HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrd 1070 C/Z 03-013, DA 04-02 - American Realty Trust, Desert Wells 237, & RBF ConsultingREQUEST:
CITY OF PALM DES
DATE
CON n tuEO TO
PASSED TO 2ND READING
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY GCVCLOPMCNY
* Continued cases to the meeting of
STAFF REPORT July 8, 2004, which will be preceded that
day by a Study Session on the matter
at 12:30 p.m. 5-0
Consideration of approval of a change of zone from PR-5 (planned
residential, five dwelling units per acre) to PCD (planned
community development), a development agreement to supersede
the existing Wonder Palms Development Plan to expand Planning
Area No. 5, a master plan of development for the new Planning
Area No. 5, and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact
as it pertains thereto. Property is generally located south of Gerald
Ford Drive between Portola Avenue and Cook Street, 37-500 Cook
Street.
SUBMITTED BY: Steve Smith, Planning Manager
APPLICANT: Dan Allred Desert Wells 237, LLC
American Realty Trust By Palm Desert 124, Inc.
One Hickory Centre 5005 Calle San Raphael
1800 Valley View Lane, Suite 300 Palm Springs, CA 92262
Dallas, TX 75234
RBF Consulting
74-410 Highway 111
Palm Desert, CA 92260
CASE NOS: C/Z 03-013 and DA 04-02
DATE: June 10, 2004
CONTENTS:
Recommendation
Executive Summary
Discussion
Draft Ordinance No. 1070
Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 20 and May 4, 2004
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2269
Planning Commission Minutes from April 20, May 4 and May 18, 2004
Staff Report
Case Nos. CIZ 03-13 and DA 04-02
Page 2
June 10, 2004
Recommendation:
That the City Council waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 1070
to second reading relating to CIZ 03-13 and DA 04-02.
Executive Summary:
Consistent with the recent general plan update land use plan for the
University Park area, the applicant has proposed this change of zone and a
development plan for the area bounded by Cook Street on the east, Gerald
Ford on the north and Portola on the west. The University Park Land Use
Plan is based on traditional neighborhood design planning principles,
emphasizing connectivity between neighborhoods with a mixture of
housing products, retail, commercial, office, and parks through a modified
grid street system and a series of bikeways and pedestrian paths. The
plan provides development standards for low, medium and high density
residential (including the specific high density overlay criteria identified in the
General Plan), commercial/office professional, mixed use and open space
districts.
The Planning Commission over the course of three meetings reviewed the
requested change of zone and development plan with particular attention
paid to the modified development standards. The commission on a 4-1 vote,
with Commissioner Finerty voting nay, recommended approval of the
development plan. The plan as recommended by Planning Commission is
generally consistent with current provisions with identified exceptions justified
by superior design.
In the medium density category, the plan creates new standards for
detached dwellings where there are presently no comparable standards. The
new standards will maximize street front architecture and create usable rear
yards.
Discussion:
Background:
April 1997 the City Council by its Ordinance No. 838 approved a development
agreement (DA 97-2) which included the Wonder Palms Development Plan for
•
Staff Report
Case Nos. C/Z 03-13 and DA 04-02
Page 3
June 10, 2004
Ordinance No. 1070
a large area of land which was centered around the Cook Street and Gerald Ford
Drive intersection.
The property subject to the current applications was partially included in the
approved Wonder Palms Development Plan as Planning Areas 3 and 5 (see
attached conceptual land plan).
In the recent general plan update, this section (Section #33) bounded by Frank
Sinatra on the south, Portola on the west, Gerald Ford on the north and Cook
on the east was considered as a distinct planning area which made up part of
the University Park Area.
An addendum to the Wonder Palms Development Plan was approved by City
Council April 8, 2004 for the 23.6 acre Evans commercial project at the corner
of Gerald Ford and Cook Street.
Current Proposal:
The current requests, if approved, will supersede the Wonder Palms
Development Plan and implement the approved land use plan for Section 33
except for the property owned by the City/RDA.
Specifically, the applicant seeks approval of a change of zone from PR-5
(planned residential, five units per acre) to PCD (planned community
development) for the entire 296 + /- acres.
Next, the applicant seeks approval of the "University Park" development plan
which is a detailed land use plan for development on this 296 +/- acre area.
The plan provides development standards for low density, medium density and
high density residential, as well as the commercial/office professional, mixed
use and open space districts.
Change of Zone:
The area originally covered by the Wonder Palms Development Plan was zoned
Planned Community Development (PCD) in 1997. The PCD zone will be
expanded to be consistent with the area covered by the new University Park
plan.
Ordinance No. 1070
Staff Report
Case Nos. CIZ 03-13 and DA 04-02
Page 4
June 10, 2004
The proposed PCD zoning will be consistent with the recently approved general
plan update and the zoning on the Evans site.
University Park Development Plan:
The new University Park development plan, when approved, will include the
296 + /- acres south and west of the Evans project on the corner of Cook Street
and Gerald Ford and will include the Evans project itself. This development plan
will be consistent with the recently approved general plan for this area and will
supersede the Wonder Palms plan for this area.
The University Park Development Plan provides a vision statement and guiding
principles. It then prescribes land uses and the circulation network.
The UPDP provides:
"1. LAND USES:
The University Park Land Use Plan is based on traditional neighborhood
design planning principles, emphasizing connectivity between
neighborhoods with a mixture of housing products, retail, commercial,
office, and parks through a modified grid street system and a series of
bikeways and pedestrian paths. University Park is based on five distinct
Districts providing the land use framework, the relationships of those
uses and backbone infrastructure (i.e., roads, public services). The five
Districts include: Residential, Commercial, Office Professional, Mixed Use
and Public Parks. The Village Center along Cook Street includes a
combination of planning areas including commercial, office, mixed use,
and a public park adjacent to the future CSU/UCR campus.
2. CIRCULATION NETWORK:
a. Internal Circulation System
University Park's internal circulation system provides a hierarchy
of streets, laid out in a modified grid pattern to allow for multiple
routes to each destination, while discouraging vehicular through
traffic on residential neighborhood streets. Refer to Figure 2,
Circulation Plan. Figures 3 and 4, Street Cross Sections, illustrate
Ordinance No. 1070
Staff Report
Case Nos. C/Z 03-13 and DA 04-02
Page 5
June 10, 2004
the multi -modal nature of each street with right-of-way allocations
that may include pedestrians, bicycles and private vehicles."
In the Development Criteria, Section II, the plan notes:
"Applicability
The University Park Development Plan is a regulatory plan, which, upon
adoption by ordinance will constitute the basic land use and development
criteria of the property. Development plans or agreements, tract or parcel maps,
precise development plans or any other action requiring ministerial or
discretionary approval of the subject property shall be consistent with the
Development Plan. Actions deemed to be consistent with the Development Plan
shall be judged to be consistent with the City of Palm Desert General Plan as
mandated in California Government Code, Section 65454. Should the
regulations contained herein differ from the regulations of the City of Palm
Desert Zoning Ordinance, the regulations of the Development Plan shall take
precedence."
and
"Review and Approval Process
When development of a specific Planning Area is proposed, an application for
approval of a Precise Plan shall be filed with and shall be approved by the
Planning Commission if the Precise Plan is consistent with the provisions of the
Development Agreement, the General Plan, and this document. A Precise Plan
may cover one or more Planning Areas of the Project. If a Precise Plan is
proposed for an area Tess than a complete Planning Area, a schematic land use
plan for the entire Planning Area shall be submitted for that Planning Area. That
schematic land use plan shall show that the partial development of the entire
Planning Area will not inhibit the overall development of the Planning Area.
Subdivision maps, if required, may be submitted and processed concurrently
with the Precise Plan application."
The plan then breaks out the individual land uses and sets out design objectives,
setbacks, height, number of stories and parking requirements among a host of
other items.
Ordinance No. 1070
Staff Report
Case Nos. CIZ 03-13 and DA 04-02
Page 6
June 10, 2004
For the mixed use district the plan provides:
Mixed Use District:
"The Mixed Use Planning Area" 56.6 total acres (25.8 and 30.2 acres) "allows
for a combination of retail and service commercial, office, high density
residential uses, as well a live/work units. The intent of the Mixed -Use
designation is to create a compact, walkable and pedestrian oriented Planning
Area. As such, the Mixed use land use designation stands in contract to
traditional zoning that separates residential, commercial, and office/professional
zones....
The Mixed -Use Land Use Designation provides for an integrated mixture of uses,
including residential, commercial, office, civic, entertainment, educational,
recreational and civic uses, with a Floor Area Ratio of 1.0 for commercial/office
uses. The mix of uses may be horizontal (side -by -side) or vertical (on top of
each other), with commercial or office uses located on the ground floor and
with office or residential uses located above. The residential portion of this land
use designation is intended to provide for the development of multi -family
residential dwellings in an urban atmosphere."
Lastly, the plan provides guidelines for the 16.3 acres of park land to be
developed in the plan area.
Submitted by:
Planning Manager
Approval:
Homer Croy
ACM for Develo•j't Services
Department Head:
,44_kLq_c
Pfeil Drell
Director of Community Development
Approval:
Carlos L. O ga
City Manager
(Wpdocs\tm\sr\cz03-13.cc2)
ORDINANCE NO. 1070
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM PR-5
(PLANNED RESIDENTIAL, FIVE DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO PCD
(PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT), A DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT TO SUPERSEDE THE EXISTING WONDER PALMS
DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO EXPAND PLANNING AREA NO. 5, A
MASTER PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT FOR THE NEW PLANNING AREA
NO. 5, AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT AS IT PERTAINS THERETO. PROPERTY IS GENERALLY
LOCATED SOUTH OF GERALD FORD DRIVE BETWEEN PORTOLA
AVENUE AND COOK STREET, 37-500 COOK STREET.
CASE NOS. C/Z 03-13 AND DA 04-02
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on 10th the
day of June, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by AMERICAN
REALTY TRUST and MIKE MARIX for approval of the above described project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2269 has recommended
approval of said change of zone and development agreement, subject to modification of the
development standards; 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. 02-60," 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 EIR; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find
the following facts and reasons to exist to justify approval of said request:
1. That the proposed change of zone and development agreement are consistent
with the General Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED 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 C/Z 03-13, attached hereto as Exhibit A, is hereby approved.
ORDINANCE NO. 1070
3. That DA 04-02, a development agreement to supersede the existing Wonder
Palms Development Plan to expand Planning Area No. 5 and a master plan of
development for the new Planning Area No. 5, attached hereto as Exhibit B,
is hereby approved.
4. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, attached hereto as
Exhibit C, is hereby certified.
5. The City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby directed to
publish this ordinance in the Desert Sun, a newspaper of general circulation,
published and circulated in the city of Palm Desert, California, and shall be in
full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED 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:
ATTEST:
RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
2
ROBERT A. SPIEGEL, Mayor
P.R.-5
GERAUYFZiRI AR
P.R.-5 P.R.-5
P.R.-5
P.R.-5
5
DR
P.R.-5
o.s.
P.C.-(2) I
-(2)
P.C.D.
P.C.D.
GERALD FORD DR
P.C.D.
•
P.R.-5 L
P.R.-5
P.R.-5
P.C.D.,
FCOZ
0RD837
P.C.D.,
FCOZ,
0RD837
P.C.D.,
FCOZ
0RD837
O
P.C.D., FCOZ, 0RD837
FILINK S/»TRA DR
P.C.D.,
FCoz
0RD837
P.C.D., h
FGoZ,1
OR�D837 0
l
FCOZ I �P.C:D(FGO
• P.C.O.
GlRALD f
P.C.D., FCOZI
R-1-M
City of Palm Desert
P.R.-5
P.R.-5
P.R.-5
1/4
O
0
P.R.-5
P.R.-5
BERGER RD
L
L ?
P.R.15
•
•.fir- � � � �
1
P.R.-5
Case No. CIZ 03-13 CITY COUNCIL
CHANGE OF ZONE
EXHI
IT A
Proposed
Zoning Change
P.R.-5
To
P.C.D.
ORDINANCE NOa, 1070
Date:
ORDINANCE NO. 1070
EXHIBIT C
Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the
California Code of Regulations.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NOS: C/Z 03-13 and DA 04-02
APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR:
Dan Allred
American Realty Trust
One Hickory Centre
1800 Valley View Lane,
Suite 300
Dallas, TX 75234
Desert Wells 237, LLC
By Palm Desert 124, Inc.
