Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0502 /"'�'"� MINUTES '�""' PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION ., . TUESDAY - MAY 2, 2006 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Lopez called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Finerty led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jim Lopez, Chair Cindy Finerty, Vice Chair Sonia Campbell Van Tanner "�"' Dave Tschopp Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Phil Joy, Associate Transportation Planner Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Request for consideration of the April 18, 2006 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, approving the April 18, 2006 meeting minutes. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Finerty abstained). V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent April 27, 2006 City Council actions. �..�. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2 2006 � VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VI1. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 05-13 -BIGHORN DEVELOPMENT, LLC,Applicant Request for approval of a lot line adjustment for property located at 312 Canyon Drive within Canyons at Bighorn. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing ..� described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case Nos. PP 03-11 Amendment#1 and DA 03-03 Amendment#1 - PREST VUKSIC/THE EVANS COMPANY, Applicants Request for approval of an amendment to previous approvals to allow a drive-thru specialty coffee outlet adjacent to Cook Street, Pad #4, at 37-825 Cook Street. Mr. Drell explained that work was still being done on the site plan to preserve as much park land as possible and requested a continuance to May 16, 2006. Chairperson Lopez o ened the public hearing and asked for any testimony in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one. The public hearing was left o en and Chairperson Lopez asked for a motion. 2 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2. 2006 �,.. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, by minute motion continuing Case Nos. PP 03-11 Amendment #1 and DA 03-03 Amendment#1 to May 16, 2006. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case No. TPM 34633 - FRANKLIN LOAN CENTER, Applicant Request for approval of a tentative parcel map to map a .418- acre parcel into one (1) parcel for condominium purposes. The subject property is located at 44-800 Village Court. Mr. Drell reviewed the staff report and recommended approval. Chairperson Lopez o_..pened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. TONY WRY, RBF Consultants, stated that he was present representing Franklin Loan Center and asked for any questions. � There were no questions. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked for any testimony in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one. Chairperson Lopez closed the public hearing and asked for Commission comments or action. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2393, approving TPM 34633, subject to conditions. Motion car�ied 5-0. C. Case No. PP/HPD 06-06 - KRISTI HANSON ARCHITECTS, Applicant Request for a recommendation to City Council of approval to allow a 9,192 square foot single family home within the Hillside � 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2 2006 � Planned Residential zone at 865 Rock River Drive within the Canyons at Bighorn. Mr. Drell reviewed the staff report. He thought the house was well designed and attractive. He said the one unusual condition/policy they were now implementing was relative to the Energy Efficiency Program. Ultimately they would have a uniform ordinance throughout the city. Right now they could apply it only to specific discretionary approvals, especially those involving size exceptions. That was a requirement that these larger homes consume no more energy then that consumed by a 4,000 square foot home. They needed to amend Condition No. 6 to make that specific. Right now it was general and kind of a blank check. Unless Ms. Hanson had other information, this house would be required to conform to the 4,000 square foot energy budget which ultimately would be uniform throughout the city on all homes over 4,000 square feet. Condition No. 6 had to be specifically amended to add that. With that amendment, he recommended approval. Chairperson Lopez o ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. ir�ilr MS. KRISTI HANSON, 72-813 Haystack Road in Palm Desert, came forward. With regard to the last requirement, she asked if they hadn't yet adopted an ordinance, how they could apply it. Mr. Drell explained that this was a discretionary approval and they could apply conditions to a discretionary approval, especially when the approval specifically asked for a size exception. Technically the maximum size in the zone is 4,000 square feet. They were granting an exception of that up to 10,000 square feet; therefore, given that this is a discretionary approval, they could apply it per the advice of the City Attorney. Ms. Hanson said that in her understanding of how this approval process happened with regard to this zone, it wasn't originally understood that it encompassed Bighorn specifically. It was more designed for Cahuilla Hills and she thought the lots at Bighorn had always been intended to have homes larger than 4,000 square feet and this seemed somewhat like a penalty. She understood the reason for the ordinance and ultimately knew that's what they would be doing, but wondered if it hadn't been adopted yet, why it should be applied 4 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2. 2006 � to this particular home, other than the reason given. She said she would be happy to answer any questions about the house. There were no questions. 