HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 06-121 PP/CUP 06-03 & TMP 34437 Smith Consulting Architectes - Gerald Ford Business ParkCITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: Approval of a precise plan / conditional use permit to construct a
100,500 square foot mixed -use retail/office center with a two-story
parking structure, an exception to reduce the front and rear yard
setbacks from 32 feet and 30 to 10 feet, a height exception to allow
building heights up to 34 feet, an exception to allow a second
single -faced freestanding sign on a street frontage less than 1,600
feet, and approval of a tentative parcel map to subdivide 6.10 acres
into 13 parcels. The project site is located at 75-300 Gerald Ford
Drive.
SUBMITTED BY: Francisco J. Urbina, Associate Planner
APPLICANT: Smith Consulting Architects Gerald Ford Business Park, LLC
Attn: Norman Barrett Attn: Wayne Guralnick
12220 El Camino Real, Suite 200 74-399 Highway 111, Suite M,
San Diego, CA 92130 Palm Desert, CA 92260
CASE NOS
DATE:
CONTENTS
Recommendation:
PP/CUP 06-03 & TPM 34437
August 24, 2006
Staff Recommendation
Executive Summary
Discussion
Resolution No. 06-121 approving PP/CUP 06-03 and TPM 34437
Legal Notice
Draft Planning Commission Minutes of August 1, 2006
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2411
Planning Commission Staff Report dated August 1, 2006
Architectural Review Commission Minutes of June 13, 2006
That the City Council adopt the findings and adopt Resolution No. 06-121
approving PP/CUP 06-03 and TPM 34437, including exceptions for building
setbacks and height and two freestanding single faced signs
Executive Summary:
The applicant is requesting approval to construct a 100,500 square foot mixed -
use retail/office center and approval of a tentative parcel map to subdivide the
6.10-acre site into 13 parcels. The site plan was designed to have all parking in
the rear to allow five retail one-story retail buildings (19'-6" to 31'-0" high) to front
Staff Report
Gerald Ford Business Park LLC, PP/CUP 06-03 & TPM 34437
Page 2
August 24, 2006
on Gerald Ford Drive with a 22 to 45-foot setback from curb face to create a
pedestrian friendly streetscape that will attract general drive -by customers as well
as students and employees from the Cal State campus when it expands north to
Gerald Ford Drive directly across from the project site. Six two-story office
buildings and a two -level parking structure will be located in the rear half of the
site. The five one-story buildings in the front generally have a height of 22 feet.
The six two-story buildings on the rear half of the site generally have a height of
30 feet. The site plan's pedestrian friendly design is exemplified by landscaped
courtyards with decorative paving and outdoor seating, and by walkways with
decorative paving along Gerald Ford Drive and in the interior of the site.
The applicant requests the following exceptions related to building setbacks,
building height, and number of freestanding signs:
1. An exception to reduce the PI zone's 32-foot front yard setback to
between 10 to 33 feet from property line, which is the equivalent of a
22 to 45-foot setback from curb face.
2. An exception to reduce the rear yard setback from 30 feet to 10 feet.
3. An exception to the PI zone's 30-foot height limit to allow architectural
projections such as towers and metal trellises up to 34 feet high.
4. An exception to allow a second single -faced freestanding sign on a
street frontage less than 1,600 feet.
On June 13, 2006, the Architectural Review Commission granted preliminary
approval (6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Hansen Absent). On August 1, 2006, the
Planning Commission recommended approval (5-0-0-0) to the City Council of the
precise plan, including approval of the setback, height and sign exceptions. The
Planning Commission concluded the site plan's pedestrian friendly design and
the buildings' superior architecture justified granting the exceptions.
Discussion:
I. BACKGROUND:
The 6.1-acre site is located on the north side of Gerald Ford Drive and is 1,200
feet east of Cook Street. From the northerly boundary to the southerly boundary
on Gerald Ford Drive, the site's grade falls three feet over a distance of 420 feet.
From west to east, the site falls three feet over a distance of 621 feet.
Staff Report
Gerald Ford Business Park LLC, PP/CUP 06-03 & TPM 34437
Page 3
August 24, 2006
On July 20, 2004 the Planning Commission approved a precise plan for a 19,565
showroom and warehouse building for D' Mundo Tile on a 1.14-acre parcel to the
west that fronts on Gerald Ford Drive. On February 7, 2006 the Planning
Commission approved a precise plan to construct two light industrial / office
buildings to the west with a total of 18,846 square feet on a 1.42-acre parcel
located 250 feet north of Gerald Ford Drive. Construction of these two projects
recently started. On November 6, 2001 the Planning Commission approved a
precise plan for the University Commerce Center to the east, which consists of
eight light industrial / office buildings with a total of 130,680 square. Construction
of this project was completed recently.
A. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use:
The property is zoned PCD (Planned Community Development) and is
designated Industrial -Business Park on the City's General Plan Land Use
Map. The project site is within Planning Area (PA) 4 of the Wonder Palms
Master Plan of Development. PA 4 is designated Planned Industrial on
the Wonder Palms Master Plan land use map. In addition to uses listed in
the PI zone, such as light industrial and research and development
facilities, the text of the master plan encourages mixed -use retail, office,
and residential uses with a conditional use permit.
North: PCD (Planned Community Development, Wonder Palms
Master Plan PA 4) / Mid -Valley Storm Channel, Union Pacific
Railroad, and Interstate 10 Freeway
South: PR-5 (Planned Residential, 5 dwelling units per acre maximum
density) / Vacant
East: PCD (Planned Community Development, Wonder Palms
Master Plan PA 4) / new multi -tenant light industrial buildings
West: PCD, FCOZ (Planned Community Development, Freeway
Commercial Overlay Zone, Wonder Palms Master Plan PA 4) /
three office / warehouse buildings are under construction
B. General Plan Land Use Designation:
Industrial -Business Park
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
A. Precise Plan / Conditional Use Permit
The precise plan / conditional use permit proposes the construction of a
100,500 square foot mixed -use retail/office center with five one-story
buildings in the front and six two-story buildings and a two-story parking
Staff Report
Gerald Ford Business Park LLC, PP/CUP 06-03 & TPM 34437
Page 4
August 24, 2006
structure in the rear. The project will be constructed in three phases as
shown on project site plan sheet SD-2. The uses and square footages for
the 11 buildings are as follows:
• Bank with drive-thru (Building G, one-story): 4,500 square feet
• Retai Vrestau rant spaces (Buildings H, I, J and K, one-story): 16,000
square feet
• Office/retail (Buildings B and E, two-story): 18,000 square feet
• Offices (Buildings A, C, D and F, two story): 62,000 square feet
1. Site Plan:
The project site plan was designed to have all parking in the rear to allow
five one-story retail buildings to front on Gerald Ford Drive to create a
pedestrian friendly streetscape that will attract general customers as well
as students and employees from the Cal State campus when it expands
north to Gerald Ford Drive directly across from the project site. The site
plan seeks to create a complimentary relationship with the future Cal State
expansion to encourage pedestrian travel between the two properties.
These desired objectives could not be achieved if parking lots had been
plotted in front of the buildings closest to Gerald Ford Drive. The site
plan's pedestrian friendly design continues into the interior of the site
through the use of decorative paving on walkways and internal driveways
and locating a major courtyard with outdoor seating and tables in the rear
half of the site between Buildings B, C, D and E.
Access to the site from Gerald Ford Drive is provided via two reciprocal
driveways. The main (central) driveway will be signalized. Other shared
driveways are located on the site's westerly and easterly boundaries to
provide access between the site and adjacent parcels. Four internal
driveways will provide access to the proposed two -level parking structure
in the rear. Two driveways will provide access to the ground level. The
other two will provide access to the second level.
2. Architecture:
The eleven proposed retail and office buildings have a contemporary
architectural style with strong emphasis of rectangular shapes and flat
rooflines with heights varying from 19'-6" up to 34'-0". The five retail
buildings at the front of the site are one-story with heights from 19'-6" to
31'-0". These buildings generally have a roof height of 22-foot height. The
other six buildings in the rear have two -stories with heights from 30'-0" to
34'-0".
Staff Report
Gerald Ford Business Park LLC, PP/CUP 06-03 & TPM 34437
Page 5
August 24, 2006
The applicant is requesting a height exception to the PI zone's 30-foot
height limit to allow buildings up to 34 feet high to provide variation in roof
height and to accommodate architectural projections such as towers and
metal trellises.
Building walls will have stucco finishes painted in five colors: light beige,
dark beige, olive green, dark brown and terra cotta brown. Portions of
some walls and columns will have stacked stone. The buildings will also
have dark brown metal trellises, and recessed windows to enhance their
appearance.
The Architectural Review Commission granted preliminary approval of the
project on April 25, 2006 subject to the project being limited to one
monument sign, returning with articulation on the parking structure, and
the preliminary landscape plan being approved by the landscape
manager. On June 13, 2006 the Architectural Review Commission granted
preliminary approval of the parking structure's revised north elevation
subject to some pop -out elements being increased in height an additional
18 inches and adding a third color to the north elevation. Since June 13,
2006, the project architect has revised the parking structure's north
elevation to incorporate these conditions. A revised colored north
elevation is included in the 11 x 17 booklet of project plans that will be
distributed with this staff report to the City Council.
3. Exception to reduce front yard setback:
The applicant is requesting approval of an exception to reduce the PI
zone's 32-foot front yard setback to 10 feet. Since the front property line is
located 12 feet from the curb face on Gerald Ford Drive, the public will see
a minimum building setback of 22 feet from curb. The four buildings
fronting on Gerald Ford Drive have setbacks varying from 22 to 45 feet
from street curb. The justification given for the reduced setback is to allow
a project site plan that creates a pedestrian friendly retail streetscape by
providing well -designed buildings with outdoor patio seating fronting on
Gerald Ford Drive. By comparison, retail setbacks from street curb in the
C-1 zone on El Paseo are 15 feet.
If the front yard setback exception is not approved, an alternative site plan
would likely show a parking lot fronting on Gerald Ford Drive and buildings
with a front yard setback greater than 32 feet. For comparison, the D'
Mundo tile building under construction on an adjacent property to the west
was approved with a 61-foot front yard setback. Buildings in the University
Commerce Center to the east were approved with a 91-foot front yard
Staff Report
Gerald Ford Business Park LLC, PP/CUP 06-03 & TPM 34437
Page 6
August 24, 2006
setback. These adjacent projects have parking lots in front of the buildings
and do not create a pedestrian friendly streetscape.
4. Exception to reduce rear yard setback:
An exception is also requested to reduce the PI zone's rear yard setback
adjacent to the Mid -Valley Storm Channel and the railroad tracks from 30
feet to 10 feet. The site plan shows a 10-foot landscaped rear yard setback
for the two -level parking structure. The applicant believes that providing a
30-foot landscaped rear yard setback for the parking structure would serve
no useful purpose since the entire length (602 feet) of the rear landscaped
setback is too isolated and therefore would not be used by project
employees and customers. The 10-foot setback allows for a line of trees to
soften the parking structure's elevation as seen from Interstate 10.
5. Height exception:
Although the PI zone specifies a height limit of 30 feet, Section 25.36.270 of
the PI zone allows an applicant to request a height exception. While the
project's six two-story buildings generally have a roof height of 30 feet, the
applicant is requesting a height exception to allow increases in height up to
34 feet to provide variation in roof height and to accommodate
architectural projections such as towers and metal trellises. Section
25.36.010 of the Zoning Ordinance states that "the purpose of the PI zone
is to provide flexibility in development, creative and imaginative design...".
The project's other five buildings are one-story with heights from 19'-6" to
31'-0". These buildings have metal trellis supports that project one foot
above the 30-foot height limit. The Architectural Review Commission
concluded that the superior architecture and height variation from 19'-6" to
34'-0" throughout the project justified the height exception.
6. Exception to allow a second freestanding sign:
The applicant is requesting approval of an exception to Section
25.68.310.A of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a second free standing sign
on Gerald Ford Drive. Commercial centers are allowed one double-faced
freestanding sign per street frontage. A second freestanding sign may be
allowed on the same street if the center has a minimum of 1600 feet of
street frontage. The project site has 726 feet of street frontage. The
applicant is proposing two single -faced freestanding signs at a 45-degree
angle to Gerald Ford Drive on each side of the site's main driveway next
to a courtyard. Each monument sign structure is 64" high and 12'-0"
wide. The sign copy area will be only 22 square feet. Each sign will have
the name of the business park and two tenant names. Since both signs
Staff Report
Gerald Ford Business Park LLC, PP/CUP 06-03 & TPM 34437
Page 7
August 24, 2006
are single -faced, the amount of combined sign copy area (44 square feet)
is the same as if only one double -face sign were approved.
Zoning Ordinance Section 25.68.730 states that the Planning Commission
/ City Council may approve exceptions relative to size, number, and
location of signs after a public hearing in instances where an applicant is
faced with exceptional circumstances because of type or location of
business, or is trying to achieve a special design effect. The applicant
must show that:
A. The sign will be integrated into the architecture of the
building; and
B. The sign will not be detrimental to neighboring businesses or
the community in general.
The sign structures will use stucco, stone veneer, and aluminum materials
with colors and shapes to match the architecture of the proposed
buildings.
Exceptional circumstances regarding the shopping center that justify
granting an exception to allow a second free standing sign include the
following:
One freestanding sign plotted perpendicular to Gerald Ford
Drive would be inadequate because the street curvature on
this section of Gerald Ford Drive would make it difficult for
motorists to read the lettering on a freestanding sign in
advance of the driveway entry.
The 45-degree angle plotting of the signs on each side of the
main driveway will make them easily readable with strong
identification of the business park at a signalized
intersection. The sign shapes and materials and their
location next to courtyards will create a special design effect
that aids customers in letting them know they have arrived at
the business park.
7. Project Data
The following table compares the project with the PI zone development
standards.
