HomeMy WebLinkAbout17A Ord 1065 C/Z 03-04, TT 31363, PP/CUP 03-06, DA 03-02 Sares Regis GroupREQUEST:
SUBMITTED BY:
APPLICANT:
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
Approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it
relates to a change of zone from PR-5 (planned residential, five
units per acre) to PR-13 (planned residential, 13 units per acre), a
precise plan/conditional use permit and tentative tract map for
condominium purposes to construct 320 residential condominium
units on a 25-acre site on the north side of Gerald Ford Drive 636
feet east of Monterey Avenue, 73-240 Gerald Ford Drive, APN
653-260-029. Project includes a height exception for tower
elements 27 feet in height and a housing agreement (identified as
DA 03-02) which will include, among other matters, provisions for
affordable housing units.
Steve Smith, Planning Manager
Sares Regis Group
c/o Greg Albert
18825 Bardeen Avenue
Irvine, CA 92612
CASE NOS: C/Z 03-04, TT 31363, PP/CUP 03-06 and DA 03-02
DATE: April 8, 2004
CONTENTS:
Recommendation
Executive Summary
Discussion
Draft Ordinance No. 1065 and Draft Resolution No.04-24 & 04-25
Planning Commission Staff Reports dated August 13, October 21, December 2 and
December 16, 2003
Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 2238 and 2240
Planning Commission Minutes of August 19, October 21, December 2 and
December 16, 2003
Related Maps and Exhibits
Staff Report
Case Nos. C/Z 03-04, TT 31363, PP/CUP 03-06 and DA 03-02
Page 2
April 8, 2004
Recommendation:
That the City Council waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 1065
to second reading relating to C/Z 03-04.
That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 04-24 approving TT 31363 and
PP/CUP 03-06, subject to conditions including a condition requiring
execution of a Housing Agreement which will include among other matters
provisions for affordable housing units.
That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 04-25 approving the Housing
Agreement (DA 03-02).
Executive Summary:
The applicant proposes to construct 320 residential condominium units on
a 25-acre site on the north side of Gerald Ford Drive 636 feet east of
Monterey Avenue.
Project requires approval of a change of zone from PR-5 to PR-13, a precise
plan/conditional use permit and tentative tract map. In return for the
increased density, the applicant will be required to enter into a housing
agreement which will include provisions for affordable housing units.
Discussion:
BACKGROUND
This matter was before Planning Commission on four occasions between
August 19, 2003 and December 16, 2003. December 2, 2003 the Planning
Commission on a 5-0 vote recommended approval of the change of zone,
tentative map and precise plan/conditional use permit. December 16, 2003 the
Planning Commission on a 3-0 vote (Commissioners Finerty and Lopez absent)
recommended approval of the related housing agreement.
Between October 21, 2003 and December 2, 2003 the applicant made
significant revisions to the plan addressing numerous concerns which had been
raised by Planning Commission.
Staff Report
Case Nos. C/Z 03-04, TT 31363, PP/CUP 03-06 and DA 03-02
Page 3
April 8, 2004
The applications have been held in abeyance pending completion of the general
plan update.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The 25-acre site on the north side of Gerald Ford Drive, 636 feet east of
Monterey will be bordered on the east by the future Gateway Drive. The site is
vacant and has natural dunes with minimal vegetation. The property drops from
south to north approximately 25 feet.
ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE
North: PCD / vacant
South: PR-5 / Marriott Shadow Ridge
East: PR-5 / vacant
West: PC-2 / vacant
At the northwest corner the project wraps around a GTE utility site.
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
General Plan:
The site is designated medium/high density residential in the updated general
plan. This designation permits projects having 4-22 units per acre. The project
at 13 units/acre falls into the high density category of 10-22 units.
Zoning:
The property is currently zoned PR-5 (planned residential, five units per acre).
The application includes a request to change the zone to PR-13 (planned
residential, 13 units per acre).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant proposes modification to the zoning and approval of a precise plan
/conditional use permit and tentative tract map for 320 residential condominium
units.
3
Staff Report
Case Nos. C/Z 03-04, TT 31363, PP/CUP 03-06 and DA 03-02
Page 4
April 8, 2004
ZONE CHANGE
The applicant proposes to change the zone from PR-5 (five units per acre) to PR-
13 (13 units per acre). This will increase the permitted number of units from
125 units to 325 units. The applicant proposes 320 units on the site.
PRECISE PLAN / CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT / TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
The applicant proposes to construct a series of 20-plex and 40-plex buildings
which maximize the geometry of the site. The buildings will be oriented to auto
courts.
Site Plan / Layout / Access / Circulation:
The project includes a series of 10 residential buildings (20 units or 40 units
each), plus the sales and recreation center building. The project takes its main
access from Gateway Drive and has a secondary, right -in right -out access to
Gerald Ford Drive at the midpoint of the property and at the west end there is
an emergency access.
The site is served by a series of two-way, minimum 24-foot wide driveways
which provide access to the building complexes and garage access. The
Gateway driveway leads directly to the recreation center where the roadway
diverts north/south. From this north/south street minor streets branch off to the
east and west. The two roads leading east from the main north/south road cul-
de-sac near Gateway. The two roads going west from the north/south access
road connecting in a loop which extends along the west side of the property.
Upon entering an individual building complex, the driver enters a parking
courtyard area. The driveway leads to at least one garage parking space for
each unit and at least four open visitor parking spaces in the center.
The Fire Marshal in his comments has concern with some of the dead-end areas.
Appropriate modification can and will be made to address these concerns.
Staff Report
Case Nos. C/Z 03-04, TT 31363, PP/CUP 03-06 and DA 03-02
Page 5
April 8, 2004
Unit Summary:
The project includes three basic unit types. The 112 "A" units are all one
bedroom one bath and range in size from 787 square feet to 803 square feet.
The 176 "B" units are all two bedroom units, some with one bath and some
with two baths. Units range in size from 1,048 square feet to 1,175 square
feet.
The 32 "C" units are all three -bedroom two bath with 1,255 square feet.
Parking:
The parking requirement for residential condominiums varies with the number
of bedrooms. Studio and one bedroom units are required to have one covered
space and one open space. Two bedrooms and larger are required to have two
covered spaces plus one half open space per unit.
Based on 112 one bedroom units and 208 two bedroom or greater, the required
parking is 528 covered spaces plus 216 open spaces for a total of 744 spaces.
The project provides 544-covered spaces and 216 open spaces for a total of
760 spaces. The project complies with code.
Architecture and Building Height:
The two-story buildings have been attractively designed in a contemporary
Mediterranean architecture. The structures feature pitched roofs with flat
concrete terre cotta colored tile. Walls will be finished in varying shades of
stucco accented with significant stone veneer elements anchoring the base. The
applicant has provided quality architecture on all sides of the building and
provided articulation on all facets of the structures.
The units have been designed to provide nine -foot high ceilings which when
coupled with the 3 in 12 pitched roof results in building heights which range
from 23 feet to 27 feet.
5
Building Setbacks:
West
South
East
North
Coverage
Parking:
Covered
Open
Total
Height
Minimum common open space
*Height exception being sought
Staff Report
Case Nos. C/Z 03-04, TT 31363, PP/CUP 03-06 and DA 03-02
Page 6
April 8, 2004
The Planned Residential District allows two-story development with a maximum
height of 24 feet. The applicant will require an exception to the height
requirement as provided in the PR zone. In the past the Planning Commission
and City Council have granted exceptions to the height limit in instances where
there is no impact to adjacent properties and if the design of the buildings is
enhanced with the additional height.
The City's Architectural Review Commission unanimously approved the design
of the multifamily residential units on July 8, 2003. The commission did not
have an issue with the height of the buildings.
Tentative Tract Map:
The proposed map is a single lot map for condominium purposes. When
recorded, the map will allow the individual units to be sold.
PROJECT DATA
CODE
as approved
20 feet
20 feet
as approved
50% maximum
528
216
744 spaces
24 feet
40% minimum
PROVIDED
10 ft. to carport
80 ft. to main building
22 feet
20 feet
52 feet
36%
544
216
760 spaces
27 feet*
G
Staff Report
Case Nos. C/Z 03-04, TT 31363, PP/CUP 03-06 and DA 03-02
Page 7
April 8, 2004
ANALYSIS
Pursuant to the updated general plan, high density projects must meet the following
performance criteria:
1. The percentage of residential units, whether single or multi -family, that shall
be available for home ownership.
• The applicant advises that the project will be rental for the first 10 years then
utilize the tentative map to allow for sales of the units.
2. High density residential neighborhoods shall be located in proximity and
have convenient access to public transportation.
Sunline eventually will provide bus service on Gerald Ford Drive.
3. High density residential development shall be located in proximity to schools,
parks and commercial services, which shall be accessible by means of non -
motorized vehicle routes.
This property is located diagonally across the street to a designated school
and park site and adjacent to commercially designated sites to the north and
west.
This project can affirm all seven criteria and, therefore, is deemed eligible for
the high density category.
4. The percent of proposed high -density units to be reserved to meet the
affordable housing needs of the community.
•
The housing agreement as recommended by the Planning Commission
requires that 20% of the units (both rental and for sale units) be reserved for
moderate income households. The applicant is willing to make these units
available for lower income households if sufficient funds or subsidies are
provided by the Housing Authority.
5. Adequacy and usability of landscaped open space planned internal and
integral to the design of high -density developments.
1
Staff Report
Case Nos. C/Z 03-04, TT 31363, PP/CUP 03-06 and DA 03-02
Page 8
April 8, 2004
•
The applicant's site plan provides a consolidated recreation area around the
clubhouse facility at the center of the site. This area includes a 5,462 square
foot clubhouse, a pool and spa, multi purpose room, and leasing office.
Around the site perimeter Desert Willow type landscaping will be installed.
6. Development plans reflecting creative and innovative design in site planning,
building design and landscape treatment, consistent with the General Plan
Community Design Element.
•
The project exhibits a high quality of architecture. The project has been
designed with a series of intemal auto courts which keep the parking lots out
of view. Each unit has at least one garage space. More than 50% of the
garages have direct access into the units.
7. Development proposals with high -density residential units shall include
analysis of the potential fiscal impacts of the development.
• The applicant has engaged Terra Nova to prepare a fiscal impact report.
Said report is not available as of the writing of this report, but is expected to
be available for review by City Council.
The consultant advises that they will be looking at the project within the large
area bounded by Monterey, Dinah Shore, Portola and Gerald Ford.
The general fiscal analysis prepared for the University Park area showed
considerable positive fiscal results due to the dominance of revenue
producing commercial uses in the vicinity.
Generally we know that the project's value will be set first as an apartment
project, then later the value will be reset when individual units are sold. In
each instance tax increment should be increased above the base rate.
Staff will report on the fiscal impact report findings at the public hearing.
CONCLUSION
The project as designed will result in an architecturally attractive residential
complex with a townhouse feel. Quality touches added to the project include
Staff Report
Case Nos. C/Z 03-04, TT 31363, PP/CUP 03-06 and DA 03-02
Page 9
April 8, 2004
direct garage access for more than half the units, balconies and enhanced
paving in the auto courts.
As noted previously, the building architecture results in the project needing an
exception for height.
In this instance there are not impacts to adjacent properties caused by the
height increase from 24 feet to 27 feet. The properties to the west and north
are zoned commercial and allow buildings with a maximum height of 30 feet.
To the south across Gerald Ford is Marriott's Shadow Ridge which includes
three-story structures to a height of 36 feet. Setbacks to the property to the
east will result in at least 140 feet of separation between structures.
The buildings utilize a pitched roof design with a 3/12 slope. A majority of the
multifamily projects that have complied with the 24-foot height limit have
utilized a flat roof design. Flat roof designs such as the City -owned One Quail
Place complex have caused maintenance problems in dealing with water runoff
and roof leaks. By using a pitched roof, the buildings avoid problems with water
runoff, thus become easier to maintain.
The pitched roof elements provided for this project create a diversity in the roof
which improves the architecture. In addition, along the Gerald Ford frontage the
site will be lowered at least four (4) feet (per the grading plan) thereby reducing
the apparent building height back to the 23-24 foot range. Along Gateway Drive
the reverse will occur in that the grading plan shows the area immediately west
of Gateway being raised two to three feet. Therefore, the apparent height of the
units along this new four -lane roadway will be raised accordingly.
In the last three major residential projects, the City has granted a height
exception (i.e., Portofino, Hovley Gardens and the RDA project on Santa Rosa).
In these instances it was determined that the aesthetic improvement to the roof
design warranted an exception. Based on its architecture, this project warrants
similar consideration.
The design as proposed complies with all the code provisions except for height
(see previous discussion) and should provide needed moderately priced housing
stock. Through the housing agreement the developer will be required to provide
Staff Report
Case Nos. C/Z 03-04, TT 31363, PP/CUP 03-06 and DA 03-02
Page 10
April 8, 2004
20% of the units to moderate income households either as rental units or for
sale units.