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 Tschopp stated that it might be helpful if Commission had a copy or were educated themselves on the energy proposal in that some of them didn't have the background and didn't know how homes could be architecturally engineered to be as energy efficient as possible. He wasn't opposed to it, he just wanted more information. Mr. Drell stated that for the next meeting they could invite Pat Conlon to give a presentation. He said that for a house this large, the only way to do it was with photovoltaics. Through conservation they couldn't do it. Even if the homes are unoccupied throughout the summer, they keep their air conditioning on all summer. He said there was a list of seven or eight conservation measures that were fairly ordinary. The last was a four kilowatt photovoltaic system which was about � 280 square feet of solar voltaic panels. Commissioner Finerty asked how that would affect the architecture. Mr. Drell said that on a building like this, probably not that much. They could be designed to look like skylights on a flat roof. They could be relatively low angle. Since our greatest efficiency requirement is in the summer and the sun is almost directly overhead, they could be relatively low angle and still have almost complete efficiency. Commissioner Finerty asked if it was something that would still blend within the natural terrain. Mr. Drell said they would be on the roof. Commissioner Finerty pointed out that the roof material often times in the Canyons used a special material to blend in so they really don't notice it and wondered if the solar panels could be designed to have the same effect. Mr. D�ell said they would look like a skylight. Energy production wherever it occurs has some aesthetic impacts, with the exception of the windmills which were exported to other communities. Especially in contemporary design, they could be easily integrated to look like a skylight. On a house like this that probably has a roof area of 7,000 or 8,000 square feet, again, they would cover something in the vicinity of 300 square feet. So they were talking about something in the realm of 5% of the roof area to be impacted. � 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION nnov � �nna wr�i Commissioner Finerty said a presentation would really help them understand this. Mr. Drell concurred and thought that was a great idea. Commissioner Finerty asked if it would be a study session. Mr. Drell said it was whatever they wanted. Commissioner Finerty said something that included dinner. Mr. Drell said they could start at 5:30. It shouldn't take more than half an hour. Mr. Drell said they could discuss it at the end of the meeting. There were no other comments or questions. Chairperson Lopez asked for further comments or action. Commissioner Campbell stated that it looked like a great design. She liked the last house from Ms. Hanson and moved for approval, amending Condition No. 6. Commissioner Finerty concurred. She really had a problem in general with the zoning and she felt the one unit per five acres really needed to be adhered; however, given this amended condition, she had a higher level of comfort with it and wished them luck because they could be the first test case. She seconded the motion. Commissioner Tschopp thought it was a great design and would be a very nice house that would fit well. He had a hard time conditioning it with ` something he didn't completely understand, but he was going to go with � staff's lead that it could be done and could be done in a cost effective manner. He was in favor as amended. Commissioner Tanner also concurred. He thought it would be a very beautiful home and understood the concern about them imposing a condition that hasn't been passed, but at the same time an exception was being requested. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2394, recommending to City Council approval of Case No. PP/HPD 06-06, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. 6 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2. 2006 � D. Case Nos. C/Z 06-02, PP 06-01 and TT' 34304 - SINATRA& COOK LLC, Applicant (Continued from April 4 and 18, 2006) Request for recommendation to the City Council of approval of a change of zone, precise plan of design, tentative tract map and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for 268 condominium units and a 38,000 square foot neighborhood commercial center on 19.6 +/- acres north of Frank Sinatra befinreen Cook Street and College Drive, 37-755 Cook Street. Mr. Drell said the purpose of this hearing was more of a working study session. This project was in reality a part of the University Park plan, but a separate property owner. It wasn't included in the plan. He said it was at the southeast corner of the University Park Master Plan and pointed out the location on a map. He said it would be the only high density project in the University Park area. They saw from the other master plan that all the projects were befinreen five and nine units per acre. This project was 17-18 u n its per acre. � He explained that the applicant's initial intent was to offer these as apartments and it would therefore be the only rental housing in the University Park area, which has a lot of rationale to it given the fact that it is across the street from the university. For various reasons, most apartment developers try to design for condos since it increases the value and gives the applicant flexibility in the future in terms of what to do with the project based on what happens in the rental market. The problem with designing to condo standards, it required significantly more parking and in this case about 70 more spaces. Given the density that the applicant was trying to achieve and the size of the units he was trying to design in the project and the fact that it is a relatively irregular site to begin with, it also has significant slope to it, and that made site planning challenging. The Commission was given a book to give them an idea of the general architectural character. One of the issues they dealt with on Sares Regis, including a sufficient amenity area, and in this latest version, four buildings/eight units had been eliminated and the central amenity area had been significantly increased. He thought they were getting closer to the design they want. The other mitigating factor for this area is that the university park does include four other city parks, so in terms of general �•• 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION nnav 2_ 2nn� � recreation available to the residents in terms of public parks, the University Park areas will be well served and those parks would be constructed as part of the assessment district which would be installing all of the public improvements. Those parks would be constructed in the near future. Mr. Drell stated that the applicant was present if they had questions or comments. The project also included a commercial component at the corner. He said it was different but very interesting architecture. Staff's feeling was that at that corner adjacent to the main entrance to the campus a commercial project was appropriate. In the general plan this whole section was designated for mixed use. He said there were both vehicular and a pedestrian connection between the residential project and the commercial one. There was a connection at the southwest edge of the commercial development. The applicant was present and he asked the Commission to give the applicant comments and get direction before doing the last redesign. Commissioner Tschopp asked for clarification on the access, specifically having the right-in and right-out only on Cook Street. Mr. Drell concurred that Cook Street would be right-in right-out only. There would be no break in the