5005 Calle San Raphael
Palm Springs, CA 92262
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION:
RBF Consulting
74-410 Highway 111
Palm Desert, CA 92260
A change of zone from PR-5 (planned residential, five dwelling units per acre) to PCD
(planned community development), a development agreement to supersede the existing
Wonder Palms Development Plan to expand Planning Area No. 5, a master plan of
development for the new Planning Area No. 5, and a Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact as it pertains thereto. Property is generally located south of Gerald Ford Drive
between Portola Avenue and Cook Street, 37-500 Cook Street.
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
GITY OF G=
73-510 FR. Diivi
P.\L\: Dt -.iu. C:\Lll !FORMA 9 _260- 5 7 8
TEL.: 760 346-0611
FAN: 760 341-7098
int-o! ^aim-,ks.rc.clr
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOTICE OF ACTION
Date: May 20, 2004
Dan Allred
American Realty Trust
One Hickory Centre
1800 Valley View Lane, Suite 300
Dallas, Texas 75234
RBF Consulting
74-410 Highway 111
Palm Desert, California 92260
Re: C/Z 03-13 and DA 04-04
Desert Wells 237, LLC
By Palm Desert 124, Inc.
5005 Calle San Raphael
Palm Springs, California 92262
The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken
the following action at its regular meeting of May 18, 2004:
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF
CASE NOS. C/Z 03-13 AND DA 04-04 BY ADOPTION OF PLANNING
COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2269, SUBJECT TO MODIFICATIONS TO
THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ON THE ATTACHED TABLE. MOTION
CARRIED 4-1 (COMMISSIONER FINERTY VOTED NO).
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS/MODIFICATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
LOW DENSITY
PR-4 standards, specifically the minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet, minimum lot
width of 70 feet, delete references to zero foot setbacks for garages and interior side
yards, building height 18 feet for one story, 24 feet for two story, accessory
structures 18 feet for single story and 24 feet for two story. Heights above 24 feet
o?JAl(J 7Y If0:.:, n,12
PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF ACTION
CASE NOS. C/Z 03-13 and DA 04-04
MAY 20, 2004
are subject to discretionary exceptions provision. The exceptions language should
also refer to the possibility of minimum lot sizes of 7,200 square feet, lot widths of
60 feet, five foot projections/architectural features will also be discretionary and no
more than 10% of the roof. Exceptions language should also indicate that an example
of a compelling argument for an exception to the minimum 8,000 square foot lot size
might be unique topography. Detached accessory structures shall only be built in the
primary structure setback envelope.
MEDIUM DENSITY
Standards as proposed with the addition of one story being 18 feet, two story 24
feet. Additional height may be allowed as specified in the exceptions section.
Accessory structures would also be one story/18 feet and two story/24 feet. Roof
projections/ architectural features will be 10% or less of roof area. Rear yard setback
20 feet, lot coverage 50%. All other standards subject to discretionary exceptions
provisions.
HIGH DENSITY
By definition all design standards within the High Density zone are discretionary.
Differentiation between perimeter setbacks and interior building setbacks within a
project should be added to say 20 feet to interior property line in addition to 20 feet
from curb for basic perimeter setbacks. The building separation between structures
would be 10 feet for single story, 15 feet between two story or more. Delete
category for accessory structures. roof projections/architectural features will be 10%
or less of the roof area. Building height above two stories will be an exception as
outlined in the footnote.
Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk, City of Palm
Desert, ithin fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision.
Philip Drell, Se retary
Palm Desert PI nning Commission
/t m
cc: Coachella Valley Water District
Public Works Department
Building & Safety Department
Fire Marshal
CITY Of PM DESERT
Comparison Table R-1
Low Density Standards
R-1 Standards
PR-4 Standards
Average Lot Size/Area:
8,000 s.f.
conventional lots
Minimum Lot Size:
Minimum Lot Width
Minimum Lot Depth
7,200 s.f.
70 ft
35 ft - knuckles & cul-de-sacs at property line
90 ft
Lot Coverage4
(Main Structure & Accessory
Structures)
45%
Front Yard Setbacks (min)
Main living area
8,000 s.f. or larger per zoning
map
70 ft
8,000 s.f.
8,000 s.f.
70 ft
35°10 to 50% with DRC
approval
One story 35% to 50% with DRC
approval
Two story 25%
20 ft — from back of curb'
Open Porch
10 ft — from back of curb'
Garage (front access)
20 ft — from back of sidewalk'
Garage (side -in access where
provided)
Rear Yard Setback (min)
Side Yard Setback (min)
15 ft — from back of sidewalk'
20 ft Note 1
20 ft,
0 ft — for garage only'
15 ft
20 ft
One story 15 ft
Two story 25 ft
Interior
Corner/Street
5 ft. min., 14 ft combined, 0 ft — for garage only'
10 ft
Garage
20 ft — from back of sidewalk'
Building Height
Primary Structure
Accessory Structure
24 ft/2 stories
5 ft minimum, 14 ft total
Single story 5 ft minimum, 16 ft total
Two story 15 ft each side
10 ft street side yard
10 ft
Projections/Architectural Features
5 ft above primary structure
10 ft side street
1 story 18 ft
One story 18 ft
Two story 24 ft
Note 1: Front and rear setbacks may be reduced by 25% provided the average complies with the minimum.
1. Where no sidewalks are provided, setbacks shall be measured from the back of curb.
2. Building heights of 24 feet provide for larger interior spaces (e.g. 9 to 10 — foot ceilings) and increase architectural design opportunities with incorporation of variations in the pitch of the roof
design.
3. A 0-foot interior side yard or rear yard setback may be applied, incompliance with UBC requirements, and discretionary approval with justification.
4. Projections/Architectural Features cannot exceed 10% of the building footprint.
Proposed Changes
• Minimum lot width - Revise minimum lot width to 60'. (This better allows the ability to achieve the density of 4 per acre )
• Building height - Amend the building heights to 24' with a flat roof and 26' for a pitched roof.
Comparison Table R2
Medium Density Development Standards
R-2
Standards
PR Standards
Cluster Development
Average Lot Size:
Minimum Lot Size
3,500 sq. ft.
Lot Coverage (Main Structure)'
3,000 sq. ft.
55%
4,000 s.f.
50%
2,500 s.f.
Front Yard Setbacks (min)
Main Living Area
Open Porch
Garage (front access, where provided)
Garage (side -in access)
Rear Yard Setback
Side Yard Setback
Interior
Corner/Street
Garage
15 ft
10 ft
20 ft - from back of sidewalk2
10 ft - from back of sidewalk2
15 ft
50%
15 ft
20 ft
5 ft/ 0-ft for garage Note 1
10 ft
Same as house
5 ft minimum, 14 ft total
Building Height
Primary Structure
Accessory Structure
Projections/Architectural Features
24 ft/2 stories
20 ft (main building envelope) 3
5 ft above primary structure
22 ft flat roof
24 ft pitched roof
Note 2
Note 2
2 story 24 ft
Note 1: Subject to discretionary approval with justification.
Note 2: Cluster developments include units with zero setbacks within project, but provide 20 ft setbacks from all perimeter property lines.
1) The percentage of lot coverage shall provide for a more cohesive design with the uncovered areas to be usable spaces. Final design shall be determined during the resign Review
Process.
2) Where no sidewalks are provided, setbacks shall be measured from the back of curb.
3) Subject to review and approval by the Architectural Review Commission.
Proposed Changes
• Lot coverage - Revise to 50%
• Rear yard setback —Revise to 20'
• Side yard setback —Delete 0-feet for garage from text
• Building height - Amend the building heights to 24' with a flat roof and 26' for a pitched roof.
• Add the following footnote — " Cluster/Attached units may include 0-feet setbacks within the project but will provide 20-foot setbacks from all perimeter project
property lines upon discretionary approval."
u)
a)
0
(0
0
a)
>
0
0
0_
co
a) a)
O O
a a
0_
co (0
Q Q Q
a)
0
R-3 Standards
LC)
w
1.11
O
O
E
E
C
E—
co O
O
22 ft flat roof
24 ft pitched roof
Comparison Table R-3
u)
O
O
O
2,500 s.f.
90 ft
100 ft
50%
15 ft
10 ft/5 ft back of sidewalk
w
O
r-
10 ft to interior property line
20 ft from curb line
10 ft
25 ft
15 ft
15 ft
26 ft/2 stories
35 ft/3 stories
11 ft
5 ft above primary structure
High Density Development Standards
Minimum Project Size/Area:
Minimum Lot Size -detached
Minimum Lot Width
Minimum Lot Depth
Lot Coverage (Main Structure)
Front Yard Setbacks (min)
Main Structure
Open Porch
Rear Yard Setback (min)
Side Yard Setback (min)
Perimeter
Corner/Street
Building Separation
Attached
Front facade to any other facade
Side facade to side or rear facade
Rear facade to rear facade
Building Height
Attached
Accessory Structure
Projections/Architectural Features
41i '-o-
2 a)
7 �
U 0/)
a
w a)
>0
o c)
c
N U
C..) 7
C _o)
C N
E
a 0)
o
a)
> 'S
o L_
c') c
a)'
m
c 3
C V)
O C 0
cc
u) .0_ Q
O v)
C O
O C C
>.,.. o a
r N i0 0
O0 °O
E aE
n0o
E
u`)=co
a) al. O
E 5(`2,
a) o c
nU'C 0
t0 " el0 CO
E Qow N
O iT 07 O 0)
Y -us;
O — 0 0_ 0
a 0 C a
o p O
m
CO c� v c n
at 0 E 7
(NIC C C 0 0 a,
a) o a) a) 0) w O
a
- - SEE O
O 0 O O N P-7 4)
0
- 5U a)o 22 a
a)�iaU m v �
i = .c d m
al>�0= E o
O O `_c L0) 0
C > c 3 a7
Y Q a) O U O 0 ...
3 0 O. C O Zr)
O cam
7— 3 C
Y n c0 0 co
•D c o. o 'c N O N
O_ C O 0 Q)
y ... O N C f— >
� c �
O o O u 0 a) 0
N O E O Nc ID U a) —I en
• a) O 3 a coN 0 0 a)
3 Qm 2.` a)
N `) C__, O L 0
'-
.0 _ O C>. Q 0 LO
7 @ 7 f4
a)L� E a) O N
D O c9 Y 0 w+ •..
7 O).0 U L N Q)
C C c 2.0 N O a) C
7 '0 0 N 0
Hll
a)oE CN(a7D (0 ai C
o_ (00 N (13 L t O
°'EYc Uc°oc�
7 E m N ._ -43 a). c
08E.. o d:a) d- m
.. a)r a) o w;mow 7 E
d
a'>t�d O�Io Em<
0 0 3 rnQ l'
z .- ('i d 1 ■ . . •
COMMERCIAL STANDARDS MATRIX
O.P. C-1 PC-1 PC-2 PC-3 PC-4
Setbacks
Front 15' avg. 5' 25' 20' 30' 30'
1 to 1 min.
Rear 0-65' 0' 0-20' 20' 20'
Side 0-10' 0' 0-20' 20' 15'
Building Height 25' 30' 25' 30' 35' 35'
Coverage 50%
40% 50% 40%
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2269
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM PR-5 (PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL, FIVE DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO PCD (PLANNED
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT), A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO
SUPERSEDE THE EXISTING WONDER PALMS DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO
EXPAND PLANNING AREA NO. 5, A MASTER PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT
FOR THE NEW PLANNING AREA NO. 5, AND A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS IT PERTAINS
THERETO. PROPERTY IS GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF GERALD
FORD DRIVE BETWEEN PORTOLA AVENUE AND COOK STREET, 37-
500 COOK STREET.
CASE NOS. C/Z 03-13 AND DA 04-02
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
20th the day of April, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued to May
4 and May 18, 2004, to consider the request of AMERICAN REALTY TRUST and MIKE
MARIX 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. 02-60," 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 EIR; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission
did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify recommending approval of said
request:
1. That the proposed change of zone and development agreement addendum are
consistent with the General Plan and the University Park Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm
Desert, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Planning Commission in this case.
2. That C/Z 03-13, attached hereto as Exhibit A, is hereby recommended to City
Council for approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2269
3. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, attached hereto as
Exhibit B, is hereby recommended to City Council for certification.