The project at 13 units per acre is an appropriate land use given the anticipated
surrounding land uses; commercial to the west and north, single family east of
Gateway Drive and Shadow Ridge timeshare to the south.
Project architecture has been given preliminary approval by ARC who did not
have concerns with the building height.
HOUSING AGREEMENT
The housing agreement attached has been reviewed and endorsed by the City
Attorney. The agreement basically allows the project to operate as a rental or
condominium project. In return for the increase in project density from five units
per acre to 13 units per acre, the owner will be required to provide 20% of the
total units (64 units) as affordable to moderate income households and will be
proportionate to units in the total project (i.e., 20% of the total number of three
bedroom units will be in the price controlled program).
CEQA REVIEW:
This project was reviewed as part of the General Plan Update and the EIR
prepared therefore. The information contained in those documents supports the
conclusion that this project will not have an adverse impact on the environment.
A Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is recommended for
certification.
Submitted by:
Steve Smith
Planning : nager
Homer Croy
ACM for Development Services
Phil Drell
Director of Community Development
Appr.val:
L. Ortega
anager
(W p docs\tm\sr\pp03-06.cc)
ORDINANCE NO. 1065
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.
107, THE PALM DESERT ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE
ZONE FROM PR-5 TO PR-13 FOR 25 +/- ACRES ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF GERALD FORD DRIVE 636 FEET EAST OF
MONTEREY AVENUE.
CASE NO. C/Z 03-04
The City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN,
as follows:
SECTION 1: That a portion of Ordinance No. 107 referencing Section 25.46.1
of the Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Map (Chapter 35.46 of the Palm Desert Municipal
Code) is hereby amended to read as shown on the attached Exhibit "A."
SECTION 2: That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is hereby
certified and attached as Exhibit "B."
SECTION 3: The City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby
directed to publish this ordinance in the Palm Desert Post, a newspaper of general
circulation, published and circulated in the City of Palm Desert, California, and shall be
in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Palm Desert City Council this
day of , 2004, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
ROBERT A SPIEGEL, Mayor
it
P.0 -(3), FCZ
City of Palm Desert
ADD
P. C.-(3)
P.C.-(3)
S.1.
S.I.
S.1.
S.L
P.C.D.
P.C.D.
P.C.D.
P.C.-(2)
eg
Case No. C/Z 03-04
CHANGE OF ZONE
EXHIBIT A
P.C.D.
P.A
P.R.-5 P.R.-5
P.R.-5
ZTRA111F0110-DR
P.R.-5 P.R.-5
r
P.R.-5
P.R: 5
}—rr-rrrTr ,
Proposed
Zoning Change
P.R.-5
To
P.R.-13
CITY COUNCIL
ORDINANCE NO.
1065
Date:
ORDINANCE NO. !)1065
EXHIBIT B
Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the
California Code of Regulations.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NO: C/Z 03-04
APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION:
Sares Regis Group
c/o Greg Albert
18825 Bardeen Avenue
Irvine, CA 92612
A change of zone from PR-5 (planned residential, five units per acre) to PR-13 (planned
residential, 13 units per acre), a precise plan/conditional use permit and tentative tract
map for condominium purposes to construct 320 residential condominium units on a
25-acre site on the north side of Gerald Ford Drive 636 feet east of Monterey Avenue,
73-240 Gerald Ford Drive, APN 653-260-029. Project includes a height exception for
tower elements 30 feet in height and a housing agreement which will include, among
other matters, provisions for affordable housing units.
The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert,
California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the
environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons
in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid
potentially significant effects, may also be found attached.
PHILIP DRELL DATE
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
3
1.3
RESOLUTION NO. 04-24
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS IT
RELATES TO A PRECISE PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR CONDOMINIUM
PURPOSES TO CONSTRUCT 320 RESIDENTIAL
CONDOMINIUM UNITS INCLUDING A HEIGHT EXCEPTION
FOR TOWER ELEMENTS 30 FEET IN HEIGHT ON A 25-
ACRE SITE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF GERALD FORD DRIVE
636 FEET EAST OF MONTEREY AVENUE, 73-240 GERALD
FORD DRIVE, APN 653-260-029.
CASE NOS. TT 31363 AND PP/CUP 03-06
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the
8th day of April, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of
SARES REGIS GROUP, LLC, for approval of the above described project; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of
Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act,
Resolution No. 02-06," in that the Director of Community Development has
determined that the project will not have an adverse impact on the environment and
a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is warranted based on the data
provided as part of the University Village Master Plan, the General Plan Update and the
EIR certified therefore; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council
did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify approval of the tentative
tract map for condominium purposes and the precise plan/conditional use permit as
described below:
Tentative Tract Map 31363 for condominium purposes:
The plan as designed complies with the municipal code requirements for
residential condominium projects.
Precise Plan/Conditional Use Permit:
1. The design of the project is consistent with the goals and objective of the
Planned Residential zone and the amended Palm Desert General Plan as
recommended for approval by the Planning Commission.
RESOLUTION NO.04-24
2. As conditioned, the project will be compatible with adjacent uses and will
not depreciate property values in the vicinity.
3. The precise plan/conditional use permit 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.
2. That the City Council does hereby approve PP/CUP 03-06 and TT 31363.
3. A Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is hereby certified.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
City Council, held on this
to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
day of , 2004, by the following vote,
RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
2
ROBERT A. SPIEGEL, Mayor
tS
RESOLUTION NO. 04-24
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NOS. TT 31363 AND PP/CUP 03-06
Department of Community Development:
1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file
with the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following
conditions.
2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from
the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said
approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the
restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal
ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may
be in force.
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated
by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from
the following agencies:
Coachella Valley Water District
Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission
City Fire Marshal
Public Works Department
Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented
to the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building
permit for the use contemplated herewith.
5. Applicant shall participate in a commercial recycling program as determined by
the City Environmental and Conservation Manager and applicable Waste
Disposal Company. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to
conflict with parking areas. Said placement shall be approved by applicable trash
company and Department of Community Development.
3
RESOLUTION NO. 04-24
6. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the department of public
works prior to architectural review commission submittal.
7. Final landscape plans shall comply with the parking lot tree planting master plan
and shall be approved by the Architecture Review Commission.
8. 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 Tong -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.
Department of Public Works:
1. Any drainage facility construction required for this project shall be contingent upon
a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and
approved by the Department of Public Works prior to start of construction. The
project shall be designed to retain storm waters associated with the increase in
developed vs. undeveloped condition for a 100 year storm.
2. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17
and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of any permits associated with this
project. Installation of a signal at the intersection of Gerald Ford Drive and Gateway
Drive shall be required of this project, the installation of which can be used as credit
against these fees, at discretion of the City Council.
3. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF).
Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance.
4. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer,
shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public Works prior to the
issuance of a grading permit.
4
RESOLUTION NO. 04-24
5. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public
Works and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading
permits.
6. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the
issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works.
7. As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance
with Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications
shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval before
construction of any improvements is commenced. Offsite improvement plans to be
approved by the Public Works Department and a surety posted to guarantee the
installation of required offsite improvements prior to permit issuance.
8. Landscape installation on the property frontages as well as on -site shall be drought
tolerant in nature and maintenance shall be provided by the property owner.
9. Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive
Dust Control and Section 24.20, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control.
10. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.44, complete grading
plans/site improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director
of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits.
Preliminary landscape plans shall be submitted for review concurrently with grading
plans.
11. Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in
accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code.
12. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm
Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City
standards and the city's Circulation Network including the following:
• Gateway Drive shall be constructed per the secondary street section of the
circulation network to a half -street width of 36' on 54' right of way.
Gerald Ford Drive shall be widened to the arterial street section of the
circulation network to a half -street width of 51' on 75' right of way plus a right
turn lane at the project driveway.
Construction of a bus facility with turnout if required by Sunline Transit
Agency.
5
�a
RESOLUTION NO. 04-24
Rights -of -way necessary for the installation of the above referenced improvements
shall be dedicated to the city prior to the issuance of any permits associated with
this project.
13. This project shall be limited to two driveways, one on each frontage, with right turn
ingress and egress only on Gerald Ford Drive. Driveways and parking Tots shall be
inspected by the Public Works Department and a standard inspection fee paid prior
to the issuance of a grading permit.
14. Street dedication of 54' half -width right of way shall be provided along the north
project frontage for a future secondary roadway.
15. Any entry gates for the project shall be set back 100 feet minimum from the curb -
line of the adjacent street.
16. A traffic study shall be prepared for this project.
17. In -lieu park fees shall be collected in a similar fashion to a subdivision according to
a negotiated development agreement.
Riverside County Fire Department:
1. With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plan
check, Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be
provided in accordance with City Municipal Code, NFPA, CFC and CBC or
recognized fire protection standards.
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all buildings per UFC article 87.
2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating
pressure must be available before any combustible materials are placed on the
job site.
3. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of providing a potential
gallon per minute flow of 2500 gpm for commercial buildings.
6
1
RESOLUTION NO. 04-24
4. The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant(s)
4"x2-112"x2-1 /2", located not less than 25' nor more than 165' from any
portion of a multifamily dwelling 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 13R modified fire sprinkler system with attic protection.
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 and 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 UBC 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 3000 square feet and not over 75' walking distance. A "K"
type fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens.
10. If applicable, install a Hood/Duct automatic fire extinguishing system per NFPA
96 in all public and private cooking operations except single-family residential
usage.
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.
12. 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".
7
RESOLUTION NO, 04-24
13. A dead end single access over 500' will require a secondary access, sprinklers
or other mitigative measures approved by the Fire Marshal. Under no
circumstance shall a dead end over 1300' be accepted.
14. 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.
15. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the City.
16. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must
be submitted separately to the Fire Marshal for approval prior to construction.
17. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or
when building permits are not obtained within 12 months.
//
8
2-4
RESOLUTION NO. 04-24
EXHIBIT A
Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the
California Code of Regulations.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NOS: TT 31363 and PP/CUP 03-06
APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION:
Sares Regis Group
c/o Greg Albert
18825 Bardeen Avenue
Irvine, CA 92612
A precise plan/conditional use permit and tentative tract map for condominium
purposes to construct 320 residential condominium units on a 25-acre site on the
north side of Gerald Ford Drive 636 feet east of Monterey Avenue, 73-240 Gerald Ford
Drive, APN 653-260-029. Project includes a height exception for tower elements 30
feet in height and a housing agreement which will include, among other matters,
provisions for affordable housing units.
The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert,
California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the
environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons
in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid
potentially significant effects, may also be found attached.
PHILIP DRELL DATE
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
9
RESOLUTION NO. 04-25
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AGREEMENT RELATING
TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND ONGOING OPERATION OF A 320-
UNIT APARTMENT/CONDOMINIUM PROJECT ON THE NORTH
SIDE OF GERALD FORD DRIVE BETWEEN MONTEREY AVENUE
AND PORTOLA AVENUE, 73-240 GERALD FORD DRIVE
CASE NO. DA 03-02 AS IT RELATES TO CASE NOS. C/Z 03-04
TT 31363 AND PP/CUP 03-06
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 8th day
of April, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by SARES REGIS
GROUP, LLC, for approval of DA 03-02; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2240 has recommended
approval of said agreement; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm
Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution
No. 02-06," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project
will not have an adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact is warranted based on the data provided as part of the University
Village Master Plan, the General Plan Update and the EIR certified therefore; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, said City Council heard and considered all testimony
and arguments of all interested persons.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert,
California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
City Council in this case.
2. That Agreement 03-02 (Exhibit A attached) is hereby approved.
3. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is hereby certified. (Exhibit
B attached).
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City
Council, held on this day of , 2004, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ROBERT A. SPIEGEL, Mayor
ATTEST:
RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
EXHIBIT A
HOUSING AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this , day of , 2003,
between , (hereinafter "Property Owner") and the City of Palm
Desert, (hereinafter "City"), a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
state of California.
RECITALS:
This Agreement is predicated upon the following facts:
A. Property Owner is owner of certain real property located within the City of Palm
Desert, California, which property is described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part
hereof (hereinafter "PROPERTY"). City has granted approval of a general plan amendment
(through a general plan update) from low density residential (3-5 dwelling units per acre) to high
density residential (10-22 units per acre), a change of zone from PR-5 (planned residential, five
units per acre) to PR-13 (planned residential, 13 units per acre), a precise plan/conditional use
permit, including a height exception to allow a 27-foot high roof element, and tentative tract map
for apartment/ condominium purposes to construct 320 residential apartment/ condominium
units;
B. City has amended the general plan and granted a change of zone to increase the
permitted maximum density from five dwelling units per acre to a maximum of 13 dwelling units
per acre in return for providing dwelling units affordable to moderate income occupants;
C. As a condition of said approval, City has required that a specified number of units
associated with the project be set aside for moderate income occupants subject to restrictions
necessary to insure the continued occupancy of said units by moderate income households;
D. The City Council of City has found that this Agreement is consistent with the
General Plan; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree:
1. Definitions. In this Agreement, unless the context otherwise requires:
(a) "City" is the City of Palm Desert.