median. The residential component's main access would probably be off ,�; College Drive and there was another significant access off Frank Sinatra. Depending on which direction someone wanted to go, they would have a signalized access at University Drive. Depending which driveway someone chose, they would be able to go any direction, either with a right-turn or at the signalized movement at Cook Street. Chairperson �opez asked how someone would walk from these projects to the university. Mr. Drell pointed out the location. He said they could walk either through the commercial to the corner and cross there, or they could go to the entrance and walk along the sidewalk. There would ultimately be a sidewalk down to the corner at Cook and Sinatra and cross at Cook and Sinatra depending on which direction they wanted to go. From staff's perspective, Chairperson Lopez asked if people would walk from this project to the university or if they would drive. Mr. Drell said it all depended on the parking policy at the university. Since the university was now sitting on probably $800,000 an acre real estate, there was no such thing as free parking. Typically at universities, they would be encouraged to create as much disincentive as possible for commuters which would encourage those that could conveniently access it. He assumed that at $50 8 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2. 2006 �..r or $100 per month, a student living there would walk or ride a bike. Again, parking was very expensive and that campus was pretty small and hopefully they would be pursuing policies which would encourage people to live in the vicinity and not have to park onsite, or hopefully they would work out arrangements with Sunline to create incentives. When he went to college, with the registration fee came a bus pass for the Santa Cruz bus system. Hopefully things like this would encourage use of public transportation, walking or bicycles and then would encourage the location of housing appropriate along those routes. This was something that was kind of a radical change of thinking since the real estate has gotten very expensive. At 300 square feet and $20 a square foot just for real estate, it was a very expensive piece of ground to set a car on all day. Commissioner Tanner said he might be wrong, but he assumed that this was more of a commuter college. He understood the need for apartments, it went hand in hand with university type settings. He thought the university itself was going to be a commuter college and not so much a residence college. He asked if he was wrong. Mr. Drell said yes or up until such time it became a real campus it would be a commuter college. The fundamental problem, � regardless of how they commute, they were talking about onsite attendance of 15,000 ultimately. There was no way, unless they started building five or six story parking, if we didn't address this problem somehow of getting students to and fro without all of them driving cars, they could fill up the whole 200 acres with surface parking. The goal would be to the greatest extent they could to provide convenient housing. For the staff itself, they were looking at a full and part time staff at this institution to be a couple thousand. It would be one of the largest employers in the Coachella Valley. Commissioner Tanner reiterated they would be surrounding that entire area with plenty of housing, both with affordable with the land being not so affordable. Mr. Drell concurred. In terms of housing onsite, it would be limited by the fact that they don't have much room. With the reduction in the number of units, Chairperson Lopez asked about the parking requirement. Mr. Drell said that it was parked for condos. There was also another interesting feature. His gut feeling was that it was probably, based on their observation of similar projects, the parking requirement was probably generous. The parking area toward Cook Street, there was access from a commercial driveway which allowed for there to be some sharing of that lot if per chance they get an extremely successful commercial center, he could see this for the condos to be overflow parking for either side. �. g MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2 2006 � Commissioner Tanner asked about students parking in the commercial lot. Mr. Drell said that typically parking was by permit or hourly so they would have to do that in the commercial lot as well. There would have to be some regulation to prevent students from parking there all day. Commissioner Tschopp asked what the purpose was of the large parking lot right at the corner at Berger. Mr. Drell said it was primarily to meet the condo standard. Commissioner Tschopp pointed out that it didn't look convenient to very many of the condos. Mr. Drell said that was a question they could direct to the applicant. Commissioner Tschopp asked where they stand on the park itself, the relationship as far as what a normal project of this size would require for parking and where it was at now. Mr. Drell said the applicant had that number. Using Sares Regis as the benchmark, they were closer. Sares Regis was a lower density project. It was at 12-13 units per acre. The applicant would like to be able to economically operate this as rental housing. Sares Regis kind of designed themselves out of rental housing. At the end of the day they decided they couldn't operate as apartments and were being sold as condos. It was all a matter of economics. � Chairperson Lopez asked if Mr. Drell was okay with the 40-foot sign. Mr. Drell said he was okay with it. To him it was integrated into the architecture. It was a tower element that to him was architecturally compatible with the style. He said it could probably be lowered. A good part of it was the vines on the sign. The vines portion could be compressed, but he thought it was compatible with the architecture whether it had signage or not. Commissioner Tschopp asked for clarification that they were talking about the sign on page 17. Mr. Drell said that was correct. Commissioner Tschopp asked Mr. Drell if he thought it was architecturally integrated into the development. Mr. Drell said yes. Commissioner Tschopp said that was Mr. Drell's opinion. Mr. Drell said exactly, that's all it was. Commissioner Campbell asked when this development would be completed and if it would be prior to the completion of the university. Mr. Drell confirmed that the university would be 10-15 years. The main demand for housing would be normal folks. Commissioner Campbell indicated that this housing wouldn't be for students only because anyone could rent. By the time students come along, they really wouldn't find a place to live across from the college. Mr. Drell said there were always vacancies in any project. 