HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 07-03 PP 07-03 - Prest Vuksic Architects CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: Approval of a precise plan to construct a 2,486 square foot two-
story office professional building with a 30-foot tower. The property
is located at 73-141 Fred Waring Dri
�-lU--� �
SUBMITTED BY: Tony Bagato, Acting Principal Planne MEETING DATE 7
L`1 CONTINUED TO _� - ��"�7
APPLICANT: Prest/Vuksic Architects -
44-530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite 20 t3 PAS3ED TO 2N0 READMI6
Palm Desert, CA 92260
* By Minute tion, co
Bob and Marilyn Ford Put,li� hearing to the meeting of May
73-550 Alessandro Drive, Suite 5 24, 2007, and directed that any additional
Palm Desert, CA 92260 expenses incurred by the Applicants as
a result of the delay be borne by the
CASE NO: PP 07-03 City of Palm Desert. 5-0
DATE: May 10, 2007
CONTENTS: Recommendation
Draft Resolution No. 07--33
Planning Commission Minutes, dated March 20, 2007
Planning Commission Resolution 2438
Planning Commission Staff Report, dated March 20, 2007
Comments from other departments
ARC Minutes
Plans and Exhibits
Recommendation:
That the City Council adopt Resolution No.o�-33 approving Precise Plan 07-03.
Executive Summarv:
Approval of staff's recommendation will allow the construction of a new two-story office
building on a vacant lot on the south side of Fred Waring Drive between two existing
office bu'rldings. The proposed precise plan of design provides for a two-story 2,486
square foot general office building with eight (8) parking spaces located behind the
building. Approval of the project includes two (2) tower elements, one (1) at 26 feet and
the other at 30 feet 6 inches. The Architectural Review Commission has granted
preliminary approval of the building design. The precise plan of design complies with alt
the development standards of the office professional zone. The proposed site planning
and architectural design will compliment the existing office buildings on Fred Waring.
Staff Report
PP 07-03
Page 2
May 10, 2007
The use and location are compatible with the adjacent properties and are consistent
with the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
Planninq Commission Action:
On March 20, 2007, the project was presented to the Planning Commission. After staff's
presentation, no members of the public spoke in favor or in opposition to the project.
Commissioners Tschopp, Tanner and Campbell stated that the project complies with all
the standards of the zone with a height exception that the zoning ordinance provides for
tower elements, which are a necessary to achieve the proposed architectural style.
Commissioners Schmidt and Limont appreciated the project architecture but expressed
concerns with the height of the tower elements. The Commission recommended
approval of the project with the height exception for the tower elements on a 3-2 vote
with Commissioner Schmidt and Limont voting nay.
Discussion:
I. BACKGROUND:
A. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
The 7,405 square foot lot is located on the south side of Fred Waring
Drive, approximately 750 feet east of Monterey Avenue across the street
from the McCallum Theater.
B. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:
No�th: Public (P) / McCallum Theater
South: R-2 Single-family Residential / Single-family home
East: Office Professional (O.P.) / one and two-story office building
West: Office Professional (O.P.) / one-story office building
C. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING:
The property is designated Office Professional in the City's General Plan
and is zoned Office Professional (O.P.).
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant is requesting approval of a precise plan to allow the construction of
a two-story 2,486 square foot general office building with eight parking spaces
located behind the building. A driveway on Fred Waring Drive provides access
underneath the building to the parking spaces.
Staff Report
PP 07-03
Page 3
May 10, 2007
The first floor is limited to stairwefls, a mechanical room, electrical room, storage
area, restroom, and 485 square feet of usable office space for a receptionist. The
second floor provides for stairwells, mechanical rooms, a restroom and 1,200
square feet of usable office space.
The building front setback varies between 15 feet and 18 feet from the property
line with a tower element that is 12 feet from the property line. The rear setback
varies between 40 feet to the one-story portion and 65 feet to the second story
portion of the building.
Architecture:
The building's architecture design is desert contemporary utilizing strong vertical
elements, a stone tower element with tile roof, and stuccoed in earth tone colors.
A material sample board will be available at the hearing. The bui{ding height is 24
feet 6 inches with tower elements at 26 feet and 30 feet 6 inches.
On February 13, 2007, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) granted
preliminary approval of the project design.
III. ANALYSIS:
The following table compares the Office Professional (Section 25.25)
development standards with the proposed project.