(b) "Project" is the development to be constructed in the City pursuant to
Precise Plan / Conditional Use Permit 03-06.
684285.02/OC
S7335-30412-12-0312 10 031resjed
EXHIBIT A
-1-
(c) "Property Owner" means the person having a legal or equitable interest
in the real property as described in paragraph (3) and includes the Property Owner's
successor in interest.
(d) "Real Property" is the real property referred to in paragraph (2).
(e) "Useful Life of the Project" is fifty five (55)[required by state law] years.
2. Description of Real Property. The real property which is the subject of this
Agreement is described in Exhibit A.
3. Interest of Property Owner. Property Owner represents that he has a full legal and
equitable interest in the Real Property and that all other persons holding legal or equitable
interests in the Property are to be bound by the Agreement.
4. Assignment. The rights of the Property Owner under this Agreement may not be
transferred or assigned by the Property Owner prior to the completion of the construction of the
Project unless the written consent of the City is first obtained, which consent shall not be
unreasonably withheld. Upon the completion of the Project as evidenced by the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy therefore, the written consent of the City shall no longer be required to
transfer the rights of the Property Owner under this Agreement to any successor in interest in the
Real Property. Upon the assignment of this Agreement by the Property Owner to a successor in
interest in the Real Property, the City agrees that it will look solely to such successor in interest
to thereafter perform all of the covenants, terms and conditions of this Agreement and the
assigning Property Owner shall be released from liability accruing under this Agreement from
and after the effective date of such assignment. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Property
Owner and its assignees shall have the right to collaterally assign this Agreement without the
City's consent to Property Owner's lender in connection with the financing of this Project.
5. Binding effect of Agreement. The burdens and the benefits of the Agreement
shall constitute covenants that shall run with the Real Property and shall be binding upon and
inure to the benefit of the successors in interest to the Real Property.
6. Relationship of parties. It is understood that the contractual relationship between
the City and Property Owner is such that the Property Owner is an independent contractor and
not the agent of the City.
7. Agreement by Property Owner and City.
(a) City has amended the general plan and granted a change of zone
increasing the permitted maximum density on the property from five units per acre to 13
units per acre. Based on these amendments, the City has approved the Precise Plan /
Conditional Use Permit 03-06 for a 320-unit apartment / condominium project, including
a height exception to allow a 27-foot high roof element on the Property. In exchange for
increasing the permitted density from five units per acre to 13 units per acre, the Property
Owner agrees to set aside 20% of total project units as units affordable to moderate
income households. The project is receiving a density bonus of eight (8) units/acre or 195
684285.021OC
S7335-304/12 12 0312 10 03.'res/jcd
EXHIBIT A
-2-
of the 320 total project units. The project's affordable housing requirement shall
therefore be established at 64 units.
(b) The Property Owner shall choose one of the following methods to meet
the affordable housing requirement:
(i) Payment of $15,000 per affordable unit totaling $960,000 to the
City to be used for the purpose of providing very low, low and moderate income
housing in the city. Payment shall be made in increments to the City prior to
obtaining a building permit(s) for the project at the rate of $3,000.00 per each of
the 320 units.
(ii) Set aside sixty-four (64) affordable units in the PROJECT which
shall be occupied by income qualified persons who meet the current "moderate
income" limits as determined by the Palm Desert Housing Authority pursuant to
state law (i.e., 120% of median income for Riverside County), as may be adjusted
from time to time.
The sixty-four (64) affordable units shall be further designated as follows:
TOTAL
AFFORDABLE UNITS
One (1) Bedroom Units 19
Two (2) Bedroom Units 39
Three (3) Bedroom Units 6
64
Maximum rental rates for the affordable units shall be set by the Palm
Desert Housing Authority pursuant to state law at the time the units first become
available for rent as determined as illustrated by the schedule of the maximum
income limits currently used to qualify tenants for an Affordable Unit as set forth
in Exhibit B "Current Maximum Qualifying Income and Maximum Monthly
Housing Allowance". Annual rent increases shall not exceed the increases
permitted by state law.
(iii) Set aside sixty-four (64) affordable units in the Project which shall
be sold to income qualified persons who meet the current "moderate income"
limits as determined by the Palm Desert Housing Authority pursuant to state law
(i.e., 120% of median income for Riverside County.
The sixty-four (64) affordable units shall be designated as follows:
TOTAL
AFFORDABLE UNITS
One (1) Bedroom Units 19
Two (2) Bedroom Units 39
Three (3) Bedroom Units 6
64
684285.02/OC
S7335-304/12-12-0312 10 03,resjed
EXHIBIT A
-3-
Sales prices in the "affordable units" shall be an amount such that the units
will qualify as affordable to moderate income persons pursuant to state law.
(c) The project as proposed allows the Property Owner to operate it as a rental
(apartment) complex or to sell it as condominium units.
The Developer has indicated to the City that the project may be operated as an
apartment complex for a number of years and then converted to condominiums. Should
the Property Owner not avail himself of item (i) above to meet the affordable housing
requirement, then the project shall comply with the provisions of item (ii) for the period
of time it is operated as a rental complex.
At the time of its conversion from rental to condominium, item (iii) above shall
become applicable.
Subsequent sales of any "affordable units" shall be subject to resale controls
substantially in the form of the deed restrictions attached hereto as Exhibit " ", which
will assure that said units may only be sold or rented to income qualified persons
provided for in this section.
(d) Property Owner or its assigned management agent shall be responsible for
determining the eligibility of prospective tenants in the "affordable" units,
(e) Property Owner shall advise the City in writing prior to obtaining building
permit regarding the method to be used to satisfy affordable housing requirement of the
project.
(f) Property Owner shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color or creed,
sex, or national origin.
(g) Change in Project. Property Owner hereby agrees that prior to the initial
completion of the Project as evidenced by the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, no
change, modification, revision or alteration may be made in the approved precise plan
without review and approval by those agencies of the City approving the plan in the first
instance. A change, modification, revision or alteration in the approved precise
plan/conditional use permit prior to the initial completion of the Project is not effective
until the parties amend this AGREEMENT to incorporate it.
(h) Hold Harmless. Property Owner agrees to and shall hold the City, its
officers, agents, employees and representatives harmless from liability for damage or
claims for damage for personal injury including death and claims for property damage
which may arise from the direct or indirect operations of the Property Owner or those of
his contractor, subcontractor, agent, employee or other person acting on his behalf which
relates to the PROJECT. Property Owner agrees to and shall defend the City and its
officers, agents, employees and representatives from third party actions for damages
caused or alleged to have been caused by reason of Property Owner's activities in
connection with the PROJECT.
684285.02.00
S7335-304'12-12-0312 10 03/res5ed
EXHIBIT A
-4-
This hold harmless agreement applies to all third party damages and claims for
damages suffered [or alleged to have been suffered]by reason of the operation referred to
in this paragraph, regardless of whether or not the City prepared, supplied, or approved
plans or specifications or both for the PROJECT.
Property Owner further agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, pay all costs and
provide a defense for City in any action challenging the validity of the AGREEMENT.
(i) Periodic Review of Compliance with Agreement.
(i) Planning Commission shall review this AGREEMENT whenever
substantial evidence exists to indicate a possible breach of the terms of this
AGREEMENT.
(j} Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement. This AGREEMENT may be
amended or canceled in whole or in part by mutual consent of the parties.
(k) Enforcement. Unless amended or canceled as provided in paragraph (j),
this AGREEMENT is enforceable by any party to it notwithstanding a change in the
applicable general or specific plan, zoning, subdivision, or building regulations adopted
by City which alter or amend the rules, regulations or policies governing permitted uses
of the land, density, design, improvement and construction standards and specifications.
(1) Events of Default. Property Owner is in default under this AGREEMENT
upon the happening of one or more of the following events or conditions:
(i) If a warranty, representation or statement set forth in this
Agreement by Property Owner to City is false or proves to have been false in any
material respect when it was made;
(ii) A finding and determination by, that upon the basis of substantial
evidence Property Owner has not complied in good faith with any of the terms or
conditions of this AGREEMENT.
(iii) Property Owner's failure to maintain the Real Property in
substantially the same condition as it exists on the date that City issues the
Certificate of Occupancy with respect to the PROJECT ordinary wear and tear
and casualty excepted.
(iv) Property Owner's failure to appear in and defend any action or
proceeding purporting to affect the rights or powers of City under the terms of this
AGREEMENT, and to pay all costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees in a
reasonable sum, in any such action or proceeding in which City may appear.
(m) Procedure upon Default. If, as a result of periodic review, or other review
of this AGREEMENT, the Planning Commission or City finds and determines, on the
basis of substantial evidence, that Property Owner has not complied with the terms or
conditions of this AGREEMENT, the Commission shall notify the Property Owner or
684285.02.00
S7335-304;12-12-0312 10 03.'res'jed
EXHIBIT A
-5-
successor in interest in writing as to the specific nature of noncompliance, and describe
the remedies required to achieve compliance. Property Owner has thirty (30) days upon
receipt of notification to take remedial actions, provided, that, if such remedial action
cannot reasonably be completed within such thirty (30) day period, Property Owner shall
have such additional time as is reasonably necessary to complete such remedial actions so
long as Property Owner is diligently pursuing the same. If Property Owner fails to take
remedial action within the cure periods described above, the Planning Commission of
City shall recommend to the City Council of City that this AGREEMENT be terminated,
or that the remedies set forth in this paragraph be exercised by the City. If the City
Council of City concurs with the recommendation of the City's Planning Commission, the
City Council may terminate this AGREEMENT, or may employ one or more of the
remedies set forth in this paragraph. Proceedings before the Planning Commission and
City Council shall be by noticed public hearing pursuant to Chapter 25.86 of the
Municipal Code of the City of Palm Desert. In the event of a default, City may pursue all
legal or equitable remedies City may have under California law or as set forth in this
AGREEMENT and City shall be entitled to specific performance and enforcement of
each and every term, condition and covenant set forth herein.
(n) Damages upon Cancellation, Termination of Agreement. In no event shall
Property Owner be entitled to any damages against the City upon termination of this
AGREEMENT or exercise by City of its rights under this AGREEMENT.
(o) Attorney's Fees and Costs. If legal action by either party is brought
because of breach of this AGREEMENT or to enforce a provision of this AGREEMENT,
the prevailing party is entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs.
(p) Notices. All notices required or provided for under this AGREEMENT
shall be in writing and delivered in person or sent by certified mail, postage prepared.
Notice required to be given to City shall be addressed as follows: City of Palm Desert,
73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California 92260.
Notices required to be given to Property Owner shall be addressed as follows:
Sares Regis Group, c/o Greg Albert, 18825 Bardeen Avenue, Irvine, California 92612.
A party may change the address by giving notice in writing to the other party and
therefore notices shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address.
(q) Rules of Construction and Miscellaneous Items.
(i) The singular includes the plural; the masculine gender includes the
feminine; "shall" is mandatory, "may" is permissive.
(ii) If a part of this AGREEMENT is held to be invalid, the remainder
of this AGREEMENT is not affected.
(iii) If there is more than one signer of this AGREEMENT their
obligations are joint and several.
684285.021OC
S7335-304/12-12-0312 10 03/res/jed
EXHIBIT A
-6-
(iv) The time limits set forth in this AGREEMENT may be extended
by mutual consent of the parties in accordance with the procedures for adoption of
an agreement.
(r) Duration of Agreement. This AGREEMENT shall remain in effect during
the Useful Life of the Project.
(s) Applicable Law. This AGREEMENT shall be construed according to the
laws of the State of California.
(t) Severability. If any portion of this AGREEMENT is for any reason held
to be unenforceable, such determination shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions.
(u) Authority. Each of the parties hereto covenants and agrees that it has the
legal capacity to enter into this AGREEMENT contained herein, that each
AGREEMENT is binding upon that party and that this AGREEMENT is executed by a
duly authorized official acting in his official capacity.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF this AGREEMENT has been executed by the parties on the
day and year first above written.
Approved as to form: CITY OF PALM DESERT,
A Municipal Corporation
City Attorney
By:
Attest:
SARES REGIS GROUP
By:
By:
684285.021OC
S7335-304112-12-0312 10 03/resijed
EXHIBIT A
-7-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE)
On this day of , 2004, before me, a Notary Public
in and for said State, personally appeared , known to me
or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person who executed the within
instrument on behalf of , and acknowledged to me that
executed the same.
