers.ons 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 �aised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in
written corresponde�ce delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public
hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
May 26, 2005 Palm Desert Planning Commission
\\\\\\\ � '
—CCUNTRY CLUB•Df1
�illiam L. Doyle
131 Via Scena
Palm Desert, CA 92260
May 31,2005
City of Palm Desert
Planning Commission .
73-5 I O Fred Waring Dive
Palm Desert, CA 92260-2�78
Subjeci: Case Nos. C/Z 04-06, PP 04-32 AND TT 33120
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I-i,E�EIVE�
MAY 3 1 2�
COMMUNITY DEVEL�PMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF PALM d�SERT
I am a homeowner in the Merano Community and own one af the homes bordering the
above proposed developmen# to the east, at 131 Via Scena.
I have seen the proposed development plan and have some concerns as to how it will
impact my property and others on Via Scena, as well as those homes bordering the
project to the north along Strata Fortuna. One concern is t�e fact that the proposed homes
are two-story instead of keeping with the existing one-story homes in Merano.
My main issue is with the proposed Acacia Salicina trees to border the Merano
Community, directly lining our backyards. This particular tree is one that produces
yellow flowers, pods and leaves that cantinuously clrop to the ground. And with the
desert wind this debris will blow to adjacent properties. This causes a risk to having it
accumulate in our pools and clogging the filters and other equipment. I know personally
how messy these particular trees are, as I recently had one removed from my front yard.
Other negative characteristics af the Acacia Salicina tree is that they attract the nesting of
pests such as bag shelter moths and webbing ca#erpillars. Blossom gall fly (cecidomyia)
Zay sma11 maggots that attack the flower buds. Ga11s are difficult to control and my
concern is not what they may do to the trees they are ne�ted in, but what effect they will
have on my trees and yard. I have spent thousands of c3ollars on my backyard
landscaping and making it a place to relax and enjoy the beautiful elements of the desert
and view. I do not want this ruined by a fast growing messy tree that will attract pests.
I have discussed the praposed trees to border our properties with my neighbors and we
agree that the Acacia Salicina tree is one we do not want in our backyards. We
City of Palm Desert
Case Nos. C/Z 04-06, PP 04-32 AND TT 33120
May 31, 2005
understand the desire of the owner af the corner property wanting to develop this land,
however ask that he be attentive to our concerns about what is planted next to our
property. We strongly suggest the Queen Palms, which are clean and provide the
ambience of the desert, as an al#ernative.
I would appreciate your attention to my request prior to the public h�earing concerning
this project on Tuesday, June 7, 2005, at 6:00 p.m. I will be unable to attend this meeting
as I will be out of town. Please send future correspondence or reply to me at my home
address in Washington state, 5117 Illahee Lane N.E., Olympia, WA 9851b.
Sincerely,
��/J� f�� ,, ->
William L. Doyie
760-b74-2438
360-456-8126
360-481-3250 (cell)
AttachmenYs: Acacia Salicina tree information
CC: Bonnie Hagerman, Desert Managment
Michael Carle, Merano Homeowners Association Board of Directors
:! �� . ! �• � � 1 -
� •. .
i+��,��� ; ��� � IY I� �� C'.coarba i, a lazgt: vwatHe that is moderaQety fast g: anaiIng
.'p� andlon�lived. E1lthough itvariesinform, itisusuaillyan
: , - � upiigrnta�withawen�efl�edmainsteenattdweeping
-�°'T�'` �' foliage. `I'he altEer�e corrarnon a�aane of nauve wiltaw
refeastathe j thisspecieshattatD�ewecpingwillowa��gernuSa�Kandm�q�Ythe�eti�dsivativeof.f�df-t�
Acaoa� fa�Dand��.withtol�arroetodmught>wat�rloggiregar�isalir�errvi�ur�ts•ltnatuialiy�nsa�a
d�e plains courrtry4 ��S P� az�d intetsr�ittent watam�atses, pe�fotarain�g be� anthe bett�-�air�d a+er] eattl�s.
�ri8� P�PIe used coohafoliage for healirig wounds. TTt� d�e bacit, wt�nthrown uuo areas of stiliwater. cete�cdeaadc� that
waild s[un Rsh ar� bring thern to the su�Ce. A simila� hurnnv�g paadiae was urr�taken to s�upefy �rnus t]rintdn� f�m waterholes.
Thewoodwasutilisedf� �duhs,and�eed�f�o�unpti�.Ash�anduaedfrn�rr►bturringtdeeleavesw�ro2lad
withpitirzileaves (Dulavida%aPct�odi')andd�ewedtoc�ratear►a�x�ticaffect. C'oobak�est�veahiglncalciumsrilphatecontentandit
isthoughtthatet�easka �aalitat,edttneslowielease ofti�ee aIIcaI�dcoinporient (nic�) �pitwi�.
Sincethemid 1�`` oe�turycoohat�aataldahistcay �`timbesa�a�.Ra��lf�itsbeautf�islSgiaefoeral�r�etandfiurdtua�wcxk.
the timber was also ublised by wheelwrlghts ff� fashimin� biilla3c yolces ar�d c�t st�is. It rs mnmldeteti fo be an euceiflent beading and
moulding�imbex:
Ac�aas�liev�i�as beenglantedinNorthAfricaandthe MidcIle Eastasan�c�cuttys�xies, inwindb�eaks. f�its f�ddervaiur,and
ab�ity to sta6�e sand d�mes ar� cwntrol st�arrs hank aasiaae.
s -. ;r_ - ,
.w',3.: u,,��,. .
���� , �
, �
,�+ji,L'�#��%' ; �,; . ; ��7��L"Q�t'eS
� :�' �
'� � �ie. I ' . .
' . '.� ����� '��'?�— :��4 ��� .
� �C�ICt� ' �IF� pOstS .
, t%r'. '
�ir�vvc►a�<�' .�a►+rns c,�art a»d bot
I3espite ils�tiovvproste ine.x�3ng«aftwooa acr�s�ialtycimhermarkets, this�eaes
�oduces a unique tlmber ihat is lcnawn to rival more pD�ular watde tirr�be�s such as
bl�ckwood, gid� aaxi mulga. This provides a cl�' market3ng aclvantage.
� Acacia salicina pro,ducrs an cxcellent rpdci�a/ty tamber witb potcneral ac a co'rs ° spessts m tbe 7rorth er,�"tbe aegion. �
�' e— � ��I � ��II I I. �I� " flqda saliana usually gr�ws up to 15 a�tre�. thou�h larges sp�r�ns have t�era
W reoo�ed with uvnk diameh3s aver a[r��.'Ihe trees app�areoe is very mudh Hke
tt►at of a willaw wit7�a a well-defir�ed main �em. forking habit and several draaPing
braa�. `I�e barlc is solid. thickiy scaled and fi�meci. It is g�y tn gr�..y-brawn in
colour and be�oara� meaotY�r on uppes' biar�ckies. The hark dark�s wath aga su�d has a high taav�in oomesat
,�n,enile foliage of seedii'u�gs F� bipim�ate ,3,a.a,,«:�. Tt� �no� a�� s�y �m tu�e �s corr� b�r�s �,c�uy
flattenc arrllengd�, forming PhYltodcc U�at resernbte aad fimcdon as Uve kaves. h� w�t� �ies have U� �lc.'Tt�
phyIlodes on Acadas�lictirraane a paleforestgreen and oftenstww dts�nctvarBatlon in foem. They may be broad artd lir�ar or a Y�aemw-
��, ��we�n 4�a 17cm �n �r�cn ana 4�0 20rnm wide.'Tr� �nyn«� a� c� c� ana a�y, wrc�a a�m�c �a-rv,
and taper at both eru3s. Two srnall glareds are 1«ated on tk� internal edge of tts�: Icgf,
orae a�r t}� ha9e arid the at}�- tawards t}� tip. �� �i I I� i' i IIjV `I� � I� i�
H�lawers are glo(xilar, �le Yellow, and c�riecl on stallu arLsing fin�n the k�-af �d1 Th�y '� • s� �i,� I I
are 5 to lOmm in diaer�ter and rrm3Y aPl�u' ciente�+ed� thou� a�e usualty s¢igular or
gouY�d'us pairs.TheseEdpods are p�aumusandmay semain green foa� a long period.�Y71e
seed form when mrx�a� are conducive to cleveloprr�nt (seedpods should be ct�edced 5eed $2iS0 so $23�0 �tite' �g
before �Ile�ting), and the pais becorr� woaiy a� ashen in colair � they matufe. The
p� are often straight or slightly aarved. 4 to 12cm long and up to 15mm �enss."I'he A�riary Ssrpplses of poAdead
funicle of the seed (urnbilical attachm�t to the pod) 3s thick ar� d�eP red or orange �
colaar.T�cokwrati�po�ibly�stoatirdc;tbudstotheseee}.'��eclitselfisagl�sy g� Hf�di Pamain tarattnt
clartc brown to bla�ic. 4 to 8mm Iong and 3 ta 6mm �. `,
.9r�ia .ralic�na wID sucker il' its roots are or �.ike all wattles ar�d go� 3 If:8b1,�'.P�vlrttabde fadder
��5' � �:'
k�umcs. Ac�a .sandr� fom�s root reodu�es that cpnYain rai��oge�n-�hfB�'ia Rhizn-
biw7x �Thissymilsi�ic a�ciation improv�s nitrogen avail�kutlpE�arid c�t�u¢a��ificant $ 0 �rjfble seta�
effecY oa� �il r�itrogen levels. , i
,,. G�,�,'y' ,o �� � -�... .r
`� � d
�
�. r�� i '�� il �
� — o s— ��
Irn the North Central i2egiosa floweas
aae often pro¢iuced late summer to early
winter, though cootxa has an erratic
flowesirag habit and cltasters may ap�as'
at any time of year. Seeclpc,ds easually
rigere the following summer.
viabi@aep �Ii�n .,
P'se-tra�at�c�t a�q� 1'es :
ai � 2,5°�
t�
oe�cecls Pee . (aPpeoz.) 15-25 p
� Scerle�atingbin�ancfwai�amaverreeratfacilitates
• cllspedsalforthisspeaie,s.Con�tlys�edHn�
often erx�ge �det 2hx canajry of e�dsrtu�g t�s
aaul along riparian 7nr�s. Ar�ts may aLso collect t9�e s�d in order to fe�i on the fuaiicle
attar,hment an�i h�ace as�st ' Tk� � may be cli�ccilt to remove from the pod
due ta ttae la�e fleshy funicfle. ake rare in se�r�idng seeds from ta� pat, aS dust from ti�
maY pmve iaritat3ng. A dcut mas[t may be requit�l.
Clear►s� bastnredawrayfivm�niigtrt�a�a000ldrypl�ewxtha�quaUeFuotec,-Hon
froms�tsand�zr►ts.As�sck�of extoi�t tYablet(ziichY }
may be usefui � seeds ace to be � an a con�dr�es or lsag for an extend� perial. Ca�e
shaildt�tatcen wY�at usirsg areyofthese �uc-�r.Tr� hazd-oaatedseed �cocsba fa�ilitates
�ttnaret,y and pmmotes lor�gevily.
Lilce m�tevattlas. tk�s�9 of At�ta,salidnas�equiit�sorne jsr�-tr�atmenY in ondecY.a�achieu�
a high rate of germinal:iorn. A simple and d%ctii�e appr�ch is to pl�e ti� s�1s in a cara-
taireer and i6ll wit}r boil3ng w�Y�: Sdr the rnixttere t� clis�sse t{� heat � seed� have
settied, a�orrviable �d fl�tlrag at tix surFace shauld he . Give the viab]e �t9
sufficiertt iame to s�alc before . Watl,in� 24 haurs the s�d unxally swre}1s aaid the
daiic c�t . Seeds can be svw�1 into c�7tainees u�rag a suitable s�d-saismg me-
dium, or in favoeuabie eonrli0t� direct-see�ed. For geamirru�on, a t ure
of around 25°C av,d adequate lighe anc9 mo�.scuna wlll be rieeded.'I'ake «�re wFsen wat�`In�
� as not t� dislodge the sced or dislu�b deveto�aing roots.
Germinat3on of viable s�d usuaIly �uis witiun four weeks.
�j Jl..ii„��I �'�i � i�Q 'li�ll�l'I� �°'i �I� !1(.�u.7A,4�1�C7/23�S31DI�C�15t19�]SdL7Q71, .,,;; !uq' .p���•,�,,A; }, . <. _ .,' ��
O Y 1 • occumng rmtt��agl�tY irt a11p5�t��ate�sy �2�xC7Cpt i�:a ,:i,�;', �cY�,. �� ; ; • �,- � , `' a,�,
7.�TIaTl18 � YViSiP.I7l t9lL`illdlm. li$ IYB83Y% �sg, ii+ '� +�� +j:t" i�,OY ,. `k. �4'.`f �5'�.
N:y;.s
F.. �
ttFC ILI�TIt� O� ,;;,�.,� _, �',�r;� ,` ;.: �
C.(X.tAI1Ei1Q:E 1S Ti'OIIi1�(d .