10 +� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2. 2006 ...� There was always a turnover. One of the challenges of all the commercial development in this area, as well as to a certain degree any development that in any way orients itself to the university, it has to be designed to survive with today's market and then be appropriate to address the demands of the university market once it materializes. This was not designed primarily as student housing. It is a conventional project. These weren't dorms and was designed for the general public. The units were designed for families of all sorts. The students, faculty and staff would have to compete with the general public when they show up. Commissioner Campbell noted that normally there weren't that many studio apartments of this square footage in this development. Mr. Drell thought it was the only project other than senior projects that has studio apartments. One of the issues they were dealing with in apartments, just as they were dealing with for single family homes, is as costs have escalated, in order to achieve some level of affordability they have to make some units smaller. The conventional finro-bedroom apartments were $1,100, $1,200 or more per month. � Commissioner Tschopp asked if staff or the applicant met with Cal State to get their opinion on this development. Mr. Drell said staff had not. He didn't know if the applicant had conversations with them. (The applicant said yes.) On the general subject, Mr. Drell said that in order for the campus to really become a university, obviously the folks at the university want the enrollment to grow as fast as it can because that generates funds. At a certain point they become eligible for bond funds which is based on enrollment. Realizing that they wouldn't attract students from out of the area unless there is rental housing, they have started focusing on campus housing or acquiring some of the undeveloped industrial property on the north side of Gerald Ford to build some housing. They are realizing that it's part of what they need to attract something more than part time commuter students. Commissioner Tschopp said he was hearing two different stories here. One is that this project is being designed for condominiums later. Mr. Drell said maybe. Commissioner Tschopp said perhaps students wouldn't be here. When they went through the whole general plan, the idea of higher density such as this was because there was a university across the street. Now they might be moving away from that because of economics. He wasn't sure economics plays a role at this part of the planning stage. Mr. Drell said that was a good point. This was a discretionary approval. Oddly enough, one of � 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2. 2006 � the seven, now eight, criteria put into the general plan for high density projects dealt with the percentage of units available for sale or rent. While certain councilmen had certain biases on one side or the other, the criteria itself didn't have a value either way. It was situational. In certain situations one might say something was appropriate for ownership housing here, regardless of density. Someone might say at this location the reason they were granting the higher density is because they want rental housing. For example, when they required Taylor Woodrow to build 100 units of apartments, they weren't given the option. They wanted to put a map on it and they were told no. The reason they were being forced to build apartments is because the City wanted them to stay rental housing. Otherwise, they wouldn't have bothered. They would have let them build condos along with the other 700 units. The issue of the preservation of rental units is something the Commission could consider in saying that all or a portion of them should stay apartments, unless the applicant could prove some severe financial hardship given the fact that everything else in University Park is ownership housing. This was the only rental project in this block. Whether they wanted to put some control on the City's ability to preserve it as rental housing was something they might want to consider. � West of College Drive, Commissioner Campbell asked what might be there. She asked if there would be a golf course or medium density housing. Mr. Drell said there was a golf course, there was another residential development pad across the street, and thought it was on the nine to ten units per acre range. It might be a little bit higher, but it was within the ownership housing range; that's what it was designated on the master plan. The commercial property goes down Cook Street and a little on Gerald Ford. The rest of it all the way to Portola was various densities of ownership housing from the 3.5-unit per acre to about 9-10 units per acre. Commissioner Campbell asked for confirmation that they were having low density housing out there. Mr. Drell said it was low and medium everywhere else. All of it was slated for ownership except for this one. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the issue with the landscape plans not matching the site plan not matching the grading street plans had been ironed out. Mr. Drell said one of the problems is the project has been in a constant state of redesign and the various disciplines have not always caught up with each other. Those were being reconciled and the applicant could give them the latest update. 12 wr� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2. 2006 .... Commissioner Campbell said that tonight they really didn't have everything put together. Mr. Drell said this was a study session. Before the applicant redesigned it one more time, they should give whatever input they could relative to the architecture, the site plan, their ideas about amenity levels, areas of landscaping or anything they wanted to have the applicant think about before he comes back. Chairperson Lopez o ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. RYAN OGULNICK, 828 North Ogden Suite 101 in Los Angeles, addressed the Commission. Chairperson Lopez asked if there was anything Mr. Ogulnick wished to add. Mr. Ogulnick noted that Commissioner Campbell brought up studio units. He said they sort of included those in their plan and there were only 18 of the 260. He said they are a rental company. They thought it created a product that the whole community could live in. When they � have units at 400 square feet in today's market, that would probably be $550. The bigger units at 1,450 square feet, that would be more like $1,600 or $1,700 a month. So they thought in a community like Palm Desert, it would create housing for a big segment of the population. That could be changed. It was not a problem to increase the size. Their average unit size was 1,048 square feet, which was large for apartments. He said that was the only issue he had to address at that point. Commissioner Tschopp asked why he needed to park at the condominium standard if the intent was to rent them as apartments. Mr. Ogulnick said he has always been clear with Phil and staff that they are developers that build rental housing. In certain communities, all of a sudden the economics don't make sense. It was sort of a safety net. If for some reason the rents were to go down or in the red, they would look at that as an option. They were never planning to record the map. They were going to keep it in limbo and it would expire after four years and they legally would not be condominiums anyway. They planned to keep it indefinitely as rental housing. � 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2. 