STANDARD O.P. DISTRICT PROJECT
Building Height 25 feet 24 feet 6 inches
Tower Heights 25 feet above the maximum 26 feet and 30 feet 6 inches
hei ht in the zone = 50 feet
Front Setback 12-foot minimum, 15-foot 12-foot min, 15-foot average
avera e
20 feet for 18 feet of building 40 feet for 18 foot high
Rear Setback height, 62 feet for 24 feet 6 po�tion, 65 feet for 24 foot 6
inches height inches high portion
Side Setbacks 0/0 0/0
Parking 4/1,000 (8) 8
Landscaping 15% of parking 46%
Staff Report
PP 07-03
Page 4
May 10, 2007
Front Setback:
The front setback in the office professional zone is determined by one of two
standards. One standard requires a 12-foot minimum setback with a 15-foot
average measured from the property line. The second standard allows a one-foot
setback for one foot of building height measured from the ultimate curb location.
The greater setback determines which standard is applied to the project. The first
standard is the greater setback for this project.
The front setback varies between 12 feet and 18 feet, averaging 15 feet. It
complies with the required front yard setback.
Rear Setback:
The office professional zone requires a rear yard setback to be a minimum
average of 20 feet for buildings that are 18 feet high. For each additional foot of
building height above 18 feet, the average setback increases by 6.43 feet. The
required setback for this project is 20 feet for the one-story portion (18 feet high)
and 62 feet for the second-story portion (24 feet 6 inches high).
The building is setback 40 feet from the rear property line at 18 feet high and 65
feet at 24 feet 6 inches. It complies with the required rear yard setback.
Height:
The maximum height in the office professional zone is 25 feet. The proposed
building height is 24 feet 6 inches with tower elements at 26 feet and 30 feet 6
inches. Tower elements above the 25-foot height limit require approval by City
Council.
Generally, architectural features above the height limit have been acceptable if
they enhance the project architecture and do not adversely affect adjacent
properties. The proposed tower elements enhance the overall project
architecture and are located on the north side of the building away from the
single-family residents to the south.
Staff Report
PP 07-03
Page 5
May 10, 2007
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The project is a Class 32, Infill Development, Categorical Exemption for the
purposed of CEQA and no further review is necessary.
Submitted By: Department Head:
Tony Bagato au i Aylaian
Acting Principal Planner Director of Community Development
Approval:
,��
City Ma age
P
AC for ev o ment Services
RESOLUTION NO.a�-�
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN
FOR A 2,486 SQUARE FOOT GENERAL OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED
ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF FRED WARING DRIVE, 750 FEET EAST OF
MONTEREY AVENUE, 73-141 FRED WARING DRIVE.
CASE NO. PP 07-03
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 10th
day of May, 2007, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by Prest
Vuksic Architects on behalf of Bob and Marilyn Ford for approval of the above noted
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did
on the 20th day of March, 20, 2007, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the said
request and by its Resolution No. 2438 recommended approval of PP 07-03; 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 this project is a Class 32 Categorical Exemption and no further environmental review
is necessary for the purposes of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council
did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify approval of said request:
PRECISE PLAN
1. The design of the precise plan will comply with each of the applicable
provisions of the zoning ordinance, except for the approved height
exception.
2. The precise plan will not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment
of property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes.
3. The precise plan will not endanger the public peace, health, safety, or
general welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm
Desert, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the City Council in this case.
RESOLUTION NO. 07-33
2. That the City Council does hereby approve Precise Plan 07-03, subject to
conditions attached
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
City Council, held on this 10t" day of May, 2007, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RICHARD KELLY, Mayor
ATTEST:
RACHELLE KLASSEN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
2
RESOLUTION NO. 07-33
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. PP 07-03
Department of Communitv Development:
1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file
with the Department of Community Development/Planning, as modified by the
following conditions.
2. Construction of said project shall commence within one (1) 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 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 Commission
City Fire Marshal
Public Works Department
Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be
presented to the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a
building permit for the use contemplated herewith.
5. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking
areas. Said placement shall be approved by applicable waste company and
Department of Community Development and shall include a recycling program.
6. All future occupants of the buildings shall comply with parking requirements of
the zoning ordinance.
7. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to
these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said
landscaping for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and
which agreement shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this
condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. The
final landscape plan shall include a long-term maintenance program specifying
3
RESOLUTiON NO. 07-33
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. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public
Works prior to Architectural Review Commission submittal.
9. 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.
10. If the parking lot is to be illuminated, a detail 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.
Deuartment of Public Works:
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
1. All landscape maintenance shall be performed by the property owner and the
applicant shall enter into a landscape maintenance agreement with the city for
the life of the project, consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ord.
801) and the approved landscaped plan.
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. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17
and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permit.
4. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF).
Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance.
5. A standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits.
6. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal
Code shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits
4
RESOLUTION NO. 07-33
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
7. Storm drain 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.
8. Complete grading and improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted
to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of
any permits.
9. 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.
10. Pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with
Chapter 26 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code.
11. Landscape installation shall be drought tolerant in nature and in accordance with
the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (24.04).
12. Landscape plans shall be submitted for review concurrently with grading plans.
13. Full public improvements, as required by Section 26 of the Palm Desert
Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards.
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.
CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
14. All public improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works
and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits.
No occupancy permit shall be granted until public improvements have been
completed.
15. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Public Works
Department.
16. Applicant shall comply with provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section
24.12, Fugitive Dust Control as well as Section 24.20, Storm water Management
and Discharge Control.
17. Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence
to the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit
5
RESOLUTION NO. p7-33
for storm water discharges associated with construction. Developer must
contact Riverside County Flood Control District for informational materials.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
18. Project shall record an offer of dedication for reciprocal access in favor of
properties to the east and west.
Riverside Countv Fire Department:
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 Codes, appropriate NFPA
Standards, CFC, and CBC and/or recognized fire protection standards.
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial buildings per UFC article 87.
2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20 psi residual operating
pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job
site.
3. Provide, or show there exists, a water system capable of providing a gpm flow of
3,000 gpm for commercial buildings.
4. The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant(s)
(4"x2-1/2"x2-1/2"), located not less than 25' nor more than 150' from any portion
of a commercial building measured via vehicular travelway.
5. Water plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that
the water system will produce the required fire flow.
6. Install a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all buildings
with a 3,000 square foot total cumulative floor area. The Fire Marshal shall
approve the locations of all post indicator valves and fire department
connections. All valves and connections shall not be less than 25' from the
building within 50' of an approved hydrant. Exempted are one and two family
dwellings.
7. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and water-
flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per CBC Chapter 9.
8. Install a fire alarm system as required by the UBC Chapter 3.
9. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than one 2A10BC
extinguisher per 3,000 square feet and not over 75' walking distance. A "K" type
fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens.
6
RESOLUTION NO. 07-33
10. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within
150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall be
not less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Where
parallel parking is required on both sides of the street, the roadway must be 36'
wide and 32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150'
shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn-around 55' in industrial
developments.
11. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates,
barriers or other means, provisions shall be made to install a "Knox Box" key
over-ride system to allow for emergency vehicle access. Minimum gate width
shall be 16" with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6".
12. A second access is required. This can be accomplished by two main access
points from a main roadway or an emergency gate from an adjoining
development.
13. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the City.
14. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must
be submitted separately to the Fire Marshal for approval prior to construction.
15. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or
when building permits are not obtained within 12 months.
16. All elevators shall be minimum gurney size.
17. Bridge shall be sprinklered above and below.
7
� � � �r � � �' �i � If� t.i � � t i1 �
: 73-5io Fkt:i�W:�ttiNc� L)tti��r
PAI.M DE51'.RT,Cni.iruanin 9zzfio z578
T�u 760 346—o6�i
� tna:76o 3qi-7oy6
� info�pxlm-dr�crcorg
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. PP 07-03
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert
City Council to consider a request by Bob and Marilyn Ford for approval of a precise plan
of design including a height exception for a tower element related to a 2,486 square foot
office building located at 74-141 Fred Waring Drive.
AR/OlLOAAV! �
ALI�IN WAl'
SO
Q
�
t p
i
k1
�
D WARING OR PRQAECT Sl1E
�
�
MMTAIIOiA WAY � yyy�A��
� �AII MpIOLAYAV[ � �AM MCI�OLA�
�
47AlNANNY ' � Giµ�W
N
W�E
��
6
SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, May 10, 2007, at 4:00 p.m. in the Council
Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert,
California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be
heard. Written comments conceming all items covered by this public hearing notice shall
be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information conceming the proposed project
and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community
Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be
limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning
Commission (or city council)at,or prior to,the public hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun RACHELLE KLASSEN,City Clerk
April 30,2007 Palm Desert City Council
( r
. MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 2Q. 20Q7
Commissioner Limont agreed with the other commissioners. She liked the
building, thought it was well done and falls within the guidelines, but noted
they would also want to have good neighbor relationships.
Chairperson Campbell also concurred. She thought it would be a beautiful
building. The setbacks met the service industrial code and people should
know the codes before they buy. She asked if there was a motion.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner
Tanner, approving the findings as presented by staff: Motion carried 5-0.
It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner
Tanner,adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2437 approving Case
No. PP 06-13, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0.
�,� B. Case No. PP 07-03 -PRESTNUKSIC ARCHITECTS FOR BOB AND
MARILYN FORD, Applicants
Request for a recommendation of approval to the City Council
of a precise plan of design to allow construction of a 2,486
square foot two-story professional office building with a 30-foot
tower element at 73-141 Fred Waring Drive.
Mr. Smith reviewed the staff report and recommended that Planning
Commission recommend to City Council approval of Case No. PP 07-03,
subject to the proposed conditions. He noted that the applicant brought to his
attention just prior to the meeting a couple of concerns with respect to Fire
Department Conditions 12 and 17 on page 7 of the draft resolution; the
applicant needed to clarify them with the Fire Department. Mr. Smith's
recommendation was that both of those conditions be imposed as stated or
subject to whatever the applicant works out with the Fire Department. If the
two cannot come to a satisfactory resolution, then the matter would end up
back at Planning Commission. At this point, he recommended that the matter
be placed in the hands of the applicant and Fire Department to work out.