Cr
TI� Dividing 42aeege. It extends frocrt ti�Yor9ce I'e�insula in Sauth Austr2lia sn a rtoatla .'�'�` r;�`�`: ,�'�,; ''f ',�,.k',;'' "�"
4�x:`.' ;'' °`�
weseerly band to centrai Aus�ralsa. Headin east acro� the counuy, it continues aci+oss the ;' �y �`� �'
;;';' ��,� ,
p]�irts arac� ov� t� divide to tF� ca�t iea (�u�nsland, P.xtending to `Fovvrtsville in the , .;� ;,�. ``,�;
,'i' ��s�;�� �,�.�r '�.� .y.^;
n o r t h an d e l re � re ier wi t h New S a a x t h V� I a l e s in t h e s o u t h.' I T� e ma'or a�ea o f c i i s t r i b u ticn `:.:', � � `'° ^ h
j� . . � �., �;,, : C�. � ♦
cerntres over �uthem and cenYxal �nd m� of inlanai Nerov South Wales. ` s�' � A y '.� :E �:�": i< A
Occurrence ira the North Cermal Catchmerat Yegion just nmrth of Beradrgo, azacB '�, r�` ,� ,�`��,Y
ext� in a n�7h-w�t,�$�� clirection al��p the r ' er. �,` '-'a �;., ; `
u'Y "_'b � �8� ��.i1 �g� �$�'i
Ttv.s nepe�ts a latitude sange fivrn 19-37° �wth of the �uator. ;. ' � . , ;�, � ' '^� .`7 "�` ` ;
=n ; � �i�": x,.. �Y
The dienate mver 000ba's aange cavers warm saeb-hucnid a.oa� anzi semi-arid climatcc, wa�tta ---,. �,._ �
ea�r►sion into the arld wne along waiercours�� or whem suppiemeai�uy soil moistua� is `» ...,,
avaitable. The craaan maxim�,en teang�aacure ira c&�e hottest monrh is 32-38°C and t3ie meara minimcaen 4-�°�. In soane �rts of its
distrihetdon it may receive up to 12 fivsts p�r gr�u: This coraesposxls to its low to moderate frost toleearace, t7wugPa s�:irne�.shave beera
su�'iiily in Hvg}�r isnst ae�.
a�«�:,i w:a�nr�i .�,,, ''�r�infall�erallY ranges from 2�0 to 55(hnrri. The altitude aarege is frnm rtear
Less mar. A;:�;rron�(,�Swan kiR � �� � ��
:OU-':OUrim �
;��^`� ss�i �u::r�m ��. C.,1��pt,,rn is preLd,�oa�n�in�a,n,Jtly a fl�cpm,��cgl�-�pla,��y�a� �species, o.,�c,.c.u8rring on a—lluJv�i,,a�.�l t{e�,r,r�a,^inl^.�S.�o.,.i,.ls8
COD'4iiOMBtt Jf [9 � 1l&.IISI-0c�lJ1VW91s8lYl.�VCI1YltJ1aY..R1l1g�rG41a8LL��1CUa11U1l��l/IIJAI]cA]
3LT0 - rSD;f.'nr�ti n : brawn soils, l�xrs, calcaeeous and san soi�. T'hey may be low Qr moclerately
,��yyu�n J feaYslesails,aadcar�bealkal�neossaline.�may�acctcarlesarecid�,lunettesartti
✓ aa
�. �y` . ti'�ty��,h�,ro� ,, ` ;nc;,;�a riverbanks. arxi it will oftere geiminate along a�dsides anel cBZararael eanfl�anlancnts.
1 .Ctz�rton �9e�cia.salicdnaap�seass rr�vnl in op2n waadland and is �ociabed with eucalypt
�; ., f�+�'� ,, sp� es such � river red gum rvrna ' narrow-leafeci aEd ironbacic
+ E�'a, ye�low bnx E. rrarllr� farest red gurn E tereiitru7vsand
� ; +� , ,n� a �y• � ryIlaInan�nycomrria�itiesit�oftenana�aancEartts�cies,
�' �curring wiPh oei�s waflttes such as eumong Ac�acra stenophy/da, brigalow fl.
'� y da, m A�ar�rnaand A. : It �;cuas in woad and
°L..� :* • ',: , . ��i-i3 � �� S�Y
;� ,.,. . .. � shavb-lazids� arxi witfl�a satt bassh irn �mi-ar�d zones.
Recoaeercaey►cic�d esta3ulishrraent d�nsi8y
10�0 trcea ger,a 6ecmre � 4 a 2.Sm s �
:. ,�;%1: �;.
�:��x;' �`� :�: ,�,:
�
T�he dishilaastiors of Ac�a .salicana has � clepleted due to clearing arxi sul�-
r�uent g�a�aag pre�e. Its depletiore was noteci as far bacic as 1889 due to etxe
Pu�risility of stock to che foliage aexi gerrcun�tirog s�ings� anci i4s esse as drauught
focider. C� is si�t f�nd scatte.cer� throughout tfie rtorkhern par[ of the s�ion,
acc�iorially along roadside.c ar�f rnaanly �a aeeas a�ociateal wid� ri�arian and flaad
wrees. It ms enfieq���Y Planted in towns, usualiy in open publ% areas.
,: . r�� i, , �,' n�... . , " s .k � .
,,,'�,�;;�,� ,,,�,:° �:�i; `''' � " ri � yi ��i�,i ��� �i�� �
Tl�e distribution of .9cacia salici�aa
�� ��' � �`✓��;'•. '�`�t�;�` p,'�"Rk : rz' • " m � �ugh central and easteen Australia
r �;�k � a k,w ;'• ;� , g � _� -^ encompasses a twide ran�e of envimn-
t.,. � .,, r r�. u a',
•;,<,� :A :,;: - '�, rnerets. It g�eforms lx�st with acce� to groaued or flood water on loamier saiLs.
�� '�'�s' i�° �` It is ]ikel to re,c nd 8ive1 to irri at3on wttere ad uake dra3na e e�asts.
y;''.,�r , j . .. ,, f^, ' ,. . , . y Y Po � Y � � �
, �: � �: �>:i'�-�a ',i '�,�§qr;, ,- ; �.,, ;w::,
�;' �.'�,'``'�w„ .&.' .;� �:➢ :°:, and grows in boih acid and alkaline situations. Cooba is moderately taleraret
;°�� �T�; �:;, , a�!_v':�;� of drought and will withstand pericds of inuridation. It is moctecately suscep-
.�r�'. �«,�; .,. -,. °.: ,. tibYe to frost cfamage Yhough usually r�overs well. aasd wlld tolerate sal3rae soil
��.--= condtnons up to 15 dS/m.
�;��� .`,.,
��'.� � �,s ..
E�tak�lishment costs
.. . ., �,
#11. ..�.
..n:�, .�,,,..-.r.� � l�'
rr._ .,.,.�.,
�
lalatatan�
�
� .�
"%ta�
��00
$450
$2�0
$200
�250
�Y400
.. a�.cc: n r•�G�. r r:.ti�:. ,.� �+ wx-:.� ••�� �i�i �
'' " � ` ...a�:.. , r .. � • . ..�.��.e i �. �., ,�,. �:.-.. �. . �r.., -� �.,
�� R�sts a�rid di �� ��se� � � �
� , .,.- . .. .• :r
"f. 1' .' _'! • VY. �:.i: � � . .�� : 1 : .•��:.
t �_. � � ��. �� �.. .i .� ��.. �� s,. :. � r �� ' r, r�..: �Y� r r . r ��,'.� , . a�• ��� �r, a r, . �. �.. �.. .: ..». �� •.; �. ,. :. • ��:•.:: :a. .,
r..+�,t�• •� '�,�:�� ,. ��'.�;sl� ,:c �a..ti - � .� .':.
� ..,
.. � ,, � ,.
..., • ,; � �.. � • . , �',
w.
�" .,, a, �,
��'� � .
. • ua , � �� . , -c .�.-c� � r�it. �f I .� �� r+ ,�,`"'�"" "z" � �q,3�,.�,
*� �. .c.�v�. t • .i . :r. � � � . i � � �w� ��� " `�,�'
� ., v . ��� y . � � -:: •.� :c' ����,C`�.��9� , ■
a.�,: � � • a ,^ :.vA� � � n. a. � .. 1 �� �,� �� ".^�.�.�.
.:�,• :. .r .. , r. . :�.,. .. ,.:. �.:� a .�s. i�����. .. „.. �� c.. �,�.
• -:. . � a�.i • ��. :r���� -
... �. ,•� ��::� .f ...J. ,;.:. '1.1, ;.�.. .�. 1,.� Y.' : � �... � ��.'J. . �'.. .:1:' :.: :...41'. �:...,��;
..}. . •� �� '�'-� 1 � ♦.1.•' �...�: � ' �:�`:•� i.� `.' :/�.�Y. 1 :' .... .,,� .i.:Y�. � � � :l' ' 1 . •�.,...
�.:� � •., �,: • ., � . y . f... '. � ..r .f: t ' .CG '��. • � :�':' �� t.�...:1 �.Y.�".... .�.r.. .
�� �►;.r, :•�.� r� r, .•� �, �.�r . ...s�.c •��: :_�
-♦ i� , I ' r,.r�,- r� i
v r�:, .0 � �.vt � •� �: ���. • r..• ..�. • • � • r.�. •
.. 1wtl. � ' ♦� 'J4�.'. '� �'f�� �I�v1l�`:` •�� C' .I.. �,� :�� :,� �'
: .�,. ' ��... M .� _. 1 • ' I�. ; �. Y. �1 i . . • �. ::.1�. I • Y..:.-.. .. . �.•. .'.:�A : �� �' f...
:� ��.��: r. • �'. � � �. �.� u �� �.r��.�.�� ..�r ����•a :r.rr.'c
�,��[ �� � �• r�,•�
�r M
s �� �� � • � � G .�e s'� , fii ' ro • • � w. - , r. �. . i r �� �. .� � �� .r �..�i � ti �r, �.
� .:: �.' wi:��: v� �. :�..: .C• t � / �-�. � - G . _ ��C' � :R; f � ��.�..., � Av�.:'r.� ,.\. 1.�, /:...,:
•1... �,. • ��. ! ...�. f. . . � .. . . 1��... � • . � �� � • � � �: '�.� � f.,:..�. � � . Y. l �::
. •• � �•� . �..... �� �� I.•�.,.. � • �.\�'M�����• ./., •I.f• .:�.
• • ....�: � . J:.. !Y. � I. .. •. �1... ' �..■... � � ' v�....:f�
.►.��v��.. . � �1.....��.�:i:, �{ �• • �.:-� :��,:,..
�k0 Y3L[I�lPY Of f�dfl� �� �.S tATI�CYl1C �%l Iffi $P.Y7C1�T1�/tA S'W�I'1 WI[tl
H SI11Xil1YE Of �7�'1$ 8P�{ Y$C'R @8tC�1P.[7 �HSSs.kl(1 $fJ7�5 HI1CC[�CCC� WI�1
�tDl�lj£Il kIIIE'S. �}E2 �IEHI$tVOOd }1aS 8 SOft B��dTPOE T110U�'17L 1S pI�-
doeninar�tly eiark, with a slma7g canFrast ta the pale sarady sapwood.
The aitra�tive fi�caae to tk� *lrraber is simpiy whera gol-
istu�d. FiddleG�ck or othee'valuable charecterLstacs cr�gr feature in the
� wood of ceetain tr�s.
is iredicated bytF� differercee b�cw�sa the gneen azadair-day der►sity and is dueto ma�ure l�s finmt}� tinn9�son .WBihAcada
.a�ficrnat9�is is llkely to t�e minimal, as is typical of oth�r Acacia species.
Cooba iirnbe� i� to be stabk arxE can usaaally be c6ried ' sfgr;�cazet degrade. F11 cae�e maui � taken de�-ang � dtyi�g
proc�, it is relatively euy to avond rrr��rraen�, aa�l s�urface '. L.og erzds shaul�d be �. Erua�re Pac]ili�ie.s ae aPProPraate %r
coec�t dcyic�g of timbr.'I �mber shuuld be eventy sta�ked to allQw &� cinculatiose around �cis �e anc9 �or�d level, w� suH'ident clearance 6nara tl� gtound.
Tr� tiariher shoulcl be protected from direct saue and rain. Ttuis wiIl ecnable a balaaKe in the air arxi moistesr� dreulatian thcuug,h�t tYse drg9ng Pr�•
Air�ry,�,g to 24% moisture corrtent may take S to 24 rra�rntlis � ori cirying conditiara and tix nf the t�ards. Coo6a is saaRed Ya to
1�-12°.6 moistaare coraterrt, u✓itti Yn9nsmat s„eface
or collapse, a�ad can 13e steam e�ceandnt�or�d. ;� T;�,� ,;,, �,' .
areai iiity
Coobatimber is clase grair�ied, moderately t�eavy arid tough orxe
a
driec�. T�e k�eartLvoo� is fir�e textuted arad tt}� sapw�od t�as sligMly
mote open interlocked grain. It isa maderately t�ardand dur�ble
tirnber Rhat turru and polishes well. F.asy to work, cs�aba pro-
duces a high quality fumiture and joinery timbe�: Uses for the
wood 9nclude fumituae, parquet floodng. jm7rtery, tumery and
c�aRwoad applicatiorn.
Araera salic�'na is a zela9ively Pase �rowireg ts+�e
Yhac t�t;u easuauy tap a Wen-aefln�a maire
stem: 'Tn or�Yer to conslstendy produc� Pogs oi
re,asonable le , high-density plantin� and
rigocous form pruning as LiHcely to be required. �$igher establishment �ies wllI reduc� �e need for
nntensive pcvning and increase tlie scope for selection ttu�ou,�t tFie thinn9ng process� ultimatety increasing
the cpuality of the stand.
Little is caarr�r►tly kno�x+ra afl�out its groavt]h rate urflder cultitr,�Yit,st�s or the relative perforenarece of different
se�D s�a�rees. Avoid collectv7g sceci irom isalated �clividwals, or ver� s�ll populaUons, as �rs-be�eding may
he of concem. See� should � colle�ted fram n�at.a�me witte s%�ined ffomn �,nd pro �aeformation
recor�e�d.
Caaba is lon�-liwed and ➢��.s goad resistance ta� debarkirp�l�y stoc�. �rada sa1.�Cna is not highIy. compe�tive
with pasture ar►ci is theiefone well suited eo i�t on wdt�t once gxee.s are weP� �tahlished; and saf'ely
above b�rowsing height. Esi.-sblishing thi� sp�caes on saliree d is likely to agra productiv-
ity t%rougFa enteareced protctiiion af the sail svrface.
Coobas strong ability to regenerate by roat �ckerir►g pt�+%les an o�portau'eity to e��nd or
ongoing rotation. This cFa<u�acterlstic alsa erntaareces nts amiTif�y ta c�sat�cal e�sion. It will pro�uce coppflce
regrowth fi-mm cest seuxnps when yoa,rsg or if condiY3ora� � favosarable. ,
Ti�is ' is highty suieed to direct seeding as �n estab ' t option. �s can be sown at the rate of
200-5� granss per ]ie'a�aa' b:ilornetre. +vith switable si�e pre ' m io prosaaote succe.ss.
;�;
,� .
�
�,rt+4
�.
� x:k
� i� .
�r �,",
��;. ��
�
L7ue to rhe nigi, pata,tabiflicy of coaba fol;ag�e,
seedlings wiii r�eeci to be protected from
�i'37dflg �%ld bYYDWS171g 8i1Y1113�5. POISC1IIIrig 6�
hungry cattle feeciing on the leaves has beEn
sus�pected due to iugh leaf tanni8a conternt.
'r " 141' � 1' � ii I+� y�i� WIII� ' i' ��I ,", Cooba is best suit� to §urnieure and
� I•�� �,9 NW � crafiwoad applications @>ut is not
currently considered a c��rnmercial
species deae to supply 16mitataons.
Sound logs rvith a diameter of 250cnm or rnore are suitable for milling. Sawlogs are
�areferably green, between 2.4 and 3.6 metres in length, though this depends on the
intended end use. Sapwood, so long as it is sound, is woYch retai�airsg fe�r some
applications. Percentage recovery of timber from logs fls relatively high.
I7nder reormal conditnores cooi�a timher can be air-dried to 14-15% me�isture
content, and with this species air-dried iimbes is suetal�le far mast applications.