684285.02i0C
S7335-304/12-12-0312 10 03lresijed
EXHIBIT A
-8-
EXHIBIT B
CURRENT MAXIMUM QUALIFYING INCOME AND MAXIMUM MONTHLY HOUSING
ALLOWANCE
Moderate -income households earning 120% of the area median income (according to HUD
income figures for the County of Riverside effective March, 2003)
Household
Size
Annual Income
@ 120% of AMI
Maximum Monthly
Housing Allowance
1
$ 42,840.00
$ 1,071.00
2
$ 48,960.00
$ 1,224.00
3
$ 55,080.00
$ 1,377.00
4
$ 61,200.00
$ 1,530.00
5
$ 66,120.00
$ 1,653.00
6
$ 70,980.00
$ 1,774.50
1. This agreement is based on the divisor of 30% in determining the Maximum Monthly
Housing Allowance (AMI*30%/12=Maximum Monthly Housing Allowance).
2. This Agreement is based on the Utility Allowance worksheet as issued by the County of
Riverside for the East County locality and includes allowances for electric lighting &
refrigeration, and air conditioning; gas cooking, domestic hot water, and space heating;
domestic water usage; sewer usage; trash collection.
3. This Agreement is based on a 1 bedroom apartment being rented to tenant(s) with a
household size of 1 and 2.
4. This Agreement is based on a 2 bedroom apartment being rented to tenants with a
household size of 3, and 4.
5. This Agreement is based on a 3 bedroom apartment being rented to tenants with a
household size of 5, and 6.
(84285.02/0C
S7335-304/12-12-0312 10 03/res'jed
EXHIBIT A
-9-
RESOLUTION NO. 04-25
EXHIBIT B
Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the
California Code of Regulations.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NO: DA 03-02 as it relates to Case Nos. C/Z 03-04, TT 31363 and PP/CUP
03-06
APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION:
Sares Regis Group
c/o Greg Albert
18825 Bardeen Avenue
Irvine, CA 92612
An agreement relating to the development and ongoing operation of a 320-unit
apartment/condominium project on the north side of Gerald Ford Drive between
Monterey Avenue and Portola Avenue, 73-240 Gerald Ford Drive.
The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert,
California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the
environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons
in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid
potentially significant effects, may also be found attached.
PHILIP DRELL DATE
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
2
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: December 16, 2003 continued from December 2, 2003
CASE NO: DA 03-02
REQUEST: Recommendation of approval to the City Council of a development
agreement as it relates to a 320-unit residential apartment/condominium
project on a 25-acre site on the north side of Gerald Ford Drive 636 feet
east of Monterey Avenue, 73-240 Gerald Ford Drive, APN 653-260-029.
Development agreement includes, among other matters, provisions for
affordable housing units.
APPLICANT: Sares Regis Group
c/o Greg Albert
18825 Bardeen Avenue
Irvine, CA 92612
I. BACKGROUND:
December 2, 2003 commission recommended approval of the project and the associated
cases except for the development agreement which was not available for commission
review.
II. ANALYSIS:
The development agreement attached for commission review has been reviewed and
endorsed by the City Attorney. The agreement basically allows the project to operate as
a rental or condominium project. In return for the increase in project density from five units
per acre to 13 units per acre, the owner will be required to provide 20% of the total units
(64 units) as affordable to moderate income households. The 64 units will be dispersed
throughout the project and will be proportionate to units in the total project (i.e., 20% of
the total number of three bedroom units will be in the price controlled program).
III. RECOMMENDATION:
That DA 03-02 be recommended for approval to the City Council.
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. DA 03-02
DECEMBER 16, 2003
IV. ATTACHMENT:
Development agreement
Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved by:
Steve Smith Phil Drell
Planning Manager Director of Community Development
Review and Concur:
Homer Croy
ACM for Development Services
Itm
2
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: December 2, 2003
CASE NOS: C/Z 03-04, TT 31363, PP/CUP 03-06 and DA 03-02
REQUEST: Approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it
relates to a Change of Zone from PR-5 (planned residential five units
per acre) to PR-13 (planned residential 13 units per acre), a Precise
Plan / Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Tract Map for
condominium purposes to construct 320 residential condominium
units on a 25-acre site on the north side of Gerald Ford Drive 636 feet
east of Monterey Avenue, 73-240 Gerald Ford Drive, APN 653-260-
029. Project includes a height exception for tower elements 30 feet in
height and a Development Agreement which will include, among other
matters, provisions for affordable housing units.
APPLICANT: Sares Regis Group
c/o Greg Albert
18825 Bardeen Avenue
Irvine, CA 92612
I. BACKGROUND:
This project was before Commission at its August 19, 2003 and October 21, 2003
meetings. Copies of these staff reports are attached.
The August 19, 2003 report lays out in detail the proposed 320-unit project, the site
condition, location, and how it relates within the land uses anticipated in the
immediate vicinity. At the conclusion of the August 19, 2003 hearing, Commission
expressed a series of concerns with the project design (see October 21, 2003 staff
report and minutes of August 19, 2003).
Commission expressed the following concerns:
1. Lack of usable open space and recreation facilities
2. Onsite traffic circulation concerns
3. Density of project
Responses to Planning Commission Concems:
STAFF REPORT
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 2, 2003
1. Staff urged the applicant to become more creative with the use of his open
space, particularly the one -plus acre retention area at the northeast corner
of the property. The applicant has amended his plan and incorporated much
of the retention basin in the area around the clubhouse. This consolidation
of recreation facilities makes for a more efficient use of the common open
space and appears to address concerns raised by the Commission.
2. The Commission expressed concern that the onsite driveways were not of
sufficient size for the volume of traffic anticipated. The 24-foot wide
driveways are similar to those in One Quail Place and San Tropez which are
larger projects developed at 22 units per acre versus this project at 13 units
per acre. Increasing driveway width results in higher speeds and less
pedestrian safety. The project includes sidewalks adjacent to the parking
aisles, maximizing pedestrian safety.
3. The density of the project at 13 units per acre is Tess than One Quail Place
and San Tropez which are both at 22 units per acre. The increased unit size
and higher percentage of three bedroom units results in this project
appearing more intense than 13 units per acre. The proposed project is part
of a master plan which includes a diversity of housing types designed to
address the housing needs generated by adjacent commercial and
educational uses.
Revised plans were submitted to Commission October 21, 2003 addressing the
concerns. The October 21, 2003 meeting was in the heat of the General Plan
review and Planning Commission had not taken a position on land uses in the
University Village area. At the suggestion of Commission, the applicant did not
make a presentation of the revised plans. Consequently, Commission continued this
request without comment on the revisions until after it had taken a position on the
General Plan, specifically the University Village area.
In anticipation of Commission taking a position supporting high density residential
for this property during the morning General Plan session on December 2, 2003,
staff renoticed this item and scheduled it for hearing.
II. CONCLUSION:
The revised plan addresses the concerns expressed by the Commission and is
consistent with recommended land use and circulation plans for this area.
2
—3'
STAFF REPORT
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 2, 2003
The project is architecturally attractive and has been approved preliminarily by ARC.
The project as designed complies with code requirements for both a rental project
and a condo project. (Commission may recall that the applicant indicated that it is
their intention to operate it as a rental project for ten years then convert it to
condominiums.) The project at 13 units per acre is an appropriate land use given
the anticipated surrounding land uses; commercial to the west and north, single
family east of Gateway Drive and Shadow Ridge timeshare to the south.
If Commission has not taken a position recommending that the site be designated
"high density residential," then this matter will need to be continued.
If Commission recommends to the City Council that this site be designated "high
density residential," then it is appropriate to review the revised plans and take action
on the Sares Regis change of zone, tentative map for condominium purposes,
precise plan, conditional use permit and development agreement.
HI. CEQA REVIEW:
This project was reviewed as part of the General Plan Update and the EIR prepared
therefore. The information contained in those documents supports the conclusion
that this project will not have an adverse impact on the environment. A Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact is recommended for certification.
IV. RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that Case Nos. C/Z
03-04, TT 31363, PP/CUP 03-06 and DA 03-02 be approved, subject to conditions.
V. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft Resolution
B. Legal notice
C. August 19, 2003 Staff Report
D. August 19, 2003 Minutes
3
3�
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: October 21, 2003 continued from August 19, 2003
CASE NOS: GPA 03-05, C/Z 03-04, TT 31363, PP/CUP 03-06 and DA 03-02
REQUEST: Approval of a General Plan Amendment from Low Density
Residential (3-5 dwelling units per acre) to High Density Residential
(7-18 units per acre), a Change of Zone from PR-5 (planned
residential five units per acre) to PR-13 (planned residential 13
units per acre), a Precise Plan / Conditional Use Permit and
Tentative Tract Map for condominium purposes to construction
320 residential condominium units on a 25-acre site on the north
side of Gerald Ford Drive 636 feet east of Monterey Avenue, 73-
240 Gerald Ford Drive, APN 653-260-029. Project includes a
height exception for tower elements 27 feet in height and a
Development Agreement which will include, among other matters,
provisions for affordable housing units.
APPLICANT: Sares Regis Group
c/o Greg Albert
18825 Bardeen Avenue
Irvine, CA 92612
I. BACKGROUND:
This application was reviewed extensively by the Planning Commission at the
August 19, 2003 meeting. The Planning Commission expressed the following
concerns:
1. Lack of usable open space and recreation facilities,
2. Onsite traffic circulation concerns
3. Density of project.
At that time it was continued to allow completion of the traffic modeling plans
which were done as part of the general plan update. At the October 7, 2003
meeting the Commission considered this portion of the University Village Land
Use Plan along with other areas.
STAFF REPORT
GPA 03-05, C!Z 03-04, TT 31363, PP/CUP 03-06 AND DA 03-02
OCTOBER 21, 2003
Responses to Planning Commission Concerns:
1. Staff urged the applicant to become more creative with the use of
his open space, particularly the one -plus acre retention area at the
northeast corner of the property. The applicant has amended his
plan and incorporated much of the retention basin in the area
around the clubhouse. This consolidation of recreation facilities
makes for a more efficient use of the common open space and
appears to address concerns raised by the Commission. This
revised plan has not been reviewed by the public works
department or CVWD with respect to how it may impact drainage.
2. The Commission expressed concern that the on -site driveways
were not of sufficient size for the volume of traffic anticipated.
The 24 foot wide driveways are similar to those in One Quail Place
and San Tropez which are larger projects developed at 22 units per
acre versus this projects at 13 units per acre. Increasing driveway
width results in higher speeds and less pedestrian safety. The
project includes sidewalks adjacent to the parking aisles,
maximizing pedestrian safety.
3. The density of the project at 13 units per acre is Tess than One
Quail Place and San Tropez which are both at 22 units per acres.
The increased unit size and higher percentage of 3 bedroom units
results in this project appearing more intense than 13 units per
acre. The proposed project is part of a master plan which includes
a diversity of housing types designed to address the housing needs
generated by adjacent commercial and educational uses.
11. CEQA REVIEW:
Project is consistent with the alternatives analyzed by the General Plan EIR and,
with mitigation, will not result in significant adverse impacts.
III. CONCLUSION:
The revised plan addresses the concerns expressed by the Commission and is
consistent with recommended land use and circulation plans for this area.
2
STAFF REPORT
GPA 03-05, C!Z 03-04, TT 31363, PP/CUP 03-06 AND DA 03-02
OCTOBER 21, 2003
IV. RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission continue this matter to November 4, 2003.
V. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Plans and exhibits
Prepared by:
Reviewed and Approved by:
Steve Smith Phil Drell
Planning Manager
Review and Concur:
Homer Croy
ACM for Deve
/jw
ment Services
3
Director of Community Development
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: August 19, 2003
CASE NOS: GPA 03-05, C/Z 03-04, TT 31363, PP/CUP 03-06 and DA 03-02
REQUEST: Approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it
relates to a General Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential
(3-5 dwelling units per acre) to High Density Residential (7-18
units per acre), a Change of Zone from PR-5 (planned residential
five units per acre) to PR-13 (planned residential 13 units per
acre), a Precise Plan / Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Tract
Map for condominium purposes to construction 320 residential
condominium units on a 25-acre site on the north side of Gerald
Ford Drive 636 feet east of Monterey Avenue, 73-240 Gerald Ford
Drive, APN 653-260-029. Project includes a height exception for
roof elements 27 feet in height and a Development Agreement
which will include, among other matters, provisions for affordable
housing units.
APPLICANT: Sares Regis Group
c/o Greg Albert
18825 Bardeen Avenue
Irvine, CA 92612
I. BACKGROUND:
A. SITE DESCRIPTION:
The 25-acre site on the north side of Gerald Ford Drive, 636 feet east of
Monterey will be bordered on the east by the future Gateway Drive. The
site is vacant and has natural dunes with minimal vegetation. The
property drops from south to north approximately 25 feet.