Staff Report
Gerald Ford Business Park LLC, PP/CUP 06-03 & TPM 34437
Page 8
August 24, 2006
STANDARD PI DISTRICT
Building 30 feet
Height
Front Setback 32 feet, or as approved on the precise plan
Rear Setback 30 feet, or as approved on the precise plan
Side Yards 30 feet,
or as approved on the precise plan
Parking 402 parking spaces required based on parking
requirements for general retail and offices
(1 space per 250 square feet of gross floor
area)
Building Site 50%
Coverage of the net area of the site
Landscaping 15% of the parking area
B. Tentative Parcel Map
PROJECT
Heights range from 19'-6" up to 34'-
0". A height exception is being
requested per PI zone Section
25.36.270
10 feet
10 feet
10 feet
407 parking spaces provided
NOTE: A combination of restaurant
and retail uses are proposed for
14,700 square feet (15%) of the
project's total square footage of
99,200,
37%
30% of project site
Tentative Parcel Map 34437 proposes to subdivide the 6.10-acre project
site into 13 parcels to allow the buildings to be sold individually. Two
parcels are common area lots. One lot will contain the parking lot and
landscaped areas in the front half of the project site. The second common
area lot will contain the parking structure located in the rear as well as
portions of two of access driveways.
A condition of approval requires the land divider to create a property
owners association to maintain the parking areas and landscaping on the
two common area lots. Another condition requires the recordation of a
reciprocal easement for parking and access, drainage, and use of
trash/recycling enclosures between the parcels.
III. ANALYSIS:
A. Site Plan Layout & Exception to Reduce Front Yard Setback From 32
Feet to 10 Feet (22 feet from curb face):
The site plan's layout with all parking in the rear and five retail buildings
with quality architecture fronting on Gerald Ford Drive succeeds in
creating a pedestrian friendly streetscape that will form a complementary
relationship with the Cal State campus when it expands north to Gerald
Ford Drive. This desirable site plan design could not be achieved if
parking lots were plotted in front of the buildings closest to Gerald Ford
Staff Report
Gerald Ford Business Park LLC, PP/CUP 06-03 & TPM 34437
Page 9
August 24, 2006
Drive. Therefore, staff supports reducing the front yard setback from 32
feet to 10 feet. The front yard setback from curb face varies between 22
and 45 feet. Granting of the front yard setback reduction to achieve a
creative and superior site plan is consistent with Section 25.36.010 of the
Zoning Ordinance, which states that "the purpose of the PI zone is to
provide flexibility in development, creative and imaginative design...".
B. Exception to Reduce Rear Yard Setback From 30 Feet to 10 Feet:
We agree with the applicant that widening the landscaped rear yard
setback from 10 feet to 30 feet would not serve a useful purpose since this
area would still be unusable open space due to its isolated location. A 10-
foot rear yard setback is sufficient to provide landscaping that includes
trees. For comparison, if this property were zoned SI (Service Industrial)
instead of PI, the rear yard setback would be zero. Several SI properties
on the north side of Dinah Shore Drive west of Portola Avenue have been
developed with rear yard landscaped setbacks of 10 feet or less.
Additionally, the adjacent to the Mid -Valley Storm Channel and the Union
Pacific Railroad provide a generous 280-foot wide setback buffer between
the project site and Interstate 10. Thus, the PI zone's 30-foot rear yard
setback is not necessary to achieve adequate rear yard landscaping.
Additionally, since the north elevation of the project's parking structure
was revised to include enhanced architectural design, the project site will
have a visually attractive appearance to motorists traveling along the
Interstate 10 Freeway.
C. Height Exception:
The height exception request to allow portions of the project's eleven
buildings to have heights ranging 31 to 34 feet is justified because
architectural projections such as towers and metal trellises will create
buildings with more interesting architecture that will enhance the
appearance of the project, which is visible from Gerald Ford Drive and the
Interstate 10 Freeway.
D. Exception for Second Freestanding Sign:
We support the applicant's request for an exception to allow two well
designed freestanding single -faced signs next to courtyards on each side
of the project's main entrance. The signs' design and materials will be
compatible with the architecture of the proposed buildings. Exceptional
circumstances exist regarding the project site that justify granting the
exception. First, the street curvature on this section of Gerald Ford Drive
would make it difficult for motorists to read the lettering on a single double-
Staff Report
Gerald Ford Business Park LLC, PP/CUP 06-03 & TPM 34437
Page 10
August 24, 2006
face freestanding sign in advance of the driveway entry. Second, the 45-
degree angle plotting of the signs on each side of the main driveway will
make it easier for motorists to read the business park's signage at a
signalized intersection. The signs' quality design that use shapes and
materials similar to the project buildings, and their location next to entry
courtyards, will create a special design effect that aids customers in letting
them know they have arrived at the Gerald Ford Business Park.
Thus, the findings for approving a precise plan / conditional use permit and a
tentative parcel map can be affirmed. These findings are included in the draft
Planning Commission resolution attached to this staff report.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
For purposes of CEQA, the Director of Community Development has determined
that impacts from the proposed project were considered in the Environmental
Impact Report prepared for the updated City of Palm Desert Comprehensive
General Plan adopted in March 2004 (Resolution 04-20). Therefore, no further
environmental documentation is required at this time. Additionally the project site
was previously rough graded under Parcel Map 28448 and Coachella Valley
Fringe Toed Lizard Impact fees were paid on January 14, 1998.
Submitted By:
w.
Francisco J., Ur ina
Associate Planner
Department Head:
Philip Dr
Director of Community Development
Approve
Homer CCFoy,Assi nt City Manager for Development Services
4,) Carlos L. rt ga, C' Manager
* Waived fur er reading and adopted Res. No. 06-121, with the
understanding that any additional signage requeted by the applicant
will be subject to Architectural Review Commission consideration
and that the Landscape Beautification Committee will review the
landscaping plan for the project. 4-0
RESOLUTION NO.06-121
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN / CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 100,500 SQUARE FOOT BUSINESS
PARK WITH EXCEPTIONS FOR SETBACKS, HEIGHT AND SIGNAGE
AND APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A 6.1-
ACRE SITE INTO 13 PARCELS LOCATED AT 75-300 GERALD FORD
DRIVE.
CASE NOS. PP/CUP 06-03 AND TPM 34437:
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 24th
day of August 24, 2006 hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by
GERALD FORD BUSINESS PARK LLC for approval of the above noted; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, by its
Resolution No. 2411 has recommended approval of Case Nos. PP/CUP 06-03 and TPM
34437 subject to conditions; 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. 06-78," in that the Director of Community Development has determined
that that impacts from the proposed project were considered in the Environmental
Impact Report prepared for the updated City of Palm Desert Comprehensive General
Plan adopted in March 2004 (Resolution 04-20); 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 the said request:
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF A PRECISE PLAN / CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT:
That the proposed project complies with the goals, objectives and policies
of the City's General Plan.
2. The request for a height exception to allow proposed buildings to exceed
the 30-foot height limit up to 34 feet is justified because the buildings'
architecture is enhanced by design projections and variation in roof heights
from 19'-6" up to 34 feet. This fulfills the Wonder Palms Master Plan goal of
encouraging planning areas with projects that take on a series of individual
characteristics resulting in an aesthetically consistent, environmentally
harmonious, and economically viable addition to the community.
3. The request for an exception to reduce the front yard setback from 32 feet
to 10 feet is consistent with the Planned Industrial zone's objective of
RESOLUTION NO-m-ui
providing flexibility in development to encourage creative and imaginative
design because this allows a site plan that places all parking areas in the
rear and buildings and landscaped courtyards in the front, which creates a
more aesthetically attractive and pedestrian friendly streetscape.
4. The request for an exception to reduce the rear yard setback from 30 feet to
10 is justified because a 30-foot landscaped rear yard setback would not
serve a useful purpose since this area is unusable open space due to its
isolated location, and the Mid -Valley Storm Channel and the Union Pacific
Railroad provide a generous 280-foot wide setback buffer between the
project site and Interstate 10,
5. The well designed project with quality architecture and buildings that front
on Gerald Ford Drive, parking in the rear, landscaped courtyards with
outdoor seating and tables, and landscaped walkways will create an
inviting, pedestrian friendly environment that will be compatible with the
future expansion of the Cal State University campus across the street on
the south side of Gerald Ford Drive.
6. The design of the project will not depreciate property values in the vicinity,
nor be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
7. The project will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of
the property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes.
8. The project will not endanger the public peace, health, safety, or general
welfare.
9. The two single -faced freestanding signs will use stucco, stone veneer,
and aluminum materials with colors and shapes to match the architecture
of the proposed buildings.
10. The freestanding signs will not be detrimental to neighboring businesses
or the community in general.
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP:
That the design or improvements of the proposed map is consistent with
applicable general and specific plans.
2. That the site is physically suitable for commercial development.
3. That the design of the parcel map or the proposed improvements are not
likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
2
RESOLUTION NO. 06-121
4. That the design of the parcel or the type of improvements is not likely to
cause serious public health problems.
5. 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.
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 case.
2. That Precise Plan / Conditional Use Permit 06-03 and Tentative Parcel
Map 34437 are hereby approved, subject to attached conditions.
3. That the following exceptions are hereby approved:
a. An exception to reduce the front and rear yard setbacks from 32 feet
and 30 to 10 feet.
b. A height exception to allow architectural projections up to 34 feet high.
c. An exception to allow a second single -faced freestanding sign on a
street frontage less than 1,600 feet
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
City Council, held on this 24th day of August 2006, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, CITY CLERK
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
3
JIM FERGUSON, MAYOR
RESOLUTION NO.06-121
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NOS. PP / CUP 06-03 & TPM 34437
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. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the
date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said
approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the
restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal
ordinances and state and federal 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
Waste Management of the Desert
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. Applicant shall participate in a commercial recycling program as determined by the
City and applicable Waste Disposal Company. Access to trash/service areas shall
be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas. Said placement shall be
approved by applicable trash company and Department of Community
Development. The applicant shall submit a site plan with trash and recycling
enclosure locations and enclosure construction details to Waste Management of
the Desert for review and issuance of an approval letter. A copy of said approval
letter shall be furnished to the Community Development Department prior to
issuance of building permits.
6. A detailed parking lot and building lighting plan shall be submitted to staff for
approval, subject to applicable lighting standards, plan to be prepared by a
qualified lighting engineer.
In
RESOLUTION NO. 06-121
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 shall be subject to all applicable fees at time of issuance of building
permits including, but not limited to, Art in Public Places, Fringe -Toed Lizard,
TUMF, School Mitigation and Housing Mitigation fees.
9. All roof -mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened by parapet walls that
are at least as high as the highest piece of mechanical equipment. Construction
drawings submitted for plan check shall include a roof plan showing locations of
any roof -mounted mechanical equipment and cross-section drawings showing
parapet wall heights as well as outlines and heights of roof -mounted mechanical
equipment.
Department of Public Works:
GENERAL
1. Landscaping maintenance of any common areas shall be provided by the
property owners association. 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.
BONDS AND FEES
3. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal
Code shall be paid prior to recordation of final map minus the cost of the
.i
RESOLUTION NO.06-121
drainage improvements made.
4. 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. Signal installation may
be used as credit against the fees and the City will pay up to half of the costs in
accordance with PM 30314.
5. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF)
Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance.
6. A standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits.
DESIGN PLANS
7. 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 may utilize the Mid -Valley Retention Channel to drain incremental
increase in drainage for a 100-year storm. Nuisance waters shall be contained
on -site.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Complete parcel 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.
11. 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.
12. Pad elevations, as shown on the parcel map are subject to review and
modification in accordance with Chapter 26 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code.
13. Landscape plans shall be submitted for review concurrently with grading plans.
14. Waiver of access to Gerald Ford Drive, except at approved locations, shall be
granted on the final map.
REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION
RESOLUTION NO. 06-121
15. Full public improvements required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm
Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City
standards.
• 6' wide sidewalk on Gerald Ford Drive as shown on the grading plan.
• Signalized intersection at the project entry.
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.
16. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Department of
Public Works and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of
grading permits. No occupancy permit shall be granted until improvements have
been completed.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
17. Reciprocal easements shall be provided for drainage, access and parking.
18. A public access easement shall be dedicated over sidewalk outside the public
right-of-way on Gerald Ford Drive.
Riverside County Fire Marshal:
1. With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced
project, the fire department recommends the following fire protection measures
be provided in accordance with City Municipal Code, NFPA, UFC, and UBC or
any recognized Fire Protection Standards:
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel
or construction of all buildings per UFC article 87.
2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20 psi residual pressure must be
available before any combustible material is placed on the job site.
3. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of providing a gpm flow of:
3000 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 feet nor more than:
150' from any portion of a commercial building measured via vehicular travelway.
7
RESOLUTION NO. 06-121
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 sprinkler system. This applies to all buildings
with a 3000 square foot total cumulative floor area. The Fire Marshal shall
approve the locations of all post indicator valves and fire department
connections. All valves and connections shall not be less than 25 feet from the
building and within 50 feet 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 UBC Chapter 9.
8. Install a fire alarm system as required by UBC Chapter 3.
9. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than one 2A10BC
extinguisher per 3000 square feet and not over 75 feet walking distance. A "K"
type fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens.
10. All building shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within
150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall
not be less than 24 feet 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 feet wide, and 32 feet wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in
excess of 150 feet shall be provided with a minimum 45-foot radius turn -around,
55 foot 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 or
over -ride system to allow for emergency vehicle access. Minimum gate width
shall be 16' with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'-6".
12. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city.
13. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must
be submitted separately to the Fire Marshal for approval prior to construction.
14. Install a Hood/Duct automatic fire extinguishing system per NFPA 96 in all public
and private cooking operations except single=family residential usage.
15. Install a dust collection system per CFC Chapter 76 if conducting an operation
that produces airborne particles.