I{iln-d•rying to 10-12% will seduce risic of moverrnent and iracrease its �alue.
Ora-site or pareable rnilling of tianl�r costs $160-$240 per m3. Kiln-drying green
timber iander contract costs $300-�6U0 per m3.
j' i' i" Qnce sought after For jainerg� and cabiraet eriakin�, Acacia
sal%ina has all but lost its profile as a cabinet tiariber, for which
it is best suited. The characteristxcs of the timbeir lends itself to
high value pmducts associated with the solid f'umiture and craftwood markets. In P.ustralia, eotal wood sales within the
craftwood enarket are estimated to be worth $50-60 mfillion and growing. 1Vlore than two millaon craftwood 'atems, be they turned ar hand-made
furniture, are purchased by Australiaris annually. Sale of these produc�; represents a vaiue of $570 million per annum.
A few dryland acacias, mulga A. aneura and gidgee A. cambagei, are als�ady established as craftwoods in A�astralian woodworking circles. Interest in
eumong A. stenaphylla, a plaa�tataon species wich similar traits, may prc�vide the opportunity to co-market cooba with this species. The potential to
market these craftwood Acacias for export is considerable.
`TFae value of an fleaeia saiieina log will depend ezet its quality, ;3nd eartage anc3 haradling
costs. Logs currently have an estimated value of $50-$500 per tonne.. Milling into boards will
increase this value significandy. Up to �5000 per cubic metre is sometiines paid for quality, dried
and dressed kxoaz'ds.
tiTatl�ral He�°it��e �"ru�t
�el�arag d'a�rarnauaefties �J�lpsn�; .-�aslrwii�r
� ui��i ' tl i� I�^; `� Acacr�3 sadicina is � deplete�,
'�'� �� li �� locall;y indigenoaes sp�ies suited
I to a 6�road range of environ-
mer�s that has the gotential to
a�gain promiraence as a jainerr�� tirraB3er. InYerest in t}ie
t3rnber due to Yhe unique appa�ranee, stabitity ar�d
woa�&ability taas patentaai for sii�n3fic�m growdi, in llree
�nrith the increa�d recognition of Australian craftwoo�
here and ovease.as. Hoeaever sctpply is cucr�ntly insuf�a-
cieaet to mcet any growth irt dnmant�. "The opportun3i3es
eo increase supply thmugh the de,welopmenc oi plarata-
t3oru are enhareced by its proven performance ieg
seasonally wet and saline conelitions, and iYs saaitability ire treateng varioa as land �egra�ation issenes.
Cornmercial succ� re�uiaes contirauity oi suPP1Y Prrmvvidecf thrQugha w�de.spread adoption of thms spxc:ies in
farm forestry sysiems and tlae development off a
� Sig[l�Cant gDlant2tion
resoure:e. The challesege of
�wing this speci�s with
... , '
, ,: , , , , ;�.:; ;� � coa�sistent fform �ill raeed to
�, �� , , ,.a�,w..... .,
� . . . be ad ttuough
��. �• i., „.s� �.;
s.�cr ;� e�.::. i .a�.:...
�.. �•, r:�� • � �� r • � t',
',�tm C. Uaan�.lohnFlitTurr�buII i��) �+aa�isiLvrTie�ard.A�nc�'�krl�sl�6lHmf�n�F�ami7arsb{�inUta'ia�a
ACIAR C�bese,19,97.
jo4m W.Twnb,�R (Fi�tOr) A�AmltanTr��a9mnd�ACIAR 19�.
Ga�ungAuwaltaVtanfaLd�aP6vi�lm7e�thCem:a{i/ka�r&z'd Gst�DNRE.I�&.
�a�,.�����s���a�e� �s�.
x�enRa� sa�r�A�m�Mtc,�-I-T�n, is83.
Iaon Cmzarss�m 1U�lueTr�aru/9rndrd'.S�i-Ea�rre�+atraNaL�, l�.
G.M. Cumargh�4 V�E � P.L J.H. Ia� �oPl�m A&�v.Smed i�IV.S.W. ��. i�l.
B�h C�tt Alar�gna! L6ed'A�i�.vlktnaP�I R�urt fiwn B.%tt, 2002.
I� (Ed�tnr) GmnL�fofAra�:rffin1l�vePl�.�IARI�A.198'P.
N. M� D. CravuFad. P.I.ep��'&1w� R F1�yet.IL �w Tmer�,�ACrnFt m �ireS�aCSIRO Au�raite, i�''.e.
D. Jmes, R. E11mt F6e; Ili�ardRBGnmssat $�nIntt�n C�,19$6.
P. Zb�ao�vsici. TL Soorey A�ri(',ulrhmlr�einrL�aYi� gaNcq.199,5.
EiHeFai�ah-n�u3e,71�sib&m2 ofNadv�9R�aucasQLD.1�.
A16ec1 j. Ea�t �Fme�Tic�ia Y�an!'�sFor� Vkmrb.1925.
RAnd�sonTheTrersail�w.Swithl� aiF4gr�cu�ieNSW,1�.
B.R.Iv�he.LPedkp73al)imstdu9oraaFAt�rlaln11a�a86aSpa�s A9a�s �J�ypa�4aeWAAka.6.2�2.
SvateeSarie 84�ador�hkvr6ifwdZXes Aretr�tan�CSIROFFPC,a�ara.150fi.
Tn� �eu� � te ��� yo�, w,e u,� � oe V� �m � o�, an ��man� a,�e ��,a�rxffiw� ss
jiJI.Y2�1 �,ct�w�'�yt�ndortsw4nar fory�ap�rv�sa�,a,r�eetme�aum�uxyr�enya�w;n�
�� a�dim•ma�eqieec�rc�vitdr.he�}r�sefiarcegw�elyl�gon�ry irttl�pd�lkaticm.
research. and tti�
development of improved
silvdcultural techreiques.
T'o minim3se risks, pnodur.eas
shc�uld aim to grow sawlogs
of cons3stent quality, anri
p�rticipate in t2ie marketing
ana prornotion of tt,e spedes.
AfTerttn P)rtv�r and Sue I.ag9e, Greening Austrrtie Den3Fquln.
NeWlle fla»ney, Geeening AustraHa $outh Austrslia.
Eugene IINmierladls, Xylo-au»tralis.
Garq Wau�h, Ttm Vercae and,rohn Fryer, CSI�t3 Austratla.
]eff Wetsnaa, Watson's Ironbark Timber Products.
n�, s�����. c�rr.
Paal Haw Vens Creek Nucsery.
Peta AAcicsy. Iv4�1co3mThompsan. Carmen �esata.
Shaun Quayle and Karcn johnwn, NRE.
Ian F$p,�ins end MicheaH Portedii, CLPR.
Rod $lyd. PVI F�amiacon.
]ahn Doren, ACIAR
Beth Gote. Monash Unwerssey.
]Bm 18abinson. Iimvid M3llsom and Scott Watson,
Greening Auserataa Vtctmie.
Ron liately, UnWessi2yoEMelboume.
Bendi,�o Woodtumees Irzsorpoeated.
Len Delcon. W�leaener.
Chris Poote, Rare Woods. A�Ietbnume.
BRI'I' Horticuteurc.
Rob Baxshall and Frank A�usk.
INITIAL STUDY
CASE NOS. C/Z 04-U6, PP 04-32 AND TT 33120
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST COMMENTS AND POSSIBLE
MITIGATION MEASURES (CATEGORIES PERTAIN TO ATTACHED CHECKLIST)
I. AESTHETICS
a, b, c.
The site has a scenic vis#a to the mountains to the west and south. Monterey
Avenue and Country Club Drive are not designated scenic highways. There
are no trees or rock outcroppings on the site.
The site in the present condition can be termed as aestheticaNy 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 the project wiil be required to prevent lighting
spill over. In addition, the requirement for an engineered lighting plan per
Ordinance No. 826 wi(I assure that ihis condition 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. Requiring that the ground be moistened during days in which
grading occurs will mitigate this problem. This is required by City of Palm
Desert Grading Ordinance.
Because the site is already an urbanized setting, its development will not
result in an overall deterioration of ambient air quality. Completed
devefopment of the site wiN 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.
INITIAL STUDY
CASE NOS. CIZ 04-06, PP 04-32 AND TT 33120
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.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a. The property is in the designated area of the Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed
Lizard.
A multi species habitat conservation plan is being prepared by CVAG which
will establish preserves and conservation practices to insure the future
survival of dune species. The project may be subject to mitigation
requirements of the MSCHP which may be in effect at the time of
development.
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.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
a-d. The cultural resource study performed as part of the General Plan Update
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.
�
INITIAL STUDY
CASE NOS. C/Z 04-06, PP 04-32 AND TT 33120
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.
MITIGATION MEASURES
The City of Palm Desert grading and building permits procedures required detailed
geotechnical reports addressing grading speci�cations and the settlement and
expansive characteristics of onsite 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. There is no top soil 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. There is presently no school within 1/4 mile of the site.
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.
3
INITIAL STUDY
CASE NOS. C/Z 04-06, PP 04-32 AND TT 33120
f. No private airstrip in area.
g. Project will not interfere with City's emergency response or evacuation plan.
h. Project wiil 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 Va11ey Water
District assures that there is sufficient water suppfies 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 devefopment.
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 quafity.
g. Site is not within a 100-year flood hazard designated area.
h. See (g).
i. Area is not subject to flooding.
j. Area is sloping desert land not subject to seiche, tsunami or mud flow.
�
INITIAL STUDY
CASE NOS. C/Z 04-06, PP 04-32 AND TT 33120
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING
a. The site is zoned for residential use and that is what is proposed. The
applicant seeks approval of a zone change to use part of the site for
commercial uses.
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 (a1).
X. MINERAL RESOURCES
a. No known mineral resources.
b. No locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on local
general plan.
XI. NOISE �
a, b, c, d.
Construction and subsequent use for residential housing and a commercial
center will increase ambient noise level. The increase is not expected to
create an annoyance to adjacent residential properties. 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 the vicinity of a private
airstrip.
�
INITIAL STUDY
CASE NOS. C/Z 04-06, PP 04-32 AND TT 33120
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
a-c. The project includes a 33-lot tract map for 33 residential lots. The 33 lots to
be created are consistent with general plan and zoning intensities and
densities. The site is currently vacant so the project will not displace people.
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 and zoning maps designated for residential 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.
The project will result in a net increase on fiscal flow to the City of Palm Desert.
Property tax generated on the site, including those generated by the improvement
of this project, will go to the City.
Fire and Police Protection
Police and fire services 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.
Parks
The project is a residential development of six units per acre which will generally be
family oriented and commercial. Existing and proposed parks will be adequate to
serve these families. Applicant will be required to pay statutory park mitigation fees.
C)ther Public Facilities
Libraries and other public facilities are adequate to serve the project.
�
fNIT1A� STUDY
CASE NOS. C/Z 04-06, PP 04-32 AND TT 33120
XIV. RECREATION
The project is consistent with general plan densities and as a result the population
generated was considered as part of the recreation element. Onsite recreation
facilities will be limited to those on single family lots and are not expected to have
an adverse physical effect on the environment.
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
a-b. Projected trip generation per single family dwelling unit per day is ten for a
total of 330 trip ends, plus 1,309 trips for the commercial portion. As part of
the conditions of approval the applicant shall be required to provide road
improvements as provided by the Circulation Element of the General Plan.
Except for additional vehicular movements discussed above, the project
should not generate additiona! demands on existing transportation systems.
Current circulation systems have sufficient capacity to accept any additional
traffic produced by the proposed project. The project wiN not deteriorate LOS
on Monterey or Country C1ub.
Principai access to the project area will be via Monterey Avenue and Country
Club Drive, which are designed to handle vehicular traffic for this type of use.
c. Project will not change air trafFic patterns.
d. Street design and intersections will be designed to meet all city standards
and the project will not include incompatible uses.
e. Emergency access will be acceptable.
f. There will be a demand for additional parking facilities which will be supplied
by the project on site in compliance with city code.
g. 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.
7
INITIAL STUDY
CASE NOS. CIZ 04-06, PP 04-32 AND TT 33120
b. CVWD has indicated ability to serve this project.
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 Community Development
Department.
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a. None.
b. None.
c. None.
//
:
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title:
Mayer - Residentiai/Commercial
2. Lead Agency and Name and Address:
City of Paim 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) 346-0611 ext. 486
4. Project Location:
Northeast corner of Monterey Avenue and Country C1ub Drive
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Robert Mayer Corp.
660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1050
Newport Beach, CA 92660
6. General Ptan Designation:
Study Zone
7. Zoning:
PR-7
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later
phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or aff-site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additionaf sheetls) if necessary.)
Mixed use residential (33 lots) and 30,550 square feet of neighborhood
commercial.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings. Attach
additional sheet(s) if necessary.)
NORTH: Residential
SOUTH: Commercial
EAST: Residential
WEST: Residential
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement):
None
CITY/RVPUB/2004/546265 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
Biological Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Mineral Resources
Public Services
Utilities/Service Systems
Agriculture Resources
Cultural Resources
Hydrology/Water Quality
Noise
Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
Air Quality
Geology/Soils
Land Use/Planning
Population/Housing
Transportation/Traffic
�% I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
,�� NEGATNE DECLARATION wiil 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.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant" or "potentially significant unless
mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adeyuately 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.
u
��
�
Sign�re v �
Printed Name
,�-�' ���e -�� i ��n
CITY/R V PUS/2004/546265
�-� � �" -a ��
Date
For
Page 2 of 14
.��
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
.
•
1) 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, Iess than significant with mitigation, or less than significant.
"Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. Ifthere
are one or more "Potentially Significant lmpact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a"Less than Significant
Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect
to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-
referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EiR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief
discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analyses �Jsed. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope ofand
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 from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in
whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
CITY/RV PUB/2004/546265
Page 3 of l4
FORM "J"
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
•
SAMPLE QUESTION
L.ess Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Lttpact
Impact Incorporated Impact
�
�
�
�
Issues:
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but
not limited to, tress, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
�
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
Californ.ia 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
Wiltiamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agriculturai use?
III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
. managernent or air pollution control district may be relied
upon to make the following determinations. Would the
�
.�
�
CITY/RVPUB/2004/546265 FORM "J"
Page 4 of 14
•
�
.
Issues:
project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable 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 criteria pollutant for which the project region is
nonattainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through 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?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected 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?
CITY/RV PUB/2004/546265
Page 5 of 14
Potentially
Significant
impact
L.ess Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
lncorporated
I.ess Than
Significant
Impact
�
�
�
No Impact
�
�
�
�
FORM "J"
�
Issues:
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or migratory wildtife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
� Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
u
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in '
15064.5? .