4. That Addendum #3 to DA 04-02, attached hereto as Exhibit C, is hereby
recommended to City Council for approval.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning
Commission, held on this i 8th day of May, 2004, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: CAMPBELL, LOPEZ, TSCHOPP, JONATHAN
NOES: FINERTY
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ATTEST:
• r
PHILIP DRELL; Sea cretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
2
SABBY JONATHAN, Chairperson
P R -5 H
CERATISFO-RD DR1
P C.D.
GERALD FORD DR
\P\ NNNN/
?-•---
e______, " ' '', • , ...4._11....
R • 5
\
' FC0Z,
\ORD837ORD837
FC-OZ
'` : ; i I I ‘.,11, : •
c),
i
! illis‘is 66 • P -9°':1: 'C'4:
,
‘)
1 P R • 5 '
! 1
No)
) \
rTh-r • I
,1_111.: if
P R -5
; I
P R -5
c
N
1!)
DR
I
0 S
• ••1011VIls.
L-1_,T1
R -5
PC -(2)
ty of Palm Desert
1.4
-M
P
PCDN
PCD,
FCOZ
0 D837
.1 7
; .4)
.. A..
FC0Z2J k . C.f? •••%,
P C'
.D., 0RD837 , 0 i • A„ .0,- .
- ;
••?,'
D837Thi,
PCDOZI ,
----4P41---
! i
NK SIM4TRA DR
P R -5
P R -5 P R -5 L 1.-----1
I
P R -5
) i
/
Case No. C/Z 03-13
CHANGE OF ZONE
EXHIBIT A
P R -5
P R.-5
Proposed
Zoning Change
P.R.-5
To
P.C.D.
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 224v 9
Date: °J-113ic'q
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2269
EXHIBIT B
Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the
California Code of Regulations.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NOS: C/Z 03-13 and DA 04-02
APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR:
Dan Allred
American Realty Trust
One Hickory Centre
1800 Valley View Lane,
Suite 300
Dallas, TX 75234
Desert Wells 237, LLC
By Palm Desert 124, Inc.
5005 Calle San Raphael
Palm Springs, CA 92262
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION:
RBF Consulting
74-410 Highway 111
Palm Desert, CA 92260
A change of zone from PR-5 (planned residential, five dwelling units per acre) to PCD
(planned community development), a development agreement to supersede the existing
Wonder Palms Development Plan to expand Planning Area No. 5, a master plan of
development for the new Planning Area No. 5, and a Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact as it pertains thereto. Property is generally located south of Gerald Ford Drive
between Portola Avenue and Cook Street, 37-500 Cook Street.
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.
004
PHILIP DRELL Ir DATE
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2269
EXHIBIT C
RECORDING REQUESTED BY, AND EXEMPT FROM FILING FEE
WHEN RECORDED, MAIL TO: PURSUANT TO GOVT. CODE §6103
City Clerk's Office
• City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578
(Space above for Recorder's use Only)
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Between
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
and
(UNIVERSITY PARK DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
Dated: , 2004
C:'.Documents and Settings\Robert.Hargrcaves`My Documents'.PALM DESERT - University Development Plan Development Agreement vl .doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2269
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
(University Park)
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is made and entered into as
of this day of , 2004, by and between the City of Palm Desert, California, a
municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California (the
"City), and ("Developer"), with reference
to the following facts, understandings and intentions of the parties:
RECITALS
A. These Recitals refer to and utilize certain capitalized terms which are defined in
this Agreement. The parties intend to refer to those definitions in conjunction with the use
thereof in these Recitals.
B. Government Code Sections 65684 through 65869.5 inclusive (the "Development
Agreement Legislation") authorize the City to enter into development agreements in connection
with the development of real property within its jurisdiction. On August 11, 1983, the City
enacted by Ordinance No. 341, as amended on December 7, 1989 by Ordinance No. 589
(collectively, the "Development Agreement Ordinance"), procedures and requirements for the
consideration of development agreements thereunder pursuant to the Development Agreement
Legislation.
C. Developer is the owner of a legal or equitable interest in the Property and is
entitled to have filed the application for and to enter into this Agreement. The Project consists of
the future development of the Property. The Property is located within an important planning
area (University Park Area) of the City and the coordinated development of the Project pursuant
1
(':',.Documents and Settings\Robert.HargreavesAly Documents.PALM DESERT - university Development Plan Development Agreement vl .doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2269
to this Agreement represents an important and mutually beneficial economic development and
land usage planning opportunity for the City and Developer.
D. In April 1997, the City Council, by its Ordinance No. 838, approved a
Development Agreement (DA 97-2) which included a development plan for a large area of land
which was centered around the Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive intersection. DA 97-2
incorporated the Wonder Palms Development Plan, including eight planning areas. A portion of
the Property was included in the approved Wonder Palms Development Plan as PlanningAreas 3
and 5. It is the intent of the parties to this Agreement that this Agreement supercede DA 97-2
with respect to any portion of the property subject to DA 97-2.
E. In the 2004 General Plan update, the section (Section 33) within which the
Property is located, (bounded by Frank Sinatra on the south, Portola on the west, Gerald Ford on
the north, and Cook on the east), was considered a distinct planning area which made up part of
the University Park Area.
F. The City has determined that the development of the Project as contemplated by
this Agreement is consistent with and in furtherance of the development goals, policies, general
land uses and development programs of the City as set forth in the City's University Park Area
of the General Plan, and is consistent with the existing Planned Community Development (PCD)
Overlay Zone.
G. City has further determined that entry into this Agreement will further the goals
and objectives of the City's land use planning policies by, among other things, encouraging
investment, providing precise and supplemental criteria for the uses, design, circulation and
development of the Property, including flexibility in land use options which may be altered in
C':\Documents and Settings.Robert.Hargrcaves\Nly Documents\PALM DESERT - University Development Plan Development Agreement vl .doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2269
order to respond to future changes in the surrounding areas, eliminating uncertainty in planning
for, and securing orderly processing and development of, the Project. The benefits conferred on
the City by Developer herein will (i) ensure consistent, comprehensive planning which will result
in aesthetically pleasing, environmentally harmonious, and economically viable development
within the City; and (ii) further the development objectives of the City in an orderly manner, all
of which will significantly promote the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City. In
exchange for these benefits to the City, Developer desires to receive the assurance that it may
proceed with the Project in accordance with the University Park Development Plan
("Development Plan") attached to this Agreement as Exhibit "A", and at a rate of development
of its choosing, subject to the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement.
H. By adopting this Agreement, the City Council has elected to exercise certain
governmental powers at the present time rather than deferring such actions until an undetermined
future date and has done so intending to bind the City and the City Council and intending to limit
the City's future exercise of certain governmental powers, to the extent permitted by law.
I. This Agreement has undergone extensive review by the City's staff, the Planning
Commission and the City Council.
J. In order to effectuate the foregoing, the parties desire to enter into this
Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the authority contained in the Development Agreement
Legislation, and in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises of the parties herein
contained, the parties agree as follows:
3
C:'Documents and Settings\Robert.Hargreaves' fly DocumentsWALM DESERT - University Development Plan Development Agreement vI .doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2269
1. Definitions.
1.1 Defined Terms. Each reference in this Agreement to any of the following
terms shall have the meaning set forth below for each such term.
1.2 Agreement. This Development Agreement.
1.3 Building Ordinances. Those building standards, of general and uniform
application throughout the City and not imposed solely with respect to the Property, in effect
from time to time that govern building and construction standards within the City, including,
without limitation, the City's building, plumbing, electrical, mechanical, grading, sign, and fire
codes.
effective.
1.4 City Council. The legislative body of the City of Palm Desert.
1.5 Effective Date. The date on which the Enacting Ordinance becomes
1.6 Enacting Ordinance. Ordinance , enacted by the City Council
on , 200 , approving this Agreement.
1.7 Existing Land Use Ordinances. The Land Use Ordinances in effect as of
the Effective Date.
1.8 Land Use Ordinances. The ordinances, resolutions, codes, rules,
regulations and official policies of the City, governing the development of the Property,
including but not limited to, the permitted uses of land, the density and intensity of use of land,
and the timing of development, all as applicable to the development of the Property.
Specifically, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Land Use Ordinances shall
4
C::\Documents and Settings\Robert.l-largreaves'Mv Documents\PALM DESERT - University Development Plan Development Agreement vl.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2269
include the City's General Plan, the City's zoning ordinance and the City's subdivision code, but
shall exclude the Building Ordinances.
1.9 Mortgage. A mortgage, deed of trust, sale and leaseback arrangement in
which all or a part of the Property, or an interest in it, is sold and leased back concurrently, or
other transactions in which all or a part of the Property, or an interest in it, is pledged as security,
contracted in good faith and for fair value.
1.10 Project. The mixed -use commercial, industrial and residential
development and associated amenities, and on -site and off -site improvements, as permitted under
and described in the Development Plan (Exhibit "A"), to be constructed on the Property, as the
same may hereafter be further refined, enhanced or modified pursuant to the provisions of this
Agreement.
1.11 Property. The real property and any improvements thereon which is
described in Exhibit "B" to this Agreement.
2. Term; Amendment.
2.1 Term. The term of this Agreement (the "Term") shall commence on the
Effective Date and shall terminate on the ten (10) year anniversary date of the Effective Date,
unless sooner terminated or extended as hereinafter provided.
2.2 Amendment. The parties to this Agreement at their sole discretion and by
their mutual written consent may from time to time amend the provisions and terms of this
Agreement and the Exhibits hereto. Any amendment to this Agreement or the Exhibits hereto as
provided herein shall be effected only upon compliance with the procedures for amendment, if
5
C:\Documents and Settines\Robert.Hargreaves.My Documents.PALM DESERT - University Development Plan Development Agreement vi.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2269
any, required by the Development Agreement Legislation and the Development Agreement
Ordinance. The City shall, after any such amendment takes effect, cause an appropriate notice of
such amendment to be recorded in the official records of the County of Riverside.
3. Supercede DA 97-2. This Agreement shall supercede DA 97-2 (recorded by
Riverside County Recorder on May 22, 1997 as Instrument No. 179687) with respect to any
portion of the Property subject to DA 97-2.
4. General Development of the Project.
4.1 Project.
(a) The Project is defined and described in the University Park
Development Plan attached to this Agreement as Exhibit "A", which specifies for the purpose of
this Agreement all of the following aspects of the Project: (i) proposed land uses of the Property;
(ii) the maximum (and probable) density and intensity of development of the Property; (iii)
certain parking requirements; and (iv) sizing requirements for the construction of certain utility
facilities; (v) certain requirements relating to access and traffic circulation within the Property;
(vi) certain design guidelines relating to the construction of on -site and off -site improvements;
(vii) procedures for development within the Planning Areas.
(b) Developer shall have the vested right to develop the Project in
accordance with, and development of the Project during the Term shall be governed by, the
Development Plan and, to the extent not inconsistent with or modified by the Development Plan,
the Existing Land Use Ordinances. Developer's right to develop the Property in accordance with
this Section 4.1 shall be without regard to future ordinances, resolutions. rules, regulations and
policies of the City or referenda of the voters of the City, including, without limitation, those
6
C \Documents and Settings\Robert.Hargreaves\sty Documents\PALM DESERT - University Development Plan Development Agreement vl .doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2269
with respect to moratoriums for utility service, other than ordinances, resolutions, rules,
regulations and policies of the City which limit or condition the rate, timing or sequencing of
development of the Property and which are required solely as a result of then existing shortages
of utility service capacity or facilities.
4.2 Project Timing; Construction Entitlement. The parties acknowledge
that Developer cannot at this time predict when or the rate at «'hick or the order in which parts of
the Project will be developed. Such decisions depend upon numerous factors which are not
within the control of Developer, such as market orientation and demand, interest rates,
competition and other similar factors. Therefore, the parties hereto acknowledge and expressly
agree that Developer is hereby granted by the City the vested and guaranteed right to develop the
Project in such manner and at such rate and at such times as Developer deems appropriate within
the exercise of its sole subjective business judgment. Therefore, City expressly agrees that
Developer shall be entitled to apply for precise plans, subdivision maps, building permits,
occupancy certificates and other land use and development entitlements for its use at any time
provided that such application is made in accordance with the Development Plan and this
Agreement.
Notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary in this Agreement or the Existing Land
Use Ordinances, Developer shall have the right, but not the obligation, to obtain from the City,
all necessary approvals, consents, permits, or other entitlements for the construction of not less
than the maximum number of square feet of gross floor area or dwelling units of any permitted
use under the Development Plan specified with respect to any designated Planning Area set forth
in the Development Plan.