16. All elevators shall be gurney size.
17. Conditions 15 and 16 shall be imposed if conditions apply.
0
CITY OF Pfl�(� DESERI
I]j-510 FRED WARI!JG DRIVE
i PALM DF.SF.RT, CALIFOR'JIA 92260-2575
' TEL: 760 ;46-06��
Fnx: 760 ;q�-7oq8
info�palm�dcscrt org
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NOS. PPICUP 06-03 & TPM 34437
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Patm Desert
City Council to consider a request by GERALD FORD BUSINESS PARK LLC for a
precise planlconditional use permit to construct 11 buildings for a 100,5�0 square foot
mixed use retail/office center and a tentative parcel map to subdivide 6.10 acres into 13
parcels. The property is located at 75-300 Gerald Ford Drive. The p�oject is exempt from
further environmental review under the Califomia Environmental Quality Act because
environmental impacts were previously analyzed in the initial study prepared for Tentative
Parcel Map No. 28448, the site has been previously graded and Coachella Valley Fringe-
Toed Lizard impacts fees were paid, and the project was considered in the
Environmental Impact Report prepared for the updated City of Palm Desert
Comprehensive General Plan adopted in March 2004 (Resolution 04-20).
�- --
�4
��
ICD. � - /CD.ItGT
aaa ,
� �c
; ' r�ts
r.t�.rscY
PR�.JECT S1TE
PA•7 1 PR.1/
IJl.7 IJl.f I PRS
� � i I , %l I __ � � ���
1�I����N��_
--- rR� � ,. �r�en�_ .— — � iK..� r,eo �' "ai.,�.� . _
_ '_.n.'_ '_'__' _ �.'�' _'__ _'___ � IRJ �—'_. _' __._
SAID public hearing will be held on Thu�sday, August 24, 2006 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council
Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert,
Califomia, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be
heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall
be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project
and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community
Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be
limited to raising ontiy those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning
Commission (or ciry council) at, or prior to, the public hearing.
PUBLISH: DESERT SUN RACHELLE KLASSEN, CITY CLERK
August 13, 2006 PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL
oRaFY
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLA
NNING COMMISSION _ ,.._ ,_.. ,_. ._. _„ .._AUG�JST 1 2006
. __ ._ , _.. . . _. .. , ..._ ,_. .. � _._ - �-- �- -
rear and the second level of the parking structure was less than nine
feet from surface to deck.
Action:
Chairperson Lopez complimented Mr. Holt on the great renderings. He asked
if anyone wished to address the Commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to
the proposed project. There was no one and the public hearing was closed.
Chairperson Lopez asked for Commission comments or action.
Commissioner Finerty stated that this was great architecture for the Service
{ndustrial zone and she really appreciated the quality work and moved for
approval.
Commissioner Campbell agreed. She thought it was outstanding architecture
and liked that the parking was on the north side and not facing the south
side. She seconded the motion.
Commissioner Tanner thought this was a great job and the type of
architecture wanted in the north sphere. He congratulated the applicant and
Holt Architects for putting together a great building. He said it was a job well
done.
Commissioner Tschopp said they were going to give Service fndustrial a
good name. Chairperson Lopez concurred and called for the vote.
It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner
Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0.
It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner
Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2410,
recommending to City Council approval of Case No. PP 05-26, subject to
conditions. Motion carried 5-0.
��. E. Case Nos. PPJCUP 06-03 and TPM 34437 - SMITH CONSULTING
ARCHITECTS, Applicant
(Continued from July 18, 2006)
Request for a recommendation to City Council of approval of
a precise planlconditional use permit to construct a 100,500
square foot mixed use retail/office center with a two-story
parking structure, an exception to reduce the f�ont yard and
�
DRAF't
MINUTES
PALM DESERT,PLANf�INs COMMI�S�ON ._...._, _ —_.. _ ,.._ . _ _ ,_.,. _ AU(�U�� 1, 20�6,
rear yard setbacks from 32 ieet and 30 feet to 10 feet, a height
exception to aflow building heights up to 34 feet, an exception
to allow a second single-faced freestanding sign on a street
frontage less than 1,600 feet, and a tentative parcel map to
subdivide 6.10-acres into 13 parcels for property located at 75-
300 Gerald Ford Drive.
Mr. Urbina noted that the site plan on display was revised since the last
Planning Commission meeting. At that time the applicant requested a
continuance and stated that he would withdraw the change of zone and
delete the drive-thru. The new site plan reflected the deletion of the drive-thru
that was at the west end of Building K. The change of zone application to
extend the Freeway Commercial Overlay zone was withdrawn and the
square footage of Building K was increased by 1,300 square feet. The
project still met the parking requirements. He reviewed the staff report,
describing the proposed setbacks and height exceptions and recommended
that Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of Case
Nos. PP/CUP 06-03 and TPM 34437, subject to conditions contained in the
draft Resolution.
Commissioner Tschopp pointed out that the July 18 staff requested that this
item be continued because one of the concems was the front yard setback
which could set a precedent for other applicants to come forward and
request it. He said that staff had obviously come to terms with the applicant
requesting a ten-foot setback. Mr. Urbina explained that Mr. Drell was
involved in preapplication meetings with the applicant that Mr. Smith and he
did not attend. After further review and speaking with the applicant and
knowing that the objective was to create a pedestrian-friendly streetscape
where they would see the architecture and courtyards and people perhaps
sitting outdoors in front of restaurants, that was a more desirabie streetscape
then a sea of cars in a parking lot. Given the proximity to the Cal State
campus, staff believed that the setback reduction in the front was warranted.
An example was the project to the west, even though the building sets back
61 feet, the landscape setback in the front was only 12 feet, so there wasn't
a substantial difference in the amount of landscaping.
Commissioner Tanner asked about the ten-foot setback on Gerald Ford. He
had to assume that the setback would have a walkway. Mr. Drell stated that
the actual setback from curb is significantly larger. He said the setback
wasn't measured from the curb and asked Mr. Urbina for the actual
pedestrian area; Mr. Urbina said 22 feet. Commissioner Tanner asked if
there was going to be a small step-up wall or if there would be open access
0
DRAF`t
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMJSS�ON _
_.,.,,_...,...._..__. ,__ .._ _,,, __ ... _. . ,
_ _ _ _. _ _ __ _AUGUST 1:2006
to those courtyards. Mr. Urbina confirmed that there would be a three-foot
high curvilinear screen wall in front of Buiiding K, as well as portions of
Buildings H and G. Mr. Drell asked the purpose of the screen wall, then said
the question should be directed to the applicant. He asked why have a
screen wall in front of a commercial building? Before inviting the applicant
forward, Mr. Urbina noted that setbacks increased to as much as 45 feet at
the corners of the two main entrances.
Upon questioning by Chairperson Lopez, Mr. Urbina pointed out the location
of the proposed monument signs.
Chairperson Lopez onened the public hearing and asked the applicant to
address the Commission.
MR. BILL SHARON, representing Smith Consulting Architects, 78-000
Fred Waring Drive, Suite 201 in Palm Desert, Califomia 92211, said
this was a very unique opportunity on Gerald Ford Drive being along
this stretch east of Cook Street where there is a traffic signal. This is
a central location. Some of the things they were trying to do is create
activity, some action, some things fike that happening to the south on
the campus property. They wanted to emphasize the pedestrian
activity that might occur there and also from the other facilities west
of them. They were thinking of this as the city center of alf Gerald
Ford Drive east of Cook and they wanted to create some buildings
that celebrate the comer from this point on and thaYs where they put
their tower features as shown in the renderings. The higher two-story
office building would sit in the back. One thing they felt very strongly
about, and they met with Phil early on and asked his opinion about it
and he was in concurrence with them, and that was to try and create
some sidewalk activity similar to EI Paseo. That's why they were
asking for the ten-foot setback as opposed to the larger 30-foot
setback. They thought it would be better to take the landscaping
around the building in addition to the right-of-way and have a
meandering sidewalk, some landscaping, have some outdoor seating
areas in front of the restaurants. There would be some low walls, but
they would be there to separate more or less the seating area for that
particular restaurant. So they could have pedestrian activity pass by
and they would have private areas where people could sit and have
lunch. That was the overall concept.
Commissioner Finerty asked what kind of restaurants he was considering.
10
DRAFY
MINUTES
PAL(V) DESERT PLANNINC C,f,�MMISSI�N _,._. .. ._..._. ., .. _,_ _ AUGIJ�T 1�, 2Q��i
Mr. Sharon said cucrently they were looking at coffee shops and
anticipated some casual sit down restaurants, not necessarily full
senrice, but the kind of thing in business areas that are perfect for
lunch time.
Commissioner Finerty asked if dinner would be served.
Mr. Sharon said there could be dinner. That would be up to the future
lessee. They didn't know, but would be open to it. From his knowledge
of how retatil develops, that was a little premature. But as the area
develops it could change. Right now they would primarily focus on
serving the offices and workers in the area.
Commissioner Finerty noted that they could just walk right over and not take
their cars.
Mr. Sharon concurred.
Chairperson Lopez asked if there would be a traffic light at the intersection.
Mr. Sharon said yes, and explained that would be one of the main
entrances into the center off of Gerald Ford.
Chairperson Lopez asked staff about the timing of the traffic light installation.
Mr. Joy said the campus developing into that area would predicate the
installation of the traffic signal. He wasn't sure about the campus
development timing. Chairperson Lopez asked if there would be any other
stops along Gerald Ford along this section. Mr. Joy believed there was
another traffic signal before Frank Sinatra Drive. Mr. Drell clarified that there
was a signal already approved at the edge of the Taylor Woodrow project
that would also be joint access to the apartments and the commercial project
to the east or what might be the fire station to the west.
Commissioner Tanner asked if the proposed stop light at the comer of Frank
Sinatra by the Taylor Woodrow project was down about 300 yards from the
entrance to the college. Mr. Drell said that both of these signals were
coordinated with entrances. There were two planned entrances to the college
on Gerald Ford. This was one of them. They basically bisect Gerald Ford into
thirds. The one to the east is at the boundary of the Taylor Woodrow project.
Commissioner Tschopp asked if there was any concern if the traffic fight
didn't go in on time. This could become a busy center and a traffic prob{em
11
DRAF`t
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PL,AJVNING CO�IIMISSION_ __ _ ____ _ AUGUST 1, 200_6
could develop. Mr. Drell said the applicant was conditioned for half the
signal. Given our propensity for putting in those green and red arrows, as
long as traffic is light iYs actually quicker not to have the signal there. At
some point in time it could be put in when that left-tum becomes difficult.
This signal would also serve the project to the east. There's an easement to
the east. At some point in time if the development traffic levels on Gerald
Ford out pace what's going on at the University, and since we would
probably be the one paying for the other half of the signal, then we're usually
fairly responsive and step up and get it done. Mr. Joy said after looking at
the condition, he believed that the signal installation was required as part of
the project, so when the project get's built, they would be required to install
the signal. It was Public Works Condition No. 4.
Chairperson Lopez explained his concern. With the pedestrian sidewalk
close to the street, as well as potentially people sitting in sidewalk areas
having lunch, car speeds can get high and it was a slow turning right turn and
he was concerned about the safety factor for that area. He asked if the
speed limit was known for the road, but hoped it would be in the 40's at the
highest. Right now people do 55 mph because it was wide open country with
nothing to stop them. Mr. Drell indicated that there was a parkway between
the sidewalk and any of the public areas 10, 12, 15 feet beyond that. They
could see that there's a landscape parkway, then the sidewalk, the screen
wall and the patios. Hopefully they wouldn't have too many cars skipping the
cu rb.
Mr. Sharon pointed out the area that gets down to ten feet (in front of
Buildings G, H and a portion of K). He said in front of Building K it
starts at ten feet and then widens out. They anticipated most of the
restaurants on one side. One area would be taken up by financial
institutions, so there wouldn't be people sitting on the outside of that.
There could potentially be a restaurant on that side, but it was a much
smaller building. So they thought they would be pulled far enough
away from the street. What Phil was talking about was the sidewalk
is kind of set back and meanders around and then they have the
landscaped area out in front. The seating areas were between the
landscaped area and the sidewalk.
Mr. Drell asked Mr. Joy if the width of the roadway shown on the plans
included a right-turn lane adjacent to the curb. Mr. Joy explained that they've
had an approved design of that intersection for quite a while and this project
was held up to match what was already done on the other side. He couldn't
recollect if it included a deceleration lane or not.
12
DRAF`t
MINUTES
, lNC COMMISSION AI�GUS� 1. 2�0�6
PALM DESERT PLAN ,, ,,., _ _ . _ ,_, . _... ,_. _ _,..._._ _.,.. _ . .. .,
Mr. Sharon didn't recall if there was a decel lane.
Chairpecson Lopez asked to see a rendering of the north side of the parking
structure from Interstate 1Q and the height from that side.
Mr. Sharon explained that to the top of the trellis was 29 feet; the
majority of the height was at 20 feet and then some sections had ups
and downs. The mass was at 23.5 feet.
Commissioner Tschopp asked if there was a deceleration lane on the north
side, how far it would intrude into the project and how it would implicate it.
Mr. Joy said decel lanes are 12 feet wide. Going back to the site plan, Mr.
Drell asked if they could scale the width of the road section curb to curb to
the median. His recollection was that the entrance to the east had a
deceferation �ane and they appeared to line up. Sometimes they have
deceleration lanes and rather short distances. Hopefully people wouldn't use
it as a third lane. He said it should be indicated on the tract map. Mr. Drell
said curb to curb it was 34 feet and looked like three lanes and it is a two-
lane road, so it looked like it had a deceleration lane.
Referring to the parking structure, Commissioner Tanner asked how the
lights would be filtered so they wouldn't just stand out at night while driving
along the interstate. He asked if they would be filtered in some way. He
asked if it was correct that the top floor of the parking would be lit.