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
' 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontologica) resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse 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
I.ess Than
Significant
Potentially With
Significant Mitigation
Impact lncorporated
l.ess Than
Significant No Impact
Impact
�
�
�
�
�
�
C1TY/RVPUB/2004i546265 . FORM "J"
Page 6 of 14
� Issues:
Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoi 1?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-
1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
� substantial risks to life or property?
•
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use
of 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 through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
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 handte hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
CITY/RV PUB/2004/546265
Page 7 of 14
L.ess Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Imp�t
. - �
/ ,
�
�
�
�
�
�
/`
�
X
FORM "J"
. Issues:
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, 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?
fl 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) lmpair 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?
�
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-
CITY/RV PUB/2004/546265
Page8of14
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With I.ess Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
FORM "J"
• Issues:
site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or 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 capacity of existing or p(anned storm
water drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
fl Otherwise substantially degrade water qualit�/?
g) Place housing within a l 00-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
� J
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, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Expose people or structures to inundation by seiche,
tsunami, or mudflow?
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
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 natural community conservation plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
CITY/RV PUB/2004/546265
Page 9 of l 4
Potentially
significant
Impact
Less Then
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
I.ess 7'han
Sigtificant
Impact
�
No Impact
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
FORM "J"
� Issues:
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
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?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
. without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, 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?
fl 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,
CiTY/RV PU B/2004/546265
Page 10 of 14
I.ess Than
Significant
Potentially With L.ess Than
SignificanC Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Inwrporated Impact
/ '
X
�
X
�
�
�
��
�
�
FORM "J"
• Issues:
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 substantiat adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically
altered govemmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered govemmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection? .
• Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
XIV. RECREATION. Would the project:
�
XV
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?
TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC. Wouid the
project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffc load and capacity of the
CITY/RVPUB/2004/546265
Page 1 ] of l4
I,ess Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No lmpact
Impact Incorporated impact
�
�
X
�
�
X
�
X
�
/ `
FORM "J"
.
•
Issues:
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?
fl Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportatian (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements af the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
I.CSS TI1AT1
S1gi11flCAflt
Potentially With Less Than
Si�ificant Mitigation Significant No lmpact
Impact Incorporated Impact
�
X
�
�
X
X
.�
�
•
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansiori 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 ofwhich could cause
significant environmental effects?
C1TY/RV PU B/2004/546265
Page 12 of l4
�
�
FORM "J"
�
•
��
��
Issues:
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed? In making
this determination, the City shall consider whether
the project is subject to the water supply assessrnent
requirements of Water Code Section 10910, et. seq.
(SB 610), and the requirements of Government Code
Section 664737 (SB 221 }.
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the projecC's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
� Be served by a landfill with su�cient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat or a fish or wildlife species, cause a�sh or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
tevels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animat
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 axe individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental ef%cts 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 I TY/R V PUB/2004/546265
Page 13 of l4
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigatian
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
�
�
No Impact
�
X
�
FORM "J"
�
�
�
Issues:
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
CITY/RV PUB/2004/546265
Page 14 of 14
L.ess Than
Significant
Potentially With l.ess Than
Significant MitigaGon Significant No Impact
Impact lncorporated Impact
�
FORM "J"
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 10, 2005
XII. RESOLUTIONS
A. RESOLUTION NO. 05-16 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING MEDIUM
DENSITY DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES.
Councilman Spiegel moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution
No. 05-16. Motion was seconded by Councilmember Benson and carried by a 4-0 vote,
with Mayor Pro Tem Ferguson ABSENT.
XIII. ORDINANCES
For Introduction:
None
For Adoption:
A. ORDINANCE NO. 1090 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ADDING
SECTIONS 10.48.250 AND 10.48.260 TO CHAPTER 10.48 OF TITLE 10 OF
THE PALM DESERT MUNIGIPAL CODE WITH RESPECT TO
HANDICAPPED PARKING.
Mr. Croy indicated that there had been no changes to the ordinance since its
introduction.
Councilman Spiegel moved to waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No.1090.
Motion was seconded by Councilman Kelly and carried by a 5-0 vote.
XIV. NEW BUSINESS
A. CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE MARKETING
COMMITTEE RELATIVE TO THE CONTRACT FOR ADVERTISING
SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF PALM DESERT (CONTRACT NO. C23410).
Mayor Crites noted the staff report.
In answer to question, Mrs. Gilligan said that the Marketing Committee's
policy requires proposals be sought every five years, this being the fifth. She
added that staff agrees it is prudent to see what's available in the
marketplace to ensure the City is being well served.
�
RESOLUTfON NO. 0�-16
EXHIBtT "A"
Medium Densita Devefanment Standards
Average Lot Size
Minimum Lot Size
Lot Coverage (Main Structure)
Front Yard Setbacks (minimum):
Main Residence:
Main Living Area
Open Porch
Garage (front access, where provided}
Garage (side-in access)
Rear Yard Setback
Side Yard Setback:
interior
Corner / Street
Garage
Buifding Height:
Primary Structure
Accessory Structure
Exceations
3,500 sq. ft.
3,000 sq. ft.
50%
15 fee.t
1 � feet
20 feet - from back of sidewalic
10 feet - from back of sidewalk
20 feet
5 feet / 0-feet for garage
10 feet
Same as house
18 feet/one story, 24 feet/two stories
18 feet (main bui{ding enve{ope}
The standards and guidelines presented in this section provide design criteria for the.
achievement of functional and attractive developments that fit within the context o.f the City
of Pa{m Desert. Exceptions to the criteria contained within the Devefopment Plan may be
appropriate with the appfication of innovative and unique design techniques in keeping with
the character envisioned at the time of approvai.
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MARCH 15, 2004
Councilman Ferguson moved to accept the land designations as set forth on
"University Park Area - General Plan 2Q0 City Council Alternative - D, dated March 4,
2004." Motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Crites and carried by a 5-0 vote.
2. NEC Monterev Avenue/Country Club Drive
Mayor Pro Tem Crites moved to designate the subject location as "Mixed Use,"
with a notation that a major grocery facility is not desirabie there. Motion was
seconded by Councilman Kelly and carried by 4-0 vote, with Counciiman Ferguson
ABSENT.
3. OfFce Development - Shervl/Cook
Mayor Pro Tem Crites moved to designate the portion of property along Cook
Street, from Cook Street to Sheryl, and from Sheryl back down to the Wash, as a
"Study Zone" for future consideration. Motion was seconded by Councilman Kelly
and carried by 5-0 vote.
4. Palma Viliaae & Core Saecific Plan Amendments
With City Council concurrence, to affirm action or direction from prior General
Plan meetings to be included in the final General Plan, accepted Policy 5 and
Program S.A, as presented in the staff report dated March 15, 2004, noting that
Policy 5 should state the Alessandro Alley project wouid be located between
Las Palmas Avenue and Monterey Avenue;
Responsible Agencies: ADD Palm Desert Parking Authority.
5. Portola Avenue Land Use Desiqnation
Councilman Kelly moved to: 1) Designate the land north of Fred Waring Drive
on the westerly side to Open Space/R-1, and establish a policy for acquiring homes
as they become available in this area; 2) land south of Fred Waring Drive to remain
as previously discussed. Motion was seconded by Mayor Spiegel and carried by 5-0
vote.
6. Landscape-Enhanced Intersectians - Office Professional
Communitv Desiqn Elemenf Propram 7.6 -
Mayor Pro Tem Crites moved to accept Program 7.6, as presented in the
March 15, 2004 staff report, with the addition of also referencing all intersections
along Cook Street, Monterey Avenue, and Portola Avenue. Motion was seconded by
Councilman Kelly and carried by a 5-0 vote.
62
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 27, 2005
Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, continue the matterto the meeting
of February 10, 2005. Motion was seconded by Councilmember Benson and carried by a
4-0 vote, with Councilman Kelly ABSENT.
B. DISCUSSION OF MEDIUM DENSITY DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES.
Mr. Smith reviewed the staff report, highlighting that if the medium density
guidelines were endorsed, they will allow for flexibility in development,
creative and imaginative design, which are part of the current planned
residential Code provisions. Staff was seeking direction on how the City
Council wished to act on the guidelines: 1) Continuing as is done presently
on a case-by-case basis; 2) adopting the guidelines by resolution, thereby
making them the City's policy; 3) passing the guidelines pursuant to an
ordinance, making them part of the Zoning Ordinance.
In answer to question, Mr. Smith replied the thick book containing the
standards was part of a master plan presented by an applicant at that time,
which was subsequently denied. He added that one of the projects that
implemented the proposed standards was the Rilington Communities Tract
Map located on Gerald Ford, considered by the City Council in October 2004.
In further response, Mr. Smith said it was pretty unlikely that a finro-story
accessory structure would be proposed; however, it has been provided for
should it be workable.
Councilmember Benson recalled that the reason the plan in the thick book
wasn't adopted was that her colleagues wanted to look at projects on a case-
by-case basis so that nothing slipped through unnoticed. She felt that since
that was the discussion about the General Plan, it should still be valid.
Mayor Pro Tem Ferguson said he remembered it being a 3-2 vote on the
master plan. He was uncomfortable doing something in a vacuum at that
time, preferring to apply guidelines to a project so that he could get a feel for
them. Since that time, he had expressed to staff that he was comfortable
with these standards in order to provide some certainty to a developer on
what their criteria was.
Mr. Smith agreed that these would give a developer a certain level of
confidence that he could design a project that would likely be acceptable.
Councilman Spiegel stated he preferred the case-by-case basis. There were
several large parcels that would be developed; he wanted to see what each
one would look like before 150-200 houses were built.
Mr. Smith offered that regardless of whether the standards were approved or
not, the City Council would absolutely be reviewing tract maps and precise
plan applications through the full public hearing process.
fil�7
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 27, 2005
Mayor Pro Tem Ferguson related that given it's medium density, which
requires smaller setbacks, he was very comfortable with these types of
projects recently approved, like the one next to One Quail Place and
Rilington Communities on Gerald Ford. Although uncomfortable with the
master plan book with so much information considered previously, he felt a
developer should be given the standards by which his project would be
judged, like the simplified information presented here. He added that if a
problem was discovered, the guidelines could be changed. Mr. Smith
agreed.
Responding to question, Mr. Smith stated that every medium density project
would at least be considered through the Planning Commission process,
which included appeals and any City Council requests for review. He said
that if the Council chose to approve the standards as guidelines, then they
would all be brought back as part of a Code amendment. Councilman
Spiegel stated that he would prefer this option.
Mr. Smith said staff would bring back a resolution, adopting the guidelines,
which could then be distributed to project applicants.
Mayor Pro Tem Ferguson made a motion to direct staff to return to the City Council
with such a resolution.
Mayor Crites questioned whether an automatic projection and architectural
features height exception is provided for in other residential zones. Mr. Smith
answered that it is provided for, but it's not automatic.
Mayor Crites asked that the last line of the staff report's Exhibit "A" before the
subtitle "Exceptions" ("Projections / Architectural Features") be removed from
the guidelines.
Mayor Pro Tem Ferguson agreed to the Mayor's modification and moved to, by
Minute Motion, direct staff to return to the City Council with a resolution to adopt Medium
Density Development Guidelines, as presented, omitting provision stated in the staff
report's Exhibit "A," "allowing Projections / Architectural Features: 5 feet above primary
structure / no more than 10% of the roof area." Motion was seconded by Councilman
Spiegel and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Councilman Kelly ABSENT.
XVII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
None
11
(
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: Discussion of inedium density development guidelines.
SUBMITTED BY: Steve Smith, Planning Manager
DATE: January 27, 2005
CONTENTS: Staff Recommendation
Background
City Council Minutes of July 8, 2004
Draft Standards
Recommendation:
See conclusion.
Discussion:
The northern area of the City is currently zoned Planned Residential (PR). M.C. section
25.26.010 delineates the purpose of the PR district as follows:
It is the purpose of the PR district to provide for flexibility in development,
creative and imaginative design, and the development of parcels of land as
coordinated projects involving a mixture of residential densities and housing
types, and community facilities, both public and private. The PR district is further
intended to provide for the optimum integration of urban and natural amenities
within developments. The PR district is also established to give a land developer
assurance that innovative and unique land development techniques will be given
reasonable consideration for approval and to provide the city with assurances
that the completed project will contain the character envisioned at the time of
approval.
July 8, 2004 staff presented development standards for low, medium and high density
development in connection with the University Park Master Plan. The City Council denied the
Master Plan and expressed a preference for the review of development standards on a project-
by-project basis.
October 28, 2004 staff presented the medium density tentative map project (at Gerald Ford and
Gateway) with specific standards within the conditions of approval. After approving the project,
Councilman Ferguson requested that more generalized standards be brought back for
discussion.
December 7, 2004 Planning Commission approved the medium density RDA project known as
Hovley Gardens.
1
STAFF REPORT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
JAN UARY 27, 2005
Both of these projects involved standards consistent with those inciuded in this report.
The attached development guidelines for medium density projects will allow for "flexibility in
development, creative and imaginative design...".
These deveiopment standards, if endorsed, will become the general guidelines staff will use
in the future and will give developers direction with how to design medium density projects. We
fully expect to see additional modification of the standards as part of the "flexibility in
development" provision of the ordinance.
Medium Densitv Develonment S#andards
The guidelines will create new standards for detached dwellings where there are presently no
comparable standards. The new standards will maximize street front architecture and create
usable rear yards. The standards provide for minimum lot size of 3,000 square feet with an
average lot size of 3,500 square feet and maximum coverage of 50%.
Setbacks:
Front 15 feet (10' to an open porch)
20 feet to garage
Rear 20 feet
Side 5 feet (10' street side)
Building Height:
One story 18'
Two story 24"
Additional height may be allowed as specified in the exceptions secfiion. Accessory strucfiures
would also be one story/18 feet and two story/24 feet. Roof projections/architectural features
will be 1 Q% or less of roof area. All other standards subject to discretionary exceptions
provisions.
Exceptions:
The standards and guidelines presented in this section provide design criteria for the
achievement vf functional and attractive developments that fit within the context of the City of
Palm Desert. Exceptions to the criteria contained within the Development Plan may be
appropriate with the application of innovative and unique design techniques in keeping with the
character envisioned at the time of approval.
�
STAFF REPORT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
JANUARY 27, 2005
Conclusion:
Prior City Council direction was for staff to bring the guidelines back for discussion. The City
Council should now direct staff as to how it wishes to proceed at this time. Available options
include:
1.
�
Continue as we presently do on a case-by-case basis.
Adopt the guidelines by resolution, thereby, making them policy of the City.
3. Pass the guidelines pursuant to an ordinance, thereby, making them part of the zoning
ordinance.