7
C:'.Documents and Settings'•Robert.Hargreaves\ y Documents.PALM DESERT - University Development Plan Development Agreement vl.doe
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2269
4.3 Building Permits and Other Approvals and Permits. Subject to (a)
Developer's compliance with this Agreement, the Development Plan, the Existing Land Use
Ordinances and the Building Ordinances, and (b) payment of the usual and customary fees and
charges of general application charged for the processing of such applications, permits and
certificates and for any utility connection, or similar fees and charges of general application, the
City shall process and issue to Developer promptly upon application therefor all necessary use
permits, building permits, occupancy certificates, and other required permits for the construction,
use and occupancy of the Project, or any portion thereof, as applied for, including connection to
all utility systems under the City's jurisdiction and control (to the extent that such connections
are physically feasible and that such utility systems are capable of adequately servicing the
Project).
4.4 Procedures and Standards. The standards for granting or withholding
permits or approvals required hereunder in connection with the development of the Project shall
be governed as provided herein by the standards, terms and conditions of this Agreement and the
Development Plan, and to the extent not inconsistent therewith, the Existing Land Use
Ordinances, but the procedures for processing applications for such permits or approvals
(including the usual and customary fees of general application charged for such processing) shall
be governed by such ordinances and regulations as may then be applicable and which are
consistent with the Development Plan.
4.5 Effect of Agreement. This Agreement shall constitute a part of the
Enacting Ordinance, as if incorporated by reference therein in full. The parties acknowledge that
this Agreement is intended to grant Developer the right to develop the Project pursuant to
8
C:'•.Documents and Scttines`,Robert.11argreaves.My Documents\PALM DESERT - University Development Plan Development Agreement v l .doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2269
specified and known criteria and rules as set forth in the Development Plan and the Existing
Land Use Ordinances, and to grant the City and the residents of the City certain benefits which
they otherwise would not receive.
This Agreement shall be binding upon the City and its successors in accordance with and
subject to its terns and conditions notwithstanding any subsequent action of the City, whether
taken by ordinance or resolution of the City Council. by referenda, initiative, or otherwise. The
parties acknowledge and agree that by entering into this Agreement and relying thereupon, the
Developer has obtained, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, a vested right to
proceed with its development of the Project in accordance with the proposed uses of the
Property, the density and intensity of development of the Property and the requirements and
guidelines for the construction or provision of on -site and off -site improvements as set forth in
the Development Plan and the Existing Land Use Ordinances, and the timing provisions of
Section 4.2, and the City has entered into this Agreement in order to secure the public benefits
conferred upon it hereunder which are essential to alleviate current and potential problems in the
City and to protect the public health, safety and welfare of the City and its residents, and this
Agreement is an essential element in the achievement of those goals.
4.6 Operating Memoranda. Developer and City acknowledge that the
provisions of this Agreement require a close degree of cooperation between Developer and City,
and that refinements and further development of the Project may demonstrate that changes or
additional provisions are appropriate with respect to the details of performance of the parties
under this Agreement in order to effectuate the purpose of this Agreement and the intent of the
parties with respect thereto. If and when, from time to time, the parties find that such changes or
9
C:'.Documents and Settings\Robert.l largrcaves\My Documents\PALM DESERT - University Development Plan Development Agreement v l .doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2269
additional provisions are necessary or appropriate, and subject to the provisions of the next
succeeding sentence, they shall effectuate such changes or provide for such additional provisions
through operating memoranda to be approved in good faith by the parties, which, after execution,
shall be attached hereto as addenda and become a part hereof, and may be further changed or
supplemented from time to time as necessary, with further good faith approval of Developer and
City. Upon receipt by the City of an opinion of the City Attorney to the effect that the subject
matter of such operating memoranda does not require the amendment of this Agreement in the
manner provided in Section 65868 of the California Government Code, then no such operating
memoranda shall require prior notice or hearing, or constitute an amendment to this Agreement;
and in the case of the City, such operating memoranda may be approved and executed by its
Community Development Director or City Manager without further action of the City Council.
Failure of the parties to enter into any such operating memoranda shall not affect or abrogate any
of the rights, duties or obligations of the parties hereunder or the provisions of this Agreement.
5. Specific Criteria Applicable to Development of the Project.
5.1 University Park Development Plan. The Development Plan is a
regulatory plan which, upon adoption by ordinance, will constitute the basic land use and
development criteria of the property. Development plans or agreements, tract or parcel maps,
precise development plans or any other action requiring ministerial or discretionary approval of
their property shall be consistent with the Development Plan. Should the regulations contained
in the Development Plan differ from the regulations of the Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance, the
regulations of the Development Plan shall take precedence.
5.2 Applicable Ordinances. Except as set forth in the Development Plan
10
C':\Documents and Settings\Robert.' largreaves,My Documcnts•PALM DESERT - University Development Plan Development Agreement v I .doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2269
and subject to the provisions of Section 5.3 and 5.4 below, the Existing Land lise Ordinances
shall govern the development of the Property hereunder and the granting or withholding of all
permits or approvals required to develop the Property; provided. however, that (a) Developer
shall be subject to all changes in processing, inspection and plan -check fees and charges imposed
by City in connection with the processing of applications for development and Construction upon
the Property so long as such fees and charges are of general application and are not imposed
solely with respect to the Property, and (b) Developer shall abide by the Building Ordinances in
effect at the time of such applications.
5.3 Amendment to Applicable Ordinances. In the event that the Palm
Desert zoning ordinance is amended by the City in a manner which provides more favorable site
development standards for the Property or any part thereof than those in effect as of the Effective
Date, Developer shall have the right to notify the City in writing of its desire to be subject to all
or any such new standards for the remaining term of this Agreement. If City agrees, by resolution
of the City Council or by action of a City official whom the City Council may designate, such
new standards shall become applicable to the Property or portions thereof. Should City
thereafter amend such new standards, upon the effective date of such amendment, the original
new standards shall continue to apply to the Property as provided above, but Developer may
notify City in writing of its desire to be subject to all or any such amended new standards and
City may agree in the manner above provided to apply such amended new standards to the
Property.
5.4 Modification or Suspension by State Law or Federal Law. In the event
that state or federal laws or regulations, enacted after the effective date of this Agreement,
11
C^\Documents and Settings\Robcrt.Hargreaves`.My Documents.PALM DESERT - University Development Plan Development Agreement vl.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2269
prevent or preclude compliance with one or more of the provisions of this Agreement, such
provisions of this Agreement shall be modified or suspended as may he necessary to comply
with such state or federal laws or regulations, provided, however, that this Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect to the extent it is not inconsistent with such laws or regulations,
and to the extent that such laws or regulations do not render such remaining provisions
impractical to enforce.
5.5 Easements; Abandonments. City shall cooperate with Developer in
connection with any arrangements for abandoning existing utility or other easements and the
relocation thereof or creation of any new easements within the Property necessary or appropriate
in connection with the development of the Project; and if any such easement is owned by City,
City shall, at the request of Developer and in the manner and to the extent permitted by law, take
such action and execute such documents as may be necessary to abandon existing easements and
relocate them, as necessary or appropriate in connection with the development of the Project, all
at the cost and expense of the Developer. In addition, to the extent that temporary or permanent
easements on property adjacent or in close proximity to the Property will be required in order for
Developer to develop all or portions of the Project, the City shall cooperate with Developer in
efforts to obtain or secure any such required easements.
6. Periodic Review of Compliance. In accordance with Govt. Code Section
65865.1, the City Council shall review this Agreement at least each calendar year during the
term of this Agreement. At such periodic reviews, Developer must demonstrate its good faith
compliance with the terms of this Agreement. Developer agrees to furnish such evidence of
good faith compliance as the City, and after reasonable exercise of its discretion and after
12
C:•Documcnts and Settings\Robert.Hargreaves\My Documcnts.PALM DESERT - University Development Plan Development Agreement vl.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2269
reasonable notice to Developer, may require.
7. Permitted Delays; Supersedure by Subsequent Laws.
7.1 Permitted Delays. In addition to any other provisions of this Agreement
with respect to delay, Developer and City shall be excused from performance of their obligations
hereunder during any period of delay caused by acts of mother nature, civil commotion, riots,
strikes, picketing, or other labor disputes, shortage of materials or supplies, or damage to or
prevention of work in process by reason of fire, floods, earthquake, or other casualties, litigation,
acts or neglect of the other party, any referendum elections held on the Enacting Ordinance, or
the Land Use Ordinances, or any other ordinance effecting the Project or the approvals, permits
or other entitlements related thereto, or restrictions imposed or mandated by governmental or
quasi -governmental entities, enactment of conflicting previsions of the Constitution or laws of
the United States of America or the State of California or any codes, statutes, regulations or
executive mandates promulgated thereunder (collectively, "Laws"), orders of courts of
competent jurisdiction, or any other cause similar or dissimilar to the foregoing beyond the
reasonable control of City or Developer, as applicable. Each party shall promptly notify the
other party of any delay hereunder as soon as possible after the same has been ascertained. The
time of performance of such obligations shall be extended by the period of any delay hereunder.
7.2 Supersedure of Subsequent Laws or Judicial Action. The provisions
of this Agreement shall, to the extent feasible, be modified or suspended as may be necessary to
comply with any new Law or decision issued by a court of competent jurisdiction (a "Decision"),
enacted or made after the Effective Date which prevents or precludes compliance with one or
more provisions of this Agreement. Promptly after enactment of any such new Law, or issuance
13
C:`,Documents and Settings\Robert.Hargrcaves\ My Documents'•.PALM DESERT - University Development Plan Development Agreement vl .doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2269
of such Decision, the parties shall meet and confer in good faith to determine the feasibility of
any such modification or suspension based on the effect such modification or suspension would
have on the purposes and intent of this Agreement. In addition, Developer and City shall have
the right to challenge the new Law or the Decision preventing compliance with the terms of this
Agreement. In the event that such challenge is successful, this Agreement shall remain
unmodified and in full force and effect, except that the Term shall be extended, in accordance
with Section 7.1 above, for a period of time equal to the length of time the challenge was
pursued.
8. Events of Default; Remedies; Termination.
8.1 Events of Default. Subject to any extensions of time by mutual consent
in writing, and subject to the provisions of Section 7 above regarding permitted delays, the
failure of either party to perform any material terns or provision of this Agreement shall
constitute an event of default hereunder ("Event of Default") if such defaulting party does not
cure such failure within ninety (90) days following receipt of written notice of default from the
other party; provided, however, that if the nature of the default is such that it cannot be cured
within such ninety (90) day period, the commencement of the cure within such ninety (90) day
period and the diligent prosecution to completion of the cure shall be deemed to be a cure within
such period. Any notice of default given hereunder shall specify in detail the nature of the
alleged Event of Default and the manner, if any, in which such Event of Default may be
satisfactorily cured in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. During the
time periods herein specified for cure of a failure of perfonnance, the party charged therewith
shall not be considered to be in default for purposes of termination of this Agreement, institution
14
(:`.Documents and Settines\Robert.Hargreaves\My Documents\PALM DESERT - University Development Plan Development Agreement v I.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2269
of legal proceedings with respect thereto, or issuance of any permit, map, certificate of
occupancy, approval or entitlement with respect to the Project.
8.2 Remedies. Upon the occurrence of an Event of Default, the nondefaulting
party shall have such rights and remedies against the defaulting party as it may have at law or in
equity, including, but not limited to, the right to damages and the right to terminate this
Agreement or seek mandamus, specific performance. injunctive or declaratory relief.
Notwithstanding the foregoing and except as otherwise provided in Section 8.4 hereof, if either
Developer or City elects to terminate this Agreement as a result of the occurrence of an Event of
Default, such proceeding of termination shall constitute such party's exclusive and sole remedy,
and with respect to such election City and Developer hereby waive, release and relinquish any
other right or remedy otherwise available under this Agreement or at law or equity.
8.3 Waiver; Remedies Cumulative. Failure by a party to insist upon the
strict performance of any of the provisions of this Agreement by the other party shall not
constitute waiver of such party's right to demand strict compliance by such other party in the
future. All waivers must be in writing to be effective or binding upon the waiving party, and no
waiver shall be implied from any omission by a party to take any action with respect to such
Event of Default. No express written waiver of any Event of Default shall affect any other Event
of Default, or cover any other period of time specified in such express waiver.