Mr. Sharon said that was correct. They would be required to put in the
zero cut off lights so at the property line the {ights wouldn't go past
there. Away from there at night, they would still see that it is being lit
up, but they wouldn't be able to see the poles.
Mr. Drell indicated that it would be similar to the conditions at the top of the
Westfield parking structures. Any lit Iot will be seen from a distance, but there
would be no trespass to the back in excess of a quarter of a foot candle,
which was about the full moon. They would see a lit lot. If it was a sing{e fevef
lot, they would see a lot with poles. Commissioner Tanner asked if the lights
would be on all night. Mr. Drell said no. Commissioner Tanner asked if the
lights would be turned off when the center was dormant. Mr. Drell said yes,
our ordinance requires for the lights to go off a half hour after closing.
Mr. Sharon said one of the things they had working for them was the
trellises, so they could put a lot of lights in the trellises and that would
help to some degree to shade the lights. He clarified for the
13
DRAF`t
MINUTES
_ T PLANNINC COMMISS���I� _ ._ _ . _._, ._. ,_ .. _ , .,,_. _ .. AI�GU�T 1;, 2QQ6
PALM DFSER .
Commission that the fights weren't shown on the drawings, only the
trellises.
There were no other questions for the applicant. Chairperson Lopez asked
if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed
project. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson
Lopez asked for Commission comments or action.
Commissioner Campbell stated that she liked the concept. She concurred
with staff on the recommendation regarding the front and rear setbacks. She
liked the paricing structures and recommended to City Council approval for
everything recommended by staff, including the monument sign and height.
Commissioner Tanner noted that he was opposed to an additional
monument sign on a previous case, but in this instance these were needed.
He also agreed with the fact that they need a couple of signs going both east
and west to identify the entrance. In this case he agreed with the signs and
moved for approval. He congratulated them on a job well done. He thought
it would be a great project. They are moving quick out there and each design
they see seemed to be better and better. He was in favor.
CommissionerTschopp agreed with staff's recommendation and the reasons
for the exceptions. He thought the monument signs were justified given how
the building sits on the curb of Gerald Ford. He thought the ten-foot setback
would actually enhance the area and the project. He was in favor. He also
felt the height exceptions were justified by the architecture.
Commissioner Finerty concurred. She thought it was a very good use of the
area and liked the idea of it being pedestrian friendly and people would be
encouraged to wa{k. The one thing she wanted to be really clear about was
the decel lane. They thought there was one, but if it tumed out there wasn't
one, she asked if they could condition it. Mr. Dretl said that if there wasn't
one, the project would have to come back for a redesign. It appeared to be
there. Mr. Joy confirmed that the drawing showed 34 feet of pavement width.
That was two travel lanes and an extra ten-foot lane that would
accommodate the decel lane. He confirmed it was a sure thing and they had
his word. With that, Commissioner Finerty said she concurred with the other
Commissioners and was in favor.
Chairperson Lopez also concurred. He thought it was a great project and
something they could all be proud of. 1t was especially nice to have
14
DRAF`f
MINUTES
PALM DE3ERT PLA,NNING,CC�MMI�SION .. _ _ , ,,._ _. _ .._ _._ ._ ,. ,AUGUST.1; 2Q06
something east of Cook Street. He noted there was a motion and asked for
a second.
Action:
�t was moved by Commissioner Campbe{I, seconded by Commissioner
Tanner, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0.
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Tanner, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2411, recommending
to City Council approval of Case Nos. PP/CUP 06-03 and TPM 34437,
subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0.
IX. MISCELLANEOUS
A. Case Nos. C/Z 06-03 and PP 06-04 - BOB SIPOVAC JR., Ap�
Per Planning Commission direction on July 18, 2006
presentation of a resolution denying a request for approv of
a change of zone from PR-7 to PR-8 and a precise n of
design to add five units to the existing 44-unit "Par illage"
residential project at 74-360 Magnesia Fal{s Driv
Mr. Drell informed Commission of a request the applicant for a
continuance so that the projeet could be redesig d with only one story and
reducing the number of units. By continuing it i tead of denying it, the public
hearing would still have to be renoticed, bu e wouldn't have to file another
application. He was asking for a continu ce of the case to a time uncertain
and then staff would renotice the pub ' hearing if and when he came back.
If he didn't come back, they could rocess the denial.
Commissioner Finerty said t once the Planning Commission directed staff
to prepare a resolution o enial, she asked if it was something that would
have to be rescinded. r. Drell said no. The Commission could just do a
different motion. Th directed staff to prepare a resolution of denial and in
essence would c tinue action on that to allow him to come back. Until the
Commission v ed, it wasn't an approved resolution. Commissioner Finerty
was conce ed because there were a lot of people in attendance that were
oppose and for good reason, and the Commission gave them their word
and i as a 5-0 vote to deny it. She thought to go back on their word was
wr g. She was not in favor. Mr. Drell said that they could take their action
they saw fit and the applicant could just reapp{y, as long as he applies for
15
� �.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2411
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMfSSION OF THE C1TY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A PRECfSE PLAN 1
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 100,50Q
SQUARE FOOT BUSINESS PARK, AND APPROVAL OF A
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A 6.1-ACRE SITE INTO
13 PARCELS LOCATED AT 75-300 GERALD FORD DRIVE.
CASE NOS. PPICUP 06-03 and TPM 34437
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 1 st day of August, 2006, hold a duly noticed pubfic hearing to a consider a request by
GERALD FORD BUSINESS PARK, LLC for the above mentioned; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm
Desert Procedure for Implementation of the Califomia Environmentai Quality Act, Resolution
No. 06-78," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that that impacts
from the proposed project were considered in the Environmental Impact Report prepared
for the updated City of Palm Desert Comprehensive General Plan adopted in March 2004
(Resolution 04-20); and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission
did find the following fa�ts and reasons to exist to justify its actions, as described below:
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF A PRECISE PLAN / CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:
That the proposed project complies with the goals, objectives and policies of
the City's General Plan.
2. The request for a height exception to allow proposed buildings to exceed the
30-foot height limit up to 34 feet is justified because the buildings' architecture
is enhanced by design projections and variation in roof heights from 19'-6" up
to 34 feet. This fu{fills the Wonder Palms Master Plan goal of encouraging
planning areas with projects that take on a series of individual characteristics
resulting in an aesthetically consistent, environmentally harmonious, and
economically viable addition to the community.
3. The request for an exception to reduce the front yard setback from 32 feet to
10 feet is consistent with the Planned Industrial zone's objective of providing
flexibility in development to encourage creative and imaginative design
because this allows a site plan that places all parking areas in the rear and
buildings and landscaped courtyards in the front, which creates a more
aesthetically attractive and pedestrian friendly streetscape.
4. The request for an exception to reduce the rear yard setback from 30 feet to
10 is justified because a 30-foot landscaped rear yard setback would not
serve a useful purpose since this area is unusable open space due to its
C� { �-
PLANNING COMMISSI�N RESOLUTION NO. 2411
isolated location, and the Mid-Valley Storm Channel and the Union Pacific
Railroad provide a generous 280-foot wide setback buffer between the
project site and Interstate 10,
5. The well designed project with quality architecture and buildings that front on
Gerald Ford Drive, parking in the rear, landscaped courtyards with outdoor
seating and tables, and landscaped walkways wil{ create an inviting,
pedestrian friendty environment that will be compatible with the future
expansion of the Cal State University campus across the street on the south
side of Gerald Ford Drive.
6. The design of the project will not depreciate property values in the vicinity, nor
be material{y in}urious to properties or improvements in the vicinity•
7. The project will not unreasonably interFere with the use and enjoyment of the
property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes.
8. The project will not endanger the public peace, health, safety, or general
welfare.
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP:
1, That the design or improvements of the proposed map is consistent with
applicable general and specific plans.
2. That the site is physically suitable for commercial development.
3. That the design of the parcel map or the proposed improvements are not likely
to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
4. That the design of the parcel or the type of improvements is not likely to cause
serious public health problems.
5. That the design of the parcel or the type of improvements is not likely to cause
serious public health problems.
6. 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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Palm Desert, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Commission in this case.
E
0
� (
� PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2411 �
2. That Precise Plan / Conditional Use Permit 06-03 and Tentative Parcel Map
. 34437 are hereby recommended for approval to the City Council, subject to
the attached condfions.
PASSED� APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 1� day of August, 2006, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: CAMPBELL, FINERTY, TANNER, TSCHOPP, LOPEZ
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ATTEST:
.�
PHILIP DRELL, Secxetary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
3
( C
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2411
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NOS. PP / CUP 06-03 8� TPM 34437
Departrnent of Community 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. Construction of a portion of said project shail commence within one year from the
date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; othervvise 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 foNowing
agencies:
Coachella Valley Water District
Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission
City Fire Marshal
Public Works Department
Waste Management of the Desert
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. Applicant shall participate in a commercial recycling program as determined by the
City and applicable Waste Disposat Company. Access to trash/service areas shall be
placed sa as not to conflict with park9ng areas. Said placement shall be approved by
applicable trash company and Department of Community Development. The
applicant shall submit a site plan with trash and recycling enclosure locations and
enclosure construction details to Waste Management of the Desert for review and
issuance of an approval letter. A copy of said approval letter shall be furnished to the
Community Development Department prior to issuance of building permits.
6. A detailed parking lot and building lighting plan shalf be submitted to staff for
approval, subject to applicable lighting standards, plan to be prepared by a qualified
lighting engineer.
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
4
(�
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2411
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 finai landscape
plan shalt include a long-term maintenance program specifying among other matters
appropriate watering times, fertiiization 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 shall be subject to all applicable fees at time of issuance of building
permits including, but not limited to, Art in Public Places, Fringe-Toed Lizard, TUMF,
School Mitigation and Housing Mitigation fees.
9. All roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened by parapet walls that are
at least as high as the highest piece of inechanical equipment. Construction
drawings submitted for plan check shall include a roof plan showing locations of any
roof-mounted mechanical equipment and cross-section drawings showing parapet
wall heights as well as outlines and heights of roof-mounted mechanicat equipment.
Deaartrnent of Public Works:
GENERAL
1. Landscaping maintenance of any common areas shall be provided by the property
owners association. 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 responsibfe 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 shaN 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 soi{s investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer,
shafl be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public Works prior to the
issuance of a grading permit.
BONDS AND FEES
3. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal
Code shall be paid prior to recordation of final map minus the cost of the drainage
improvements made.
r
(� C
PLANNING COMMISSfON RESOLUTfON NO. 2411
4. 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. Signal instaliation may be
used as credit against the fees and the City will pay up to half of the costs in
accordance with PM 30314.
5. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF).
Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance.
6. A standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits.
DESIGN PLANS
7. 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. Proje�t
may utilize the Mid-Valley Retention Channel to drain incremental increase in
drainage for a 100-year storm. Nuisance waters shall be contained on-site.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Complete parcel 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.
11. 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.
12. Pad elevations, as shown on the parcel map are subject to review and modification
in accordance with Chapter 26 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code.
13. Landscape p�ans shall be submitted for review concurrently with grading plans.
14. Waiver of access to Gerald Ford Drive, except at approved locations, shall be
granted on the final map.
C�
�
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2411
REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION
15. Full pub{ic improvements required by Se�tions 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert
Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards.
• 6' wide sidewalk on Gerald Ford Drive as shown on the grading plan.
• Signalized intersection at the project entry.
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.
16. All public and private improvements shall be inspe�ted 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 improvements have been
completed.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
17. Reciprocal easements shall be provided for drainage, access and parking.
Riverside County Fire Marshal:
With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced project,
the fire department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided
in accordance with City Municipal Code, NFPA, UFC, and UBC or any recognized
Fire Protection Standards:
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
constniction of all buildings per UFC article 87.
2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20 psi residual pressure must be
available before any combustible material is pfaced on the job site.
3. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of providing a gpm flow of:
3000 gpm for commercial buildings
4. The required fire flow shal{ be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant(s)
4"x2"-1/2" x2-1J2", iocated not less than 25 feet nor more than:
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 wifi produce the required fire flow.
7
r�
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2411
6. Instal! a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This appiies to all buildings with a
3000 square foot total cumulative floor area. The Fire Marshal shall approve the
locations of all post indicator valves and fire department connections. All valves
and connections shall not be less than 25 feet from the building and within 50 feet
of an approved hydrant. Exempted are one and two family dwetlings.
7. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkier systems and water-
flow switches shait be monitored and alarmed per UBC Chapter 9.
8. Instalt a fire alarm system as required by UBC Chapter 3.
9. instal! portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than one 2A10BC
extinguisher per 3000 square feet and not over 75 feet walking distance. A"K" type
fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens.
10. All building shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150
feet of aU portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall not be
less than 24 feet of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Where
paratlel parking is required on both sides of the street the roadway must be 36 feet
wide, and 32 feet wide with par{cing on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150
feet shall be provided with a minimum 45-foot radius turn-around, 55 foot 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 or over-ride
system to allow for emergency vehicle access. Minimum gate width shal{ be 16'
with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'-6".
12. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city.
13. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be
submitted separately to the Fire Marshal for approval prior to construetion.
14. lnstall a Hood/Duct automatic fire extinguishing system per NFPA 96 in a{I public
and private cooking operations except single=family residential usage.
15. Install a dust collection system per CFC Chapter 76 if conducting an operation that
produces airborne pa�ticles.
16. All elevators shall be gurney size.
17. Conditions 15 and 16 shall be imposed if conditions apply.
//
E:?
(
�
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Pfanning Commission
DATE: August 1, 2006
CASE NO: PP/CUP 06-03 & TPM 34437
REQUEST: Recommend to the City Council approval of a conditional use permit to
construct a 100,500 square foot mixed use retaiVoffice center with a two-
story parking structure, an exception to reduce the front yard and rear
yard setbacks from 32 feet and 30 to 10 feet, a height exception to allow
building heights up to 34 feet, an exception to allow a second single-
faced freestanding sign on a street frontage less than 1,600 feet, and a
tentative parcel map to subdivide 6.10 acres into 13 parcels. The project
site is located at 75-300 Gerald Ford Drive.