Commissioner Tanner asked if there were any other buildings with 30-foot
tower heights along there within half a mile of each other or roof lines at 30-
feet on Fred Waring. Mr. Smith said no, not that he could recall. He said they
threw away the pattem after the Cultural Center was built across the street.
He guessed that the building at the corner with the parking underneath was
right at the 25-foot limit. Along the Monterey side there are a numbe�of two-
8
� ( -
� MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20. 2007
story buildings at the 25-foot limit, but off the top of his head he didn't recall
tower elements.
Commissioner Tanner asked if the height limit along Fred Waring was
consistent with 26 feet, two-stories. Mr. Smith answered two-stories,
definitely; the height limit in the zone is 25, however, towers fall under an
exceptions provision conceivably allowing up to 50 feet. The proposal is for
26 and 30 feet.
Commissio�er Schmidt noted on the grading plan that there was an ofd
electric company, Califomia Electric Power Company, easement that would
be deeded over to the property owner and she asked if that was of no value
or use any longer. Mr. Smith said they needed to make that go away and that
would be accomplished as part of the mapping/grading permit.
Commissioner Schmidt inquired about the amount of space between the
dental building and the proposed building. Mr. Smith said it was probably one
inch. They were both built with a zero lot line. .
Chairperson Campbell o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to
address the Commission.
MR. DAVID PREST, Prest Vuksic Architects, 44530 San Pablo in
Palm Desert, came forward. He said he didn't have anything to add.
He thought Steve gave a good presentation. He informed
Commission that he met with the Fire Marshal at the onset of this
project. Initially they tried to get access from their neighbor, the
dentist, and probably would have done something different in the front
with that access. His recollection with the Fire Department
discussions was that if they could somehow punch a hofe in that wall
to get a person through it, not a fire truck, that might so{ve that
problem. Also, the 12-foot height was impossible. It was his
understanding that they could fight the fire from the front of the
building or from the neighbor's parking lot. That was his recollection
from when he met with the Fire Marshal. Otherwise, everything else
was good. On the one side, the dentist's office is at zero lot line, but
they were actually three or four inches away from the property line
and the other side was open to a parking lot. He said the easement
is in the process of being removed to reflect what was shown on the
plans.
Commissioner Tschopp asked Mr. Prest if the Fire Department held firm on
the conditions of approval, if the conditions would be insurmountable.
9
� C
MINUTES
PALM DESER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20. 200T
Mr. Prest said with the 12-feet absolutely because right now they only
have ten feet. From the first floor to the second floor is 12 feet. That
was the maximum they could use for the second floor because of the
25-foot height restriction. So they only have ten feet for sure clear,
maybe a little more, but their ceiling height undemeath the drive-thru
is ten feet plus a few inches. He said it would be impossible to do a
two-story building with a drive undemeath at 12 feet. It was impossible
to make that work. They would have to be granted access from the
neighbor to be able to get access to this property and that was the
neighbor's wall they would have to go through. The owner talked with
the neighbor and they were not interested in granting any access.
Mr. Prest noted that it is a pretty small building at 2,400 square feet,
and it seemed to him the Fire Department could fight a fire there
pretty easily and they could certainly get undemeath it. The whole lot
is only 112 feet deep and the building was quite a bit {ess than that,
so it was a small area.
Commissioner Tschopp asked if the size of the lot was driving the design of
the building.
Mr. Prest said yes, absolutely.
Commissioner Limont asked if there was anything housed in the upper part
of the tower.
Mr. Prest said no, it was empty, and there was no equipment on the
roof. He confirmed it was for aesthetics only.
There were no other questions for the applicant. Chairperson Campbel{
asked for any testimony in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the application. There
was no response and the public hearing was closed. She asked for
Commission comments.
Commissioner Schmidt thought it was a stunning building. She said it was an
interesting approach, but there was a tower at 30 feet. She personally felt
that the building didn't carry at all without that archite�tural feature, so she
was really tom. She would prefer to see it go away or be at 25 feet, but
acknowledged that in all reality it couldn't because of the clearance needed
to drive under and was at the minimum now.
Commissioner Limont agreed. She thought the building was terrific and
recognized the difficulties to try and fit something onto a small lot and make
10
�� (���.
• MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20. 2007
it not only look nice, but also be functional. But the tower flies in the face of
what they are trying to do in Palm Desert and that is to maintain low
architecture and heights. She loved the building, but agreed that without the
tower, the architectural design was diminished. With the tower, she was not
in favor of the building at that height.