8.4 Effect of Termination. Termination of this Agreement by one party due
to the other party's default, or as a result of the exercise of the right of termination provided to
the Developer under Section 7.2 hereof, shall not affect any right or duty emanating from any
approvals, permits, certificates or other entitlements with respect to the Property or the Project
15
C': Documents and Settings\Robert.liargrcaves\My Documents'PAI M DESERT - University. Development Plan Development Agreement vl .doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2269
which were issued, approved or provided by the City prior to the date of ternination of this
Agreement. If City terminates this Agreement because of Developer's default, then City shall
retain any and all benefits, including money, land or improvements conveyed to or received by
the City prior to the date of termination of this Agreement, subject to any reimbursement
obligations of the City. If Developer terminates this Agreement because of City s default, or as a
result of the exercise of the right of termination provided to the Developer under Section 7.2
hereof, then Developer shall be entitled to all of the benefits arising out of; or approvals, permits,
certificates or other entitlements on account of, any Exactions paid, given or dedicated to, or
received by, City prior to the date of termination of this Agreement. Except as otherwise
provided in this Section 8.4, all of the rights, duties and obligations of the parties hereunder shall
otherwise cease as of the date of the termination of this Agreement.
If this Agreement is terminated pursuant to any provision hereof, then the City shall, after
such action takes effect, cause an appropriate notice of such action to be recorded in the official
records of the County of Riverside. The cost of such recordation shall be borne by the party
causing such action.
8.5 Third Party Actions. Any court action or proceeding brought by any
third party to challenge this Agreement or any permit or approval required from City or any other
governmental entity for development or construction of all or any portion of the Project, whether
or not Developer is a party defendant to or real party defendant in interest in such action or
proceeding, shall constitute a permitted delay under Section 7.1.
9. Encumbrances on Property.
9.1 Discretion to Encumber. The parties hereto agree that this Agreement
16
C:'.Documents and Settings\Robert.Harereaves.My Documents'. PALM DESERT- University Development Plan Development Agreement v1.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2269
shall not prevent or limit Developer, in any manner, at Developer's sole discretion, from
encumbering the Property or any portion thereof or any improvements thereon with any
mortgage, deed of trust or other security device ("Mortgage") securing financing with respect to
the Property. The City acknowledges that the lenders providing such financing may require
certain modifications to this Agreement, and the City agrees upon request, from time -to -time, to
meet with Developer and; or representatives of such lenders to negotiate in good faith any such
request for modification. City further agrees that it will not unreasonably withhold its consent to
any such requested modification.
9.2 Mortgage Protection. This Agreement shall be superior and senior to
the lien of any Mortgage. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no breach of this Agreement shall
defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for
value, and any acquisition or acceptance of title or any right or interest in or with respect to the
Site or any portion thereof by a Mortgagee (whether pursuant to a Mortgage, foreclosure,
trustee's sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure or otherwise) shall be subject to all of the terms and
conditions of this Agreement.
9.3 Mortgagee Not Obligated. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section
9.2, no Mortgagee will have any obligation or duty under this Agreement to perform the
obligations of Developer or other affirmative covenants of Developer hereunder, or to guarantee
such performance, except that to the extent that any covenant to be performed by Developer is a
condition to the performance of a covenant by City, the performance thereof shall continue to be
a condition precedent to City's performance hereunder.
9.4 Estoppel Certificates. Either party may, at any time, and from time to
17
C:\Documents and Settings\Robert.Hargreaves\My Documents\PALM DESERT - University Development Plan Development Agreement vl.doc
PLANNING -COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2269
time. deliver written notice to the other party requesting such party to certify in writing that, to
the knowledge of the certifying party, (i) this Agreement is in full force and effect and a binding
obligation of the parties, (ii) this Agreement has not been amended or modified, or if so amended
or modified, identifying such amendments or modifications, and (iii) the requesting party is not
in default in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement, or if in default, describing
therein the nature and amount of any such defaults. A party receiving a request hereunder shall
execute and return such certificate within thirty (30) days following the receipt thereof. City
acknowledges that a certificate hereunder may be relied upon by transferees, assignees and
lessees of the Developer and the holders of any Mortgage.
10. Transfers and Assignments; Effect of Agreement on Title.
10.1 Rights and Interests Appurtenant. The rights and interests conveyed as
provided herein to Developer benefit and are appurtenant to the Property. Developer has the
right to sell, assign and transfer any and all of its rights and interests hereunder and to delegate
and assign any and all of its duties and obligations hereunder. Such rights and interests
hereunder may not be sold, transferred or assigned and such duties and obligations may not be
delegated or assigned except in compliance with the following conditions:
(i) Said rights and interests may be sold, transferred or assigned only together with and as
an incident of the sale, lease, transfer or assignment of the portions of the Property to which they
relate, including any transfer or assignment pursuant to any foreclosure of a Mortgage or a deed
in lieu of such foreclosure. Following any such sale, transfer or assignment of any of the rights
and interests of Developer under this Agreement, the exercise, use and enjoyment thereof shall
continue to be subject to the terms of this Agreement to the same extent as if the purchaser,
18
C:`•Documents and Settings\Robert.Hargreaves\My Documents '•.PALM DESERT - University Development Plan Development Agreement vl .doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2269
transferee or assignee were Developer hereunder.
10.2 Covenants Run with Land.
(i) All of the provisions, agreements, rights, powers, standards, teens,
covenants and obligations contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon the parties and their
respective heirs, successors (by merger, consolidation, or otherwise) and assigns,. devisees,
lessees, and all other persons acquiring any rights or interests in the Property, or any portion
thereof: whether by operation of laws or in any manner whatsoever, and shall inure to the benefit
of the parties and their respective heirs, successors (by merger, consolidation or otherwise) and
assigns;
(ii) All of the provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable as
equitable servitudes and constitute covenants Winning with the land pursuant to applicable law;
(iii) Each covenant to do or refrain from doing some act, on the Property
hereunder (A) is for the benefit of and is a burden upon every portion of the Property, (B) runs
with such lands, and (C) is binding upon each party and each successive owner during its
ownership of the Property or any portions thereof, and shall benefit each party and its lands
hereunder, and each such other person or entity succeeding to an interest in such lands.
11. Notices. Any notice to either party shall be in writing and given by delivering the
same to such party in person or by sending the same by registered or certified mail, return receipt
requested, with postage prepaid, to the following addresses:
19
C:'•,Documents and Settings.Robert.}-largreaves,My Documents•PAI. M DESERT - University Development Plan Development Agreement vl .doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2269
If to City:
City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, California 92260
If to Developer:
Attention:
Either party may change its mailing address at any time by giving written notice of such
change to the other party in the manner provided herein. All notices under this Agreement shall
be deemed given, received, made or communicated on the date personal delivery is effected or, if
mailed, on the delivery date or attempted delivery date shown on the return receipt.
12. Indemnification: Developer's Obligation.
12.1 Developer's Wrong -Doing. Developer will defend, indemnify and hold
the City and its elected officials, officers and employees ("Indemnified Parties") free and
harmless from any loss, cost or liability (including, without limitation, liability arising from
injury or damage to persons or property, including wrongful death and worker's compensation
claims) which results from (i) any obligation which arises from the development of the Property
including, without limitation, obligations for the payment of money for material and labor; (ii)
any failure on the part of Developer to take any action which he is required to take as provided in
this Agreement; (iii) any action taken by Developer which he prohibited from taking as provided
in this Agreement and (iv) any claim which results from any willful or negligent act or omission
20
C:`,Documents and Settings`.Robert.HarercavesMy Documents.PALM DESERT - University Development Plan Development Agreement vl.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2269
of Developer.
12.2 Environmental Assurances. Developer shall indemnify and hold the
Indemnified Parties free and harmless from any liability deriving from the City's execution or
performance of this Agreement, based or asserted, upon any act or omission of Developer, its
officers, agents, employees, contractors, subcontractors and independent contractors for any
violation of any federal, state or local law, ordinance or regulation relating to hazardous or toxic
materials, industrial hygiene, or environmental conditions created by Developer or its officers,
agents or employees, contractors, subcontractors and independent contractors after the Effective
Date on, under which the Property, including, but not limited to soil and groundwater conditions,
and Developer shall defend, at its expense, including attorneys fees, the Indemnified Parties in
any action based or asserted upon any such alleged act or omission.
12.3 Challenges to Agreement. Developer agrees and shall indemnify, hold
harmless and defend the Indemnified Parties from any challenge to the validity of this
Agreement, or to the City's implementations of its rights under this Agreement.
12.4 Defense by Counsel Chosen by City. In the event the Indemnified
Parties are made a party to any action, lawsuit other adversarial proceeding in any way
involving claims specified in Sections 12.1, 12.2, or 12.3, Developer shall provide a defense to
the Indemnified Parties, with counsel chosen by City. Developer shall be obligated to promptly
pay all costs of defense, including all reasonable attorneys' fees, and any final judgment or
portion thereof rendered against the Indemnified Parties.
12.5 Non -Liability of Cite Officers and Employees. No official, officer,
employee, agent, or representative of the City, acting in his/her official capacity, shall be
21
C':''.Documents and Settings\Robert.Hargreaves\My Documents.PALM DESERT - University Development Plan Development Agreement vl.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2269
personally liable to developer, or any successor or assign, for any loss, cost, damages, claim,
liability or judgment arising out of or in connection to this Agreement, or for any act or omission
on the part of the City.
12.6 Survival. The provisions of these Sections 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, and 12.4 shall
survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement.
13. Miscellaneous.
13.1 Relationship of Parties. It is understood that the Project is a private
development, that neither party is acting as the agent of the other in any respect hereunder, and
that each party is an independent contractor. It is further understood that none of the terms or
provisions of this Agreement are intended to or shall be deemed to create a partnership, joint
venture or joint enterprise between the parties hereto.
13.2 Consents. Unless otherwise herein provided, whenever approval, consent,
acceptance or satisfaction (collectively, a "consent") is required of a party pursuant to this
Agreement, it shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Unless provision is otherwise
specified in this Agreement or otherwise required by law for a specific time period, consent shall
be deemed given within thirty (30) days after receipt of the written request for consent, and if a
party shall neither approve nor disapprove within such thirty (30) day period, or other time
period as may be specified in this Agreement or otherwise required by law for consent, that party
shall then be deemed to have given its consent. If a party shall disapprove, the reasons therefor
shall be stated in reasonable detail in writing. This Section does not apply to development
approvals by the City.
13.3 Not a Public Dedication. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein,
22
C:\Documents and Settings'.Robert.11argreaves_\ly Documents'PALM DESERT - University Development Plan Development Agreement vl .doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2269
nothing herein contained shall be deemed to be a gift or dedication of the Property, or of the
Project or any portion thereof, to the general public, for the general public, or for any public use
or purpose whatsoever, it being the intention and understanding of the parties that this
Agreement be strictly limited to and for the purposes herein expressed for the development of the
Project as private property.
13.4 Severability. If any term, provision covenant or condition of this
Agreement shall be determined invalid, void or unenforceable by judgment or court order, the
remainder of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, unless enforcement of this
Agreement as so invalidated would be unreasonable or grossly inequitable under all the relevant
circumstances or would frustrate the purposes of this Agreement.
13.5 Exhibits. The Exhibits listed in the Table of Contents, to which reference
is made herein, are deemed incorporated into this Agreement in their entirety by reference
thereto.
13.6 Entire Agreement. This written Agreement and the Exhibits hereto
contain all the representations and the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the
subject matter hereof. Except as otherwise specified in this Agreement and the Exhibits hereto,
any prior correspondence, memoranda, agreements, warranties or representations are superseded
in total by this Agreement and Exhibits hereto.
13.7 Governing Law; Construction of Agreement. This Agreement, and the
rights and obligations of the parties, shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the
laws of the State of California. The provisions of this Agreement and the Exhibits hereto shall
be construed as a whole according to their common meaning and not strictly for or against any
?3
C':\Documcnts and Settings\Robert.Hargrcaves .My Documents.PALM DESERT - University Development Plan Development Agreement vl.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2269
party and consistent with the provisions hereof, in order to achieve the objectives and purposes
of the parties hereunder. The captions preceding the text of each Section, subsection and the
Table of Contents hereof are included only for convenience of reference and shall be disregarded
in the construction and interpretation of this Agreement. Wherever required by the context, the
singular shall include the plural and vice versa, and the masculine gender shall include the
feminine or neuter genders, or vice versa.