APPLICANT/ARCHITECT:
Smith Consulting Architects
12220 EI Camino Real, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92130
PROPERTY OWNER:
Gerald Ford Business Park, LLC
74-399 Highway 111, Suite M
� Palm Desert, CA. 92260
I. UPDATE SINCE JULY 1 S, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
At the July 18, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant Wayne Guralnick
requested a continuance. The applicant stated that he would withdraw related case
Change of Zone 06-05, which proposed to add FCOZ (Freeway Commercial Overlay
Zone) to the existing PCD (Planned Community Development} zoning designation to
allow a specialty coffee house with a drive-thru lane on Parcel 11 (Building K). CZ 06-
05 was withdrawn because staff was recommending denial and the applicant wanted
to avoid the possibility of delays in case processing if the Planning Commission or City
Council were to ask that the site plan be revised to delete the coffee house drive-thru
1ane. Therefore, the project site plan has been revised to delete the coffee house
drive-thru lane at the west elevation of Building K. Revised elevations were submitted
for Building K showing deletion of the drive-thru window and shade canopy over the
former drive-thru lane. The square footage of Building K has been increased by 1,300
square feet from 6,700 to 8,000 square feet. While the number of required parking
spaces has increased from 397 to 402 spaces, the number of parking spaces
provided has also increased from 400 to 407 parking spaces.
�
STAFF REPORT
PP/CUP 06-03 and TPM 34437
August 1, 2006
II. BACKGROUND:
�
The 6.1-acre site is located on the north side of Gerald Ford Drive and is 1,200 feet east
of Cook Street. From the northerly boundary to the southerly boundary on Gerald Ford
Drive, the site's grade falls three feet over a distance of 420 feet. From west to east, the
site falls three feet over a distance of 621 feet.
On July 20, 2004 the Planning Commission approved a precise plan for a 19,565
showroom and warehouse building for D' Mundo Tile on a 1.14-acre parcel to the west
that fronts on Gerald Ford Drive. On February 7, 2006 the Planning Commission
approved a precise plan to construct two light industrial / office buildings to the west with
a total of 18,846 square feet on a 1.42-acre parcel located 250 feet north of Gerald Ford
Drive. Construction of these finro projects recent{y started.
On November 6, 2001 the Planning Commission approved a precise plan for the
University Commerce Center to the east, which consists of eight light industrial / office
buildings with a total of 130,680 square. Construction of this project was completed
recently.
The property is zoned PCD (Planned Community Development) and is designated
Industrial-Business Park on the City's General Plan Land Use Map. The project site is
within Planning Area (PA) 4 of the Wonder Palms Master Plan of Development. PA 4 is
designated Planned lndustrial on the Wonder Palms Master Plan land use map. In
addition to uses listed in the PI zone, such as light industrial and research and
devefopment facilities, the text of the master plan encourages mixed-use retail, office,
and residential uses with a conditional use permit.
A. ADJACENT ZONING:
North: PCD (Planned Community Development, Wonder Palms Master
Plan PA 4) / Mid-Vafley Storrn Channel, Union Pacific Railroad, and
Interstate 10 Freeway
South: PR-5 (Planned Residential, 5 dwelling units per acre maximum
density) / Vacant
East: PCD (Planned Community Development, Wonder Palms Master
Plan PA 4) / new multi-tenant light industrial buildings
West: PCD, FCOZ (Planned Community Development, Freeway
Commercial Overlay Zone, Wonder Palms Master Plan PA 4) /
three office / warehouse buildings are under construction
B. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION:
Industrial-Business Park
2
�
STAFF REPORT
PP/CUP 06-03 and TPM 34437
August 1, 2006
If. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
A. Precise Plan / Conditional Use Permit
C�
The precise plan / conditional use permit proposes the construction of a
100,500 square foot commercial center with eleven buildings and a two-story
parking structure in the rear. The project will be constructed in three phases as
shown on project site plan sheet SD-2. The uses and square footages for the
11 buildings are as follows:
• Bank with drive-thru (Building G, one-story): 4,500 square feet
• RetaiVrestaurant spaces (Buildings H, I, J and K, one-story): 16,000
square feet
• Office/retaif (Buildings B and E, two-story): 18,000 square feet
• Office (Buildings A, C, D and F, two-story): 62,000 square feet
1. Site Plan and Access
The project site plan was designed to have all parking in the rear to allow five
retail buildings to front on Gerald Ford Drive to create a pedestrian friendly
streetscape that will attract general customers as well as students and
employees from the Cal State campus when it expands north to Gerald Ford
Drive directly across from the project site. The site plan seeks to create a
complimentary relationship with the future Cal State expansion to encourage
pedestrian travel between the finro properties. These desired objectives could
not be achieved if parking lots had been plotted in front of the buildings closest
to Gerald Ford Drive. The site plan's pedestrian friendly design continues into
the interior of the site through the use of decorative paving on walkways and
internal driveways and locating a major courtyard with outdoor seating and
tables in the rear half of the site between Buildings B, C, D and E.
Access to the site from Gerald Ford Drive is provided via two reciprocal
driveways. The main (central) driveway will be signalized. Other shared
driveways are located on the site's westerly and easterly boundaries to provide
access between the site and adjacent parcels. Four internal driveways will
provide access to the proposed finro-level parking structure in the rear. Two
driveways will provide access to the ground level. The other two will provide
access to the second level.
2. Architecture:
The eleven proposed retail and office buildings have a contemporary
architectural style with strong emphasis of rectangular shapes and flat rooflines
3
l/
STAFF REPORT
PP/CUP 06-03 and TPM 34437
August 1, 2006
\
with heights varying from 19'-6" up to 34'-0". The five retail buildings at the front
of the site are one-story with heights from 19'-6" to 31'-0". These buildings
generally have a roof height of 22-foot height. The other six buildings in the rear
have two-stories with heights from 30'-0" to 34'-0".
The applicant is requesting a height exception to the PI zone's 30-foot height
limit to allow buifdings up to 34 feet high to provide variation in roof height and
to accommodate architectural projections such as towers and metal trellises.
Building walls will have stucco finishes painted in five colors: light beige, dark
beige, olive green, dark brown and terra cotta brown. Portions of some walls
and columns will have stacked stone. The buildings will also have dark brown
metal treUises, and recessed windows to enhance their appearance.
The Architectural Review Commission granted preliminary approval of the project
on April 25, 2006 subject to the project being limited to one monument sign,
retuming with articulation on the parking structure, and the preliminary landscape
plan being approved by the landscape manager. On June 13, 2006 the
Architectural Review Commission granted preliminary of the parking structure's
revised north elevation subject to some pop-out elements being increased in
height an additional 18 inches and adding a third color to the north elevation.
Since June 13, 2006, the project architect has revised the parking structure's
north elevation to incorporate these conditions. A revised colored north elevation
is included in the 11 x 17 booklet of project plans that will be distributed with this
staff report to the Planning Commission.
3. Exception to reduce front yard setback:
The applicant is requesting approval of an exception to reduce the PI zone's
32-foot front yard setback to 10 feet. Since the front property line is located 12
feet from the curb face on Gerald Ford Drive, the public will see a minimum
building setback of 22 feet from curb. The four buildings fronting on Gerald
Ford Drive have setbacks varying from 22 to 45 feet from street curb. The
justification given for the reduced setback is to allow a project site plan that
creates a pedestrian friendly retail streetscape by providing well-designed
buildings with outdoor patio seating fronting on Gerald Ford Drive. By
comparison, retail setbacks from street curb in the C-1 zone on EI Paseo are 15
feet.
If the front yard setback exception is not approved, an alternative site plan
would likely show a parking lot fronting on Gerald Ford Drive and buildings with
a front yard setback greater than 32 feet. For comparison, the D' Mundo tile
building under construction on an adjacent property to the west was approved
with a 61-foot front yard setback. Buildings in the University Commerce Center to
the east were approved with a 91-foot front yard setback. These adjacent
4
�
STAFF REPORT
PP/CUP 06-03 and TPM 34437
August 1, 2006
�
projects have parking {ots in front of the buildings and do not create a pedestrian
friendly streetscape.
4. Exception to reduce rear yard setback:
An exception is also requested to reduce the PI zone's rear yard setback
adjacent to the Mid-Valley Storm Channel and the railroad tracks from 30 feet to
10 feet. The site plan shows a 10-foot landscaped rear yard setback for the two-
level parking structure. The applicant believes that providing a 30-foot
landscaped rear yard setback for the parking structure would serve no useful
purpose since the entire length (602 feet) of the rear landscaped setback is too
isolated and therefore would not be used by project employees and customers.
The 10-foot setback allows for a line of trees to soften the parking structure's
elevation as seen from Interstate 10.
5. Height exception:
Although the PI zone specifies a height limit of 30 feet, Section 25.36.270 of the
PI zone allows an applicant to request a height exception. While the project's six
two-story buildings generally have a roof height of 30 feet, the applicant is
requesting a height exception to aflow increases in height up to 34 feet to
provide variation in roof height and to accommodate architectural projections
such as towers and metal trellises. Section 25.36.010 of the Zoning Ordinance
states that "the purpose of the PI zone is to provide flexibility in development,
creative and imaginative design...". The project's other five buildings are one-
story with heights from 19'-fi" to 31'-0". These buildings have metal trellis
supports that project one foot above the 30-foot height limit. The Architectural
Review Commission concluded that the superior architecture and height
variation from 19'-6" to 34'-0" throughout the project justified the height
exception.
6. Exception to allow a second freestanding sign:
The applicant is requesting approval of an exception to Section 25.68.310.A of
the Zoning Ordinance to allow a second free standing sign on Gerald Ford
Drive. Commercial centers are allowed one double-faced freestanding sign per
street frontage. A second freestanding sign may be allowed on the same street
if the center has a minimum of 1600 feet of street frontage. The project site
has 726 feet of street frontage. The applicant is proposing two single-faced
freestanding signs at a 45-degree angle to Gerald Ford Drive on each side of
the site's main driveway next to a courtyard. Each monument sign structure is
5'-4" high and 12'-0" wide. The sign copy area will be only 22 square feet. Each
sign wiil have the name of the business park and two tenant names. Since both
signs are single-faced, the amount of combined sign copy area (44 square feet)
is the same as if only one double-face sign were approved.
:
u
/
I
STAFF REPORT
PP/CUP 06-03 and TPM 34437
August 1, 2006
I
Zoning Ordinance Section 25.68.730 states that the Planning Commission may
approve exceptions relative to size, number, and location of signs after a public
hearing in instances where an appiicant is faced with exceptional circumstances
because of type or location of business, or is trying to achieve a special design
effect. The applicant must show that:
A. The sign will be integrated into the architecture of the building;
and
B. The sign wili not be detrimental to neighboring businesses or the
community in general.
The sign structures will use stucco, stone veneer, and aluminum materials with
colors and shapes to match the architecture of the proposed buildings.
Exceptional circumstances regarding the shopping center that justify granting an
exception to allow a second free standing sign include the following:
1. One freestanding sign ptotted perpendicular to Gerald Ford Drive
would be inadequate because the street curvature on this section
of Gerald Ford Drive would make it difficult for motorists to read
the lettering on a freestanding sign in advance of the driveway
entry.
The 45-degree angle plotting of the signs on each side of the
main driveway will make them easily readable with strong
identification of the business park at a signalized intersection. The
sign shapes and materials and their location next to courtyards
will create a special design effect that aids customers in letting
them know they have arrived at the business park.
7. Project Data
The following table compares the project with the PI zone development
standards.
L
C
STAFF REPORT
PP/CUP 06-03 and TPM 34437
August 1, 2006
STANDARD
Building Height
PI DISTRICT
30 feet
Front Setback 32 feet, or as approved on the precise plan
Rear Setback 30 feet, or as approved on the precise plan
Side Yards 30 feet,
or as approved on the precise plan
Parking 402 parking spaces required based on parking
requirements for general retail and offices
(1 space per 250 square feet of gross floor
area)
Building Site 50%
Coverape of the net area of the site
Landscaping 15°/a of the parking area
B. Tentative Parcel Map
C
PROJECT
Heights range from 19'-6" up to 34'-
0". A height exception is being
requested per PI zone Section
25.36.270
10 feet
10 feet
10 feet
407 parking spaces provided
NOTE: A combination of restaurant
and retail uses are proposed for
14,700 square feet (15°/a) of the
proje�ct's total square footage of
99,200.
37°/a
30% of project site
Tentative Parcel Map 34437 proposes to subdivide the 6.10-acre project site
into 13 parcels to allow the buildings to be sold individually. Two parcels are
common area lots. One lot will contain the parking lot and landscaped areas in
the front half of the project site. The second common area lot wi11 contain the
parking structure focated in the rear as well as portions of two of access
driveways.
A condition of approval requires the land divider to create a property owners
association to maintain the parking areas and landscaping on the two common
area lots. Another condition requires the recordation of a reciprocal easement
for parlcing and access, drainage, and use of trash/recycling enclosures
between the parcels.
III.
ANALYSIS:
A. Site Plan Layout & Exception to Reduce Front Yard Setback From 32 Feet
to 10 Feet (22 feet from curb face):
The site plan's layout with all parking in the rear and five retail buildings with
quality architecture fronting on Gerald Ford Drive succeeds in creating a
pedestrian friendly streetscape that will form a complementary relationship with
the Cal State campus when it expands north to Gerald Ford Drive. This
desirable site plan design could not be achieved if parking lots were plotted in
front of the buildings closest to Gerald Ford Drive. Therefore, staff supports
reducing the front yard setback from 32 feet to 10 feet. The front yard setback
7
�-.