Commissioner Tschopp indicated that Prest Vuksic Architects has done a
fantastic job on afl their buildings they have put up and is one of Palm
Desert's premier architectural firms. He looked at the design and it was
difficult in his mind to picture that over there, but he thought it would probably
fit in well. The tower element didn't bother him because again, that was why
the code was given the authority to put in some different elements into a
design in order to make the rest of the building look desirable. When dealing
with a small lot, they needed to do something to make it work and thaYs
where the architects were exceeding the height limitation to put in a design
element that is permittable by code. His concern was with the Fire
Department, because the 12-foot limitation and the other access would make
the whole building be redesigned. He didn't know if it would go forward, and
if there was going to be any major changes to it, it would have to come back
to the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Tanner stated that there are other elements along Fred
Waring that do exceed that height, but they were also off of the "beaten
track." It was unfortunate, but this building would be in a more prominent
location. He was in favor of allowing the building to go forward as presented.
He was a little concemed with the 30-foot tower, but at the same time it was
a very small element. lt wasn't the entire roof line. Along with Commissioner
Tschopp, he was also concerned that the Fire Department would not allow
this building to be built simply because they couldn't get access to it. He was
in favor of recommending to City Councif approval, but thought it was really
in the hands of the Fire Department and designers to either approve or not
approve that minimum requirement.
Commissioner Campbell stated that she was very much in favor of the
building. Even though Mr. Smith stated that everything along Fred Waring is
uniform at 25 feet, she thought they needed to have a break in the existing
architecture and this is a very well designed building. They've never had any
problems with these architects and have had nothing but praise for them.
For Conditions 12 and 17 that Mr. Smith mentioned, they could go ahead
and have the architect work it out with the Fire Department to see what could
be done, or include Conditions 12 and 17 in their motion.
11
C �
� MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20. 2007
A tc ion:
Commissioner Tanner made a motion that they accept the building with the
conditions and that the building owners work with the Fire Department to get
those two issues worked out. Chairperson Campbell asked for clarification
that the motion included approving the building. Commissioner Tanner said
yes. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Tschopp. Motion carried
3-2 with Commissioners Limont and Schmidt voting no.
It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner
Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2438
recommending to City Council approval of Case No. PP 07-03, subject to
conditions. Motion carried 3-2 with Commissioners Limont and Schmidt
voting no.
Mr. Smith stated that the meeting between the applicants/owners and the
Fire Department would take place prior to City Council public hearing and `
those two issues would be resolved.
C. Case No. ZOA 07-01 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant
Request for a recommendation of approval to the City Council
of an amendment to Chapter 25.15 Hillside Planned
Residential District and Chapter 25.86 Public Hearings.
Mr. Stendell reviewed the staff report, pointing out the additions and changes
that had been made since the last meeting. He said there was
correspondence on the matter and copies received within the last few days
had also been distributed to Commission. Some letters were in favor and
some felt it would devalue their properties. Mr. Stendell explained that
development standards weren't being changed; owners were stiN entitled to
a 10,000 square foot pad, 3,000 square feet of access road and a 4,000
square foot house. They were just insuring now that no more ridge-top
developments were being created.
Commissioner Schmidt asked for the definition of "that roof lines do not
create a negative visual impact on the city"; she asked what that meant to
staff. Mr. Smith replied that it means that the goal is that rooflines will not be
visible above ridge lines and if from some vantage points they happen to be
visible, they are not at a point where they become an adverse impact on that
view. Commissioner Schmidt asked Mr. Stendell the same question. He
replied that his definition was very similar. As Mr. Tschopp pointed out to him
at the last meeting, it was very hard to say it wouldn't be seen depending on
12
� ` CI1
Y OF � �Il �l DESERI
� 73-5�0 �RED WARING DRIVE
PALM �ESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 76o 346—o6it
� Fnx: 760 34i-7oq8
� info@palm-deserc.org
PLANNING COMMtSSION MEETING
NOTICE OF ACTION
Date: March 22, 2007
Prest / Vuksic Architects Bob and Marilyn Fo�d
44-530 San Pablo, Suite 200 73-550 Alessandro Drive, Suite 5
Palm Desert, California 92260 Palm Desert, California 92260
Re: PP 07-03
73-141 Fred Waring Drive
The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and
taken the foilowing action at its regular meeting of March 20, 2007:
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED TO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF CASE NO. PP 06-13 BY ADOPTION OF PLANNING
COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2438, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.
MOTION CARRIED 3-2 (COMMISSIONERS LIMONT AND SCHMIDT
VOTED NO).
Please call if you have any questions regarding this action. Case No. PP 07-03 is
tentatively scheduled for City Council public hearing on April 12, 2007.