13.8 Signature Pages. For convenience, the signatures of the parties of this
Agreement may be executed and acknowledged on separate pages which, when attached to this
Agreement, shall constitute this as one complete Agreement.
13.9 Time. Time is of the essence of this Agreement and of each and every
term and condition hereof.
13.10 Prevailing Party's Attorney's Fees and Costs. If any party to this
Agreement shall fail to perform any of its obligations hereunder, or if a dispute arises with
respect to the meaning or interpretation of any provision hereof or the performance of the
obligations of any party hereto, the defaulting party or the party not prevailing in such dispute, as
the case may be, shall promptly pay any and all costs and expenses (including without limitation,
all court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses) incurred by the other party with
respect to such to such dispute or in enforcing or establishing its rights hereunder.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, City shall not be required to pay any costs or expenses (including
without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses) which Developer may incur in
respect of any hearing held pursuant to Section 10 hereof.
24
C:\Documents and Settings\Robert.Hargreaves\My Documents',PALM DESERT - University Development Plan Development Agreement vl .doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2269
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGES]
25
C:'.Documents and Settings\Robert.Hargreaves,My Documents,PALM DESERT - University Development Plan Development Agreement v I .doe
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2269
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date and year first
above -written.
DEVELOPER:
By:
President
CITY:
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, a
municipal corporation organized and existing under
the laws of the State of California
By:
, Mayor
Attest:
Rachelle Klassen, City Clerk
26
C:`•Documents and Settings\Robert.Hargreaves',\-ly Documents'PALM DESERT - University Development Plan Development Agreement vl.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2269
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ss
COUNTY OF
On , 200 , before me. , a Notary Public in
and for said State, personally appeared , personally
known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose
name(s) is./are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he.%she%they
executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s)
on the instrument, the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed
the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Notary Public
27
C':`•Documents and Settings.Robert.Harereaves\My Documents'PALM DESERT - University Development Plan Development Agreement vl.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2269
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
RECITALS 1
1. Definitions. 4
1.1 Defined Terms 4
1.2 Agreement 4
1.3 Building Ordinances 4
1.4 City Council 4
1.5 Effective Date 4
1.6 Enacting Ordinance 4
1.7 Existing Land Use Ordinances 4
1.8 Land Use Ordinance 4
1.9 Mortgage 5
1.10 Project 5
1.11 Property 5
2. Term; Amendment 5
2.1 Term 5
2.2 Amendment 5
3. Supercede DA 97-2 6
4. General Development of the Project 6
4.1 Project 6
4.2 Project Timing; Construction Entitlement 7
4.3 Building Permits and Other Approvals and Permits 7
4.4 Procedures and Standards 8
4.5 Effect of Agreement 8
4.6 Operating Memoranda 9
5. Specific Criteria Applicable to Development of the Project 10
5.1 University Park Development Plan 10
5.2 Applicable Ordinances 10
5.3 Amendment to Applicable Ordinances 11
5.4 Modification or Suspension by State Law or Federal Law 11
5.5 Easements; Abandonments 12
6. Periodic Review of Compliance 12
7. Permitted Delays; Supersedure by Subsequent Laws 13
7.1 Permitted Delays 13
7.2 Supersedure of Subsequent Laws or Judicial Action 13
8. Events of Default; Remedies; Termination 14
8.1 Events of Default 14
8.2 Remedies 15
8.3 Waiver; Remedies Cumulative 15
8.4 Effect of Termination 15
8.5 Third Party Actions 16
C.'•Documents and Settings.Robert.Hargreaves••.'vty Docum,,cnts'.PALM DESERT - University Development Plan Development Agreement vldoc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2269
9. Encumbrances on Property 16
9.1 Discretion to Encumber 16
9.2 Mortgage Protection 17
9.3 Mortgagee Not Obligated 17
9.4 Estoppel Certificates 17
10. Transfers and Assignments; Effect of Agreement on Title 18
10.1 Rights and Interests Appurtenant 18
10.2 Covenants Run with Land 19
11. Notices 19
12. Indemnification: Developer's Obligation 20
12.1 Developer's Wrong -Doing 20
12.2 Environmental Assurances 21
12.3 Challenges to Agreement 20
12.4 Defense by Counsel Chosen by City 21
12.5 Non -Liability of City Officers and Employees 21
12.6 Survival 21
13. Miscellaneous. 22
13.1 Relationship of Parties 22
13.2 Consents 22
13.3 Not a Public Dedication 22
13.4 Severability 23
13.5 Exhibits 23
13.6 Entire Agreement 23
13.7 Governing Law; Construction of Agreement •23
13.8 Signature Pages 24
13.9 Time 24
13.10 Prevailing Party's Attorney's Fees and Costs 24
C:'\.Documents and Settings\Robert.Hargreaves\My Documents\PALM DESERT - University Development Plan Development Agreement v I .doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2269
EXHIBIT A
UNIVERSITY PARK DEVELOPMENT PLAN
[to be attached prior to recording]
C':`,Documents and Settings\Robert.Hargreaves•My Documents\PALM DESERT - University Development Plan Development Agreement vl .doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2269
EXHIBIT B
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
[to be attached prior to recording]
(':'•Documents and Settings\Robert.Hargrcaves:My Documents\PALM DESERT - Univcrsit}• Development Plan Development .Agreement vl doc
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
orlp
3C
acX
SUBJECT TC
RVISIOfd
MAY 18, 2004
Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to address the Planning Commission on this matter. There was no
one and Chairperson Jonathan asked for action.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner
Tschopp, by minute motion continuing Case No. PP 04-10 to June 1, 2004.
Motion carried 5-0.
B. Case Nos. C/Z 03-13 and DA 04-04 - DAN ALLRED/AMERICAN
REALTY TRUST AND DESERT WELLS 237, LLC/PALM DESERT
124 INC., Applicants
(Continued from April 20 and May 4, 2004)
Request for approval of a change of zone from PR-5 (planned
residential, five dwelling units per acre) to PCD (planned
community development), a development agreement, a master
plan of development, and a Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact as it relates thereto. Property is
generally located south of Gerald Ford Drive between Portola
Avenue and Cook Street, 37-500 Cook Street.
Mr. Drell explained that at the last meeting the Commission requested a
matrix to compare existing standards as best they could assemble them with
the proposed standards. One thing that was interesting about it was that in
general they are not that different, but they could just go down them and
highlight the differences. He thought they might want to have the applicant
come forward and engage in the discussion together. He suggested that they
open the public hearing to do that and engage in discussion with the
applicant on what they think the significance of the differences are and
whether they are in a direction we want to go.
Chairperson Jonathan thought that was a good plan. Before proceeding, he
asked the commission if there were any specific questions for staff with
regard to the report and the matrix attached to the report. There were none.
Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to
address the commission.
3
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
4i
MAY 18, 2004
FT. SREVUBJECTISION I
MR. BOB ROSS, RBF Consulting, 74-410 Highway 111 in Palm
Desert, addressed the commission.
Mr. Drell indicated that one of the questions that got asked last time was why
do this at all? Why have any standards? One of the reasons is that they want
something documented that is on paper that goes beyond the personalities
of those who either work on the commission or work in the Planning
Department that provides applicants with a guide of what the general
direction is that we want them to go. He said that he and Mr. Smith will not
be around to kick around any more in a couple of years and a lot of the
things they saw with the Sares Regis, the Fairhaven housing deal, and
Desert Rose came about because of staff influencing, convincing and
arguing with developers on what a good project looks like. They've seen a
lot of projects that came into the city that meet the standards in our code
book that are lousy designs. They could say they meet the standards and
ask what else did they want. Part of the goal of this document is to provide
more specific guidance as to what is good design beyond pure numbers.
He said staff compared this with the R-1 standards and up to the PR-4
because the low density general plan designation goes to four units per acre.
That is why they did it that way. The big difference that is shown here is that
they are talking about an average of 8,000 square feet but allowing some
flexibility to go below that and basically 8,000 is when they take in roads that
on a gross basis that's about the limit or the lot size that achieves the four
units per acre density. So the first thing the standard should do is allow them
to get to the density that the general plan allows. They shouldn't say four
units per acres and then have standards that allow only three units per acre.
So the 8,000 square feet basically in a perfect world would allow them to
have four units per acre density. The problem is the way subdivisions usually
lay out, if the minimum is 8,000 there are going to be some that are 8,500
and that's just the way that the geometry of properties and streets lay out. So
they want some flexibility to in essence, based on the design of a subdivision
and in this particular case this area has particular problems because it has
slopes which will dictate unique design solutions that allow for a little bit of
flexibility to go down to 7,200 square feet which would then require that
certain lots be at 8,800 square feet. That was the motivation for having both
an average and a minimum. He asked for any comments on that.
Chairperson Jonathan noted that the first column didn't have a heading. Mr.
Drell said it is the proposed standards. Chairperson Jonathan said that
4
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
,AFT.. REVISION
SUBJECT Tf.
MAY 18, 2004
compared to the existing R-1 and PR-4 standards. Mr. Drell concurred. Mr.
Drell asked if they wanted to go through them and comment on them.
Chairperson Jonathan said they should go through the more salient points
and any of them, including the applicant, could jump in with comments.
Regarding lot width, Mr. Drell said that one of the results of the re-
examination the applicant said he didn't want to be limited to 70 feet and if
they looked at the footnotes under the proposed changes they are actually
proposing a width of 60 feet. One of the design issues that is applicable to
this property is because of slope. Large lots inherently are going to be deep
because a large portion of the backs of the lots is going to be slope. It is
going to be making up the grade break. Therefore, inherently the lots are
going to be deeper than one would normally do on a flat site. Again, that was
to make the geometry work in terms of an 8,000 square foot lot. If they are
going to be excessively deep, then they are going to be narrower. That was
their request to allow a 60-foot wide lot instead of 70 feet. Mr. Drell said they
have done that fairly often over on Hovley on the five acre parcels where the
unique geometry of those five -acre pieces dictated a deep, somewhat
narrower lot. So it wasn't something they've done frequently, but he didn't
think it caused us any problems.
Lot depth. Mr. Drell said we don't have a standard for lot depth. It is just they
are providing one with a minimum of 90 feet and inherently it would probably
be 130 on this project.
Coverage. They were seeing 35% to 50%. He said that in many respects, a
lot of the PR-4 standards simply refer back to the R-1 standards with certain
exceptions. With one story buildings/one story homes the PR-4 standards
were identical to the R-1 standards and they would see that since the R-1
doesn't allow two-story and the PR-4 standards provide unique setback
requirements for two-story buildings.
Setbacks. He said setbacks are similar or really greater than the R-1 and
they were just more detailed. They have been trying to encourage interaction
with houses and streets and so they were allowing porches to encroach into
a front setback, otherwise, the 20 was pretty standard. They are encouraging
side -in garages because they provide a better, more attractive elevation so
they are allowing side -in garages to be closer to the street. They don't need
the long driveway straight out like they do for a straight -in garage.
5
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
_ SUBJECT T(.
AY'18, 004 REVISION
For rear setbacks, the project is proposing a greater rear setback at 20 feet
instead of 15 feet for the one story, but they're requesting that they can use
the same setback for one or two story. He wasn't sure the project was even
proposing two story. He said the applicant could shed some light on that.
Mr. Ross didn't think they were far enough along to determine if it is
one or two or a mixture.
MR. MIKE MARIX, 128 Vista Monte in Palm Desert, addressed the
commission. He thought it would probably change between single
family and the ten unit per acre density.
Mr. Drell explained that right now they were only talking about the low
density.
Mr. Marix said it hadn't been determined.
Mr. Drell noted that they instituted special two-story standards in the R-2 and
if their goal was to discourage two-story homes, it had been very effective.
He didn't think they have had a single project proposed while he knew there
had been two story homes being built all over the valley, none of them have
built in our town and one might surmise that the penalty in terms of side
yards that our current standards require might have played a part in
discouraging them. So the question is if they are going to allow for two-story
homes, then maybe they should have standards that make it possible.
Chairperson Jonathan asked for clarification on the garage setback. Even in
the low density what staff was proposing as a standard was that we allow
essentially a shared -wall garage. Mr. Drell said it was discretionary; it was
with discretionary approval. It's a signal to a developer that this is an idea we
are open to, so that is footnoted as a discretionary idea if the design justifies
it.