2006 � Commissioner Tschopp asked what the purpose was of the large parking lot to the north of Berger Drive. Mr. Ogulnick said they didn't want to put much housing behind the commercial. He didn't think tenants or homeowners would appreciate it. It sort of functioned as overflow for the commercial and long-term parking for the residential. At this parking count, which was just about 600, they had 2.3 per unit. Apartment dwellers never use that�much parking. This was long-term guest parking. Adjacent to all buildings and attached to the buildings was parking that was adequate for the residents. In fact, 192 of the 260 units had attached garages. It was unique. As Phil said, this was not low income student housing. It was actually more on the high end. Commissioner Campbell said there would be studio, one bedroom, two bedroom and three bedroom units, so these larger rental units with the bedrooms would have lots of children presumably. She said there was a tot lot and asked about other amenities. She knew he made some changes to the pool area from the map they were given, but with all these units, they were talking about thousands of people living there. � Mr. Ogulnick said that from the plan the Commission had, they expanded the central area. It was originally about 27,000 square feet. They expanded it to about 60,000 square feet. According to Phil's staff, it's ratio was in line with other multifamily projects with the revision. They have a central amenity area that's 1.3 acres. In a residential area, that's 16. They have a secondary pool. He didn't disagree with Phil last week when he said they needed to increase their amenity space. They removed four buildings and increased it from 27,000 feet to 57,000 feet. With all these studio units, Commissioner Campbell said the applicant knew there would be younger people living there, so she thought there was a need for additional pools around the area to service all these people who want to be cool in the summer time. Mr. Ogulnick asked how many pools she would like to see. 14 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2. 2006 � Commissioner Campbell thought at least two or three more. Not large ones like the one in the middle, but the smaller one, the kidney-sized one. She thought there could be four more. Mr. Ogulnick didn't have an issue with that. He said this project has been at the city for about 10 months. They have had lots of revisions. He didn't think staff approved of that so he didn't go that route. He was finding out it was hard to please everyone. He wouldn't have a problem with that, but didn't know if everyone else here today thought six pools was overkill. Mr. Drell said that One Quail Place is 384 units and it has three pools. That was adequate. Sevilla is 512 units and has five pools. One pool per 110-120 units is the typical ratio they have operated with. This was 260 units. He had two pools and might have a third pool, but he thought pools were relatively expensive to maintain. Commissioner Finerty noted that Mr. Drell was talking about units. She asked about the potential number of people in each unit at One Quail Place and �,,, Sevilla. Mr. Drell said they were similar. Those were predominately finro- bedroom and one bedroom. This would have some studio and three bedrooms, but One Quail Place was very heavily families by its demographic. The issue was to distribute them adequately. So maybe they could add a third one. Commissioner Finerty asked what size of pools they were talking about when they were making these comparisons. Mr. Drell said the pools at One Quail Place and Sevilla were somewhat larger residential sized pools. They weren't huge. He suggested having pools for different uses. Maybe one for play, a long skinny one for people who want to swim laps. Commissioner Finerty said they probably wanted to have one for kids. Mr. Drell agreed. One could be deeper and one that was more shallow. So there could be a third pool. Having six pools in a project of this size would be pretty extraordinary. Commissioner Campbell thought at least four. Not large sized, but smaller sized pools. Chairperson Lopez noted that this was an informal session to give ideas. From his experience in the rental market, in the desert he noted that they added some space in the recreational area. He thought it might be a thought to add a second pool like a kids pool from the standpoint that it might be a nice amenity to have. � 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2 2006 � Mr. Ogulnick said he had never built a kids pool. Chairperson Lopez explained that it was a pool area that was maybe only three feet deep all the way across and provided the ability for families if they wanted to keep the kids in one area while the adults were in the main pool area. That was only a suggestion. That might be a nice amenity and nice addition to the project itself. As Phil said, pools are very expensive to maintain. They are used probably eight months out of the year and four months they weren't used that much. The other part was to make sure there was enough decking area to have enough chairs and some shade, especially in the heat of the summer time. They didn't want to rely on umbrellas. This area was windy and they wouldn't want to have a lot of umbrellas for shade because they could blow away. So they would want to make sure they had enough shade or trees in that pool area or some form of shade. Commissioner Finerty said that generally before they make exceptions there had to be something superior about the project. She was having a hard time finding anything superior about this project. From the lack of open space and recreational amenities to the project overall being too dense, to the architecture, to the size of the studio. It didn't even meet the minimum ,,,� standard. She thought this project as is was certainly one of the worst projects Palm Desert has ever looked at. Usually they like things that have architectural superiority that go the cut above. She wasn't seeing that here. If