STAFF REPORT
PP/CUP 06-03 and TPM 34437
August 1, 2006
from curb face varies between 22 and 45 feet. Granting of the front yard
setback reduction to achieve a creative and superior site plan is consistent with
Section 25.36.010 of the Zoning Ordinance, which states that "the purpose of
the PI zone is to provide flexibility in development, creative and imaginative
design...".
B. Exception to Reduce Rear Yard Setback From 30 Feet to 10 Feer
We agree with the applicant that widening the landscaped rear yard setback
from 10 feet to 30 feet would not serve a useful purpose since this area would
still be unusable open space due to its isolated location. A 10-foot rear yard
setback is sufficient to provide landscaping that includes trees. For comparison,
if this property were zoned SI (Service Industrial) instead of PI, the rear yard
setback would be zero. Several SI properties on the north side of Dinah Shore
Drive have been developed with rear yard landscaped setbacks of 10 feet or
less. Additionally, the adjacent to the Mid-Valley Storm Channel and the Union
Pacific Railroad provide a generous 280-foot wide setback buffer between the
project site and Interstate 10. Thus, the PI zone's 30-foot rear yard setback is
not necessary to achieve adequate rear yard landscaping. Additionally, since
the north elevation of the project's parking structure was revised to incfude
enhanced architectural design, the project site will have a visually attractive
appearance to motorists traveling along the Interstate 10 Freeway.
C. Height Exception:
The height exception request to allow portions of the projecYs eleven buildings to
have heights ranging 31 to 34 feet is justified because architectural projections
such as towers and metal trellises wilf create buildings with more interesting
architecture that will enhance the appearance of the project, which is visible
from Gerald Ford Drive and the Interstate 10 Freeway.
D. Exception for Second Freestanding Sign:
We support the applicant's request for an exception to allow two well designed
freestanding single-faced signs next to courtyards on each side of the projecYs
main entrance. The signs' design and materials will be compatible with the
architecture of the proposed buildings. Exceptional circumstances exist
regarding the project site that justify granting the exception. First, the street
curvature on this section of Gerald Ford Drive would make it difficult for
motorists to read the lettering on a single double-face freestanding sign in
advance of the driveway entry. Second, the 45-degree angle plotting of the
signs on each side of the main driveway will make it easier for motorists to read
the business park's signage at a signafized intersection. The signs' quality
design that use shapes and materials similar to the project bui{dings, and their
location next to entry courtyards, will create a special design effect that aids
�
i��
STAFF REPORT
PP/CUP 06-03 and TPM 34437
August 1, 2006
�
customers in letting them know they have arrived at the Geraid Ford Business
Park.
Thus, the findings for approving a precise plan ! conditional use permit and a tentative
parcel map can be affirmed. These findings are incfuded in the draft Planning
Commission resolution attached to this staff report.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
For purposes of CEQA, the Director of Community Development has determined that
impacts from the proposed project were considered in the Environmental Impact
Report prepared for the updated City of Palm Desert Comprehensive General Plan
adopted in March 2004 (Resolution 04-20). Therefore, no further environmenta!
documentation is required at this time. Additionally the project site was previously
rough graded under Parcel Map 28448 and Coachella Valley Fringe Toed Lizard
Impact fees were paid on January 14, 1998.
V. RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt the findings and Planning Commission Resolution
No. recommending to the City Council approval of PPICUP 06-03 and TPM
34437 subject to conditions.
VI. ATTACMENTS:
A. Draft Planning Commission Resolution
B. Legal notice
C. Comments from city departments and other agencies
D. ARC minutes dated June 13, 2006 and Apri! 25, 2006
E. Project Plans
Prepared by: (�� � .
Francisco J. UrbinaU
Associate Planner
Reviewed and Approved by
Philip Drell
Director of Community Development
Homer Croy
Assistant City Manager for Development Services
E
�-
��.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE Pl�4NN1NG COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDfNG TO THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A PRECISE PLAN /
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 100,500
SQUARE FOOT BUSINESS PARK, AND APPROVAL OF A
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A 6.1-ACRE SITE INTO
13 PARCELS LOCATED AT 75-300 GERALD FORD DRIVE.
CASE NOS. PP/CUP 06-03 and TPM 34437
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 1 st day of August, 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing to a consider a request by
GERALD FORD BUSINESS PARK, LLC for the above mentioned; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Pafm
Desert Procedure for Implementation of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act, Resolution
No. 06-78," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that that impacts
from the proposed project were considered in the Environmental Impact Report prepared
for the updated City of Palm Desert Comprehensive General Plan adopted in March 2004
(Resolution 04-20); and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission
did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify its actions, as described below:
F1ND{NGS FOR APPROVAL OF A PRECISE PLAN / CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:
1. That the proposed project complies with the goals, objectives and policies of
the City's General Plan.
2. The request for a height exception to allow proposed buildings to exceed the
30-foot height limit up to 34 feet is justified because the buildings' architecture
is enhanced by design projections and variation in roof heights from 19'-6" up
to 34 feet. This fulfills the Wonder Palms Master Plan goal of encouraging
planning areas with projects that take on a series of individual characteristics
resulting in an aesthetically consistent, environmentally harmonious, and
economically viable addition to the community.
3. The request for an exception to reduce the front yard setback from 32 feet to
10 feet is consistent with the Planned Industrial zone's objective of providing
flexibility in development to encourage creative and imaginative design
because this allows a site plan that places all parking areas in the rear and
buildings and landscaped courtyards in the front, which creates a more
aesthetically attractive and pedestrian friendly streetscape.
4. The request for an exception to reduce the rear yard setback from 30 feet to
10 is justified because a 30-foot landscaped rear yard setback would not
serve a useful purpose since this area is unusable open space due to its
�
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
(
isolated location, and the Mid-Valley Storm Channel and the Union Pacific
Railroad provide a generous 280-foot wide setback buffer between the
project site and Interstate 10,
5. The well designed project with quality architecture and buildings that front on
Gerald Ford Drive, parking in the rear, landscaped courtyards with outdoor
seating and tables, and landscaped walkways will create an inviting,
pedestrian friendly environment that will be compatible with the future
expansion of the Cal State University campus across the street on the south
side of Gerald Ford Drive.
6. The design of the project will not depreciate property values in the vicinity, nor
be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
7. The project will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of the
property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes.
8. The project will not endanger the public peace, health, safety, or general
welfare.
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP:
1. That the design or improvements of the proposed map is consistent with
applicable general and specific plans.
2. That the site is physically suitable for commercial development.
3. That the design of the parcel map or the proposed improvements are not likely
to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
4. That the design of the parcel or the type of improvements is not likely to cause
serious public health problems.
5. That the design of the parcel or the type of improvements is not likely to cause
serious public health problems.
6. 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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Palm Desert, Califomia, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the commission in this case.
�
C
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
2. That Precise P(an / Conditional Use Permit 06-03 and Tentative Parcel Map
34437 are hereby recommended for approval to the City Council subject to the
attached conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm
Desert Planning Commission, held on this 1St day of August 2006, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTA{N:
JAMES LOPEZ, Chairperson
ATTEST:
PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
3
��
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION IVO.
l
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. PP ! CUP 06-03 & TPM 34437
Deuartment 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 foltiowing conditions.
2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the
date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval
shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions
and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and
state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force.
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for c�nstruction 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 Architecturati Review Commission
City Fire Marshal
Public Works Department
Waste Management of the Desert
Evidence of said permit or cfearance from the above agencies sha11 be presented to
the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for
the use contemplated herewith.
5. Applicant shall participate in a commercial recycling program as determined by the
City and applicable Waste Disposal Company. Access to trashlservice areas shail be
placed so as not to conflict with parking areas. Said placement shall be approved by
applicable trash company and Department of Community Development. The
applicant shall submit a site plan with trash and recycling enclosure locations and
enclosure construction details to Waste Management of the Desert for review and
issuance of an approvaf letter. A copy of said approval letter shall be furnished to the
Community Development Department prior to issuance of building perrnits.
6. A detailed parking lot and building lighting plan shall be submitted to staff for
approval, subject to applicable lighting standards, plan to be prepared by a qualified
fighting engineer.
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
4
(
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
shall be recorded. li is the specifiic 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 shall be subject to all applicable fees at time of issuance of building
permits including, but not limited to, Art in Public Places, Fringe-Toed Lizard, TUMF,
School Mitigation and Housing Mitigation fees.
9. All roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened by parapet walls that are
at least as high as the highest piece of inechanical equipment. Construction
drawings submitted for plan check shall include a roof plan showing locations of any
roof-mounted mechanical equipment and cross-section drawings showing parapet
wall heights as well as outlines and heights of roof-mounted mechanical equipment.
Department of Public Works:
GENERAL
1. Landscaping maintenance of any common areas shall be provided by the property
owners association. 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 shaN be approved by the City of Palm Desert
and recorded with the County Recorder. The declaration shall specify: (a) the
applicant sha11 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.
BONDS AND FEES
3. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal
Code shall be paid prior to recordation of final map minus the cost of the drainage
improvements made.
4. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17
5
,-
�
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
(
and 79-55, shall be paid prior to recordation of final map. Signal installation may be
used as credit against the fees and the City wiil pay up to half of the costs in
accordance with PM 30314.
5. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF).
Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance.
6. A standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits.
DESIGN PLANS
7. Storm draiNretention 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
may utilize the Mid-Valley Retention Channel to drain incremental increase in
drainage for a 100-year storm. Nuisance waters shall be contained on-site.
8. 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.
9. Improvement plans for utility systems shali be approved by the respective provider
or service disiricts 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.
10. Complete parcel 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.
11. 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.
12. Pad efevations, as shown on the parcel map are subject to review and modification
in accordance with Chapter 26 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code.
13. Landscape plans shall be submitted for review concurrently with grading plans.
14. Waiver of access to Gerald Ford Drive, except at approved locations, shall be
granted on the final map.
REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION
15. Full public improvements required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert
Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards.
0
�
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
{ �-
• 6' wide sidewalk on Gerald Ford Drive as shown on the grading plan.
• Signalized intersection at the project entry.
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.
16. All public and
Works and
permits. No
completed.
private improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public
a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading
occupancy permit shall be granted until improvements have been
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
17. Reciprocal easements shall be provided for drainage, access and parking.
Riverside Countv Fire Marshal:
1. With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced project,
the fire department recommends the following iire protection measures be provided
in accordance with City Municipaf Code, NFPA, UFC, and UBC or any recognized
Fire Protection Standards:
2.
3.
4
5.
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all buildings per UFC article 87.
A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20 psi residual pressure must be
available before any combustible material is placed on the job site.
Provide or show there exists a water system capable of providing a gpm flow of:
3000 gpm for commercial buildings
The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant(s)
4°x2"-1l2" x2-1/2", located not less than 25 feet nor more than:
150' from any portion of a commercial building measured via vehicular travelway.
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 sprinkler system. This applies to all buildings with a
3000 square foot total cumulative floor area. The Fire Marshal shall approve the
locations of all post ind'+cator valves and fire department connections. A11 valves
7
(
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
�
and connections shall not be less than 25 feet from the building and within 50 feet
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 UBC Chapter 9.
8. Install a fire alarm system as required by UBC Chapter 3.
9. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than one 2A10BC
extinguisher per 3000 square feet and not over 75 feet walking distance. A"K" type
fire extinguisher is required in afl commercial kitchens.
10. All building shall be accessibte by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150
feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall not be
less than 24 feet 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 feet
wide, and 32 feet wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150
feet shall be provided with a minimum 45-foot radius turn-around, 55 foot in
industrial deveiopments.
11. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers
or other means, provisions sha11 be made to install a"Knox Box" key or over-ride
system to allow for emergency vehicle access. Minimum gate width shall be i 6'
with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'-6".
12. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city.
13. All fire sprinkter systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be
submitted separately to the Fire Marshal for approval prior to construction.
14. Install a Hood/Duct automatic fire extinguishing system per NFPA 96 in all public
and private cooking operations except single=family residentiaf usage.
15. Install a dust collection system per CFC Chapter 76 if conducting an operation that
produces airborne particles.
16. All elevators shall be gurney size.
17. Conditions 15 and 16 shall be imposed if conditions apply.
0
,
CiTYC�F Pfll1� DESERi
73-510 FRED WAAING DRlVE
rALA/ pESERT, CAUF()RNIA 92Z60-2578
re�, 76a ;46-06��
t�x: 760 ;4i-7oq8
i�lo?pda•deun.arj
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NOS. CZ 08-03, PPlCUP 06-03 and TPM 34437
NOTICE IS HEREBY GNEN that a public hea�ing wiN be he4d before the Palm Desert Planning
Comrtiissan to consider a request by Gerald Ford Business Paric, LLC for a change the zone
from PCD to PCD, FCOZ. a precise plaNcondltional use peRnit to construct 11 buildings for
a 99,200 square foot reta� and office complex which will indude a restau�ant with a drive-
thru, and a tentaWe parcel map to subdivide 6.10 acres into 13 parceis. The property is
located at 75-300 Gerald Ford Orive. The project is exempt from funher environmental review
under the Cafifomia Environmental �ual'ity Act because environmental impacts were prevbusly
analyzed in the inidal study prepared for Tentative Parcei Map No. 28448. the site has been
prevbusty graded and Caachella VaQey Fringe-Toed Lizarcl impacts fees were paid. and the
project was oonsidered in the Environme�rtal Impact Report prepared for tfie updated City of
Palm Desert Comprehensive General Piart adopted in March 2004 (Resolution 04-20).
Therefore, no further environmeMal documentatbn is required at this time.
`� , �
. ..�,
. 'a' .
�'� �
�
o�e.p
,���.d. �
rtaRot j
��
�w�s-- '
rn� �
i�
.r.�
�_..� -�---..._..-- .-
_____.
� pRaECT 5lTE
�� I
i, �
r.e.� _ . .