Due to delays in the preparation of the traffic models for the updated
General Plan we are unable to complete the environmental traffic review
(see additional discussion later). Hence we will recommend a continuance
to September 16, 2003. Since the application involves general land use
and design issues, it was felt that an introductory presentation would be
helpful prior to further consideration.
STAFF REPORT
GPA 03-05, C/Z 03-04, TT 31363, PP/CUP 03-06 and DA 03-02
AUGUST 19, 2003
B. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:
North: PCD / vacant (expired previously approved commercial
development)
South: PR-5 / Marriott Shadow Ridge
East: PR-5 / vacant
West: PC-2 / vacant
At the northwest corner the project wraps around a GTE utility site.
C. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING:
Presently:
Low Density Residential 3-5 units per acre and PR-5.
Proposal:
High Density Residential 7-18 units per acre and PR-13.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant proposes an amendment to the general plan and zoning and
approval of a precise plan /conditional use permit and tentative tract map for
320 residential condominium units. This request has been submitted in
anticipation of land use changes contemplated in the general plan update and
is consistent with the plan recommended by the General Plan Advisory
Committee.
A. GENERAL PLAN CHANGE:
The applicant proposes to change the land use designation from low
density residential (3-5 units per acre) to high density residential (7-18
2
STAFF REPORT
GPA 03-05, C/Z 03-04, TT 31363, PP/CUP 03-06 and DA 03-02
AUGUST 19, 2003
units per acre). This will increase the maximum density on the site from
125 units to 450 units. The applicant proposes 320 units.
B. ZONE CHANGE:
The applicant proposes to change the zone from PR-5 (five units per acre)
to PR-13 (13 units per acre). This will increase the permitted number of
units from 125 units to 325 units. The applicant proposes 320 units on
the site.
C. MORATORIUM:
The project is within the area affected by the moratorium which was
enacted to preserve the opportunity to implement land use policies which
will be enacted in the General Plan update.
The land use plan recommended by GPAC for this property is residential
10-22 units per acre. Provisions in this moratorium ordinance allow
processing of projects in the area if they are consistent with the
provisions of the General Plan update. This project is consistent with the
10-22 unit per acre residential designation and provides for the extension
of Gateway Drive north to 35th Avenue, thus implementing the
circulation plan.
D. PRECISE PLAN / CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT / TENTATIVE TRACT MAP:
The applicant proposes to construct a series of 20-plex and 40-piex
buildings which maximize the geometry of the site. The buildings will be
oriented to auto courts.
1. Site Plan / Layout / Access / Circulation:
The project includes a series of 10 residential buildings (20 units
or 40 units each), plus the sales and recreation center building.
The project takes its main access from Gateway Drive and has a
secondary, right -in right -out access to Gerald Ford Drive at the
midpoint of the property. At the west end there is an emergency
3
44±
STAFF REPORT
GPA 03-05, C/Z 03-04, TT 31363, PP/CUP 03-06 and DA 03-02
AUGUST 19, 2003
access. The northwest corner of the site wraps around a GTE
utility site. The northeast corner of the property is a large retention
basin which has been sized to accept water from this site and the
site to the west. The tract map shows the drainage connection
point on the west property line.
The site is served by a series of two-way, minimum 24-foot wide
driveways which provide access to the building complexes and
garage access. The Gateway driveway leads directly to the
recreation center where the roadway diverts north / south. From
this north / south street minor streets branch off to the east and
west. The two roads leading east from the main north / south road
cul-de-sac near Gateway. The two roads going west from the
north / south access road connecting in a loop which extends
along the west side of the property.
Upon entering an individual building complex, the driver enters a
parking courtyard area. The driveway leads to .at least one garage
parking space for each unit and at least four open visitor parking
spaces in the center.
The Fire Marshal in his comments has concern with some of the
dead-end areas. Appropriate modification can and will be made to
address these concerns.
2. Unit Summary:
The project includes three basic unit types. The 96 "A" units are
all one bedroom one bath and range in size from 827 square feet
to 857 square feet.
The 192 "6" units are all two bedroom units, some with one bath
and some with two baths. Units range in size from 1,100 square
feet to 1,218 square feet.
The 32 "C" units are all three bedroom two bath with 1,317
square feet.
4
STAFF REPORT
GPA 03-05, CIZ 03-04, TT 31363, PP/CUP 03-06 and DA 03-02
AUGUST 19, 2003
3. Parking:
The parking requirement for residential condominiums varies with
the number of bedrooms. Studio and one bedroom units are
required to have one covered space and one open space. Two
bedrooms and larger are required to have two covered spaces plus
one half open space per unit.
Based on 96 one bedroom units and 224 two bedroom or greater,
the required parking is 544 covered spaces plus 208 open spaces
for a total of 752 spaces.
The project provides 566 covered spaces and 208 open spaces for
a total of 774 spaces. The project complies with code.
4. Architecture and Building Height:
The two story buildings have been attractively designed in a
contemporary Mediterranean architecture. The structures feature
pitched roofs with flat concrete terre cotta colored tile. Walls will
be finished in varying shades of stucco accented with significant
stone veneer elements anchoring the base. The applicant has
provided quality architecture on all sides of the building and
provided articulation on all facets of the structures.
The units have been designed to provide nine -foot high ceilings
which when coupled with the 3 in 12 pitched roof results in
building heights which range from 23 feet to 27 feet.
The Planned Residential District allows two-story development
with a maximum height of 24 feet. The applicant will require an
exception to the height requirement as provided in the PR zone. In
the past the Planning Commission and City Council have granted
exceptions to the height limit in instances where there is no impact
to adjacent properties -and if the design of the buildings is
enhanced with the additional height.
5
STAFF REPORT
GPA 03-05, C/Z 03-04, TT 31363, PP/CUP 03-06 and DA 03-02
AUGUST 19, 2003
The City's Architectural Review Commission unanimously
approved the design of the multifamily residential units on July 8,
2003. The commission did not have an issue with the height of
the buildings.
5. Tentative Tract Map:
The proposed map is a single lot map for condominium purposes.
When recorded, the map will allow the individual units to be sold.
PROJECT DATA
CODE PROVIDED
Building Setbacks:
West as approved 10 ft. to carport
80 ft. to main building
South 20 feet 40 feet
East 20 feet 20 feet
North as approved 35 feet
Coverage 50% maximum 36%
Parking:
Covered 544 566
Open 208 208
Total 752 spaces 774 spaces
Height 24 feet 23 to 27 feet*
Minimum unit size:
1 Bedroom 600 square feet 827 - 857 square feet
2 Bedroom 800 square feet 1,100 - 1,218 square feet
3 Bedroom 1200 square feet 1,317 square feet
*Height exception being sought
III. ANALYSIS:
The plan before us is consistent with all land use alternatives considered by
GPAC for this site. Due to its locations between two future commercial -sites
(north and west) and at an intersection of an arterial street and a future
thoroughfare, high density residential has been deemed the appropriate land use.
6
LP-1
STAFF REPORT
GPA 03-05, CIZ 03-04, TT 31363, PP/CUP 03-06 and DA 03-02
AUGUST 19, 2003
The project as designed will result in an architecturally attractive residential
complex with a townhouse feel. Quality touches added to the project include
direct garage access for more than half the units, balconies and enhanced
paving in the auto courts.
As noted previously, the building architecture results in the. project needing an
exception for height.
In this instance there are no impacts to adjacent properties caused by the height
increase from 24 feet to 27 feet. The properties to the west and north are
zoned commercial and allow buildings with a maximum height of 30 feet. To the
south across Gerald Ford is Marriott's Shadow Ridge which includes three-story
structures to a height of 36 feet. Setbacks to the property to the east will result
in at least 140 feet of separation between structures.
The buildings utilize a pitched roof design with a 3/12 slope. A majority of the
multifamily projects that have complied with the 24-foot height limit have
utilized a flat roof design. Flat roof designs such as the City -owned one Quail
Place complex have caused maintenance problems in dealing with water runoff
and roof Teaks. By using a pitched roof, the buildings avoid problems with water
runoff, thus become easier to maintain.
The pitched roof elements provided for this project create a diversity in the roof
which improves the architecture. In addition, along the Gerald Ford frontage the
site will be lowered at least four (4) feet (per the grading plan) thereby reducing
the apparent building height back to the 23-24 foot range. Along Gateway Drive
the reverse will occur in that the grading plan shows the area immediately wet
of Gateway being raised two to three feet. Therefore, the apparent height of the
units along this new four -lane roadway will be raised accordingly.
In the last three major residential projects the City has granted a height
exception (i.e., Portofino, Hovley Gardens and the RDA project on Santa Rosa).
In these instances it was determined that the aesthetic improvement to the roof
design warranted an exception. Based on its architecture, this project warrants
similar consideration.
7
STAFF REPORT
GPA 03-05, C/2 03-04, TT 31363, PP/CUP 03-06 and DA 03-02
AUGUST 19, 2003
The design as proposed complies with all the code provisions except for height
(see previous discussion) and should provide needed moderately priced housing
stock. Through the development agreement (still in process) the developer will
be required to provide 20% of the units to moderate income households either
as rental units or for sale units.
At this point we are unable to complete the environmental review as it applies
to traffic because we are still awaiting the release of the traffic modeling plans
being conducted as part of the General Plan update. The traffic model is looking
at various levels of land use intensity and evaluating the traffic implications of
each. Until the traffic model is complete, we are unable to proceed further.
IV. RECOMMENDATION:
That Case Nos. GPA 03-05, C/Z 03-04, TT 31363, PP/CUP 03-06 and DA 03-
02 be continued to September 16, 2003.
V. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Legal notice
B. Comments from city departments and other agencies
C. Plans and exhibits
Prepared by:
Steve Smith
Planning Manager
Reviy - and Conoo
Horner Croy
ACM for Dev
Itm
pment Services
8
Revi - wand Approved by:
Phil Drell
Director of Community Development
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. DECEMBER 16, 2003
A. Case No. DA 03-02 - SARES REGIS GROUP, Applicant
Request for recommendation of approval to the
City Council of a development agreement as it
relates to a 320-unit residential
apartment/condominium project on a 25-acre site
on the north side of Gerald Ford Drive 636 feet
east of Monterey Avenue, 73-240 Gerald Ford
Drive, APN 653-260-029. Development
agreement includes, among other matters,
provisions for affordable housing units.
Mr. Drell clarified that technically it's not a Development Agreement, but a
Housing Agreement, as it doesn't include all the provisions that a
development agreement typically contains.
Commissioner Jonathan asked what 120% of median income for Riverside
County is at this time.
Mr. Drell replied that it is very similar to current market rents, but in the future,
it is anticipated that it would become a more significant restriction.
Action:
It was moved by Chairperson Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Jonathan, to approve the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-0.
It was moved by Chairperson Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Jonathan, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2240
recommending to City Council approval of Case No. DA 03-02. Motion
carried 3-0.
X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES
A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES (No meeting)
B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE (No meeting)
C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE (No meeting)
9
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2003
It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner,
Lopez, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2237, approving Case
No. CUP 03-20, subject to conditions contained therein, and that the City
take a proactive approach by meeting with the center's owner to develop a
parking management plan which benefits all tenants. Motion carried 5-0.
D. Case Nos. GPA 03-05, C/Z 03-04, TT 31363, PP/CUP 03-06 and DA
03-02 - SARES REGIS GROUP, Applicant
Request for approval of a Negative Declaration
of Environmental Impact as it relates to a
General Plan Amendment from Low Density
Residential (3-5 dwelling units per acre) to High
Density Residential (7-18 units per acre), a
Change of Zone from PR-5 (planned residential
five units per acre) to PR-13 (planned residential
13 units per acre), a Precise Plan / Conditional
Use Permit and Tentative Tract Map for
condominium purposes to construction 320
residential condominium units on a 25-acre site
on the north side of Gerald Ford Drive 636 feet
east of Monterey Avenue, 73-240 Gerald Ford
Drive, APN 653-260-029. Project includes a
height exception for roof elements 28 feet in
height and a Development Agreement which will
include, among other matters, provisions for
affordable housing units.
Mr. Smith reported that this project was before the Commission on August
19, 2003, and at that time the Commission provided considerable feedback
to the applicant. The Commission's concerns were generally related to the
lack of useful open space and recreation facilities, on -site traffic circulation
and project density. The applicant made modifications and the revised plans
were presented to the Commission on October 21, 2003. At that time, the
Commission was in the early stages of its discussions regarding the Draft
General Plan and chose not to receive the presentation and continued the
matter to a date uncertain. Public hearing notices were distributed for
consideration of the project at tonight's meeting. He indicated staff believes
that the revisions made for the October 21st meeting have addressed the
concerns expressed by the Commission on August 19th
14
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2003
Mr. Smith noted that the retention area has been relocated and consolidated
around the clubhouse facility, and this consolidation makes for a more
efficient use of the common open space. The proposed 24-foot wide
driveways are the same width as those at One Quail Place and San Tropez
Villas, which are both projects in the range of 22 units per acre, while the
subject project density is 13 units per acre. Staff advises against a wider
driveway width as it would most likely result in higher speeds and
compromised pedestrian safety. This project is part of the master plan which
includes a diversity of housing types designed to address the housing needs
generated by the adjacent commercial and educational uses.