Submitted by: Department Head:
S eve Smith '"
Planning Manager
Approv d by:
Homer Cr �
Assistant City a ager for
Development rvices
SS/dq
`'"'�.. � � �\\��1-� '� ��9
�
Phil Drell
Director of Community Development
Approved by:
��
Carlos Ortega
City Manager
G:IPLANNING\DONNAQUAIVERIW PDOCSISRISMLLTSTNDRDS.12705.SS
* By Minute Motion, directed staff to return �
to the City Council with a resolution to t%TTY GOUNCI� ACTIOI3:
adopt Medium Density Development �ppRUVED r�� DENIED
Guidelines, as preseated, omitting REC�IVED OTHFSR
provision stated in the staff report's
Eshibit "A," allowing "Projections/ M��T���' �ATE� - � '%-��j' '
Architectural Features: 5 feet above "�`Y�S �
primary structure / no more than lOz �j�s� �
of the roof area." +BSENT: (
4_0 (Relly ABSENT) �BSTA�N:�i��
� �.1�t „
asRZFr�n sY:
��riqina� o�. Fi�. h Cit� �2��'�'s ���'�
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR NIEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT CtTY COUNCIL
VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
JANUARY 2S, 2004
A. MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF
JANUARY 15, 2004.
Mayor Pro Tem Crites moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the Minutes of the
meeting of January 15, 20Q4, as presented. Motion was seconded by Councilmember
Benson and carried by 5-0 vote.
Vil. PUBLIC HEARING
A. CONSIDERATION OF A COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALlFORN{A Case No. GPA 01-04 (City of Palm Desert,
Applicant) (Continued from the meeting of January 15, 2004).
The following is a verbatim transcript of this public hearing
�
RAS
PD
LB
BAC
RSK
MR
JF
JMB
RDK
PB
CLO
LA
Mayor Robert A. Spiegel
Phil Drell, Director of Community Development
Larry Brose, Robert Mayer Corporation
Mayor Pro Tem Buford A. Crites
Councilman Richard S. Kelly
Malcolm Riley
Councilman Jim Ferguson
Councilmember Jean M. Benson
Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk
Paul Brady
Carlos L. Ortega, City Manager
l.auri Aylaian
RAS This is a public hearing, so I'll open the public hearing. Consideration of a
comprehensive General Plan update and final Environmental Impact Report
for the City of Palm Desert. And I'll turn it over to Phil Drell.
PD Good morning. Where we left off, before we hit the more meatier subjects,
we have a few specific items to address. One of the last things we talked
about last meeting was the northeast corner of Monterey and Country Club.
As you recall, the recommendation from staff had been keeping this the
existing medium density residential and designating it as a study zone that
might be appropriate from some other form of commercial yet to be
2
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 29, 2004
determined. The Council expressed some thoughts about the potential
opportunities for mixed use of some sort of commercial and residential or
office and residential. My understanding, and the property owner might want
to speak on this, that they're agreeing with staff that the appropriate
designation is to keep it the medium density residential until such time as
there's a...they decide specifically what they want to do when the come back
to the Council, the City, with a specific project, again, and that would be the
time to consider any change to the existing residential designation.
(Inaudible} if the property owner wants to make a statement in regards to
that.
RAS Please give us your name and address.
LB Good morning, Mayor, Councilmembers. Again, Larry Brose with the Robert
Mayer Corporation, 660 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, California
92660. Just reiterating what Mr. Drell had mentioned that we are in support
of staff's position that when we do have a real project to bring before you, we
will do so with all the project details that I know you're all interested in seeing.
So at this time if we would just leave the present zoning as it is with the
special study or special zone, special study designation, that would be fine
with us, and we'd support that. Thank you.
(Inaudible)
BAC Why don't we just leave it as it is period, without any special whatever or
anything else. I mean...we've made an offer to look at an alternative. The
developer is not interested in that alternative apparently, so why don't we just
leave it exactly as it is.
PD You can do that. All the study zone is acknowledging that some sort of
change might be appropriate...again, it doesn't really matter, it's just a...it
acknowledges that there is uncertainty, and it's not...as opposed to, you
know, we just went through this process and made a designation, why are
you changing it, why are you coming in to change it a month later. It simply
acknowledges that there is some consideration, and you can...remember,
you don't have to...property owners don't have to accept offers for you to put
them in.
BAC I got rny answer. We can do either...thanks.
LB Just a question I would have, actually, of Phil. The special study zone
doesn't eliminate any need to do the process that we would have to go
through if we wanted to change the use from the present general plan and
zoning. We would still go through a general plan and a zone change,
correct?
3
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 29, 2004
PD Correct. It's simply an acknowledgment that there's uncertainty as to the
appropriateness of the existing zone, we're not sure what to change it to,
but...
RSK But we also get to see what's...
PD Oh, exactly. It's just an acknowledgment (inaudible)
MR Thank you. My name is Malcolm Riley, Malcolm Riley & Associates, 11640
San Vicente Blvd., Los Angeles, California. I'm involved with the property on
the southeast corner that has the vacant supermarket in it and as you know,
we are attempting to get a new supermarket and are weii along with Geisen's
to fill up that vacant space and so save that center and preserve the integrity
of the center and also help the tenants that are in there. Gelsen's has told us
they are very concerned about a potential of a supermarket being developed
across the street, and if there is any potential or any hint whatsoever, they
will not go into our project, and I don't think we could get another
supermarket, either. So we would...we feel very uncomfortable. We're
aware what the owner across the street has in mind over there, and it would
be very damaging to our project. We feel very uncomfortable with any hint
whatsoever, and Gelsen's particularly, of some supermarket being developed
there in the future. So we would object to leaving it open for further study or
anything of that nature. Thank you very much.
RAS Any comments from the Council?
JF Well, I would agree with Councilrnan Kelly. I think it's appropriate to
designate it a study area. I think pure residential there makes absolutely no
sense on two major arterials. ('m aware of the Mayor's concern about the
widening of Monterey, which is yet to happen. I have a meeting next week
with Rancho Mirage to discuss that issue. And until we know what's going to
happen with Monterey, until we know what's going to happen with Gelsen's,
and until we know what the mix is going to be, to put it in our General Plan as
simply residential without any designation that we recognize that this needs
some further study I think would be irresponsible on our part.
RAS Anybody else have a comment? My comment would be that at any time any
Council can change the designation of any area in our city. That just
happens to be the facts of life. We're all not going to be around here forever,
and eventually it could be whatever the Council decides it should be.
Obviously, I'm in favor of filling the ald Albertson's store. It's important that it
get built for (inaudible) That said, it doesn't mean that five years from now or
ten years from now (inaudible) another supermarket. I'd be opposed to it
(inaudible)
4
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 29, 2004
PD Do you want to take an action, some direction?
JF Yeah, I would move that we designate this as its current zoning with an
asterisk that it is a study zone going into the future.
RSK Second
JMB (Inaudible)
PD You can define the special study footnote, which is really what it is, any way
you want and say that...
(Inaudible)
PD ...grocery store, if that's the direction on the special study, you can do that...
(Inaudible)
PD Again, every one of these special study zones is going to have a footnote, in
essence, in the text, which will discuss what the issues are and what the
Council's preferences might be.
RAS Would a special study be done?
PD Most likely, when the property owner proposes a project, we would
(inaudible) that.
RAS That means that the person who owns Albertson's is kind of hung up by his�
toenails.
PD But, as you just said, regardless of what decision we make today, someone
can apply for an amendment to this General Plan six months from now.
BAC Would the maker and the seconder be supportive of a special study zone that
looks at OP and not broad supermarket use? I'm not asking whether the
landowner agrees with it or not, I'm asking my colleagues where they are.
RSK I'm the seconder. I can't imagine in our wildest dreams we'd ever approve a
market, another market there today, and what about 15 years from now?
BAC Whoever's sitting here 15 years from now can do...they can approve a
railroad there if they want to.
RSK So why are we so hung up on it?
5
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL
:•
RSK
Because that certainly would give...
Because that's what you want.
JANUARY 29, 2004
BAC No, it would give...it is "A", what I would support. It is "B", it would give some
assurance to the property owner across the street thai at least at this point,
this Council is oriented towards this set of uses on that property. And if that's
not what we're oriented towards, then that's fine.
RSK I sure don't want another market over there right now. (Inaudible)
JF Again, I'm inclined toward Councilman Kelly's point of view. There is
so...such a broad swath in the commercia! designation, and supermarket is
only one use out of hundreds of commercial uses. And from a municipal
finance standpoint, from a bunch of other standpoints, I think commercial
makes sense there. lt doesn't have to be a supermarket, but I don't think we
have the ability to bind a future Council. I'm aware of Gelsen's, and I met
with the owner of that company, and Jean and I sat down and certainly said
at this point, at this snapshot, I can't see putting a third supermarket on that
corner. But I also can't get over the fact that the northeast corner property
owner offered to provide a replacement tenant for the southeast property
corner, and the southeast properiy corner owner adamantly refused that and
now is stuck in the position that he's stuck in because of that opposition and
now is trying to handcuff the northeast property owner with a competitive
advantage that I just don't think I'm comfortable with codifying in a footnote to
our Generaf Pfan, which is a ZO-year planning document. So I'd just as soon
call it a study zone, leave it for a future Council to decide, recognizing that
this Council at this point is not mindful of putting a supermarket across the
street.
JMB
RAS
(Inaudibte)
Would the City Clerk please (inaudible)
RDK Well, as it stands right now and hearing that the maker and the seconder
weren't amenable to making that footnote, that they wanted to approve the
current zoning with an asterisk that this location be a study zane going into
the future...period.
RAS Please vote.
��
:�
Motion fails on a 2-3, with Mayor Spiegel, Mayor Pro Tem Crites, and
Counci(member Benson voting NO.
And I would move the amended motion as it was stated with that footnote.
�
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 29, 2004
(Inaudible)
BAC That it be a special study zone that looks at altemative uses and that
excludes supermarket type uses from, at least our perception, approval. And
it obviously speaks to this current group of people.
JMB Second
RAS We have a motion and a second. Please vote.
RDK Motion carries with Councilmembers Kelly and Ferguson voting NO.
RAS Moving right along.
PD Moving right along. Next thing is...although not on your specific program, it is
an issue that was...that came up at our...it deals with Deep Canyon between
Highway 111 and Fred Waring. Currently the first five or six lots north of
Alessandro...Mark, if you want to bring up your exhibit, your's is probably
more accurate than mine.
RSK Question. This is the one that the Planning Department just dealt with and
approved the change of zone on the south finro and not on the north two lots?
PD Yes. But since that action somewhat diverges from their previous action on
the broad map is why we have to...
RSK Yes or no.
PD It deals with that issue.
RSK That's the� one that the Planning Commission just dealt with and approved
the finro lots on the south side...
PD Correct.
RSK ...but not the two on the north side.
PD Correct. And since that decision, that specific decision, was different than
the map that you're seeing before you, the broad map, that's why...and I
wanted to bring it to your attention how we want to deal with it...it's something
we have to discuss a little bit. The issue is, again...why don't you zoom out,
can you zoom out a little bit or is that...a little bit of the bigger picture...no, it's
as big as it gets...okay.
BAC Mr. Mayor. Mr. Drell.
7
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL
RAS
PD
BAC
PD
RSK
Mr. Dreli.
Yes.
JANUARY 29, 2004
A question. What are you going to be asking us to do today?
Okay. The colored...
What are you going to ask us to do?
PD I'm going to ask you to consider modifying the Planning Commission
recommended aiternative that you have before you today because it...based
on the Planning Commission's actions of Tuesday, last Tuesday, that
recommendation apparently has been modified.
RAS Councilman Kelly.
RSK Well, I've always had a problem with dealing with something specific that's in
a General Plan. They call it a General Plan because it's general, and now
we're dealing with something that's very specific. If we dealt with it at the
City Council meeting, it would be advertised specifically to those people in
the neighborhood. Yes, we advertised the General Plan meeting, but who in
the neighbarhood knows, within 300 feet or even...l'm sure people further
away are interested...it's something the Planning Commission just acted on.
If the Council wants to act on it, they ought to call that specific thing up and
advertise it properly and then deal with it specifically. I just don't believe we
should be dealing with something that specific in a General Plan.
PD
RSK
PD
RAS
Okay, but you have to make designations on a map somehow, and the
Planning Commission had previously shown Office Professional generally...
Regardless of the arguments...
I understand. What I'm saying is what's on the maps, what's on...
Mayor Pro Tem Crites.
BAC Let me try another way because I agree with Richard. I also think the
applicants who were denied at the Planning Commission obviously are now
curious about where they go from here. If they choose to appeal the
Planning Commission decision, that would come before the City Council
within a meeting or so, right?
PD Correct.
E:
ARCHfTECTURAL REViEW COMMISSI�N
APRIL 26, 2005
MINUTES
Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner
Lambell to continue the request to allow the architect to review other
approved projects in the new industrial areas of Palm Desert. Motion
carried 6-0-0-'1 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining.
2. CASE NO.: TT 33120
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI: ROBERT MAYER CORP., LARRY
BROSE, 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1050, Newport Beach, CA
92660
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval
of revised architecture and landscaping for #he commercial portion of
the project.
LOCATION: NE corner of Monterey and Country Club
ZONE: PR-7
Mr. Bagato stated that the applicant has submitted revised drawings for
the commission to review. Mr. Drell stated that he felt that the revisions
are an improvement over what they saw before. It might be a little
busy, but in general, it's pretty good. Commissioner Van Vliet stated
that it's pretty small scate so it looks busier. Mr. Drell stated that there
are a lot of powerful elements. Commissioner Hanson stated that it
would look better if they took the stone all the way up the columns. It's
fine on the tower element on the left side. Mr. Drell commented that if
there are too many architectural elements going on, they might draw
attention away from the stores. A little simpler architecture would iet
the stores do a little more to differentiate their fronts. Commissioner
Vuksic stated that it's cohesive now. The east side of the large building
looks better. There is cancern about quality issues, such as the very
tall architectural elements that pop up from the main body of the
building and to have those go back far enough so they wrap around so
they're four-sided is important. You will absolutely see the backs of
them. There is concern about the parapet heights of 22' and 20' being
too low to screen the roof-mounted mechanical equipment. It was
suggested that the mechanical equipment be located behind the tower
elements so that it's not visible.
Commissioner Hanson stated that she likes all the proposed colors
except the blue, which is very "Cape Cod" looking. It was suggested to
G:Planning\Donna QuaiverlwpdocslAgmin1AR050426.MIN %
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMtSSION
APRIL 26, 2005
MINUTES
use a sage-green on both the accent cofor and awning coior. A1so, the
fight cofor that is proposed is going to look white in our desert light so it
was suggested that the applicant choose a darker color.
Commissioner Gregory commented that the applicant has done a great
job in improving the elevations from the prior submittal. Commissioner
Vuksic thanked the applicant for making a huge adjustment and
improvement to the plans. It looks fantastic.
Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner
Hanson for approval of the design with the understanding that (1) the
tower elements are going to be carried further back on the roof (in
some cases where they're only going back 8' they need to go back
further) and wrap araund so they look like four-sided elements and will
be approved by staff, (2) an architectural screen element will be added
to the areas where the parapets are only 20' high and will be approved
by staff, (3) the gray-blue paint cofor will be changed to a more suitable
color to be approved by staff, and (4) consider adding stone veneer all
the way up on some of the column elements. Motion carried 7-0.
3. CASE NO.: PP 05-43
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI: PALM DESERT ASSOGIATES,
Thomas W. Gilmer, 701 S. Parker, Suite 1000, Orange, CA 92868
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of
elevations and landscaping for eleven office/industrial buildings.
LOCATION: 73-800 Dinah Shore
ZONE: SI
Mr. Bagato stated that this item was continued from the iast meeting.
The most obvious change is the exterior color. Awnings were added
above the windows and there was some stepping around the towers.
Jack Selman, architect, was present and stated that they picked three
brighter colors fior the buildings and the entry elements have more detail
in terms of the reveals to give , it more of a contemporary i'esl. Mr.
Bagato stated that windows were added to building 1.
G:PlanninglDonna QuaiverlwpdocslAgmin1AR050426.MIN
1
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISS{ON
MARCH 8, 2005
MINUTES
commented that he hasn't approved the landscape plan at this time,
but it's pretty close.
Commissioner Vuksic stated that Commissioner Hanson made a good
point regarding the main entrance to the center. She's right when she
said that there's going to be a stop sign added, otherwise it's going to
be chaos. It fooks like they could push the T-intersection back to the
middie of the site and they could have parking east of the pads, which
wouid probably aileviate that problem. It looks doable and the
developer should think about this so that they don't have probiems
later. Commissioner Hanson stated that she brought up this issue the
first time she saw this plan. You have to make sure that you get more
peopte aff the road and into the center. Right now, Highway 111 backs
up past E1 Paseo because of this same problem at Desert Crossing.
You can sit through finro light signals trying to get onto Highway 111 and
if you're in the wrong lane you can't get over to go around either.
Because of the size of the Desert Gateway Center, I think you realty
need to look at this. When it's on paper, it's a lot easier to fix than
when it's built.
Action: Commissioner Gregory moved, seconded by Commissioner
Lambeil granted � preliminary approval subject to (1) additional planters
incorporating palm trees and larger shrubs be submitted for staff
approval, and (2) landscape palette and layout be approved by the
Landscape Manager. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Van
Vliet and Lopez absent.
� 2. CASE NO.: TT 33120
APPLICANT
BROSE, 660
92660
(AND ADDRESSI: ROBERT MAYER CORP., L.ARRY
Newport Center Drive, Suite 1050, Newport Beach, CA
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval
of revised plans for a mixed use residential and commercial project.
LOCATION: NE corner of Monterey and Country Club
ZONE: PR-7
Mr. Drell stated that the elevations look too "busy". There are too many
elements jammed into a relatively small space.
G:PIanninglDonna QuaiverlwpdocslAgmin1AR050308.MIN 5
.�
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
MARCH 8, 2005
MINUTES
Commissioner Vuksic stated that the design is confusing. It's got a little
bit of Big Bear, a little bit of high tech/contemporary on some of the
corner towers and a bit of strip mall style. These three styles are all
mashed together. Mr. Dreil asked if the architect was present. Hank
Gordon, representative from Laurich Properties, was present and
stated that the architect was not available.
M�. Drell suggested that one of the commissioners meet with staff and
the architect in the future to review the elevations.
Commissioner Lambell stated that the revised elevations are a huge
improvement from the original submittal that showed brick on the
exterior.
Mr. Drell stated that the driveway on Country Club was moved east and
it was combined with another access from the residential area. Public
Works rejected it and said that the driveway was too close to the
intersection. Now there's a direct vehicular connection between the
residentiai and the commercial sites. Larry Brose stated that this is an
emergency exit only. There will be a man-gate on the east side of that
driveway. Mr. Drell asked why it would be for emergency only. Rod
Grinberg, representative for Transwest Housing, was present and
stated that they could make it an egress only from the residential site to
the commercial site.
Mr. Drell asked if the residential portion has a common amenity. Mr.
Grinberg stated that they have a small passive park area. Mr. Drell
stated it's very small and that most of our other projects like this have
provided a common amenity, which was actually a significant marketing
tool. It could be something like a sand volleyball court with a picnic
area or a swimming pool. Mr. Grinberg stated that the lots are big
enough for a swimming pool. Mr. Drell suggested a swimming pool that
people could actually swim in. This is something that might be brought
up at Planning Commission.
Commissioner Hanson stated that she's more concerned about
building 34, which is one of the commercial buildings. According to the
plan, there is approximately 11' from the property line wall of the
houses to the building. The people in the houses are going to be
looking at the back of a wall, which doesn't seem right. Mr. Drell stated
that there are going to be trees in this area. Commissioner Hanson
suggested possibly putting the houses more towards the back of the
G:PlanninglDonna Quaiver�wpdocslAgmin1AR050308.MIN 6
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
MARCH 8, 2005
MINUTES
lots and putting the pools in the front yards so they're not looking out at
the back of a commercial building. Commissioner Gregory asked if we
really care about that. Commissioner Hanson stated that she cares
about the people who are going to live there. Commissioner Gregory
stated that they don't have to buy the home. Our concern is good
design. Some peopie may not care. Mr. Drell stated that these are
finro-story homes so the mass is comparable to the mass of the
commercial building. Commissioner Gregory thought that some people
might feel more claustrophobic if they're squished closer to the
commercial building.
Commissioner Vuksic stated that on shop building A, looking at the
east elevation, it shows elernents that pop out but they don't go down
to the ground. The columns are actually just painted onto the wall. It
looks okay in the drawing, but in reality it's going to look realiy odd
because you're going to have architectural masses hanging out there
that look like they want to come down to the ground and they're just
going to stop. On the north elevation of shop building B, the same
thing is happening there. Commissioner Hanson stated that it's never
good to do false elements. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the
elements need to come'down to the ground. The concrete tile roofs on
east elevation of shop building A come out 2' past the building wall.
The roof eave is at least 3' below the building wall and it goes up and
over the wall on the sides of the mansard �oofs. If that's correct, then
that means that the roof has a really steep pitch to go back that short
distance and climb that high. This is a real steep mansard. Judging by
your dotted-in roof, that doesn't make any sense. You need to re-
articulate it. It was suggested that they get rid of the mansard roof.
The parapet is 20' high and he wondered how high the roof structure is.
The roof has to be low enough so that they can get substantial
mechanical equipment there and keep it below �the parapet line. It
doesn't look like they have enough space there. That's something for
the architect to look at. Mr. Gordon stated that they are well versed in
hiding mechanical equipment. In this particular case, we tried to move
the mechanical equipment toward the west side of the building to keep
it away from the houses. Commissioner Vuksic stated that on building
A on the north elevation, he has the same thing where it's popping out
and then it goes around the corner to the east side and wondered
about the top part where it's hanging out, but it's not hanging out on the
sides. He asked about the material for the trellis that's up on the high-
tech towers. Mr. Gordon stated that it's made of steel tube.
Comrriissioner Vuksic stated that it looks like a. mixture of Big Bear
G:Planning\Donna Quaiver�wpdocslAgmin1AR050308.MIN %
„�
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
MARCH 8, 2005
MINUTES
architecture, high tech and strip mall and i think that that needs to be
addressed. The stee{ treilis, as a sole piece, is okay.
Commissioner Hanson stated that she felt that some of the elements
could work if they had more consistency of materials. Instead of using
a wood fascia and wood eaves they could use more of a metal setup
so it looks a iittie bit more high tech. Mr. Dreil commented that they
shouid decide what the building is and stick with it, both material-wise
and design-wise.
Commissioner Vuksic stated that on the auxiliary elevation of the drug
store, the elements iook pretty shallow. If you're going to stick with
something iike that, it's going to have to go back a lot more so it looks
like a real space undemeath. The awnings over the windows with
concrete tile on them looks really odd. Commissioner Gregory
suggested that they change the concrete overhang to canvas.
Commissioner Hanson concurred and suggested possibly using a
metal awning. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they could simplify the
architecture and improve it at the same time. The concrete tile roofs
are "strip-mali iike” because they're going to be steeply pitched
mansard roofs. The area that shows a Walgreens sign looks like Big
Bear architecture. The gable roof with the beams and beam angle
supports look very cabin-like. Mr. Drell suggested using steel.
Commissioner Vuksic stated that that direction would get them to
where they need to go faster, as opposed ta making everything in a Big
Bear style.
Commissioner Gregory wondered if the architect would be able to
understand the comments, since he is not present. Mr. Drell stated
that he's going to have a meeting with him. Mr. Gordon stated that at
the last meeting they were told that the commission didn't like the
architecture so the elevations were changed. I would like to bring the
architect in to meet with staff and any members of the commission to
get some direction to work with. You never know what's going on in
your minds and he's sitting in Pasadena. Mr. Drell stated that there are
elements shown in the plans that have potential. They're an
improvement over the previous submittal. It was noted that in the
landscape plan, there is no plant material whatsoever in front of the
buildings. Typically, in this situation we create some areas �for plant
material in front of the buildings, possibly in islands.
Commissioner Hanson commented that there's currently signage
indicated on the side of the drive-through facing the residential site.
G:PlanninglDon�a QuaiverlwpdocsWgrnin1AR050308.MIN 8
�
ARCHiTECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
MARCH 8, 2005
MINUTES
�
The only people who wiil ever see that are the residents. {t does not
make sense to put signage there. The applicant agreed to eliminate
this signage.
The residential architect displayed a streetscape of the homes. Mr.
Drell stated that there's 10' befinreen the homes and the bui{dings jog in
and out. The architect made the changes that were requested by the
commission at the previous meeting and created four-sided
architecture. The commission agreed that the houses fook good. Mr.
Drell suggested that the residentia{ architect consu{t on the commercial
project.
Commissioner Vuksic vo{unteered to be on a subcommittee to meet
with the commercial architect and staff.
Action: Commissioner Lambel! moved, seconded by Commissioner
Hansor� for approval of the residential portion, subject to approval by
the �andscape Manager. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners
Van Vliet and Lopez absent.
Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner
Lambell to continue the request with direction that (1} the architect
meet with a subcommittee consisting of staff and a member of the ARC
to create a more cohesive style for the project, and (2) approval by the
Landscape Manager. Motion carried 5-U-0-2 with Commissioner Van
Vliet and Lopez absent.
CASE NO.: MiSC 05-03
APPLICANT tAND ADDRESS): ALLEN BIXEN, 41-865 Boardwalk,
Suite 106, Palm Desert, CA 92211
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of
revised eievations for a facade enhancement of Matsuri Restaurant,
Pete Carlson's Golf & Tennis, and Chinese Antiques.
LOCATION: 73-741 Highway 111
ZONE: C-1
Mr. Bagato presented revised elevations for the commission to review.
Mr. Urbina stated that one of the comments that the ARC had on the
G:PlanninglDonna Quaiver�wpdocslAgmin1AR050308.M1N 9
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
DECEMBER 14, 2004
MINUTES
2.
3.
Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner
Oppenheim for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0.
CASE NO.: TT 31490
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PONDEROSA HOMES I1, INC., 6671
Owens Drive, Pleasanton, CA 94588-3398
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval
of model units for 8,000 and 10,000 square foot single-family lots.
LOCATION: 74-000 Gerald Ford Drive, Northwest corner of Portola
and Gerald Ford
ZONE: PR-5
Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner
Oppenheim for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0.
CASE NO.: TT .33120
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI: ROBERT MAYER CORP., LARRY
BROSE, 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1050, Newport Beach, CA
92660
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval
of a mixed use residential and commercial project.
LOCATION: NE corner of Monterey and Country Club
ZONE: PR-7
Mr. Drell stated that this plan came out of discussions with the City
Council during the general plan. This is a very important, prominent
corner. We need some high-quality architecture in this location, but I
don't think we're there yet. The residential has a lot better architecture.
My only comment on the residential architecture is that when we have a
project that has fifteen different designs you can have a lot of variety,
but when you have two designs they should go together.
Commissioner Hanson stated that when she looked at the plans, her
first impression was that she felt like she was in Minnesota or South
Carolina. Brick is a good material, but it's too traditional. The
commercial building is too "mid-West looking". The stacked stone on
G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocslAgmin1AR041214.MIN 1 1
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
DECEMBER 14, 2004
MINUTES
the homes looks fine. The critical elevation is the back of the
commercial building that backs up to the residential neighborhood.
They usually have lights in those areas. Mr. Drell stated that there's
going to be a sidewalk in that area. Commissioner Van Vliet
commented that they'll have rear doors which will require lighting.
Commissioner Hanson stated that the height of the building in
relationship to the homes is going to be an issue. The hames in that
area would've been premium lots because of the direction that they
face with the view, but now they won't have a view. Mr. Drell asked the
commission if this might be a project where we'd rather have the
buildings out near the street with the parking behind them.
Commissioner Hanson stated that with the right architecture it could
work.
Larry Brose, representative for the Robert Mayer Corporation, was
present and stated that they own the property and have a commercial
partner and are also partnered with Transwest for the residential
portion. The architects are present to answer any questions. Hank
Gordon was present to address the commission regarding the
commercial portion. We've been developing commercial properties for
48 years. This came about as part of my discussions with Robert
Mayer. We developed the Albertson's shopping center across the
street. I thought the best use would be a drug store with a drive-thru
pick-up prescription window. We were able to get Walgreen's to
commit to it. We haven't tried to market any of the other commercial
properiy because I have the theory of not doing that until we have
appropriate entitlements. We did market the drug store site because
we wanted to have something to talk about. Typically, we don't put rear
doors in the commercial buildings unless the code requires it. If the
shops are less than 1,500 square feet they don't want a back door and
all the loading comes through the front door. The sidewalk is a fire
escape for any of the units that are greater than 1,500 square feet
because the code requires a second exit. We're flexible to modify the
elevations of Walgreens if they aren't acceptable. We started with a
typical Walgreens structure. This is what they would like to have, but
we can come up with an elevation that's compatible with the
neighborhood.