�,
I►A� ��\ ��I
CJt.p/1t
IJl./
IR{
►1[J
� . �RM \
�� � , `W YI
� � 1
� IAi IRJ � I I '�'�
• _ . f IA
—�-��y ■■F i
/�i � ` � /R.U� _. fi ��lR3i'_`I�_.' �.j�����"``�— � ,= i,
�y"'M1a �''��' � �� f .
. .� i. � � � e► i ' . 7 /1' � � �' �. .
� �'
SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 18, 2006, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council
Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, Califomia,
at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written
comments conceming aN items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to
the date of the hearing. lnformation canceming the proposed project and/or negative
declara6on is available for review in the Departrnent of Community Development at the above
address between the hours oi 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Manday through Friday. If you
challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited ta raising only those issues you or
someone e{se raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence
delivered to the Planning Commission (or Ci1y Council) at, or prior to, the pubUc hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
July 7. 2006 Palm Desert Plan�ing Commission
.�
�� j ��,��
� �
�
r.ti�, ! r.to� reot �
Kat
, , • r.0
J��JNE13. 200R
Mr. Bagato indicated that this matter was continued from the previo
meeting. He expiained that the Commission requested that the app ' nt
look into designing the wall with offsets to vary the wall from the rb. Mr.
Bagato stated that the final map had been recorded and if wall was
designed with offsets� the wall would encroach into a Sou m Califomia
Edison 30' easement and property lines would exten utside the wa{I.
The wall as designed would be 42 feet from erald ford with a
meandering sidewalk. The applicant requested a roval of the wall with 3-
foot columns every 200 feet. Mr. Bagato noted that an adjacent
residential project (Ponderosa Homes) wo have a perimeter waN along
Gerald For+d that wauld tie into the posed wall. He presented the
material and cotor samples of the w s and co{umns for both projects.
The Commission believed th e colors were too similar and stated that
the walls needed to be id cal or a different color. The Commission liked
the 3-faot oolumns, b educed the distance between columns from 200
feet to 100 feet. e Commission aiso stated that Ponderosa Homes
should use a d er brown color for their perimeter block walls.
Action:
It wa oved by Commissioner LambeN� seoonded by Commissioner
V c, approving the proposed wall with 3-fooC pilasters 100 feet on
enter on the wall. Motion carried 6-0 with Commissioner Hanson absent.
B. Prelimfnary Plans
�
MINUTES
ARCHITE�:TIiRA�.� R�I� �►n�AM�s��nN
�
1. CASE NO.: TPM 34437 AND CUP OB-03
APPLICANT tAND ADDRESSI: GERALD FORD BUSINESS
PARK, LLC.� 74399 Highway 111, Suite M, Palm Desert, CA
92236
NATURE OF PR4JECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for
preliminary approval of the revised north elevation of the paricing
structure.
LOCATION: 75-3Q0 Gerald Ford Drive
ZONE: 31
��
�.
�
(�
MtNUTES
ARCNtTECTl1RA,�.� R�VIEW CnM�A13SIC�N
JlINF13� 20AR,
Mr. Urbina stated that the applicant submitted a revised north elevation for
the parking structure that showed greater design ardculation as the
Architecturat Review Commission previousty requested.
Mr. Norman Barrett of Smith Consu�ing Architects described the changes
to the north efevation of the two-level parking strudure. The revised north
elevation showed two paint colors, beige and light brown, whereas the
previous elevation had only a beige cotor. On the revised elevation, seven
sections of concrete walis were "popped-ouY 1 B inches to create off-sets
in the north elevatlon wall. These seven sections of wall were painted a
light brown color to contrast with the beige co{or of the parking structure's
other wall sections. Additionally� these seven brown wail were raised 18
inches above the 20-foot height of the beige wall sections.
Commissioner Vuksic suggested adding a third color to the parking
structure's north elevation and raising some of the pop-out wall sections
by more than the proposed 18 inches. Although he wouid like to have
seen the pop-out depths of these watl sections increased to 24 inches.
Commissioner Vuksic stated that the proposed 16-inch pop-out depth
would be acceptable.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner
Lambeil, granting preliminary approval of the parking structure's revised
north elevation subject to some pop-out elements being increased in
height an additional 18 inches and that a third color be added. Motion
carried 6-0 with Commissioner Hansen absent.
2. CASE NO.:, PP 06-04
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI: SfPOVAC CONSTRUCTION,
INC.� 72-651 Theodora Lane, Palm Desert, 92260
NATURE OF PRQJECTlAPPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary
approval of a flve-unit residential project.
LOCATtON: 74-360 Magnesia Falts Drive
ZON�: PR-7
10
I � �.
< <.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMiSS10N .
APRIL 25, 2006
MiNUTES
things that are with it. it seems like everything is fighting itseif o
Pete Carlson se�tion where f think there's much more co ' on the
other sections.
Action: Commissioner Ha �oved, seconded by Commissioner
Vuksic to continu request to allow the applicant to retum with
revised ns that show the project in 3-D and revising the Pete
n section of the building. Motion carried 7-0.
� 5. CASE NO,: TPM 344371CUP 06-03
APPLICANT �AND ADDRESS� GERALD FORD BUSINESS PARK,
LLC.� 74399 Highway 111, Suite M, Paim Desert, CA 92236
NATUR� OF PRQ�FCTIAPPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary
approval of a mixed-use project including 99,000 square feet of retail
and restaurant space with two drive-thrus and eight two-story o�ce
buiidings totaling 80,000 square feet.
LOCATIONi T5-300 Gerald Ford Drive
�ONE: SI
Commissioner Hanson commented that she thought that the project
{ooked great
Commissioner Vuksic stated that they're proposing a lot of signage on
the north side. I think that a little more needs to happen. it needs
some articulation because right now it has almost none. If you're going
to have that many signs on it, it deserves something. On the buildings
themsehres, I thought they were great. My oniy concem was on the
parapets. You have some parapets that I know you're going to see the
ends of, especially on the one-story buildings where you might have a
facade element that's 20' or 30' wide on the front and it retums just a
couple of feet past the next shorter parapet and it's going to look like a
little thing is stuck on there. You need to run the parapets back so that
those things iook like forms. They should be a minimum of two-thirds
of the width of the element so if it's 20' wide, it needs to go back 14'.
Mr. Urbina stated that the applicant submitted a sign program. They're
asking for four monument signs on Gerald Ford Drive. The length of
the project is only 60U'. Commissioner Vuksic asked the applicant why
they need three monument signs at the entry. The applicant stated that
they were trying to distinguish the difference befinreen the office space
G:Planning�Donna Quaiver�wpdocslAgminV1R060425.MIN 17
- �;�� � �-�
d.' � ARCHITECTURAL �cV1EW COMMISStON
L. APRIL 25, 2006
� MiNUTES
in the back and the retail space in the front We wanted to have some
options on the spacing of the signs on �the site and then maybe cut
back on the signs that they feit weren't needed. The commission felt
that one monument sign wouk! be sufficient for a project of this size.
on: Commissio�er Hanson moved, seconded by Corr�missioner
Van Vltet for preliminary approval subject to (1) limited to one
monument sign, (2) retum with articulaUon on parking structure, and (3)
approval by the Landscape Manager. Motion carried 7-0.
6. CASE NO.: MISC 06-16
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ROBERT RICCIARDi, 75-090
Charies Place. 3uite A� Palm Desett, CA 92211 ,
HAROLD McCORMiCK, 25-501 Crown Valley. Mission V' �o. CA
92694
NATUR� OF PROJ�,j�APPROV,�1L 30UGHT: Req st preliminary
approval of exterior remodel of a commercial buildi in conjunction
with the City of Palm Desert's Facade Enhancemen rogram.
LOCATION:, 73-320 EI Paseo
ZONE• C-1
Comm�ssioner Hanson had a questio about the roof element m the
middle that looks like it's floa�ng. s floating about 5' from the glass
line. Commissioner Van Vliet co ented that iYs not that far off of the
upper roof ovefiang and iYs ly about 8". Commissioner Hanson
stated that that ovefiang g all the way back to 5' so the middle part
stidcs down bebw it. Th appficant was not present to expiain the
elevation. Commissione uksic agreed that it looks like it's hovering
out there. Atso. the rapets need to be retumed twathirds of the
width of the elemen so it Iooks like a mass. The other parapets that
have the stepped tail need to be thicker (at least 12" but would prefer
18"). A drawin was produced by the comrnission that iliustrates a
solution to the oatin� element issue.
Action: ommissioner Vuksic moved� secoRded by Commissioner
Grego or preliminary approval subject to (1) modifying the top middle
etem t that appears to be floating by recessing fhe e(ement, per
sk h drawn by the Architectural Review Commission, and (2) retum
rapet two-thirds of the width of the element. Motion carried 7-0.
G:PIanning�Donna ClualvertwpdoplAgrrdnlAF2o60425.MIN 1 g
(�
TO:
FROM:
l �
CITY OF PALM DESERT
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
Department of Community Development/Planning
Attention: Francisco Urbina
Phil Joy, Associate Transportation Planner
RECEIVED
JUN Z 9 2Q�
COb(�[UNiTYDEti'BLOP��":.��Et:. •-�--::9
CITY OF PAL�1 D£SEBT
SUBJECT: PM 34437 Geraid Ford Businesa Park
DATE: .fune 29, 2006
The following should be considered conditions af approva! for the project;
GENERAL
1) Landscaping maintenance of any common areas shall be provided by the property
owners association. Landscape treatment shatl be water efficient in nature and
shall be in accordance with the City of Palm Desert landscape design standards.
Applicant shall be responsib{e for executing a deciara�on 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 ths Map; and
(c) the aforementioned landscaping sha{I be the responsibility of the property
owners association. Landscaping plans shall be submitted for review simultaneously
with grading plans.
2) A comptete preliminary soils investigation, canducted by a registered soiis engineer,
shail be submitted to, and approved by, the,Department of Public Works priorto the
issuance of a grading permit.
BONDS AND FEES
3) Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code
shall be paid prior to recordation of final map minus the cost of the drainage
improvements made.
4) 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. Signal installation may
be used as credit against the fees and the City wili pay up to half of the costs in
accordance with PM 30314.
5) The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF).
Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance.
6} A standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits.
DESIGN PLANS
7) 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 the incremental increase in drainage for a 100 year storm and
may utilize the Mid-Vafley Retention Channel. Nuisance waters shafl be contained
on-site.
.-- �
� ( �
�
,� , � .
8) Complete grading and improvement plans and specifications on electronic files shali
be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approvaf prior to
issuance of any permits.
9) Improvement plans for utility systems shall be approved by the respective provider
or service districts with "as-buitt" plans submitted to the Department of Public
Works prior to project final. Utility plans shall be submitted to the public worlcs
department for improvements in the public right of way prior to issuance of any
permits.
10) Complete parcel 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.
11) 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.
12) Pad elevations, as shown on the parcel map are subject to review and modificatfon
in accordance with Chapter 26 of the Palm Desert Municipat Code.
13) Landscape plans shall be submitted for review concurrently with grading plans.
14) Waiver of access to Gerald Ford Drive, except at approved locations, shall be
granted on the final map.
REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION
15) Full public improvements required by Seetions 26.4U and 26.44 of the Palm Desert
Municipal Code, shaN be installed in accordance with applicable City standards.
� 6' wide sidewalk on Gerald Ford Drive as shown on the grading plan.
• Signalized intersection at the project entry.
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.
16) All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public
Wortcs and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading
permits. No occupancy permit shall be granted until improvements have been
completed.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
17) Reciprocal easements shall be provided for drainage, access and parking.
��'��
Phif Joy �
�
G:`PubWoAtstCmai�oru d Appraa��PMAPSIPM 34�37 GF Businass PaAc.wpd
P� .n Desert Fire Depar;�' ;nt
� Fire Prevention Bureau
r. �he�..rie� x����a� c�ocy � n�����
73710 Fred Waring Dr. Suite 102 Palm Deseit Ca 92260 760-.;46-1870 Fax 760-779-1959
June 23, 2006
�EC�IVED
To: Francisco j. Urbina
JUN 2 � 2006
i�3SISt8IIt P�aIl1ICf ;O:i�i`:\ITY �E'. . :P" ":.
C1TY �� i':�..11 �BSERT
Re: CLJP 06-03 dt Tentative Track Map No 34437
Cxst # CI3P 06-03 / TPM 34437 / C'UP TPM-06-290
With respec� to ttie conditions of approval re$arding the above refereace plan checic,
the F'ue Departmertt recommends the fotlowing Sre protedion measures be provided in
accordsnce with City Municipal codes, apgropriate NFPA Standards� CFC, CBC and/or
recogniT.ed Fire Protedion 5tat�dards.
Afte� reviewing the plans provided to the F'ue Marshal Office for the Building to be
installed at the above address the Fire Marshal office has Approved the submitted plans
with the following conditions.
In reference to the above mentioned property, the fire department finds no probable
impacts on the environmerrt including land, air minerals, flora, fauna, and noise objects
of lustorical or aesthetic significance at this time.