� ��
Stephen R. Smith, Acting Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
/tm
cc: Coachella Valley Water District
Public Works Department
Building & Safety Department
Fire Marshal
�M�n�oa�a��uo•u�
l �
PLANNING COMMISSiON RESOLUTION NO. 2438
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN FOR A 2,486 SQUARE FOOT
GENERAL OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED ON THE SOUTH
SIDE OF FRED WARING DRIVE, 750 FEET EAST OF
MONTEREY AVENUE, 73-141 FRED WARING DRIVE.
CASE_NO. PP 07-03
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, Califomia, did on
the 20th day of March, 2007, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of
Prest Vuksic Architects on behalf of Bob and Marilyn Ford for approval of the above noted
project; and
W HEREAS, 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
the project is a Class 32 Categorical Exemption; and
WHEREAS, at said pubiic 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 granting approval of said precise
plan:
1. The proposed location of the office complex, as conditioned, is in accord with
the objectives of the zoning ordinance and the purpose of the district in which
the site is located.
2. The proposed location of the office complex and the conditions under which
it will be operated and maintained will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety or general welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. The proposed precise plan complies with the goals, objectives and policies
of the City's adopted General Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of Palm Desert, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Planning Commission in this case.
2. That approval of Precise Plan 07-03 is hereby granted, subject to the
attached conditions.
� �
PLANNING COMMISSiON RESOLUTION NO. 2438
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 20th day of March, 2007, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: TANNER, TSCHOPP, CAMPBELL
NOES: LIMONT, SCHMIDT
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
. �n
0"�
SONIA M. CAMPBELL� Chairperson
ATTEST:
STEPHEN R. SMiTH� Acting Secre ry
Palm Desert Planning Commission
1
.
�
2 -
( (
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2438
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. PP 07-03
Dguartrr�ent of Communitv Develo ment:
1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with
the department of community developmenUplanning, 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 Commission
City Fire Marshal
Public Works Department
Evidence of said permit or clearance 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. 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.
6. All future occupants of the buildings shall comply with parking requirements of the
zoning ordinance.
7. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to
these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said
landscaping for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which
agreement shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this condition
3
< �
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2438
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. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public
Works prior to Architectural Review Commission submittal.
9. The project shall be subject to all applicable fees at time of issuance of permits
including, but not limited to, Art in Public Places, Fringe-Toed Lizard, TUMF, school
mitigation and housing mitigation fees.
10. If the parking lot is to be illuminated, 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.
pepartment of Public Works:
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
1. All landscape maintenance shall be performed by the property owner and the
applicant shall enter into a landscape maintenance agreement with the city for the
life of the project, consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ord. 801)
and the approved landscaped plan.
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. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17
and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permit.
4. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF).
Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance.
5. A standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits.
4
( ( .
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2438
6. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code
shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits �
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
7. Storm drain design and construction shalt 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.
8. Complete grading and improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to
the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any
permits.
9. 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.
10. Pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter
26 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code.
11. Landscape installation shall be drought tolerant in nature and in accordance with the
City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (24.04).
12. Landscape plans shall be submitted for review concurrently with grading plans.
13. Full public improvements, as required by Section 26 of the Palm Desert Municipal
Code, shal! be installed in accordance with applicable City standards.
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.
CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
14. All public improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works and
a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits. No
occupancy permit shall be granted until public improvements have been completed.
15. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Public Works
Department.
16. Applicant shall comply with provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section
24.12, Fugitive Dust Control as well as Section 24.20, Storm water Management
and Discharge Control.
5
( (
�
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2438
17. Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to
the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit for storm
water discharges associated with construction. Developer must contact Riverside
County Flood Control District for informational materials.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
18. Project shall record an offer of dedication for reciprocal access in favor of properties
to the east and west.
19. The front parking stall shall have a sign installed identifying it as employee parking
o�ly, to reduce congestion at the project entrance that could back out onto Fred
Waring Drive.
�tiverside Countv Fire Deuartment:
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 Codes, appropriate NFPA Standards,
CFC, and CBC and/or recognized fire protection standards.
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial buildings per UFC article 87.
2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure
must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site.
3. Provide, or show there exists, a water system capable of providing a gpm flow of
3,000 gpm for commercial buildings.
4. The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant(s) (4"x2-
1/2"x2-1/2"), located not less than 25' nor more than 150' from any portion of a
commercial building measured via vehicular travelway.
5. Water plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the
water system will produce the required fire flow.
6. Instail a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all buildings with
a 3,000 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
6
• � �
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2438
connections shall not be less than 25' from the building within 50' of an approved
hydrant. Exempted are one and two family dwellings.
7. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and water-
flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per CBC Chapter 9.
8. Install a fire alarm system as required by the UBC Chapter 3.
9. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than one 2A106C
extinguisher per 3,000 square feet and not over 75'walking distance. A"K" type fire
extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens.
10. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150'
of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall be not less
than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel
parking is required on both sides of the street, the roadway must be 36' wide and
32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be
provided with a minimum 45' radius turn-around 55' in industrial devetopments.
11. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers
or other means, provisions shall be made to install a "Knox Box" key over-ride
system to allow for emergency vehicle access. Minimum gate width shall be 16"with
a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6".
12. A second access is required. This can be accomplished by two main access points
from a main roadway or an emergency gate from an adjoining development.
13. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the City.
14. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be
submitted separately to the Fire Marshal for approval prior to construction.
15. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or
when building permits are not obtained within 12 months.
16. All elevators shall be minimum gurney size.
17. Minimum height shall be not less than 12 feet.
18. Bridge shall be sprinklered above and below.
//
7
. � t
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: March 20, 2007
CASE NO: PP 07-03
REQUEST: Recommendation to the City Councii of approval of a precise plan to
construct a 2,486 square foot two-story professional office building
with a 30-foot tower element at 73-141 Fred Waring Drive.
APPLICANT: Prest/ Vuksic Architects Bob and Marilyn Ford
44-530 San Pablo, Suite 200 73-550 Alessandro Drive, Suite 5
Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260
I. BACKGROUND:
A. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
The 7,405 square foot lot is located on the south side of Fred Waring Drive,
approximately 750 feet east of Monterey Avenue across the street from the
McCallum Theater.
B. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:
North: P / McCallum Theater
South: R-2 / one-story single family home
East: O.P. / one and two-story office building
West: O.P. / one-story office building
C. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION:
Office Professional.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The proposed precise plan of design provides a two-story 2,486 gross square foot
general office building with eight parking spaces to the rear of the building.
The project will have its own access from Fred Waring Drive through the center of
the site which wil! pass under the second story element to the rear parking area.
. � t..
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. PP 07-03
MARCH 20, 2007
The first floor generally is limited to stairwells, mechanical room, electrical room,
storage area, restroom and 485 square feet of usable office space.
The second floor provides stairwelis on either end, mechanical areas, restroom and
1,200 square feet of usable office area.
The building's architectural design is dese�t contemporary with a basic height of 24
feet 6 inches and two tower elements at 26 and 30 feet 6 inches respectively.
The front of the building is setback 15 feet to 18 feet from the property line with a
tower element that pops out to within 12 feet. The rear setback ranges from 40 feet
to 65 feet to the second story element.
III. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMtSSION:
February 13, 2007 the ARC granted preliminary approval of the project.
IV. ANALYSIS:
A. FRONT SETBACK:
The front setback in the office professional zone is determined by one of two
standards. One of the standards requires a 12-foot minimum setback with a
15-foot average measured from the property line. The second standard
allows a one-foot setback for one foot of height measured fram the ultimate
curb location. The greater setback determines which standard is applied to
the project. The greater setback for this project is the first standard.
The front building setback varies befinreen 12 and 18 feet, averaging 15 feet.
B. REAR SETBACK:
The office professional zone requires a rear yard setback to be a minimum
average of 20 feet for buildings that are 18 feet high. For each additional foot
of height above 18 feet, the average setback shali increase by 6.43 feet. The
required rear setbacks for the proposed project are 20 feet(18 feet high)and
62 feet (24 feet 6 inches). At the 18-foot height, the building is setback 40
feet and at the 24-foot 6-inch height the setback is 65 feet.
2
� (_
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. PP 07-03
MARCH 20, 2007
C. HEIGHT:
The maximum height in the office professional zone is 25 feet. The proposed
building is 24 feet 6 inches with tower elements at 26 and 30 feet 6 inches
respectively. The tower elements above the 25-foot limit require specific
approval by the City Council.
Generally, architectural features above the height limit have been acceptable
if they seem to enhance the project architecture and do not adversely affect
ad jacent properties.
In this instance, both criteria can be affirmed. The tower features definitely
enhance the overall project architecture and are located on the north side of
the building away from the single family residential to the south.
�+E���RE���R��1��7`� >
STANDARD O.P. DISTRICT PROJECT
Building Height 25 feet 24 feet 6 inches
Tower Heights * 25 feet above maximum 26 feet and 30 feet 6 inches
in zone = 50 feet
Front Setback 12 feet minimum, 15 feet average 12 feet minimum with a 15-
foot average
Rear Setback 20 feet for 18 feet of building 18 feet in building height is
height, each additional foot above setback 40 feet. At 24 feet
18 feet, the required setback shall 6 inches of building height
be increased by 6.43 feet to 62 the building is setback 65
feet for a building height of 24 feet feet.
6 inches.
Interior Side Yards 0 feet 0 feet
Parking 4/1,000 (8) 8
Landsca in 15% of arkin area 46%
* Any structures above basic height limit requires approval by City Council.
3
� � - �
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. PP 07-03
MARCH 20, 2007
The precise plan of design complies with all the development standards of the office
professional zone.