Commissioner Vuksic asked about the glass on the second floor of the
Walgreens building. Mr. Gordon stated that it's Walgreens'
identification which they've used on 1,500 stores across the United
States. When people see it they know that there's a Walgreens store
there. Commissioner Hanson commented that the commission doesn't
want to dictate a certain style. However, there are certain styles that
are more applicable to the desert. The proposed style doesn't really
work here. Mr. Drell stated that since this is a mixed use project, there
G:PlanninglDonna QuaiverlwpdocslAgmin1AR041214.MIN 12
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
DECEMBER 14, 2004
MINUTES
should be some relationship between the commercial and residential
projects. Commissioner Hanson stated that they're really two separate
projects so I'm okay with the houses being entirely different than the
commercial center. I wouldn't want my house to look like a commercial
center or even resemble that. I just don't like the commercial center at
all. I think it's flat. The materials need to be looked at again. This is a
very prominent area and I'd like to see something spectacular rather
than the same old thing with just a different facade on it. I have a major
issue with the 22' high building next to the residential area. ThaYs a
major issue. Rod Gremer from Transwest Housing was present and
stated that they plan on adding a lot of landscaping between the
commercial and residential border. Commissioner Van Vliet
commented that there isn't any planting area between the commercial
buildings. He suggested adding more pocket areas for planting to
reduce the harshness of the buildings. Commissioner Hanson stated
that they show a 22' high building 13' from the property line with a 10'
setback so no matter how you look at the residential properties will be
looking straight into a building. There's no way you're looking up from
it. She suggested possibly having a sloped roof on the back of the
commercial building to cut down the vertical element. Mr. Gordon
stated that he could reduce the rear portion of the commercial building
to 18'. Commissioner Hanson asked the applicant to give us a building
that has some architecture. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the
applicant should bring the architecture all the way around the entire
building, not just one side. Commissioner Vuksic suggested that the
architects drive around the area a little bit and look at the various styles
of architecture.
Mr. Drell asked the commission for their input on the residential
elevations. Commissioner Hanson stated that the only thing that she
didn't particularly care for was one column on one of the elevations.
She asked the architect if they were using 2 x 4 walls or 2 x 6 walls.
Kurt McKenley, architect for Transwest Housing was present and stated
that they're 2 x 4 walls with a 2" x 2" recessed detail so they can recess
the windows. Commissioner Gregory stated that there's a pronounced
lack of solar mitigation. They don't show a lot of protection over most.of
the windows. Mr. Drell stated that there are awnings over certain
windows on the Spanish-style elevation. Commissioner Vuksic stated
that on the second floor plan, they have front-facing windows that have
no depth to the walls at all. Mr. McKenley stated that this concept is
called a two-pack. It's a design where you finrin hornes and you have
one home with the garage set back and one home has a garage
forward so you have a Z-lot between them. That creates a street scape
where you don't have all the garages up on the street. Even though the
rendering of the garage-back house has a big space there, it's really
tucked back off the street. Mr. Drell stated that usually we get to see a
G:Planning\Donna QuaiverlwpdocsWgmin1AR041214.MIN 13
ARCHITEGTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
DECEMBER 14, 2004
MINUTES
rendering of the street scape. We need to see a street scene of how
these houses are actually going to look. Mr. McKenley agreed to
produce a street scene. The other thing that we've done is to do a one-
story dominant house, which has the second story as 2Q% of the overall
square footage of the first floor and only houses a couple of the
secondary bedrooms. Atl the windows on the fronts of the houses have
been recessed with double-studded walls. The windows will be
recessed 3'/2". Commissioner Vuksic stated that they need to recess
the windows a lot more than 3'/2". Small openings should be recessed
12", large openings in the fronts (including the garages) should be
recessed a minimum of 18". The sides of the houses are very visible
on the second floors so they need to be recessed as well, otherwise it's
going to look funny. Commissioner Vuksic stated that Plan 1 B has a
small second floor that's nestled nicely into the house and it looks like
they can easily recess the windows on the sides as well as the front
without major impact to the home without decreasing the square
footage. Mr. McKenley stated that the only issue is that you end up
double-studding the entire building so it's like framing the house twice.
Commissioner Hanson stated that at a minimum they'll have to use a 2
x 6 wall on the outside. A 2 x 4 with an 1'/" x 1'/2' recess for a window
isn't adequate. This is a standard detail that we require on every recent
tract housing project. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that they
can improve their product without substantially driving up the cost.
Commissioner Hanson stated that they should use 2 x 6 walls with a
minimum of a 2 x 4 recess on all sides. Rod Gremer, representative for
Transwest Housing asked if there are any alternatives for shutters and
surrounds. Mr. Drell stated that they have to use architectural features
that make sense. Commissioner Hanson commented that she has an
issue with having windows really close to the outside of the building. It
looks too tight and odd. They have enough room to move them in
about 6"-8". Commissioner Vuksic asked about the chimney caps. Mr.
Gremer stated that they're metal and they vary with the architectural
style. Commissioner Lambel asked if they intended to phase the
project. Mr. Brose stated that they intend to build it all at once.
Commissioner Lambel commented that this corner has the opportunity
to be a real jewel of a corner. It has the opportunity to be a"wow" and I
think that you're hearing from us that it's not a"wow" at the moment.
We have some real concerns with the commercial building coming right
up against the homes. Please drive around and look at other projects
in the area and make this project spectacular. Commissioner Vuksic
pointed out a utility bathroom window on the second floor of the house
and no one is going to miss that. They'll know exactly what that is. Try
to make it part of the architecture. Commissioner Lopez wanted to
make sure that they've provided a place for the trash cans so that
they're screened. Mr. Smith stated that landscape plans have been
G:PlanninglDonna Quaiver1wpdocslAgmin1AR041214.MIN 14
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
DECEMBER 14, 2004
MINUTES
4.
F�
submitted and Ms. Hollinger has submitted her comments to the
landscape architect.
Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner
Vuksic to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with
revised plans for both commercial and residential elevations. Motion
carried 7-0.
CASE NO.: CUP 04-13
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI: ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF
SAN BERNARDINO, 1201 E. Highland Avenue, San Bernardino, CA
92404
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary
approval of elevations for Sacred Heart parish hall/gymnasium and
expansion of school.
LOCATION: 43-775 Deep Canyon
ZONE: R-1
Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner
Lambel for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0-2-0 with
Commissioners Gregory and Hanson abstaining.
CASE NO.: TT 30438
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSt: DESTINATION DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, 74-100 Reserve Drive, Indian Wells, CA 92210
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval
of elevations for the sales building, homes, mai_ntenance facility, golf
cart storage building and gatehouse for the Stone Eagle.
LOCATION: 48-099 Highway 74
ZONE: HPR
Mr. Drell stated that the elevations are different from what the
commission previously reviewed. The architecture was sort of "organic"
in style. Ted Lennon, applicant, was present to address the
commission. Their effort on the gatehouse was to mimic the
architecture of Sardinia, which has similar terrain as the hillside in Palm
G:PlanninglDonna Quaiver\wpdocslAgmin1AR041214.MIN 15
� F'� ��E C�U'�?I�
� �'
3 f� �
�_�
N�[
OE/A�TYFNT 1
�
Tom Tisdale
Fire Chief
Proudly serving the
unincorporated
areas of Riverside
County and the
cities of:
Banning
�
Beaumont
�
Calimesa
�
�v.
RIVERSIDE C�JNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
In cooperation with the
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
210 West San Jacinto Avenue • Perris, California 92570 •(909) 940-6900 • FAX (909) 940-6910
Cove Fire Marshal's Office
73710 Fred Waring Drive # 102
Palm Desert CA 92260
(760) 34b-1870
TO: j"�-�-' .�J Yr+ i T'�
�F: ���-� — � �;` �33�z �- �o�� �-3z
DATE: � Z� � Z-�� y'
l� � �{�"
Canyon Lake If circled. conditions aaalv to aroiect
�
Coachella �
'� i(1. ) With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above
Des�ert Hot Springs �/ referenced project, the tire department recommends the following fire
Indian Wells protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipat
� Code, NFPA, CFC, and CBC or any recognized Fire Protection
Indio
.� Standards:
Lake Elsinore The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the
La Quinta remodel or construction of all buildin�s uer UFC article 87.
a �) A fire flow of 1540 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20 psi residua!
Moreno Valley `-�� pressure must be available before any combustible materiai is placed
� n the iob site.
Palm Desert
� � Provide or show there exists a water system capabte of providing. a
Perris gpm flow of:
�
Rancho Mirage 1500 gpm for singie family dwellings
•� 4. 2500 gpm for multifamily dwellings
San� Jacinto /. , OOA gum for commercial buiidings ,
5
Temecula � e required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Su er
8oard of Supervisors
Bob Buster
District 1
John Tavaglione
District 2
Jim Venable
District 3
Roy Wilson
District 4
Tom Mullen
District 5
P
Hydrant (s) 4"z 2'/z" x 2'/z", located not less than 25' nor more than:
6 0' from any portion of a single family dweiling measured via
' ehicular travelway
7. 165' from any portion of a multifamily dwelling measured via
C^ vehicular travelway
��� 150' from any portion of a commerciat 6uilding measured via
,.. vehicular travelwav
� Water Plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include
verification that the water system will aroduce the reauired fire flow.
1Q. Please be advised the proposed project may not be feasible since the
eaistin� water mains will not meet the reauired fire flow.
,. � � ,
4 Install portable fire eztinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than one
2AlOBC egtinguisher per 3000 square feet and not over 75' walking
distance. A"K" type fire eatinguisher is required in all commercial
�
.1 �/ Install a fire atarm system as reauired bv the UBC Chaoter 3.
�
� Install a compiete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all
buildings with a 3000 square foot total cumulative floor area. The Fire
Marshal shail approved the locations of alt post indicator valves and
� fire department connections. All valves and connections shall not be
less than 25' from the building and within 50' of an approved
hvdrant. Eaemated are one and two familv dwetiin�s.
12 All valves controtling the water supply for automatic sprinkler
�systems and Water-flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per
CBC Chapter 9.
, f,. .
L
15.
16.
17.
,�
19.
kitchens.
lnstall a Hood/Duct automatic fire extinguishing system per NFPA 96
in all pablic and private cooking operations eacept single-family
residential usage;
Install a dust coilecting system per CFC Chapter 76 if conducting an
oaeration that aroduces airborne partictes.
All building shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending
to within 150' of al! portions af the eaterior walls of the first story.
The roadway shall not be less than 24' of unobstructed width and
13' 6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel partung 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 egcess of 150' shall be
provided with a minimam 45' radius turn-around 55' in industrial
develonrnents.
Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of
gates, barriers or other means provisions shall be made to instatl a
"Knox Box" key over-ride system to allow for emergency vehicle
access. Minimum gate width shall be 16" witd a minimum vertical
clearance of 13'6".
A dead end single access over 500' witl require a secondary access,
sprinklers or other mitigative measures approved by the Fire
Marshal. Under no circumstance shall a dead end over 1300' be
acceated.
- , ��. �....
20. A second access is required. This can be accomplished by two main
access points fram a main raadway or an emergency gate from an
adioinin� develo�ment. ,
21 This project may require licensing by a state or county agency, ta
facilitate plan review the appiicant shall prepare and submit to the
Fire Marshal a letter of intent detailing the proposed usage and
22
�
23
24
%�
�
occuuancv tvae.
Alt buitdings shall have iltuminated addresses of a sixe appraved by
the citv,�
Ali fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm
ptans must be submitted separately to the Fire Marshal for approval
urior to construction.
Conditions subject to change with adoption of new cades, ordinances,
laws, or when bailding permits are not obtained within twelve
manths.
AU elevators shalt be minimum �urnev size.
All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shoutd be referred to
the Fire Marshal's Office at (760) 346-1870 in Patm Desert.
Location: 73710 Fred Warin� Drive #222. Palm Desert CA 92260
Other:
/ ��
� / _��
`'���
�� —
Sincerely,
David A. Avila
Fire Marshal
�ATER
°�srRtc�
� - �.
ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBUC AGENCY
COACHEL�.A VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
POST OFF{CE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALiFORNfA 92236 • TELEPHONE (760) 398-2651 • FAX (760) 398-3711
DIRECTORS: afFtCERS:
JOHN W.McFADDEN,PRESIDENT S?EVEN B.ROBBINS,
PETER NELSON, VICE PRESIDENT 6ENERAL MAtSAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER
TELLIS CODEKAS PAARK BEUHLER,
RUSSELL KITAHARA ASST. GENERAL MANAGER
PATRfCIA A. LARSON December 1� zOO4 AN PARKS, ASST. TO GE ERAL MANAGER
REDW�NE AND SHERRILL, ATTORNEYS
File: 0163.1
0421.1
0721.1
Department of Community Development
City of Pa1m Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Pa1m Desert, California 92260
.�'°� ���� �,. , ,� .;�s�. �� �
_ . . .. ��t
Gentlemen: ��oM��hirY u�;��ELc�rr�,::.: ;�.�xT:��N�r
� PrY �'�� � PAt.li [)z:�:.�c�r
Subject: Change Zone No. 04-Ob, Tentative Tract
Ma� No. 33124 and Plot Plan No. 04-32
This area lies on the sandy area in the northern portion of Pa1m Desert and is considered safe
from regi.onal stormwater flows except in rare instances.
This area is designated Zone C an Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in effect at
this time by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Since the stormwater issues of this development are local drainage, the District does not need
to review drainage design further.
The District will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with
the current regulations of this District. These regulations provide for the payment of certain
fees and charges by the subdivider and said fees and charges are subject to change.
Additional domestic water and sewer pipelines will have to be installed by the subdivider in
order for the District to provide service to all parcels.
This area shall be annexed to Improvement District Nos. 53 and 80 of the District for
sanitation service.
The District requires restaurants to install a grease interceptor; including a sample box,
sanitary tee and running trap with cleanout, prior to any discharge to its sanitation facilities.
The size of the grease interceptor wi11 be determined and apgroved by the District.
Installation of the interceptor wi11 be inspected by the District.
TRUE CONSERVATION
USE WATER WISELY
L
�
Department of Community Development
City of Pa1m Desert -2- December 1, 2004
The District requires detail, repair and lube auto shops and car washes to install an oil and
sand separator, including a sample box, sanitary tee and running trap with cleanout, prior to
any discharge to its sanitation facilities. The size of the oil and sand separator will be
determined and approved by the District. Installation of the oil and sand separator will be
inspected by the District.
The District requires laundromats and commercial establishments with laundry facilities to
install a lint trap. The size of the lint trap will be determined and approved by the District.
Installation of the lint trap will be inspected by the District.
Plans for grading, landscaping and irrigation systems shall be submitted to the District for
review. This review is for ensuring efficient water management.
If you have any questions, please contact Kesi Sekhon, Stormwater Engineer,
extension 2290.
Yours ve ly,
. - ��� �
f"
l s� / ,
� r
Mark L. Johnson
Director of Engineering
cc: Jeff Johnson
Riverside County Department of Public Health
82-675 Highway 111, CAC Building, Second Floor, Room 209
Indio, Califomia 92201
KS: md\eng\swldec\tt-3 3120
050605-3
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
�..