Mr. Smith commented that the proposed project is consistent with the
recommended land use and circulation plans for the area. The proposed
architecture is attractive and received preliminary approval by the
Architectural Review Commission. The project design complies with
requirements for both a rental project and a condo project. At the
Commission's August 19th hearing the applicant indicated they would likely
rent this project for some period of time, possibly 10 years, and subsequently
convert it to condominiums. Given the surrounding land uses of commercial
to the north and west, the school to the northeast, Gateway Drive to the east
and the timeshare development to the south, staff found the density and the
project design are appropriate for the area.
Mr. Smith advised that the project was considered, for CEQA purposes, as
part of the General Plan Update and the El R prepared for it, and, therefore, a
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is appropriate.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if the tentative yet unapproved amended
General Plan land designation for this project would be high density, which
was confirmed by Mr. Smith.
Chairperson Campbell declared the public hearing open and asked the
applicant to address the Commission.
MR. MIKE WINTER of Sares Regis Group located at 18-825 Bardeen
Avenue in Irvine commented that the design team carefully
considered the input offered by the Commission on August 19th, and
since that time also conducted focus groups with citizens and
business leaders, along with university and college deans and staff,
and as a result of incorporating suggestions received from these
parties, the plan has been improved.
15
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING CQMMISSION
DECEMBER 2, 2003
MR. ED IREMAN, 18-825 Bardeen Avenue in Irvine, gave a brief
overview of the Sares Regis Group's background and experience. Mr.
Ireman noted that the Coachella Valley is one of the fastest growing
areas in the country, and the biggest challenge facing the area's labor
pool is adequate housing. He stated it is Sares Regis' intent to assist
in meeting the area's housing shortage.
Mr. Ireman recalled that the Commission previously expressed
concern about parking ratio, lack of pools, the density and overall
open space of the project and the width of drive aisles. The project's
parking ratio will be 2.42 spaces per unit, with one garage per unit,
50% of which will be direct access, and these parking amenities
exceed those provided by many other existing multi -family housing
projects in the area.
Mr. Ireman noted that the plans have been revised to expand the
number of pools, and the plan now has two pools and two spas with
16.4 square feet of water per unit. These amenities exceed those
provided by many other existing multi -family housing projects in the
area.
Mr. Ireman stated that the overall density of the proposed project is 13
units per acre, which is the lower end of the range for the high density
residential classification. The proposed 24-foot wide drive aisles are
narrower than many other existing multi -family housing projects in the
area, and as staff noted, the wider the streets, the faster the speeds,
which increases traffic and pedestrian accidents.
Mr. Ireman recalled that the Commission commented favorably on the
proposed architecture, which is a combination of Frank Lloyd Wright
meets Craftsman in the desert.
MR. SCOTT MONROE of Sares Regis Group at 18-825 Bardeen in
Irvine introduced himself as the Senior Vice President of the Multi -
Family Division, and stated he oversees the operations in Southern
California and has been in the business over 20 years. He anticipated
four full-time staff in the office from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., as well as
three to five maintenance/custodial staff in the field, seven days a
week. He noted the garages have extra depth to allow for storage
area.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if there will be rules and regulations which
restrict things such as inoperable vehicles parked on site or vehicle repair,
occupancy load, etc.
16
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2003
Mr. Monroe noted that the lease agreements include rules and
regulations which ensure high quality living standards, including a
guideline of two people per bedroom plus one, so two people could
reside in a one -bedroom unit, and the average occupancy Toad is 1.8
people per unit.
Chairperson Campbell noted that some, but not all, of the units have
courtyards.
MR. MIKE BOYD, 60 Corporate Park in Irvine, introduced himself as
the project architect, and remarked that many of the amenities
incorporated into these apartment homes are typically found only in
for -sale units. He pointed out that each unit has its own private open
space area, and 50% of the units have direct access garages.
Commissioner Jonathan commented favorably on the attractive architecture.
He suggested replacing the volleyball court area with a community garden or
outdoor basketball courts, since volleyball isn't very popular in this area.
Commissioner Finerty asked if each unit will be equipped with washers and
dryers.
Mr. Boyd replied that each unit will have its own side by side laundry.
Chairperson Campbell asked for an estimate of the average lease rates.
Mr. Monroe replied that the average lease rates will start at $950 for
one -bedroom units, and the average lease rate is $1211, while a
three -bedroom lease rate starts at $1460.
Commissioner Finerty asked how many units will be set aside for affordable
housing.
Mr. Monroe replied that 20% of the units will be set aside for
affordable housing, which is a total of 64 units of the 320-unit project,
and the 64 units will be evenly dispersed throughout the project.
Commissioner Lopez asked how the landscape maintenance will be handled
if and when the project converts to for -sale units.
17
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2003
Mr. Monroe explain that when the units are converted to for -sale units,
a homeowner's association will be established, which will contract for
landscape maintenance.
Chairperson Campbell stated that the public hearing was still open and asked
if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no
response and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Finerty appreciated that the design team carefully considered
the Commission's comments and made revisions which resulted in a better
project. Although she was not thrilled with the density, she realized it could
be even higher. She commented favorably on the architecture and believed
the project will enhance the community.
Commissioner Jonathan concurred with Commissioner Finerty and believed
that this project will help meet the community's housing needs.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if a Development Agreement has been
prepared.
Mr. Drell replied that the Development Agreement is still under review by the
City Attorney and recommended that the Commission continue approval of
Development Agreement 03-02 to the December 16, 2003 meeting, and the
entire project, including the Development Agreement, will be forwarded to the
City Council for consideration in January 2004.
Commissioner Lopez commented favorably on the project and commended
the applicant for making revisions which addressed the Commission's
concerns.
Chairperson Campbell echoed Commissioner Lopez's remarks and indicated
she is especially pleased with the architecture.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner
Lopez, to approve the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0.
It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner
Lopez, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2238, recommending
to City Council approval of Case Nos. GPA 03-05, C/Z 03-04, TT 31363,
PP/CUP 03-06, subject to conditions, and to continue DA 03-02 to December
16, 2003. Motion carried 5-0.
IX. MISCELLANEOUS
18
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
AUGUST 19, 2003
D. Case Nos. GPA 03-05, CIZ 03-04, TT 31363, PP/CUP 03-06 and DA 03-
02 — SARES REGIS GROUP, Applicant
Request for approval of a negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact as it relates to a General Plan
Amendment from Low Density Residential (3-5
dwelling units per acre) to High Density Residential
(7-18 units per acre), a Change of Zone from PR-5
(planned residential five units per acre) to PR-13
(planned residential 13 units per acre), a Precise
Plan/Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Tract Map
for condominium purposes to construction of 320
residential condominium units on a 25-acre site on the
north side of Gerald Ford Drive 636 feet east of
Monterey Avenue, 73-240 Gerald Ford Drive, APN
653-260-029. Project includes a height exception for
roof elements 28 feet in height and a Development
Agreement which will include, among other matters,
provisions for affordable housing units.
Mr. Drell explained this is one of the cases that will have relevance to the
General Plan discussion. While there a few technical details that are still
outstanding on this project, staff felt it would be a good idea to get the
main introduction out of the way before the General Plan discussion. If
the Commission had questions or comments in the intervening weeks,
they can be addressed when the issue comes back. This is an
introduction to the project with 95% of the kinks worked out. By the time,
the issue retums it can be talked about in the General Plan context.
Mr. Smith pointed out where the project was to be sited as explained
above, noting future Gateway Drive along the eastern border of the
property. The property elevation drops from Gerald Ford Drive at the
north some 25 feet. The project is for 320 residence condominium units.
The application has been submitted in anticipation of land use changes
contemplated in the General Plan update. It is consistent with the plan as
recommended by the General Plan Advisory Committee. The General
Plan amendment proposal is from low -density residential (3-5 units/acre)
to high -density residential (7-18 units/acre), thereby increasing the
maximum density from 125 units to some 450 units. The applicant is
proposing 320 units. Similar with the zone change, going from PR-5 to
PR-13, increasing the maximum number of units to 325, the applicant is
proposing 320. The project is within the moratorium area which was
enacted to preserve the opportunity to implement the land use policies
which will come out of the General Plan update. The land use plan
recommended by GPAC for this site is residential 10-22 units per acre.
Provisions in the moratorium allow for the processing of this type of
W1gailsantee\pcminutes081903 19
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
AUGUST 19, 2003
applications where they are consistent with the provisions of the General
Plan update. This project is consistent with the 10-22 range and also
provides for the extension of Gateway Drive north to 35th Avenue, which is
part of the Wal-Mart/Sam's Club proposal.
The project entails a series of ten residential buildings containing twenty or
forty units each plus a recreation center building. The project takes its
main access from the future Gateway Drive at approximately midpoint in
the lot. A secondary access from Gerald Ford Drive will be located at the
center of the property, restricted to right -in, right -out only. Also on Gerald
Ford, there will be an emergency access only at the west limit of the
property. The project at the north end wraps around an existing GDE site.
The applicant has placed a retention basin at the northeast corner of the
site.
The units in the project range from 1 bedroom/1 bath at 827 square feet; 2
bedroom/1 bath, 2 bedroom/2 bath units in the range of 1100 to 1218
square feet; and 3 bedroom/2 bath units at over 1300 square feet.
The proposed plan provides for an adequate number of parking to meet
code. In the condominium code, the parking is based on the number of
bedrooms. The total required is 752, the plan provides for 774. The
required total of covered spaces is 544, the plan provides for 566.
The units are designed for 9-foot high ceilings which when coupled with
the 3-and-12 roof pitch result in building heights which range from 23 —27
feet. The 27-foot height requires an exemption to the code limit which is
24 feet. In the past, Commission and Council have granted exceptions to
the height limit in instances where there is no impact on adjacent
properties and if the design of the buildings is enhanced by the additional
height. The buildings are two-story, contemporary Mediterranean
architecture, pitched roofs, flat concrete terracotta roof tile. The ARC
unanimously approved the design of the buildings at its July 8th meeting.
It did not have an issue with the height of the structures. Staff feels there
will be no impact on the adjacent properties as the commercial sites on
the west and north will allow heights up to 30 feet. Marriott's Shadow
Ridge is on the south side which is 3 stories, 36 feet. The property to the
east is World Development's tract where the distance between buildings is
going to be at least 140 feet. Projects that have complied with the height
limit are typically flat roofed structures. The success of flat roofs relative
to drainage and rain problems are well-known. Staff encourages people
to use pitched roofs.
When viewed from Gerald Ford, the units will appear approximately 4 feet
lower in that the site elevation drops going north from Gerald Ford.
Unfortunately, off of Gateway Drive, the site will rise. In several recent
WWgailsantee\pcminutes081903 20
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
AUGUST 19, 2003
projects which have been approved, height exceptions have been granted,
i.e., Portofino, Hovley Gardens, and the RDA project on Santa Rosa.
Based on this architecture, staff feels the height exception is warranted.
The plan is consistent with the land use alternatives considered by GPAC.
The property is located adjacent to two future commercial sites on the
west and north boundaries. It is on an arterial street and a future
thoroughfare (Gateway Drive) which will be the alternate route to
Monterey.
The project is architecturally attractive. It provides a townhouse feel.
Every unit will have a garage; more than 50% of them will have direct
access from the garage into the unit. The project includes balconies and
enhanced paving in the auto courts. Each of the clusters from one of the
main driveways, the residents will enter through the buildings, the units
have their own garages underneath, there is also open parking (4-6
spaces) within the auto court.
There will be a Homeowners Association with CC&R's.
Mr. Drell explained the applicant would be building the units to
condominium standards. The initial intent of the developer will be to
market the units as apartments, but over time, it could convert to
ownership. The CC&R's would not be implemented until there was
ownership.
Mr. Smith stated the design as proposed complies with all the code
provisions except for height. Staff feels it will provide some needed
moderately priced housing stock in the community. There will be a
development agreement in which the applicant will be required to provide
20% of the units to moderate income households either as rental or for -
sale units. As part of the General Plan update, there is a traffic modeling
study being done assessing traffic impacts on various levels of intensity.
That modeling has not been completed, hence the need to continue to the
matter. Staff requests continuance to the September 16th meeting.
Chairperson Campbell asked if all the units would be on top of the
garages.
Mr. Smith responded that some of them will be. Mr. Drell explained
the units that face the exterior of the module will have a first floor on
the street level.