this was after the result of working ten months, it seemed to her that they really needed to take initiative of putting something significant into the project to make it totally acceptable to the City. High density was one thing, which obviously she was opposed to. She understood a need in this area, but the high density could be classier looking high density and it could be a high density where the studio units conform to our minimum standards. It could be a high density that didn't need a height exception. And it could be a high density that has a superior architecture. Moving to the commercial, she was 100% opposed to the tower sign. She thought it stuck out like a sore thumb. She thought it needed to blend into the project. Just because there was an issue or need for rental housing, that didn't justify the exceptions that the project was requesting. Commissioner Tanner said that depending on the economics, they were going to remain with the apartment concept and Mr. Drell said that this would really be the only rental area around the University Park area. If they really 16 �► MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2 2006 � wanted to be able to provide housing for the students in 10 or 12 years, he asked what kind of guarantee they had that it would stay that way. Mr. Ogulnick's statement was that if economics for the apartment complex weren't there, then it would go condominium. That kind of defeated the purpose of this concept. For them to come to the Planning Commission for variances and one thing or another and for them to even consider it, that was why if this did come back or when it comes back, that Mr. Ogulnick put in some guarantees that this would remain that rental unit establishment. They . were going to need it. If it didn't make economic sense in projections for them in their 5 year, 8, year, 10 year prospectus, don't submit it as a rental piece of property. That was his comment. Mr. Ogulnick said that today it makes sense. It would take a large scale recession for it not to make sense. Commissioner Tanner said that wasn't a guarantee. He wasn't sure that was what he was looking for. Mr. Ogulnick said the City would have to recommend some sort of ,r, guarantee and he would see if he could live to that guarantee. MR. ROBERT RICCIARDI addressed the Commission. He stated that from what he understood and what he read, the biggest reason why college enrollment is down is because tuition is up drastically in the state of California. Therefore, if they were going to have students here, they needed to encourage students to come there. If tuition was going to be so expensive and if the inflation rate continued as they have experienced in the last five years, colleges in California were going to have less and less students. Especially if the students come from lower and lower income groups. Because then they would have to look for government loan programs to afford tuition. If they somehow could get their inflation under control and get things back down where they should be, then if these units here because of the high density, which means more people there even though the apartments are bigger, they keep the cost down. When he went to college, a lot of times four guys would go and rent a two-bedroom apartment and that way they could afford it. So they would have students there rather than families in a two or three bedroom apartment. That was the way they do it. When he went to college they looked into fraternities. Once in a fraternity they realized it wasn't a � 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2 2006 � conducive place for learning. There were too many other activities going on. When he was in architecture, by the junior year the fraternity guys were out of the fraternity, they were still members, but they weren't living in the fraternity because they couldn't study or get things done. So they would get together two, three or four guys and rent a two or three bedroom apartment so they could have a kitchen and cook and have a little central place and then go to their rooms to study. He thought what was good about this was that they could have that. The apartments were a little bigger so they could have finro guys in there, each with a little desk. He thought that was what they needed to look for. If they keep adding more and more cost to them because they want the aesthetics, eventually they could only work as condominiums. But if they truly wanted apartments, then they would have to say what they were willing to give up to get that. They might have to give up a little aesthetics because aesthetics cost money. There was no doubt about that. Going up to what they did at Cook and Hovley, that was a great looking office project. It has a ton of stone on it, but they are charging top dollar for those units. So they have a nice looking ,,,� project. It was true that it wasn't comparable to others, but for student housing/student apartments, it was a nice looking project if they are looking at it from that view point. He thought that was the view point they should look at it because that was what they were trying to encourage. Adding a couple of pools wouldn't take away from this project at all. Students could walk. When he went to school, he had to walk three miles just to get there. He didn't think people were going to be able to afford cars like they do today. That was going to change unless they come up with other sources of energy. Things were going to change. They were going through an evolutionary process and what life was going to be 20 years from now would be drastically different. So people were going to do a lot more walking. These apartments were not that far away. They were less than a mile. Students could certainly walk and would encourage the youth to walk. Even older people were encouraged to walk. That's the other kind of thing this encourages. The fact that it was close to commercial, they could go and get food and whatever they needed, and that would cut down on energy. The flexibility of the condominium project only comes about if the tuition 18 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2. 