Any questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to the Palm
Desert Fire Marshals office at 760-346-1870, tocated at 73710 Fred Waring Suite #102
Palm Desert, Ca 922b0
Respectfully,
Ne.1�� _
Neai Stephenson
Fire Safety Specialist
David A Avila
Fire Marshal
..___,
-. � RIVERS� '� .:�UNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Iii c�x�����ratic�n �vith nc�
C�lifc�rnia Departmcnt c�f Fun�iry ;�n�l t�irc 1'r��c��ii��n
210 West San JacinW Avenue • Pet�is, Califomia 92570 •(9091 9A0-6900 • FAX (S10�J) �340-6910
Tom Tisdale
Fire Chief
Proudly serving the
unlncorporated
atees oi Riverside
County and the
C!1{88 Oi:
8an�i�g
4
eeaumo�t
O
Calimesa
4
Canyo� Lake
0
Coacheila
0
DaseR Hot 5pnn�s
e
Indian Wells
O
indio
�
lake elsinore
�
La Quinta
d
Moreno Valley
�
Palm Desert
4
Petds
�
Rancho Mirage
4
5a� Jacinlo
�
Temecula
Aoard o[ Superv�sas
eoe e�5��
Oistrict t
John Tav�hnnn
Oi�tr�ct 2
.1wn Ve�ahle
Oistrict 3
Roy Wdson
o�su�cc �
Tom Mulfen
Distnct 5
Covc Firc Marshal's Otiicc
73710 Frcd Waring Drivc �! ] 02
Paim Dcscrt CA �)22b0
(764) 346-tx�c�
To: �u� oG•o'S�-rpY,r, 'S4y 3?/
c"�`'�"� • �,•Z1 O
REF:
If circled, c�nclitions apply to proiect
L�J
��
3.
�
G.
7.
�
�
l 0.
I)A'1'N:: G�'(t �Q(p
With respect to the conditions otapprovul regarciing lhc :�bovc
referenced pro}ect, the fire department recommend� the foitowiu�; fire
proiection measures be providtd in accord�nce with City M��»icip�t
Code. NFPA, CFC, and CI3C or any reco�niced Fire Protectic►n
Standards:
Thc F'ire Department is required to set a minimum firc flow ti�r• �l�c
remodel or con�truction of a!! baildin�s oer Uh'C article 87.
A fire ilow of 1500 gpm !or a 1-hour daration At 20 psi residaal
pressurc must be availAble before any combustible material is ��lacecl
on the iob site.
Provide or ahow there exists a water system c�pabla of provicl;n�; :�
gpm ftow of:
1500 gpm for single farnily dwellin�s
2500 gpm for multifamify dweltings
3004 �m for commerciAl buildin�
The required fire t]ow s6alt be availabie from :i wet t�:�rrc! tiu��i•r
tiydrant (s) 4"x 2'/:" x 2'/:", located not less th:in 2S' nnr morr Ili:�n:
200' from any portion of a single family dwclli�ig mc:�surccf vi:i
vehicutar travelway
16S' from any portion of A multitamity dwcllinR mc�surcd vi;i
vehicular lrAvelway
150' from any portion �f a commerci;�l builclin�; n�ctisurc�l vi:i
vehicular traveiwav
Watcr Plans must bc approved by tl�c I�irc M:�rsl�al :tnd incfutl��
verification that the water system wi11 nroduce tl�e reauireei (ir�• (lo�v.
Please be advised the proposed projecl mhy n�t be feasible.inc�• tl�c
existin� w�ter m�ins wiit not meet the renuircct firc flow.
�'f / �'
u
0
��•
lnstalt A complete NFPA 13 fire sprink;er system. 'fhis :�ppiic� lo :ilt
buildings with a 3000 square foot total cumutative floor :trea. Thc Fire
Marshal shall Approved the loc�tions of all post indicator v;ilvcc :ir�d
Cre department connections. All valve� and connections shlll aot be
less t6an 25' from the buitding aad within 50' of 1n approved
hvdr�nt. ExemQtcd are one �nd two familv dwellin�s.
Atl valves controlling the watcr supply for automatic sprinklcr
systems and Water-Aow switches shall be monitored and alarmeci per
CBC Chapter 9.
TastaU a Pre alarm system as reauired bv th� Ui3C Chant�r 3.
� InstaU portable fire e:tinguishers per NFPA 10, hut not less tl�:in o��e
2AlOBC extinguisher per 3000 square fKt and not over 7S' walkin�
distance. A"K" type fire extinguishcr is required in all commerci:�l
kitchens.
15. Instatt � Hood/Duct autom�tic firt extinguishing system per N(� PA 96
in alf public and private cooking operAtions except singie-famify
residentistl u�a�a
16.
17.
I8
�
insts�ll st dust cotlecting system ptr CFC Cf�apter 76 if conducti��g :�n
operntion that produces Airborne particles.
All buildiag shall be accessible by an as�-weatfier roadway extending
to wit6in 150' ot aU portions of t6e exterior watls of the first story.
The roAdwAy shAU not be less than 24' of unobstructed width as�d
13' 6" of vertical clearanca Where parallcl parking is required on
bot6 sides of the street the roAdway must be 36' wide nnd 32' w;dc
with parking on oae sida Des�d-end roads in excess of 150' sl��ll bc
provided with a minimum 45' radius turn-around 55' in iuciustri:�l
devclopments.
Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of
gates, barriers or other means provision� sfia11 be made to instali :i
"Knoz Bos" key over-ride system to a11ow for emergency vehicle
access. Minimum g�te width shall be 16" with a minimum vertic:ii
clearance of 13'6".
A dead end single access over S00' will require a secondary access,
spcinklera or other mitigative measures approvcci by if�e f irc
Marshal. Under no circumstance shall a dead end over 130U• !�e
accepttd.
�.. ( �,__
��
21.
�
�
24.
�
A second access is required. This can be accomptishai by t�v� m:iin
accGts points from � n�ain roadway or �n emerRency ��te tr�m :in
adioinin� ci�v�IAp�menR.
T6is project may require licensing by �e stAte or county �gency, to
fAcilitate ptan review the applicant shAll prepare and submit tu th��
Fire M�rshal A letter of inteot detstiling the proposcd usaRe and
occuoancv tvne.
Ali buildiegs �6s�tl have ifluminstted addresses of a size approvecl by
the citv.
AU fire sprinWer rystem�, fizcd fire suppression systems and :�l�rm
p1Ana mu�t be submitted sep�rately to the Fire Murshat for :�ppre�val
prior t0 cqn�trpction.
Conditions subject to chAnge wit6 adoption oP new codes, orcfin:�nces,
luws, or whee building permits are not obtained within twelvc
mqnth�.
All elc�►ator� shali be minimum gurnev size.
All questions regarding the me�tniag of these conditions should hc rcferrcd to
the Fire Marsh�t's Otfice at (760) 346-1870 ie Palm DeserK.
Location; 73710 Fred Waring Drive #222. Palm Desert CA 922G0
Other.
� - � ,....� �-.,. i
_ . �.
Sincerely,
��
DAvid A. Avila
Fire Marshal
�{ATEq
��STRIC'�
,
�
�
ESTAWSHEO IN 1915 AS A�UWO �Tli.7
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
POST OFFlCE BOX 105! • COACHEW. CALIFORNiA 9223i • TELEPHONE (760) 393-2651 • FAX (760) 396-3711
o�pf�TORs: RE C E IVED�FFtCERS:
PETER HELSON, PRESIDENT STEYEN B. ROBBINS.
PATAICtA A. �ARSON. VICE PFESIDENT r;� GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEf ENGiNEER
TELLIS CODEKAS • • '� � � � MAAK BEUHLER,
JOMN W. McFADOEN ASST. GENERIIL IiAANAGER
RUSSELL NITAHARA JUIIA FERNAIVDEZ, SECRETARY
Apri112� ZOQ�,y�\(TY DE`.'�.l.U?�•�.. .iEP' DJW PARKS, ASST. TO GENERAL MANAGER
�;1TY OF PAL1{ DESERT REDWINE AND SHERHILL, ATTORNEYS
File: 0163.1
0421.1
0721,1
Deparmaent of Community Development
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive .
Palm Desezt, CA 92260
Caxhedral City, CA 92234
Geutlemen:
Subject: CUP 06-03. Tentative Parcel Nisu No. 34437
This area lies on the sandy area in the northera portion of Palm Desert and is considered safe
from regional stormwater flows except in rare instances.
This azea is designated Zone C on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which aze in effect at
ttus time by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Drainage from this area is contributory to the Mid-Valley Stormwater Project. The city may
require mitigation measures to be incorporated into the development to prevent flooding of
the site or downstream properties. These measures may include on-site retenrion of water
from the 100-year storm, dedicarion of right-of-way for regional flood c�ntrol faciliries or
other participation in the financing of regional flood control facilities.
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 sattitarion service to this area in accordance with
the curreat 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.
This azea shall be annexed to Improvement District No. 58 of the District for sanitation
service.
TRUE CONSERVATiON
USE WATER WISELY
(
�
�,
Department of Community Development
City of Palm Desert
r
� �_
2
April 12, 2006
The District requires restaurants to install a grea,se interceptor, including a sample box,
sanitary tee and running trap with cleaaout, prior to any discharge to its sanitatioa facilities.
The size of the grease iaterceptor will be detenmined and approved by the District.
Installation of the interceptor witl be inspected by the District.
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 n��n_g 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 se�parator will be
inspected by the Distric�
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 far
review. This revie�c► is for ensuring efficient water management.
If you have any questions please call Tyme Fruscella, Stormwater Engineer, extension 2229.
� � �Y,
�Ii
r �
Mazk 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, CA 92201
7'F:chlmgVw�061aQriAtpm 34437-palcn desat
0406342
COACHELIA YAIIEY WATER DISTRICT
4�
� ._
�-
INTEROFFICE MEMORADUM
City of Palm Desert
RECEIV�D
.-�,�' '� � � ��i�
'OJf1li;�ITY DE';ELGP,,_ ." ."F.�P.^HE"T
�:TY �;F ?.a L.�f ;i��E:�T
TO:
FROM:
FRANCISCO URBINA, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
FRANKtE RIDDLE� ACTING DIRECTOR OF SPECIAL PROGRAMS
SUBJECT: CUP 06-03 & TPM 34437
DATE: APRIL 5, 2006
The submitted conditional use permit and tentafive parcei map has been reviewed to
determine the need for a bus shelter/stop at the project location and inclusion of
required trash/recycling enclosure(s) for each project.
Bus Shelter. After reviewing the p{ans it has been determined that this project wili not
be conditioned with a requirement for a bus shelter and tumout.
Trash Enclosures: The plan does appear to reflect trash enclosures; however, there is
a concem related to the locafion and orientation of loading refuse areas behind stores.
The plan must provide for a trash/recycfing enclosure(s} that is cansistent with the Palm
Desert Municipa{ Code. The construction of trash enclosures shall be consistent with
PDMC, Chapter 8.12. Waste Management of the Desert must review and sign-off on
the plans in relations to the placement and number of trashlrecycling enclosures.
Review of the plans by Waste Management will ensure that vehicle circulation for its
trucks is adequate to service the complex and to ensure that a sufficient number of
encfosures are provided to meet the needs of the complex. The Applicant may contact
Jennifer at Waste Management of the Desert at (760) 340-6445 regarding this issue.
FRANKIE RIDDaCE
ACTING DIRECTOR OF SPECIAL PROGRAMS
cc: Mark Greenwood, Director of Public Works
Amir Hamidzadeh, Director of Building and Safety
�
MINUTES
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
11
JUNE13. 2006
Mr. Bagato indicated that this matter was continued from the previous
meeting. He expiained that the Commission requested that the applicant
look into designing the wall with offsets to vary the wall from the curb. Mr.
Bagato stated that the final map had been recorded and if the wall was
designed with offsets, the wall would encroach into a Southern California
Edison 30' easement and property lines would extend outside the wall.
The wall as designed wouid be 42 feet from Gerald ford with a
meandering sidewalk. The applicant requested approval of the wall with 3-
foot columns every 200 feet. Mr. Bagato also noted that an adjacent
residential project (Ponderosa Homes) would have a perimeter wall along
Gerald Ford that would tie into the proposed wall. He presented the
material and color samples of the walls and columns for both projects.
The Commission believed that the colors were too similar and stated that
the walls needed to be identical or a different color. The Commission liked
the 3-foot columns, but reduced the distance between columns from 200
feet to 100 feet. The Commission also stated that Ponderosa Homes
should use a da�lcer brown color for their perimeter block walls.
Action:
It was moved by
Vuksic, approving
center on the wall.
B.
�
Preliminary Plans
Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner
the proposed wall with 3-foot pilasters 100 feet on
Motion carried 6-0 with Commissioner Hanson absent.
1. CASE NO.: TPM 34437 AND CUP 06-03
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): GERALD FORD BUSINESS
PARK, LLC., 74-399 Highway 111, Suite M, Palm Desert, CA
92236
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for
preliminary approval of the revised north elevation of the parking
structure.
LOCATION: 75-300 Gerald Ford Drive
ZONE: SI
�7
(
MINUTES
ARCHiTECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
JUNE13. 2006
Mr. Urbina stated that the applicant submitted a revised north elevation for
the parking structure that showed greater design articulation as the
Architectural Review Commission previously requested.
Mr. Norman Barrett of Smith Consulting Architects described the changes
to the north elevation of the two-level parking structure. The revised north
elevation showed two paint colors, beige and light brown, whereas the
previous elevation had only a beige color. On the revised elevation, seven
sections of concrete walls were "popped-out" 16 inches to create off-sets
in the north elevation wall. These seven sections of wall were painted a
light brown color to contrast with the beige color of the parking structure's
other wall sections. Additionally, these seven brown wall were raised 18
inches above the 20-foot height of the beige wall sections.
Commissioner Vuksic suggested adding a third color to the parking
structure's north elevation and raising some of the pop-out wall sections
by more than the proposed 18 inches. Although he woufd like to have
seen the pop-out depths of these wall sections increased to 24 inches,
Commissioner Vuksic stated that the proposed 16-inch pop-out depth
would be acceptable.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner
Lambell, granting preliminary approval of the parking structure's revised
north elevation subject to some pop-out elements being increased in
height an additional 18 inches and that a third color be added. Motion
carried 6-0 with Commissioner Hansen absent.
2. CASE NO.: PP 06-04
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SIPOVAC CONSTRUCTION,
INC., 72-fi51 Theodora Lane, Pa{m Desert, 92260
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary
approval of a five-unit residential project.
LOCATION: 74-360 Magnesia Falls Drive
ZONE: PR-7
10