Commissioner Lopez noted the site is served by a series of two-way
minimum 24-foot wide driveways and asked what the typical width of a
residential street was.
1Mgailsantee\pcminutes081903 21
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
AUGUST 19, 2003
Mr. Smith responded in an R-1 district, 36 feet curb to curb. Mr.
Drell added that 24 feet is the standard for two ways of traffic
without parking. In this case, there are areas that are 24 feet wide
with no parking. There are other areas with parking that are wider.
Commissioner Lopez asked if there were going to be curbs, gutters,
and/or sidewalks.
Mr. Drell responded the goal would be to try to make these look like
streets and Tess like buildings surrounded by parking lots, similar to
what was done at Hovley Gardens. There is a circulation system,
similar to driving into One Quail Place or San Tropez, that surround
the property that is essentially a parking lot with the access aisles
are 24 feet. This design is to try to make them not look like a
parking lot, make them look like a street with fronts of buildings on
them, with what looks like front doors on the street. In certain
areas, there is parallel parking in which the streets are wider.
Areas that don't have parallel parking are narrower and meet the
standard of a two-way access.
Chairperson Campbell asked if the community would be gated.
Mr. Smith responded it was not shown at this point. Mr. Drell
added it was not the applicant's intention. The fact that there is a
very long entrance drive makes it relatively easy to gate in the
future. But the intent is not to gate or to have fences around it. The
goal and the design was to make it look like buildings with front
yards to the street like you would normally have in a residential
neighborhood. The architecture is designed to face as much
outward as it is inward.
There will be 8-foot sidewalks on Gerald Ford, 6-foot sidewalks on
Gateway Drive with curbside landscaping. Gateway is going to be
designed with a center median, two lanes of traffic, and
combination bike/golf cart lane. There will not be parking on
Gateway.
Commissioner Tschopp asked if the right -in, right -out on Gerald Ford
would work as the Marriott Shadow Ridge is right across the street. He
was concerned about the need for a future traffic light if the right -in, right -
out doesn't work on Gerald Ford.
Mr. Drell explained there was a median that would ensure that the
only option would be a right -in, right -out. The goal would be to
have eastbound traffic use the Gateway Drive which will have a
traffic signal. This would be similar to San Tropez Villas with 512
units which received signalized access because of its relationship
VNgailsantee\pcminutes081903 22
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
AUGUST 19, 2003
across the street from Sun Crest. This is a smaller project. People
who want to go to Monterey can make a right turn to Monterey. If
they want to make a left turn to Portola, they go out the Gateway
exit which will have a signal.
Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant
to address the Commission.
Mike Weiner, Vice President, Sares Regis Group, 18825 Bardeen
Avenue, Irvine, CA, introduced himself and others to answer
questions. He emphasized that their focus was first-class, high -
quality, luxury residential housing targeted to meet the demands of
the markets they build in. They design and build their projects to fit
the particular market and community, instead of trying to adapt
something that worked in other communities.
Commissioner Finerty asked at what point did the applicant anticipate the
units would be sold as condominiums.
Mr. Weiner responded the initial plan is to rent the units as
apartments. Part of it depends on the market and demand.
Because of the liability issues involved with condominium
developments, they would usually hold them for ten years.
However, if the market would demand a for -sale project, they would
evaluate doing a conversion sooner.
The Sares Regis Group has built over 18,000 homes and currently
own and manage about 12,000 apartments. They have a project in
San Diego/Mission Valley, called River Colony, which is 300 units.
They anticipated the absorption and the sell -out to take two years.
It was sold out in one year. They are in the process of converting
another development in Huntington Beach where they are
anticipating a quicker absorption. Their preference is that the
renters end up buying the units. They give the renters the option of
buying the unit they are living in or buying one of the other units in
the development.
Commissioner Lopez asked if the renters were aware that some day this
may turn into a condominium association.
Mr. Weiner stated he believed the disclosure documents that could
be a possibility. There is a legal time limit in which you are to notify
residents of a potential conversion. The residents would be notified
as soon as a conversion plan was being put together.
Chairperson Campbell asked if the other two projects did well because
they were in a beach area compared to a desert area.
Wlgailsantee\pcminutes081903 23
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
AUGUST 19, 2003
Mr. Weiner responded that the San Diego project is inland. Based
on his understanding of the Coachella Valley's housing market, he
felt a condominium project would be very successful.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if the unit dusters design had the
stairwells on the outside.
Mr. Weiner explained there were stairwells on the outside and the
inside. A little more than half of the units have direct access from
the garages into the units. Some of the first -floor units have direct
access from the garage, if the units are on the second floor, there is
an interior stairwell from the garage to the unit. They have not had
an issue of the exterior stairwells being visible from outside. The
projects that have been converted to condominiums do have
exterior stairwells.
Commissioner Jonathan noted the use of the interior auto court was
unusual and asked if this design had been utilized elsewhere.
Mr. Weiner stated they had used the concept in several other
projects. Part of the reason for this design was in attempt to build a
more home -town home feel by eliminating most of the exterior
garage doors and eliminating most of the cars from the street. It
has been a successful design.
Commissioner Jonathan asked about the public facilities.
Mr. Weiner explained there were two swimming pools, a tot lot,
putting green, the community building, a separate fitness center,
and the retention basin will be used for a couple volleyball courts.
In the clubhouse, there is a multi -purpose room, a common
barbecue area which will serve both pool areas.
Ed Eyerman, Director of Business Development, Sares Regis
Group, 18825 Bardeen Avenue, Irvine, CA, stated they could not
establish the number of people living within the complex. The
maximum number would be based on the number of bedrooms,
therefore ranging from 320 to as high to about a 1,000 depending
on the unit mix. They anticipating averaging about 2-3 people per
apartment. In the 3-bedroom units, the standard would be 2 people
per bedroom plus one, therefore a maximum of 7 people in a 3
bedroom.
Assuming 1,000 residents, Mr. Eyerman stated two pools would be
enough. By dividing it into two pools, adults will tend to use one
pool while families and children will use the other. They are not
VV\gailsantee\pcminutes081903 24
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
AUGUST 19, 2003
designated to do that, but by having two pool areas, they are
accommodated. The pool sizes haven't been determined yet, but
could be addressed at the next meeting.
Mr. Drell stated this development is part of a neighborhood which
extends to Portola which will have a 10-acre neighborhood park in
the middle of it. Part of the recreational amenities will be served by
the park. It is not assumed that all of the recreational needs of the
population will be served by this property.
Chairperson Campbell asked for comments in FAVOR or OPPOSITION of
this application. There were none and the public hearing remained open.
Commissioner Jonathan noted a great deal of work has been put into this
and remains to be done. Hoping the applicant was seeking some
feedback from the Commission, he proceeded to share his concerns.
These concerns are not meant to be negative, the architecture is very
attractive and it has a nice feel to it.
1. Density: There are great number of people into a small area. This
isn't always bad, and may be necessary from a land and City planning
standpoint. It makes its presence felt in traffic circulation, whether the
streets are wide enough. He feels the complex having elderly people,
families with young kids and teenagers, the full gamut. They will be
driving cars, riding bikes, using skateboards, running, walking, etc. The
24-foot streets and the circulation within the project may be an issue.
Ingress and egress out of this complex is a huge issue due to the number
of daytrips required for residents, landscapers, utilities, etc. Two points
may not be enough, but the traffic study may tell us more.
2. The recreational facilities look to be grossly inadequate. This is the
desert, there is no beach nearby. People expect to be able to jump into a
pool in August and 110 degrees.
3. Being familiar with the San Diego/Mission Valley area, he noted
most of the developments are very open with large trees. This doesn't
look open, it looks claustrophobic with a lot of buildings with very little
open space. While understanding the need for economy and lower -cost
residential alternatives, he would prefer having more openness.
4. He imagines seeing cars being worked on in the interior auto
courts, turning them into a mini -garage. He would prefer seeing a pool,
tennis court(s), or greenbelt inside each of the courts.
Commissioner Finerty stated she liked the architecture, but shares
Commissioner Jonathan's concerns with regard to the recreational
facilities. She also preferred greenbelts and an open feeling. She
\Mgailsantee\pcminutes081903 25
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
AUGUST 19, 2003
calculated that there could be up to 1,184 people. This would be way too
congested. She also felt it was premature because there are varying
options on the General Plan and what these areas need to look like. There
have not been public hearings before the Commission for the General
Plan. Community input is important about which direction the City takes.
Having come from Orange County, the last thing she wants to see is Palm
Desert turning into another Orange County where everyone is packed in
together. That's what this project reminds her of. She encouraged the
applicant to lessen the number of units by increasing the open space.
Commissioner Tschopp agreed the architecture was beautiful. He likes
the idea of having the garages concealed, thereby allowing people to look
out at something more appealing than someone else's garage door. He
has seen the concept used successfully before. The neighbors will police
their courtyards. The recreation facilities may be inadequate. The density
seems a little high, but that isn't necessarily bad. With some of the plans
taking place in the north sphere, it may be necessary. Having not yet
seen the General Plan, he wasn't sure it was appropriate at this site. It is
a very nice project and it would fit down here.
Commissioner Lopez likes the project, but density could be a problem.
Having spent time at Shadow Ridge with 90% occupancy, common areas
are very important for those individuals. They have had to build huge
pools. He is concerned about the ability to accommodate the residents.
Architecturally, it is beautiful and an attractive project. The motor courts
are interesting. He does have concerns about the amount of traffic that
will circulate within the area along with the number of people who will be
moving around during certain parts of the day.
Chairperson Campbell stated the project and the architecture was nicely
done and had eye appeal. Her concern was the parking for the 3-
bedroom units, citing an example of a family having three teenagers each
with their own car and only a 2-car garage. That left three cars out on the
street. There may not be enough parking for the 3-bedroom units. She
also expressed concern about not enough open space or pools. There is
only one tot lot. This development may need more. The closeness within
each cluster could cause problems between neighbors, i.e., young
children mixed with childless adults or elderly persons who are not
interested in sharing that experience.
Commissioner Finerty was a little perplexed as to why this item was going
to be scheduled on the same agenda as the General Plan. It would seem
better to place it in October.
W\gailsantee\pcminutes081903 26
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
AUGUST 19, 2003
Mr. Drell responded that during the
they would be considering the land
discussing whether it is appropriate
Commissioner Finerty stated there were
have to be considered and to single this
other areas is premature.
discussion of the General Plan,
use of this particular parcel and
to be high density.
a whole bunch of parcels that
one out before addressing the
Mr. Drell stated this parcel was not being singling out. One of the
issues brought to staff when the moratorium was put in place, there
was a complaint that the City would hold up the processing of these
projects in this area because of the General Plan. Would there be
some way not to burden these properties so much just because
they are involved in this General Plan discussion. A solution is for
those properties where there is an immediate interest in
development, that could become a priority relative to at least
looking at it in the context of the General Plan. The Commission
might determine it is not ready to make that decision.
Commissioner Finerty continued she didn't know how long Sares Regis
had owned this property, but she felt that delaying it for one month from
September 16 to the second meeting in October would not make that
much difference.
Chairperson Campbell stated two other items had been continued to
September 21 st, World Development and Centennial Homes. A third item
might be too many.
Commissioner Finerty stated the General Plan had to be well thought out.
The Commission needs to have adequate discussion.
Commissioner Jonathan agreed, for the same reasons the World
Development project had been continued. He needs to hear discussion
about the General Plan before he can comment on the concept of
changing the zoning from PR-5 to PR-13. If the General Plan discussion
leads in a different direction, a change of zone would be inappropriate. If
the discussion indicates this is an appropriate area for high density, lower -
cost alternatives, then he would look at the change of zone in a different
Tight. While it is helpful to have had this presentation prior to discussing
the General Plan, this matter needs to be continued to the second meeting
in October.
Action:
Commissioner Finerty moved, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, to
continue the item to October 21, 2003. Motion carried 5-0.
W1gailsantee1pcminutes081903 27
0 C..) C,)000C>00 @CD 0
NVld 311.3
ORD VIOIDAT,1102110 1.4,41
WSW VLIC/On, i•
viloinvD 3111 /V
S41V1NflOJ
11. eNIAll 3:110G9I 101
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
JULY 8, 2003
MINUTES
Stop signs will probably be put in certain places, but they should try to
reduce the speed of cars traveling through the shopping area. He
wasn't sure why the sidewalks come to the street curb. Mr. Drell stated
that this is a next to a highway where people are driving 60 mph. There
won't be any parking on this street so what would be the purpose of the
sidewalks coming to the curb? Mr. Evans stated that they just used it
as a design element at this point. Mr. Drell commented that he would
rather see it not meandering and have a consistent sidewalk. Ms.