V. CONCLUSION:
The precise plan meets all of the zoning ordinance requirements except for the
tower element heights which may be approved by the City Council. The use and
location are compatible with the adjacent properties and are consistent with the
City's zoning and general plan designations. The proposed site plan and building
design will compliment the existing office buildings on Fred Waring Drive.
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The application is a Class 32 categorical exemption for purposes of CEQA and no
further documentation is necessary.
VI1. RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission approve the findings and adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. , approving Case No. PP 07-03, subject to
conditions.
VIII. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft resolution
B. Legal notice
C. Comments from city departments and other agencies
D. Plans and exhibits
Prepared by: Review d and Ap ved by:
Steve Smith er Croy
Acting Dir. of Community Development ACM for De opment Services
/tm
4
( �
CITY OF r � � �l DESERI
73-5�0 FRED WAR(NG DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 760 346—o6i�
Fax: 760 34i-7oq8
info@palm-desect.org
February 14, 2007
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION
CASE NO: PP 07-03
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BOB & MARILYN FORD, 73-550 Alessandro
Drive Suite 5, Palm Desert, CA 92260
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a new
2,486 square foot two (2) story office building.
LOCATION: 73-141 Fred Waring
ZONE: OP
Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff and by the
applicant, the Architectural Review Commission granted preliminary approval.
Date of Action: February 13, 2007
Vote: Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining
and Commissioner Oppenheim absent
(An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the
City of Palm Desert within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. Any
amendments to this approved plan would need to be re-submitted to Commission
for approval.)
STAFF COMMENTS: It is your responsibility to submit the plans approved
by the Architectural Review Commission to the Department of Building
and Safety.
CONTINUED CASES: In order to be placed on the next meeting's agenda,
new or revised plans must be submitted no later than 9:00 a.m. the
Monday eight days prior to the next meeting.
�)nrno a anmo rw�
, �"
ARCHITECTURAL ��VIEW COMMISSION
. MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 2007
roof access. Mr. Stendell asked him to show the access on the
plans. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they wanted to make sure
that all these things were happening in the high parapet so there
wouldn't be any ladders going over.
Commissioner Lopez referred to the lights that were represented on
the landscape plan and not the working drawings. They appeared
to be floodlights and mounted on the comers of the building. Mr.
Stendell stated that the applicant would be subject to the City's
parking lot lighting ordinance and if they had some kind of arched
floodlight they would not conform to the City standards. Mr.
Shenasi presented pictures of the scones that he would be using,
which had a contemporary flavor.
Commissioner Van Vliet reminded the applicant to check with
Waste Management to make sure that the trash enclosure would
work because they would never be able to get a truck in there.
Commissione� Hanson mentioned that she like the coloring on the
north elevation.
Ms. Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist stated that they needed
to submit a landscape plan prior to getting a building permit.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner
Hanson, to grant preliminary approval subject to submitting a color board
and iandscaping plans. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner
Oppenheim absent.
2. CASE NO: PP 07-03
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BOB & MARILYN FORD, 73-550
Alessandro Drive Suite 5, Palm Desert, CA 92260
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary
approval of a new 2,486 square foot two-story o�ce building.
LOCATION: 73-141 Fred Waring
ZONE: OP
G:WlanningUanine Judy�Word FilesV+RC Minules1200TUR0T0213.m�.DQC Page 17 of 25
. �.�
ARCHITECTURAL REvIEW COMMISSION
� MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 2007
Mr. Bagato presented a parcel surrounded by two existing projects.
The applicant needed a small office building and parking spaces so
they developed a design where you drive under the building. The
tower element is over 25 feet so they will be going to Council for
that approval. The site plan will change a little due to set back
issues. They will push the building out two feet closer to comply
with the set backs in the rear, lose one parking space, have more
landscaping in the front and the air conditioning equipment and
screen walls will go on the other side.
Commissioner Lambell asked what the parapet height was. Mr.
Bagato answered that the overall height of the parapet was 25 feet
and lowers toward the back of the property. With it being 25 feet
high it had to be 60 feet away from a single family. That is why the
building had to come up a little closer.
Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the roof on the tower element was
a hip. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it would be a turret.
Mr. Bagato stated that they would also be changing one of the rear
walls. The wall would have to come up a fittle and have fewer
windows since it is residential in the back. It would be 5 feet above
the finished board with thinner windows.
Commission discussed the location of the signage. It was
suggested that they use a monument sign.
Commissioner Lopez indicated that there were palm trees on the
drawings but not on the landscape plan. He thought they accented
the building. The Commission discussed the different types of palm
trees.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner
Lambell, to grant preliminary approval. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with
Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Oppenheim absent.
G:�PlanningWarnne Judy�Word FileslARC Minutes�200MR070213.rrnn.DOC Page 18 of 25