Going back to minimum lot width, Chairperson Jonathan asked if it was
staffs suggestion to have 70 feet and the applicant is requesting 60? If so,
did staff stand by the 70? Mr. Drell said he had no problem with 60 feet.
Mr. Ross said he wanted to show what was in the book the
commission reviewed. It has been an ongoing process and there has
been a lot of studies for 80-foot wide lots, 75, 70, and 60 seemed to
6
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT T.
iA Ff. lRgV/SI
MAY 18. 2004
work with the terrain. They have much deeper lots. As Phil mentioned,
they are a minimum of about 120 feet of depth which gives them a flat
pad of 7,200 square feet. Plus the slopes on the down hill, the total lot
sizes are much greater than 7,200 square feet. He said the 60
seemed to work better with how the terrain is situated on that site.
Interior side yards. Mr. Drell said for single story they are identical. The
difference is the way the two-story side yards work in the PR-4 and the
theory was to discourage monolithic block architecture that the single story
side yards would be the same, the single story elements would be subject to
the single story side yards of five and nine. The two-story elements would
have to be set back further. So it kind of required the second story element
to be significantly smaller than the first story element. Then they could
debate the merits of that and how they wanted to deal with it. Corners were
identical. Garages were identical. Staff always requires as a minimum 20-
feet where there is a straight -in garage.
Building height they are proposing the possibility of two -stories. In the
footnote they are proposing that they be allowed 24 feet and 26 feet instead
of 22 and 24, differentiating between flat roofed buildings and pitched roofs.
The reason for that is that in today's market, buyers are demanding a higher
plate height or greater interior volume and that has been driving that extra
foot for first floor and second floor. The difference was 22-24 and 24-26.
Chairperson Jonathan said he assumed that would only apply in a two-story
structure. Mr. Drell said that is an interesting point. Chairperson Jonathan
said he couldn't imagine a single story requiring 26 feet. Mr. Drell said they
have seen some pitched roofs where the peaks of the roof, depending on
how steep the pitch is and obviously in a very small portion of the house has
gotten some 20's. No higher than that. Again, those issues might be the
difference between the 22 and 24 and the 24 and 26. It would be a design
driven, discretionary approval that they would have to show us what was the
objective and whether the objective warranted the extra height. The last two
2-story apartment buildings the City approved were for ourselves on Santa
Rosa and Hovley Gardens and they were at 26 feet.
Mr. Ross said he didn't think they were opposed to adding a one story
category as well on what is typically approved in the city.
Mr. Drell said that is 18 feet.
7
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT T(,
ma REVISION
MAY 18, 2004
Mr. Ross said they could do that as a proposed modification as well
to distinguish between one story and two story.
Mr. Drell thought 18 feet was plenty of height for single story.
Commissioner Lopez asked about the housing projects on Country Club
Drive toward Washington that have two-story homes on the left hand side.
Mr. Drell asked if he meant Whitehawk. Commissioner Campbell said the
corner of Oasis. Commissioner Lopez said Regency Estates. Mr. Drell
explained that those were built in the County. Interesting enough, properties
in the county based on their standards, they were building two-story houses
and suddenly they were annexed to the city and they have never had a
single family project proposed under these standards. He lives in the county
and he knows the setback standards don't change when going from one-
story to two-story.
They talked about building heights. On the accessory structure, he wasn't
sure what the ten feet was.
Mr. Ross said that was a typo and needed to be 18 feet. The idea was
a casita or guest house type of thing and it should be 18 feet.
Commissioner Lopez said a one-story structure.
Mr. Ross concurred. A little granny flat or something.
Mr. Drell said that the presumption was that it would be within the building
envelope, not in the setback. Commissioner Campbell said they only allow
those in the front yards, not the back yards. Mr. Drell said no, they only allow
them if they are within the building envelope. If it is located within the
setbacks of where someone could built their main house, whether it was
attached or detached, staff didn't care. It only became an issue when they
were being built in actual yards and under 12,000 square feet, they basically
don't allow them to encroach into yards in our current code. In this code they
couldn't encroach into yards at all. He reminded the commission that the
controversy came up because we used to allow accessory structures within
five feet of the back wall, meaning we were allowing them to encroach into
the rear yard. The way the code is written on lots under 12,000 square feet
can't encroach into the rear yard at all. Commissioner Campbell said that
was why they changed the ordinance. The structure had to be away as many
8
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
‘AFT- SUBJECT TC.
REVISION
MAY 18, 2004
feet from the wall to give the height of the structure. Mr. Drell said that is on
Tots over 12,000 square feet. On these lots they basically have to be within
the normal setbacks of the dwelling. They are governed by the same rules
both in terms of setback and height as the primary dwelling. So if it is in a
location where someone could have their main house, then they can have
an accessory structure. But they can't encroach into a yard at all.
Projections and architectural features. He said this should probably be
footnoted as a discretionary item. Our code actually allows towers to exceed
25 feet, the standard in the zone. No one has ever gotten that, of course. But
the footnote would be that there is discretionary approval that architectural
tower elements could go up five feet, which was not inconsistent with our
current code. That's the R-1 Table.
Chairperson Jonathan asked Mr. Drell to keep going through the medium
and high density and then they would have discussion.
Medium Density. Mr. Drell said that right now the biggest issue is our current
code didn't contemplate medium density detached housing. In those days as
soon as they thought they went over four units per acre they were talking
about attached condos. That is what both the R-2 and the PR zone
standards kind of orient themselves in these higher densities.
The average lot size of 3,500 square feet in the R-2 zone or medium density
zone allows up to ten units per acre and that's the average they need to
achieve, ten units per acre. The same went with the minimum. They would
have some larger and some smaller and they would be allowed to adapt to
the geometry of how they have to put the tract together. But actually by
requiring people to have larger and smaller Tots, it creates a diversity of
housing because they have larger and smaller houses which he thought was
a good thing to encourage in terms of having some diversity of product within
a tract.
Lot coverage. They are saying 55%. Mr. Drell said they were proposing that
to go back to 50% as under the current code.
Regarding lot size, Chairperson Jonathan noted that Mr. Drell indicated that
those minimum lot sizes are required in order to achieve ten units per acre.
Mr. Drell said that was correct. Chairperson Jonathan asked what the magic
was in ten. Mr. Drell said that is the top end of the designation, of the range.
9
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2004
SUB1EiTTl;,
REVISION
It didn't force them to zone anyone for ten, but if we zone someone for ten
we should have a standard that allows them to achieve ten. Chairperson
Jonathan asked what the minimum number of units was in the medium
density. Mr. Drell said it would be five to ten. Our condominium projects
probably have lot sizes of 2,500 square feet in the country clubs. So it was
creating a standard that allows them to get to potentially what the zoning or
what the designations might allow.
Coverage would be reconciled back to 50%. Setbacks again were basically
a refinement. The 15-foot front would be the same. It would create an
incentive for front porches. It would actually force garages to be back further
because we want, especially on small Tots, we want the living architecture of
the house forward and the garage back so the garage is Tess prominent and
creating an incentive for side -in garages which deemphasizes the garage
door and the front elevations.
He said the rear setback was footnoted. He would like to see it revised to 20
feet to be consistent with our current standards. There are some designs he
could see in medium density where in essence the yard is in the middle in
some detached rear designs where they have house/yard/ garage. He said
when someone has a rear yard or a yard, they want a minimum 20-foot
dimension, which is when yards start becoming usable for outdoor living.
Side yards. Instead of being five and 14, in our current standard it would be
the perimeter setback of a duplex unit. Typically with a duplex unit there is
a zero yard between the two units, then the five and 14 on the sides on the
perimeter. Since they were contemplating not duplex units, but detached
units, they are proposing that the side yards be five feet or creating a
minimum of ten feet of building separation and potentially zero feet for
garages based upon the previous note about detached garages.
Chairperson Jonathan asked for clarification that the unlabeled column is
what staff is proposing. Mr. Drell said that is what the developer is proposing
and he is noting what he was suggesting be changed. He said that some of
the changes were generated by the applicant, and some as a result of
discussions with him. Chairperson Jonathan asked if these standards, once
they were ultimately approved, become part of the zoning standards. Mr.
Drell said yes, for this project only. Chairperson Jonathan asked if they would
serve as a precedent for other projects. Mr. Drell said they very well could.
10
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION !.J" % Y 1 , 2b0
SUBJECT TC
€visl0t
Chairperson Jonathan said this is just part of the development agreement for
this property. Mr. Drell concurred.
On the side yard, instead of completely eliminating 14 feet combined,
Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mr. Drell had considered reducing the 14 feet
combined. Mr. Drell said no. Basically they were saying it should be five and
five. The reason is his preference and emphasis is on rear yards, maximizing
usable yard space. As these Tots get smaller, they are struggling for every
square foot of usable yard space. What they were really saying is that the
wider the side yards are, the narrower the house becomes, the deeper it
becomes and that space comes out of the rear yard. Chairperson Jonathan
said the price to pay for the deeper rear yard is ten feet separation minimum
instead of 14. Mr. Drell said that was his preference. Commissioner
Campbell said if it was so narrower, someone could flush the toilet and a
person in the other house would hear it. Mr. Drell said no, ten feet was
probably the most common side yard in the United States. Whether it was 10
or 14, with modern insulation and windows he didn't think would make a
difference between 10 or 14 in terms of whether you are offended by hearing
someone flush a toilet.
In terms of process, Chairperson Jonathan said they aren't accepting these
or rejecting them, they are just listening to what was being proposed and
they would give the applicant a chance to talk, give everyone else a chance
to talk and then they would have their discussion and weigh the pros and
cons. Mr. Drell concurred. He said it was a matter of efficiently using the
ground and making the open space usable. He said it is a trade off, but that
is what life's all about.
Building height. Staff was proposing the same standard, the 22-foot flat 24-
foot pitched roof. He noted that the applicant was proposing the 24 feet and
26 feet based on the same rationale proposed in the R-1. He pointed out that
in our last two multifamily projects for ourselves we approved 26. That would
be on the discretionary side.
R-3. To reiterate, he said that under our new emerging R-3 standard in this
area everything is discretionary. Just the mere existence of going over 10
units per acre is discretionary, meaning that every project is going to have
to be design justified to get the density over 10. Chairperson Jonathan asked
if the density for medium is 5 to 10 and high density is 11 to 22. Mr. Drell said
11
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2004
SUBJECT T;.
R€VISION
the minimum project size, he wasn't sure it meant anything, but the size here
is being used similar to the R-3.
Minimum size detached. If they try to do any detached product, it could be
2,500 square feet. He didn't anticipate any detached product.
Mr. Ross said that one of the suggestions they were making was to
get rid of the detached standards because they were never going to
get there, high density detached.
Mr. Drell agreed that once it gets above ten it becomes almost impossible.
Mr. Ross said it has probably been done in other places; he didn't
think it was appropriate out here. He said they should take all
references to detached out of the manual.
Chairperson Jonathan said it was noted in the proposed changes.
Mr. Ross said that was correct.
Lot width. Mr. Drell said that lot width was the same, lot depth was the same,
coverage was the same, front setbacks - again relating to front porches,
otherwise, it was the same; rear setbacks they were saying were the same;
side yards - they were envisioning the potential for zero side yards he
thought. It was blank and he asked the applicant if that's what that meant.
Mr. Ross said on the attached part it would be zero and they had a
footnote to change the setback on the exterior of the buildings to the
nearest curb and/or property line of 20 feet.
Mr. Drell said that basically the side yard there would really relate to the
perimeter of the project. The general standard in the PR zone is 20 feet for
the project perimeter, so basically they were proposing to change it to have
the same project perimeter setback. Corner/street at 10 was the same.
Building separation. He said they didn't really have that standard. It was
proposed as 25 feet, 15 feet and 15 feet.
Building height. The suggested bump up from 24 to 26 for two stories. They
were also suggesting that under certain circumstances that we are willing to
12
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
'���'AFT
SUBJECT T(.
i % " REVISI J
MAY 18. 2004
look at a three-story product if it is shown to be the best way to provide the
housing we want in this particular case in the terrain. Basically, when they
have sloping height they want to make the footprints as small as they can
since they're having to create flat pads on a hill.
Mr. Ross thought they'd better show that, take it out of the standards
section on the booklet, and put it into the footnote section as really an
exception to the rule, not what was approved. The three story
component. The way it is shown now it is a two or three kind of a
thing, so their proposal is to put it down into the footnotes as really a
discretionary if a person can prove that it is a benefit to the overall
project through more open space, or better architecture, or various
other things. But it was not approved today.