Hollinger commented that the Public Works Department likes
meandering sidewalks. Mr. Drell stated that Public Works is not
designing this project. Meandering sidewalks probably make more
sense in a residential project. Mr. Evans wondered if they should even
have sidewalks on Cook Street in certain places because they want the
customer to walk through the project as opposed to along the street.
Commissioner Oppenheim commented that she sees a lot of parking
and a lot of office buildings. It's an exciting project but she's not
convinced that the "village feel" is there yet. It looks flat.
Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner
Lopez granted preliminary approval of master plan subject to (1)
reconsider location and/or design of fast food restaurant on pad #3, (2)
increase parking lot shading, per City requirements, (3) submit roof
plans, (4) show parapet cornice and cap flashing details (no exposed
sheet metal), (5) submit more detailed landscape plan, per City
requirements, (6) sign locations need to be identified on elevations, (7)
show how pedestrian landscape spine through parking lot connects to
future office park, (8) show monument sign locations, bus stops and
trash enclosures, and (9) response to comments should be submitted
for review prior to preparation of working drawings. Motion carried 4-0-
0-3 with Commissioners O'Donnell, Hanson and Van Vliet absent.
2. CASE NO.: PP 03-06
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SARES-REGIS GROUP, GREG
ALBERT, 18825 Bardeen Avenue, Irvine, CA 92612
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval
of architecture for a 320-unit apartment complex.
LOCATION: East of Monterey, north side of Gerald Ford
ZONE: PR-5
G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030708.MIN . 18
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
JULY 8, 2003
MINUTES
Mr. Drell stated that the property is near the new Gateway project. The
purpose of the university plan is to provide a mixture of housing from
apartments, townhouses, small lot single family, large lot single family
and high density apartments. This project fits into the low end of the
high density apartments. This is more of a hybrid apartment townhouse
concept. He asked the applicant if he has a building coverage
calculation. The applicant stated that he doesn't have that number. Mr.
Drell stated that the standard building coverage for this zone is 50%.
There was some thought that the proposed coverage looks like it's
above that amount. The units are relatively large ranging from 900-
1,300 square feet. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the buildings are
double loaded because they look awfully thick. Mr. Drell stated that
there are issues with roof height as well.
Mike Boyd, architect/planner, stated that he has been working on this
project for over a year. He stated that there are direct access garages
for about half of the units. There is some surface parking on an island
within the auto court. The objective to begin with was to create four-
sided architecture, but it's really more like six to eight -sided
architecture. They've really articulated every facet of the building.
When they first started meeting with Mr. Drell over a year ago, they
wanted to create an architecture that was really going to give them off
site views with a nice street scene on Gerald Ford and the new
proposed Gateway Street. At the same time, they wanted to de-
emphasize the garages. There are two basic building types. One is a
40-plex and the other one is a 20-plex. They used these two building
types to maximize the geometry of the site. Overall, there are 320
units. They've oriented the auto courts so that you're seeing very nicely
articulated architecture. They wanted to create a townhome feel to
these apartments and not make them feel like they're a bunch of
stacked flats. They all have very unique entries. The ground floor
enters on one orientation and the second floor enters on a second story
corridor from a different orientation giving them the feeling of almost
being two-story townhomes instead of stacked flat units. The main
entrance to the project is located off Gateway and leads to the common
area which has a clubhouse, leasing center and pools. There are some
remote garages for additional parking. The apartments have 9' ceilings,
balconies and nice outdoor spaces. They've created pedestrian courts
within the building itself. Every unit has access to, some sort of open
space. They want to use deep overhangs to maximize shade and to
add shadow lines. The exterior materials include stucco and stone.
They've used a lot of parallel street parking to slow the pace of the cars
down and make it more pedestrian friendly. There will be enhanced
paving within the auto courts to break up the hard surface.
G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin1AR030708.MIN. 19
•
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
JULY 8, 2003
MINUTES
Commissioner Vuksic commented that the plans are really neat. He's
never seen plans for single car garages with no corridor and people can
just go up stairs into their units. Mr. Boyd stated that he wanted to
create a lot variation where the building meets the sky and has used a
combination of flat parapet areas so that they can use flat roof areas to
hide the a/c condensers. They won't have any condensers on the
ground. There will be some areas on the roof for the condensers and
they have popped up elements with full hipped roofs. The height to the
lower parapets is 22' and the tower elements are 30'. Mr. Drell stated
that the applicant is going to be asking for a height exception. Mr. Boyd
commented that there is a 4:12 roof pitch so that from the ground level
you're not going to feel the full height of the ridge. It's going to be
setback pretty far.
Commissioner Vuksic asked where the ceiling is in relation to the
window. Mr. Boyd stated that the ceiling is at a 9' plate. They have 7'8"
headers. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they have very little parapet
and wondered how they plan to conceal mechanical equipment on the
roof. Mr. Boyd stated that they will do sections and see if that has to
adjust a bit. Condensers for units of this size won't be any higher than
2'/z' high. Mr. Drell asked if they could use the higher elements to
shield the equipments. Mr. Boyd stated that they haven't worked out
the roof plan completely yet. Their goal is to hide the equipment
completely. Mr. Drell stated that this is a requirement. Commissioner
Vuksic stated that the elevation that they're showing will not provide for
that. Mr. Boyd stated that the units are actually 18" in height. Mr. Drell
stated that at Hacienda Monterey, they built screens in front of the
condenser units on the street side that look like chimneys.
Commissioner Vuksic commented that the architecture is very nice. He
really likes it. Commissioner Gregory stated that this is a dense project
and he's looking at ways to make it Tess dense feeling. He's wondering
if having dual sidewalks along the main spine is necessary. From a
landscape perspective, he would like to get more landscape in. He
wanted to know if they need sidewalks on both sides of the street. Mr.
Drell commented that they do need both sidewalks because people are
going to be walking down that street to the recreation area. Streets
need sidewalks. Commissioner Gregory asked if there will be
enhanced paving in the auto courts. Mr. Boyd stated that there will be
several softly blended types of enhanced paving throughout. They
weren't sure if there was going to be asphalt in the auto courts.
Rich Cremwoody, landscape architect, stated that he's been challenged
with tying in the craftsman -style architecture with Palm Desert -
Coachella Valley landscaping. One thing that came to mind was the
California soaring area at California Adventure theme park. They've
G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030708.MIN . 20
• •
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
JULY 8, 2003
MINUTES
integrated the desert landscaping and craftsman architecture with dry
stream beds, boulders, palo verde trees and mesquite trees. This has
been their inspiration. The sidewalk is meandering along the main
driveway with a dry stream bed element with boulders running up both
sides. The sidewalk terminates at the recreation center with a free -form
pool landscaped with fan palms. They are carrying the loose,
meandering feeling into the auto courts with enhanced paving with
some asphalt. Mr. Drell stated that it can't be black asphalt. It has to
be a Tight color, otherwise it'll be like an oven. Commissioner Gregory
stated that they shouldn't use colored asphalt. He's been involved in a
few attempts in this desert area and it really doesn't do well. The area
in the motor court is small enough that they could use colored concrete.
Is anything being done to make the additional parking area more
attractive? Mr. Boyd stated that there will be hipped roofs on the
garages with landscaped pockets at both ends to soften them.
Commissioner Gregory asked if this is a utility -type area or if some
clever thoughts they've used elsewhere, within reason, might be
considered in these areas? This is high density and a lot of units look
down on these areas. Mr. Boyd stated that they are all enclosed
garages and there are no carports. Commissioner Gregory commented
that the garages are pretty long and asked if there are breaks between
doors where they could have planters with vines growing on them to
help break it up. He also asked if there was sufficient room somewhere
to add trees, other than verticals, such as canopy trees. Mr.
Cremwoody stated that he could possibly add canopy trees at the ends
of the garages.
Commissioner Vuksic asked how"they intend to get up onto the roofs.
Mr. Boyd stated that there will be some sort of a ladder system with a
metal enclosure around it so that the general public can't climb the
ladder. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the ladder was going to be stuck
on with rungs that go up and over the roofs. It doesn't sound very
good. Mr. Boyd stated that they will put them in inconspicuous places.
Mr. Drell suggested that the applicant put the ladders on the plans and
show the commission the exact locations.
Commissioner Lopez asked if the applicant can incorporate the trash
enclosures into the architecture so that it doesn't look like an after
thought. Mr. Boyd stated that he talked to the disposal company and
they've designed an enclosure that has the screening that they want to
see. Commissioner Lopez stated that they can probably do better than
the disposal company's minimum requirements. He also noticed some
thorny trees, possibly palo verdes, in an area where there may be kids.
He suggested using thornless palo verde trees. On the site plan, there
isn't a good place to park near the leasing office. If someone has a
party in the clubhouse, where are the guests going to park? They
G:Planning\Oonna Quaivertwpdocs‘Agmin\AR030708.MIN 21
•
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
JULY 8, 2003
MINUTES
should provide parking areas that are easy to get in and out of. Mr.
Boyd stated that rather than condense a parking area so that it
becomes something that you don't want to see when you come into the
project, they created parallel spots along the main street for parking.
Commissioner Lopez commented that he doesn't have a good feeling
about that idea. There are only 4-5 spots close to the leasing
office/clubhouse and feels that they will need more.
Diane Hollinger commented that she didn't have sufficient landscape
plans for this project. Mr. Drell stated that the applicant will have to go
through a first rough -cut of the water calculations. Commissioner
Lopez suggested that they do a vignette instead of doing the whole
project to make sure that they're heading in the right direction. Ms.
Hollinger stated that she would prefer full plans. Commissioner
Gregory stated that the general approach for the landscaping looks
good but they have some very serious work to do as far as coming up
with a layout and seeing out the water calculations work. Mr. Drell
stated that the less area of landscaping you have, the harder it is to
meet the calcs. Before they go to working drawings, the applicant
needs to come back with a more detailed plan with the water
calculations on it so we know where they stand.
Action: Commissioner Gregory moved, seconded by Commissioner
Oppenheim for preliminary approval with the understanding that the
questions identified in the minutes will be addressed before submittal of
working drawings. Motion carried 4-0-0-3 with Commissioners
O'Donnell, Hanson and Van Vliet absent.
3. CASE NO.: MISC 03-22
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MCA ARCHITECTS, INC., 1247
Pomona Road, #105, Corona, CA 92882
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Remodel of existing
House to Home to future retail and office/storage.
LOCATION: 72-700 Dinah Shore Drive, House to Home
ZONE: PC
Mr. Bagato stated that this item will have to go to the City Council
because there is a tower element that exceeds the 35' height limit. The
proposed colors are similar to the colors at Staples. He's
recommending a different color for the base. Mr. Drell stated that this
could be the same problem that we ran into when we tried to fiddle with
G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin1AR030708.MIN 22
-70
rITY Of Pfll[fl OESEnT
, ;-5 ro FRED WARING DRIVF
PALM DESERT, CAL:FORNIA 9226C-25-'8
TEL' 760 346—o61 1
FAX 76c 34I-7'98
n'a^rsln•desc, org
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NOS. C/Z 03-04, PP/CUP 03-06, TT 31363 AND DA 03-02
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning
Commission to consider a request by SARES REGIS GROUP for approval of a Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates to a Change of Zone from PR-5 (planned
residential five units per acre) to PR-13 (planned residential 13 units per acre), a Precise Plan
/ Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Tract Map for condominium purposes to construct
320 residential condominium units on a 25-acre site on the north side of Gerald Ford Drive
636 feet east of Monterey Avenue, 73-240 Gerald Ford Drive, APN 653-260-029. Project
includes a height exception for tower elements 30 feet in height and a Development
Agreement which will include among other matters provisions for affordable housing units.
►�-1111
u
►.mug �nia
SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, December 2, 2003, at 6:00 p.m. in the
Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert,
California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard.
Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be
accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or
negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development
at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in
written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public
hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
November 22, 2003 Palm Desert Planning Commission
CITY Of PHA DESERT
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 760 346-061 I
FAX: 76o 341-7098
info fa palm-deserr.org
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NOS. CIZ 03-04, PP/CUP 03-06, TT 31363 AND DA 03-02
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City
Council to consider a request by SARES REGIS GROUP for approval of a Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates to a Change of Zone from PR-5 (Planned
Residential 5 units per acre) to PR 13 (Planned Residential 13 units per acre), a Precise Plan /
Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Tract Map for condominium purposes to construct 320
residential condominium units on a 25-acre site on the north side of Gerald Ford Drive, 636 feet
east of Monterey Avenue, 73-240 Gerald Ford Drive, APN 653-260-029. Project includes a
height exception for tower elements 30 feet in height and a Development Agreement, which will
include among other matters provisions for affordable housing units.
SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, April 8, 2004, at 4:00 p.m. in the Council
Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California,
at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written
comments conceming all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to
the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative
declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above
address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge
the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone
else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered
to the Planning Commission (or city council) at, or prior to, the public hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun
March 28, 2004
RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk
Palm Desert City Council