2006 � costs spiral and all of a sudden college enroliment drops and there really wasn't the need for this campus like everyone thought today because the students weren't there to go to college. They might not be there to go to college, but they should be because we're no longer a society that makes shoes and glassware and things like that. They were really a high tech society and in the information business where people have to know how to use computers. That was the type of society they were going to. Therefore, they needed colleges in order to train people to do that. In his profession as an architect, he couldn't find anybody who knows how a building is put together. They knew how to work the computer, but they didn't know what to put into the computer. So they were worthless to him. Therefore, every person he gets he trains them for two or three years and they get some knowledge and then go start their own business or go work for another architect. So he becomes the training ground and the vocational educator. Mr. Drell thought they were getting a little far afield here. Mr. Ricciardi disagreed because they were talking about economics. � They always had to consider economics. Everything done as a person, in some way economics was part of it. Getting back to the project, Mr. Drell said that was an issue they could impose; a limitation or a portion. Typically condos end up with about 30% rental over time. Commissioner Tanner agreed, but noted that it was individually owned and wasn't a project. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Tanner said that concerned him. They get an apartment project approved and three or four years from now in the back of everyone's mind is the question if this was ever going to go to condos, which is the trend more and more because economically it was more feasible to sell, even on a timeshare basis, then it is to rent. He just wanted to make sure everyone understood that even though it was coming to the Commission as an apartment, it could very well at the end of four or five years or even earlier if the mapping is done, go into a condo project. Mr. Drell said it was up to the Commission. Commissioner Tanner thought it looked like a condo project with the garages and asked if it looked like condos to staff. Mr. Drell said no. He said he even challenged Mr. Ogulnick on it many times about why he was doing • apartments and if he really intends to do apartments. He has been consistent that it really had to do with the unique economic situation of his major �••• 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2 2006 � investor by which owning and holding is what he wants to do. But again, if the Commission or subsequently the City Council believes that the economic justification of the high density is only there if it is rental housing, then that was a condition that could be imposed. Commissioner Tanner thought that was something they needed to consider. Did they want an apartment type complex there, or did they want to keep that entire area a condo/single family type? Commissioner Campbell noted that Mr. Ricciardi said that it was supposedly student housing, but this was also the entrance to the city and she asked if they just wanted student housing and apartments. Why shouldn't they be up to the standards of every other apartment? Commissioner Finerty agreed. Mr. Drell didn't believe they should be thinking of an alternative standard for students. As far as staff was concerned, this wasn't student housing. Commissioner Tanner said that if they were concerned about the entrance into Palm Desert and they want people to enter into Palm Desert, that was exactly how Palm Desert represents itself. If they were concerned about that, this was a study session and they were giving input. Mr. Drell said that whatever the Commission said, the applicant would have to consider. ,,,,,� Chairperson Lopez pointed out that this would be continued, so they had this opportunity to provide the applicant with their comments and they would see this again. Commissioner Tschopp said that he was under the impression that the reason they were going a little bit higher density in these areas was because of the proximity to the university and the need to have some type of affordable housing, apartments, rental units available to possibly students. Today's students weren't the typical 18-20 year old kid. It would probably be someone older and more often times than not, someone married with even a child or two. This project didn't address that. He thought the intent down the road wasn't just to have the doors open, but to actually go to a condominium project and he thought that would defeat the purpose they originally had for this area. He thought the preservation of rental housing in proximity of the university was important. He could see how this was being designed was more for a condominium project down the road. Having said that, he didn't have a problem with the studio apartments because in a university there is a need for studio apartments. He didn't have a problem with that and it does allow larger units for students who have roommates. He didn't really have a problem with the architecture. It wasn't bad. But he didn't 20 �r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2. 2006 � like the site layout because to him it wasn't pedestrian friendly at all. They tried to sell this whole area out there as being an area where people were going to be able to easily walk to commercial areas, stay in the area, go to the schools, and to him this didn't promote any kind of pedestrian friendly walking. Commissioner Tschopp didn't think the parking was convenient from the standpoint that if the commercial area there to the north was adequately parked, there was no need for inconvenient parking to the apartments/ condos north of Berger Drive. It looked like maybe as an after thought they needed some more parking and decided to stick it there. Truly anyone in the western quadrant of this development wouldn't use that parking. They weren't going to walk there. The other reason is because it wasn't pedestrian friendly either. He didn't see the City incorporating with Sunline mass transit in the area and they were talking about how to get these people across a busy street. He didn't think they were thinking this through very well. He didn't think it was just the applicant. The vision he had of the area was different from what they were presented, so he wasn't all that excited. �,,,,, Lastly, he didn't think the sign at all met the requirement of being architecturally necessary or an element germane to the architecture of the building. It looked like a big sign was just stuck on top of the building and at some point in time they could add some neon lights and really make it blend in. To him it wasn't an exciting project at this time. If the economics didn't hammer out, then they needed to go back to the drawing board. Mr. Ogulnick didn't disagree with the sign on the commercial. He didn't necessarily think it added anything to the center and had no problem losing the sign. It was a vision of an architect, not of a developer. He thought if they studied the project a little closer, it was unique in that it had five large motor courts which take up a lot of space, but created a European village kind of feel. These apartments, and they were apartments, Commissioner Tanner said that allowing the developer to go to this density, in turn the developer should give something to the city and that was a commitment to apartments. That hadn't been suggested to him and that was the first time he was hearing that, so he would visit that, it just had to be brought to his company and they would do it. He didn't know if unilaterally everyone on this Planning Commission would agree with that. It seemed that to some for sale housing would be a better product for the city, but they '� 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2. 