CITY OF PALM DESERT
RRT IN PUBLIC PLACES
C
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
To: Steve Smith, Planning Manager
From: Deborah Schwartz, Public Art Coordinator
Date: 11 /16/04
Subject: Robert Mayer Corp. Mixed Use Building (Case No. C/204-06; TT 3312Q
& PP 04-32)
The Art In Public Places Department recommends that the public art fee for the Robert
Mayer Corp. Mixed Use Building to be located on the northeast corner of Manterey
Avenue and Country Club Drive, be used for an onsite public art project. We estimate
that the totai fee for the 30,800 square feet retaii space is $12,300 and feel that this
amount alone will alfow for a significant public art project.
o�,�a
m
�
a
G
�
�
�,
a.
�
�
1
�
�
a
0
Y
.��'�
INTEROFFICE MEMORADUM
City of Palm Desert
1��1a
STEVE SMITH, PLANNING MANAGER
.RE C.� I�rL.i�
��"j� �-� � i005
COMMUNITY DEVELOpME'tvT DEPARTMENT
C1TY OF PALM DESERT
FROM: FRANKIE RIDDLE, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST
SUBJECT: PP 04-32, C/Z 04-06, AND TT 33120 — ROBERT MAYER CURP.
(Mixed Use Residential/Commercial) - Revised
DATE: June 2, 2005
The precise plan has been reviewed to determine the need for a bus shelter/stop
at the project location and inclusion of required trash/recycling enclosure for each
project.
Bus Shelter: As a result of a previous meeting regarding projects in this area
and review of this area #or existing/future transportation needs, this site/project
should have been conditioned for a bus shelter that is aesthetically (materials,
design, and materials) compatible with the project. Also, City and SunLine staff
revisited the site on June 2, 2005, to determine if the transportation facility was
still needed in this area; the decision is still the same. Therefore, this project is
conditioned for a bus shelter. The location of such bus shelter should be located
mid-point between Via Scena and the entrance into the project.
The applicant is to submit a plan addressing the bus shelter design for review
and approval.
Trash Enclosures: The construction of trash enclosures shall be consistent with
PDMC, Chapter 8.12. Waste Management of the Desert must review and
approve the plans prior to final approval by the City, as it is their vehicles that will
be senricing the complex and who determine trash capacity for the complex.
They should also comment on the location and circulation needs of disposal
(waste) trucks. Applicant may contact Jennifer at Waste Management of the
Desert at (760) 340-6445 regarding this issue.
FRAld�Kl.€ RI DLE
SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST
�
�
CITY OF PALM DESERT
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Department of Community Development/Planning
Attention: Steve Smith
Mark Greenwood, Ciiy Engineer
TT 33120, PP 4-32 Mayer Corporation
June 2, 2005
�,E�EIVED
��I� 0 7 2005
COiv1MUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMBNT
CITY OF PALM DESERT
The following should be considered conditions of approval for the project;
GENERAL
1. Landscaping maintenance of any common areas shall be provided by the homeowners
association forthe residentiat portion and the propertyownerforthe commercial portion.
Landscape treatment shall be water efficient in nature and shall be in accordance with
the City of Palm Desert landscape design standards. Applican# shafl be responsible for
executing a declaration of Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions, which declaration
shall be approved by the City of Palm Desert and recorded w�h the County Recorder.
The declaration shall specify: (a) the applicant shall oversee the formation of a property
owners association; (b) the property owners association shall be formed prior to the
recordation of the Map; and (c) the aforementioned landscaping shall be the
responsibility of the property owners association. Landscaping plans shall be submitted
for review simultaneously with grading plans.
2. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer,
shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Departrnent of Public Works prior to the
issuance of a grading permit.
3. The maintenance of the retention areas shalt be by the homeowners association.
BONDS AND FEES
4.
5.
�
7.
Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Patm Desert Municipal Code
shat! be paid prior to recordation of final map.
Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and
79-55, shall be paid prior to recordation of final map.
The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF).
Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance.
A standa�d inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits.
M
�
DESIGN PLANS
8. Storm drain/retention area design and construction shall be contingent upon a
drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and
approved by the Department of Public Works prior to start of construction.
�,,, Project is required to retain on-site a 25 year storm and corrform to the Merano
Drainage Master Pian. If the existing retention basin is used, then a sub-�urface
nuisance water retention �nfiltration system shall be installed and the developer
shali enter ir�to a maintenance agreement with the owner of the basin.
9. Complete grading and improvement plans and specifications on electronic files shall be
submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior #o issuance
of any permits.
10. Improvement plans for utility systems shall be approved by the respective provider or
service districts with "as-buitt" plans submitted to the Department of Pubtic Works prior
to project final. Utiliiy plans shafl be submitted to the public warks department for
improverr�nts in the public right of way prior to issuance of any permits.
11. Complete tract map shall be submitted as required by ordinance to the Director of Public
Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits.
12. Any and all offs'rte improvements shatl be preceded 6y the approva[ of plans and the
issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Departrnent of Publ� Works.
13. Pad elevations, as shown on the tentative map are subje+ct to review and mod�cation
in accordance with Chapter 26 of the Palm Desert Municipa! Code.
14. Waiver of access to Monterey Avenue, and Country Club Drive, except at approved
locations, shali be granted on the final map.
15. Project shall retain nuisance waters on-site.
REQUIRED CONSTRUCTtON
16. FuA 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.
8' meandering sidewalk required on Monterey Avenue and Country Club Drive.
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.
18. All pubfic improvements shalf be inspected by the Department of Public Works and a
�
standacd inspection fee shalf be paid prior to issuance of grading permits. No
oc�upancy permit shall be granted until public improvements have been compteted.
19. Traffic safety striping shall be instalfed to the specifications of the Director of Public
Works. A traftic controi plan must be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of
Pub{ic Works prior to the placement of any pavement markings.
20. Fuil improvements of interior streets based on residential street standards in
accordance with Section 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipat Code sha11 be provided.
21. All pub{ic and private improvements shaN be inspected by the Department of Public
Works.
22. Applicant shall comply with provisions of Patm Desert Municipal Code Section 24.12,
Fugitive Dust Controi as well as Section 24.20, Stormwater Management a�d
Discharge Control.
23. Prior to the start of constrvction, the applicant shati submit satisfactory evidence to the
Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the National Poliutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit for storm water discharges
associated with construction. Devebper must contac# Riverside County Fiood Control
District for informationat materials.
SPECIAL C4NDtT10NS
24. Developer shall design and construct a signal a#the Via Scena intersection with Country
Cfub Drive and enter into a maintenance agreement for 25% of the costs.
25. De�efoper shall construct a landscaped center median on Monierey Avenue to the
northerfy extension of Tract 27882 in connection with the lef�-turn lane entering the
projec# ftom southbound Monterey Avenue.
GIPubWakslCavwiUons W AppnvallTMAPSIJT 33120, P? 4�32 Mayer GC & Monterey.wptl
Palm Desert Merano Homeowners Association
President: Michaei Carle
Secretary: Irvvin Sandter
245 Strada Nova
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Te1: 760-861-2328 Fax:760-779-5372
�p�yrd � �f1�1Q G01'IM111�lbf1 tr'1�1
pr� n6 /o��'Cn� trar�`G:Z(�,.L°�
� rtaa, ao
Monday, June 06, 2005 �°
To Whom It May Concern:
This let#er represents the voice aF ane hundred & iwenty suc t�me owners in the
residential development oi Merano, which is located direr.tly adlacent to the 8.63 acres
on the comer of Monterey Ave and Country Club Drive proposed for a zoni�g change, as
requested by the Mayer Corporaation.
This is not the first time that a request for a aoning change has been put before you.
Originaily the request was for the entire parcet of land. That request was denied. The
Merano residential development is the result of the originat zoning initiative within the
Palm Desert Master Plan. The Mayer Corporation voluntarify ctwse to leave the
remai�ing 8.63 residentiaf acres undeveloped. However, a few years ago another
request for zoning change came to you asking for the remaining 8.63 acres to be zoned
commeraal for the then proposed LudcylAlbertson projec:t. That request was also
denied.
Now the Mayer Corporation is requesting a modification of the zoning for partiat
commeraal and partial residential develapment The homeowners of Merano object to
any zoning change from that clearly established in the Palm Desert Master Plan.
The new Albertson's in Ranc�o Mirage has teft tt�e Plaza de Monteney anchor sfiore
empty for at teast two years. VVhat is to beoome of the vast space in the middle of a
struggling shopping mall?
VVhat coukf be the compelling reason for a zoning change? Within two miles south on
Monterey there are a{ready fully c�vebped commerciat centers and, to the north, on
Monterey and Dinah Shor�e, construd'+on is under way for a Super Wal-Mart, Sams C{ub,
Lowes and others. The pcoposaf before you indicates a Watgreens as the anchor.
1Nhat's to become of the Walgreens across from the WestField Shopping Mall?
Surely there is already enough commeraal development for tt� aomer of Country Club
and Monterey. The Palm Desert Master Plan dearly indicates the comer lot adjacent to
the entrance to Merano was to be residerrtial. What is the ovemding reason for making
a change?
We have attached a history of the proposals to ciate and points of opposition for any
development other than that of the agreed zoning of residential.
Sincet�ely, �
�----._„� � � r' �
---�� '
�
Merano Board of Dir+ectors
June 7, 2005
History
• The parcei af iand which is the subject of this hearing was part of a single
parcel which indudes what is now the residential community of Merano.
• Prior to the development of Merano, the City o� Palm Desert refused a
zoning change request that wouid have permitted a REGIONAL
SHOPPING CENTER on the entire site.
• The City upheld its own Master P{an and retained the R-7 zoning for the
entire site.
• The owner then chose to develop Merano, a cor�forming use of the land,
on approximately s/. of the site and requested a zoning change to
commercial for the remaining %4 of the parcel that is the subject of tonight's
hearing.
• Again, the City of Palm Desert uphetd its own Master P(an and permitted
the development of Merano as a conforming residential community but
refused to change the zoning for the 8.63 acre portion that is the subject of
this hearing and retain�i the R-7 zoning for the entire parcel.
• The owner has made numerous attempts at put#ing a commercia!
devetopment/shopping cerrter on this land including a request for a zoning
change to commercial that was the subject of a hearing before this
commission and City Counat during the summer af 1998.
• Again, the City upheld its own Masier Plan and denied the request for a
change of zoning from R-7 to commercial.
• Since then, #he Robert Mayer Corp has made additionat presentations to
the Board and residents af Merano seeking support fcx a zoning change
request. Each and every request has resu[ted not only in a lack of support
by the owners of homes in Merano but in an overwhelming outpouring of
opposition to the request.
• The land is still zoned R-7.
• The construction of the proposed 2-story homes immed�ately backing up
to the proposed comme�cia! buildings and a commercial parking {ot is an
ill-conaeived plan.
• The PLAZA de MONTEREY is a retaif neighborhood shopping center and
is tocated direc#!y across Country Club Drive--on the south east comer of
Montecey Avenue and Country Club Drive. This commerciai center is and
has been largely vacant for an extremely tongtime--in some cases in
excess of 1'�4 years. With the amount of pre-existing vacant commercial
space atready at this intersection, there is absolutely no just�ication or
compel4ing reason to support the requested chan� of zoning from the
City of Palm Desert"s Master Plan to allaw the bfight of an unneeded,
urnvarranted, and unwarrted additionaf strip mail at this irrtersection.
• The owners of homes within Merano, like the other residents of Palm
Desert, l�k fosward to the day when the vacant land on the northeast
comer of Monterey C{ub and Country Ctub is properly developed.
However, this mixed use project is not the proper development plan for
this strietly resi�ntial R-7 property.
On behatf of the 126 homeowner's of Merano, we ask #hat the Planning
Commission continue to uphold the zoning of the Palm Desert Master Plan and
deny the request for a change of zoning for this mixed use project.
V'�a Scena
7rdffic c�ongestion
Cost of maintenanc�e due to deterioration frorn higher usage
Cos# of landscaping
Vehicular noise
Vehicuiar ligrtts
Gate security
Traffic Signals
Partcina Lat
Lighting for lot
Lighting for security devices (strobes etc}
Noise of cars/homs
Noise af peopte and shopping carts
Detivery trucks
Trudc reverse waming signals
Saecific Retaii Goncerns
Location dose to Merarno wati
Security
Noise of c�ompressors, air conditianing systems� and ventifation systems
Vermin
Shopping carts
Excessive deiivery traffic and noise af truGcs
Location aF loading dodcs and inherent noise probtems (trudc reversing homs)
24R Operation
L.itter
Cookir�g smeiis
ON�er tvpes of business which miQht be included
Service stations
Restaurants
Fast fooci
Take-out fooci operasiions
Arcade game type businesses
Others types of nuisar�ce businesses
Ptans far Nearbp Pnooerties
C�umership of other Monberey AvelCountry Cfub Drive iMersecdon properties
Plans for the vacant bt in Rancha Mirage
Direct effects on Merano homes
Blockage of views
E�ccessive raise
Security concems bath at gates arxl waNs
Increase costs of maintenance af roads
2417 operation inifringes or� enjoymeM of hornelproperty during leisure hours
Aesthetic concems
Diminishing property vafues
Who does �rot�osed center ben�efit?
In the view of the board aF directors and homeowners of Merano, the oniy ber�eficiary is
the Mayer Corporatian
:
:.�+, : ; -f �..
�y µt. �
C11Y DF Pflt�l OESERt
%j—SIO FRSD WARING DR7V8
l�ALM D858AT, CALIFORNIA 92360-25J$
rac: 760 3q6—obi i
t�nx: 750 34�-7098
inEoOp.im-desert.oeg
CI7Y OF PALM DESERT
LEGAI NOTICE
CASE NOS. C/Z 04-06, PP 04-32 AND TT 33120
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing wili be held befora the Palm Desert City
Council to consider a request by ROBERT MAYER CORP, for approval of a series of
applications (change of zone, precise plan of design, tentative tract map and Negative
Deciaration of Environmental Impact) to facilitate development of a mixed use residential (33
si�gle family lots) and commercial (30,550 square feet) neighborhood commercial center on
8.63 acres at the northeast corner af Monterey Avenue and Country Club Drive, 73-100
Country Ciub Drive.
�
--- � --
----
�
�
_� �
�'
SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, June 23, 2�05, at 4:00 p.m, in the Council
Chamber at the Paim Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert,
California, at whioh 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 ba
accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concarning the proposed project and/or
negative deciaration is availabte for review in the Dapartmeni of Community Development
at the above address between the haurs of 8:04 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday. It you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone etse reised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in
written corcespondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun RACHELLE D. KIASSEN, City Clerk
June 11, 2005 City of Palm Desert, California
—COUNTRY CW6•DR