2006 � were apartment developers and they would commit to keeping it to apartments. He personally thought the architecture and the quality of the community was in line with the last big project the City approved, and that was Canterra. They looked at Canterra as a base model, but thought they had done better than Canterra. Their units were larger. There was diversity in their units. They tend to get these projects with the same architecture over and over again. They have created four building types, 12 floor plans, whereas Canterra was the same building over and over. They didn't do that. The section up toward future College operated separately from the courtyards and gave it some diversity, so it wasn't just a boring apartment community seen with most of the projects. He thought their commercial was extraordinary. He didn't know if they studied it carefully, but it went through the ARC at first pass and they raved about it. He thought if they studied the landscape plan, it is friendly. There are open areas and now they have an acre and a third behind the clubhouse and its ratio was consistent with lower density projects they have approved in terms of its amenity area per unit. � Commissioner Campbell said she really didn't have any problem with the apartment buildings as far as architecture and things like that. She wanted it to look like the pictures they were given. Also, between these apartments, there was luscious landscaping. But then they had to have the desert scape too, so that would look completely different from the pictures. But she wasn't against the architecture if that was what they were going to get. Mr. Ogulnick said they would get exactly that. Commissioner Campbell thought the commercial areas were fine, but she had a problem with the big sign too. Mr. Ogulnick said the sign would go and Mr. Drell could contest that their company as a whole has worked with the City time and time again. They have been very accommodating with any requests. But it was difficult to please five people. Chairperson Lopez asked what kind of tenants he thought would occupy the commercial area. 22 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2 2006 �.,.. Mr. Ogulnick said there was a restaurant, Manhattan Deli, that would like to occupy Spaces 15 and 14. They were over on Highway 111. Space 8 was a bank. For Space 7 they were in talks with a small gym. And Space 9 was Coffee Bean. That was about as far as they had gotten. Commissioner Tschopp thought the tenant mix sounded very exciting for a development where the people could conveniently get there, either bicycling or walking. He said it would be nice to see some of those types of elements incorporated into the site plan where they could easily get there. Mr. Ogulnick asked if he was referring to the residential tenants. Commissioner Tschopp concurred. Mr. Ogulnick said there was an access. To the north of Building A01 and to the west of Commercial Building 6 there was a walkway going into the commercial. �,,, Commissioner Tschopp was referring to the whole area and getting people to park their cars, if they could even afford cars, and instead of getting into a car and driving down to go get coffee, go to the gym, go to school, somehow conveniently being able to get from Point A to Point B without having to get into that car. Part of that went to getting across Cook Street. There should be a very convenient way to get students from here to there. That may not be the applicanYs problem or concern, he was stating that to City staff. They should be looking at ways to get people from this point over to that university campus without being killed. Mr. Ogulnick asked if there was a pedestrian signal right where Berger meets Cook. Commissioner Campbell said yes. Mr. Ogulnick asked if the pedestrian bridge had gone away. Part of their CFD contained a $1.5 pedestrian bridge. It was still part of their budget. Mr. Drell said the pedestrian bridge was eliminated by the Council because it was about $3 or $4 million and the City didn't want to pay for half of it. �- 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2. 2006 � Mr. Ogulnick said he signed documents yesterday and there was a $1.5 million bridge in the document. Mr. Drell said the Council refused to approve a contract and design, so he didn't know how that happened. He said part of the issue was inherent in the geometry of the site. He didn't care how it was designed, what they needed was an exhibit that showed the pedestrian paths of travel through the site and where there are sidewalks that were continuous and connecting from one site to the other. But part had to do with the laws of geometry that the applicant was stuck with and how the site was created. There was no further discussion and no one else present to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project. The public hearing was left open and Chairperson Lopez asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, continuing Case Nos. C/Z 06-02, PP 06-01 and TT 34304 to May 16, 2006. Motion carried 5-0. .w IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner Campbell updated the Planning Commission. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty reported that the meeting was informational. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty reported that the meeting was canceled. 24 +� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2 2006 � D. PARKS & RECREATION Commissioner Tanner informed the Commission that the next meeting was May 3. He also stated that Freedom Park has started construction. XI. COMMENTS Chairperson Lopez requested review of the summer meeting dates. It was noted that on June 6 the meeting might be held in the Administration Conference Room. Mr. Drell said they would try to keep the agenda light. Commissioner Finerty noted that she would probably be absent June 20. It was pointed out that July 4 was a holiday and they wouldn't have a meeting. After some discussion, Commissioner Tanner suggested that they go dark on July 4 and August 15 and resume on September 5. Commission concurred. XII. ADJOURNMENT ,�,,,, It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. The meeting was adjourned at 7:28 p.m. r--....._,_ ,—.. �"'"" t.l PHILIP DRE L, Secretary A TE : JA . LOPEZ, ir erson Pal D�sert Plannin Co mission /t �- 25