Chairperson Jonathan said that if the three-story issue is not addressed at
all, either in the standard or as a footnote exception, he asked if an applicant
still had the ability to come in and request that under the actual zoning
standard. Mr. Drell said not really, it would become a .variance. He
apologized saying he didn't get from the applicant the exceptions language
to hand out to the commission that they proposed at the last meeting.
Assuming the fact that the exception language, although flowery, was simply
stating that if something was proposed that the City likes, they have the
ability to approve it, which was really the language in the current PR zone.
It basically says that all these standards shall apply unless Planning
Commission decides otherwise. He thought if it is mentioned, the benefit of
mentioning it would be in connection with some sort of discussion which kind
of described those sorts of circumstances by which it would be considered.
Chairperson Jonathan said he understood that, but his question was if the
development agreement was silent as to a three-story element, if an
applicant still had a legal mechanism or procedure available to request it. Mr.
Drell said yes. A good example was we approved a certain eight -story hotel
based on an exception section in the zone that allows two story.
Commissioner Finerty also indicated a three-story hotel. Mr. Drell concurred
that we've allowed three-story hotels as well. Commissioner Finerty said the
mechanism is there today without any specific language. Mr. Drell said yes.
The issue was whether the commission wanted as a matter of this document
to provide some guidance to a perspective applicant under what
circumstances it might be considered. He said that covered the residential
sections.
13
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
FT— SUBJEOT T!".
RV1Si0N1
MAY 18, 2004
Regarding the high density, Chairperson Jonathan asked if staff or the
applicant considered the possibility of a limit on the number of units per
structure. In other words, the vision of creating pods of 10 or 16 units or
something versus in one structure getting all 22. Mr. Drell said no. Typically
they've had eight of 16 at the most. Chairperson Jonathan said if they are
going to have 22 on a acre, maybe a structure of 10 and one of 12 was
preferable to one of 22 and maybe not. Mr. Drell agreed with that. The more
a dwelling unit gets its own unique individuality, the better. On the other
hand, there are people who would say that a desert island is the wonderful
thing because it was all massed together and there was more open space.
He wasn't necessary an advocate of that, but there were some schools of
planning that say there are positives to that design. It was just a matter of the
tradeoffs of individuality of residential product as opposed to open space.
Just to put it into perspective, Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mr. Drell
happened to know the density at Indian Creek Villas where each structure
has four units. Mr. Drell thought Indian Creek Villas was eight to ten units per
acre.
Chairperson Jonathan asked if there were any other questions for staff on
the residential side. There were none. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the
applicant wanted to address the residential side at this time, although he
would have more opportunity later.
Mr. Ross said he didn't have anything else, although he would be
happy to answer any questions.
Commissioner Campbell asked Mr. Drell if Council approved low density and
medium and not high density. The general plan the commission approved
had high density and the Council took away all the high density and made
it low density and medium density and ifthey were going to go ahead and
look at any projects later on in case they needed high density. That was the
way she understood it. Mr. Drell said that wasn't it exactly. Commissioner
Finerty noted that all medium density had a high density overlay. Mr. Drell
concurred saying what the Council did in essence was create a mega zone
with four units per acre to 22 units per acre with all approvals over ten units
being discretionary. And there is an overall goal in the university park area
north of Sinatra of achieving at least 4,037 units and they acknowledged that
without the high density, the best they could do even if maxed to 10, they
would only get about 3,300 units. So they acknowledged there would have
14
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2004
SUBJECT T(
REVJS10'N
to be high density. It's just they wanted in essence high density projects to
justify themselves based on those seven criteria, most of which are really the
same sort of design driven justifications we've always used for high density.
But they wanted to keep a hook and motivate anyone who wanted high
density to have to really raise the bar relative to design.
Other than the proposed changes on each of these categories,
Commissioner Lopez said there was some conversation that they should
probably indicate that one story is 18 feet. Mr. Drell said that was correct.
Commissioner Lopez indicated that the other proposed changes were the
suggestions to each of these densities. Mr. Drell said that was correct.
Regarding the height, he was suggesting that anything over the 22-24 height
is on the discretionary side.
Mr. Drell said that the commission also requested a matrix of the commercial
standards and staff prepared one the best they could of the existing
standards. The existing development agreement merely refers to our existing
standards pretty much. Unfortunately, the land use designations don't match
our existing designations so it was a little unclear. The good news is that in
the proposed land use plan, there are only really three separate areas. They
had already dealt with one area for the Evans project. He said the standards
float all over the place for no apparent rhyme or reason, but basically they
have the university village at the corner and that was an already approved
project. He said they basically used the PC-3 standards as a guide on the
Evans site. He thought it would probably be appropriate if the applicant just
wanted to refer to standards, to refer to the PC-3.
Chairperson Jonathan noted that the Evans site was mixed use. Mr. Drell
said that everything in the PC they've allowed creativity, but in the existing
development agreement he thought it referred in general to the PC-3
standards as kind of a starting point in terms of evaluating consistency.
Chairperson Jonathan pointed out that there were also some O.P. sections.
Mr. Drell concurred. He said that PC-3 allows offices to be within it, but they
didn't apply separate O.P. standards to the office portion of the project. They
applied the PC-3 standards the best they could to the whole project. With
regard to parking and the request for medical use, Chairperson Jonathan
said they referred to the O.P. standards. Mr. Drell said that was correct.
Since the office was such a large complex, it wasn't an incidental use.
15
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT IC
REVISION
MAY 18, 2004
Mr. Drell said that staffs suggestion was if it was going to refer to a zone, it
should probably refer to the PC-3 zone for that northwestern 11 acres, which
once developed will functionally be part of the university project. The piece
south ended up getting designated office and mixed use or really mixed use
with an office component. Mixed use was really going to be a custom design
again based on a unique encroach to integrating residential and commercial
use. That was the analysis and comparison relative to the commercial. He
said that completed the staff report and asked for any other questions.
Chairperson Jonathan said this was good work. It was exactly what he had
in mind and thanked Mr. Drell for putting it together. It shed light and enabled
him to get his arms around it. Procedurally, he said he would continue the
public hearing and give the applicant an opportunity to make any comments.
Mr. Ross also thought Mr. Drell did a great job with the comparison
and this table really cleared up some of the unanswered questions.
They were hopeful that this cleared up any misconceptions as to what
they were trying to do so they could move down the field and have a
nice, mixed use type project. He asked for any questions and was
hopeful of moving forward tonight.
Chairperson Jonathan said that they emphasized the importance of the
exceptions language so that it made it very clear that the exceptions were
not a given and in fact there is a higher bar to get over before the exceptions
would even be considered. He asked if Mr. Ross would be developing
language to that effect or if he had that already that they could look at.
Mr. Ross said they had and he thought it was emailed to Phil. He
thought so, but it was probably more wordy than it needed to be, but
it was basically talking about the intent of the project and an exception
would be granted if there is an overriding improvement of the overall
project. So it was really kind of wordy that they really needed to show
why they wanted this exception.
Chairperson Jonathan asked if the exceptions language was in process. Mr.
Drell said that basically, all it has to say is that exceptions will be considered
based on superior design.
Mr. Ross concurred that's what it said in about two paragraph's worth
of words.
16
MINUTES
F.
SUBJECT TC.
I
1 r‘ ® REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18.2004
Mr. Marix said that if the commission had not already done so, he
thought it would be instructive and very informative to perhaps go out
to the site today. There has been a fairly substantial amount of
grading that has been done for the commercial project right on the
corner. While they were looking at in terms of slopes was not going
to be the finished product, in other words, there are 500,000 cubic
yards of dirt that have been moved there, they will subsequently be
moving another 2,500,000 yards of dirt so the extent of the slope they
see will not be quite what they see right now.
The point was that there are some differences as it relates to things
such as two-story, setbacks, or whatever, that are greatly impacted
by those slopes. In the one sense mitigated, because they aren't
blocking views when there are just stepped down elevations between
pads that are maybe 15 or 20 feet each going from one tier of Tots
down to another. He thought it would be helpful, it certainly was for
him, to go out there and really test the magnitude of the slope they
are talking about. He reminded them that there is 100 feet of fall from
the highest point of their piece down to the corner of Gerald Ford and
Cook Street. So a lot of this evolves from that. While they talked about
120 feet of lot, it was pointed out, and accurately so, that the lots in
many cases will be substantially deeper than that. But he thought of
it in a practical sense. What is the usable depth of lot and the
explanation would be 120 feet. Nevertheless, the lot depth in many
cases exceeds that greatly. Again, to accommodate a fairly steep step
down in the elevations. He thanked the commission and asked if they
had any questions. His interest here was strictly in the residential
portion.
Commissioner Tschopp asked if it would negatively impact the proposed
project if design standards as defined in the current code were kept with just
a footnote stating they would go to these other standards if the design
component demanded such.
Mr. Marix said he didn't know if he could answer the question. They
had spent a substantial amount of time on it.
Mr. Drell said he would like to answer the question. Commissioner Tschopp
said he wanted to ask someone who is in the business. Mr. Drell said he
could tell the commission his experience and his experience with a very
17
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
FT. RtV
SUBJECT{S1QN Ti.
MAY 18, 2004
recent project. He was able to discourage that person because of the
moratorium. He believed the standards here are better and in most cases
they are really more detailed and provide guidance where our current code
doesn't offer any guidance at all. Developers have learned over the years to
take the path of least resistance and if they are told they can follow these
standards or take a chance and try to do something interesting and follow
these other ones, there's a whole group of developers out there that will say
"forget it, I'm not taking a chance, I'm going to go with what's secured." One
of his discussions with a certain developer and when he was trying to
encourage them to be more creative and come up with a better project, the
response was, "wait a minute, I meet your standards. There's no requirement
that I go beyond them." So he thought having a document that clearly says
this is what good design is and it goes far beyond pure numbers. In the book,
it was not the numbers, but just the text. A lot of standards being provided
here our current zoning is silent on entirely, especially the medium density.
When it comes to the low and they see there's not a lot of difference to what
they are proposing in our current standards. But in the medium, our medium
standards just don't contemplate detached units.
Chairperson Jonathan heard what he was saying, but thought there was a
slightly different nuance to Commissioner Tschopp's question. He asked if
Commissioner Tschopp wanted to restate it and actually hear from the
applicant from a developer's stand point. Commissioner Tschopp asked Mr.
Marix if he had to operate under the current codes, but was given latitude in
the verbiage in those codes to take additional steps if certain design criteria
were met, if that would have a negative impact on his development of the
property.
Mr. Marix said it seemed to him that to the extent they can provide
specificity, they're better served. So if they develop some standards
that are not quite as vague as perhaps the existing code may be, as
Mr. Drell suggested, they would get a better effort toward what might
be considered good design. Was he answering his question? He quite
frankly was more comfortable with the book that is presented to them,
in large part because they spent an enormous amount of time working
on it and trying to envision different product types and talking to the
builders who will subsequently be building them, not him. So he
guessed the answer to the question was he would prefer to see it as
requested.
18
AFT, -
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2004
Following up on Mr. Drell's comments, but giving them a twist, Commissioner
Tschopp noted that developers usually take the path of least resistance, so
if the code allows something, they will typically push that envelope and/or try
to get a few more inches or feet out of it. He asked if the commission was
going to see that in his projects as they come forth.
Mr. Marix said he was unable to answer that in that he wasn't the guy
that would be standing before them with some architecture and floor
plans, or some site plans, requesting approval. The folks he was
talking to he considered responsible people. That assured them of
absolutely nothing, but in the marketplace today, being this
competitive in many respects notwithstanding the article in the Desert
Sun on Sunday, folks are interested in limiting their down side in
terms of product definition. They want good stuff. They all of them in
their minds with the frenzy going on today are thinking this is going to
change sometime in the not too distant future. Therefore, they need
to having something that is going to survive increased interest rates
or the like.
He said the commission was going to get another shot at it as each
of these developments come forth to them, as is the City Council, so
it wasn't as though someone could walk into Mr. Drell's office and
plunk something down and say here it is, I'II be back in 20 minutes to
get a building permit. No, there would be a huge amount of work with
site planning, architecture, and floor plans that they will have before
them to consider before something is approved. If the issue they
raised is a fear of perhaps someone coming in in a minimal sense
demanding something, he didn't think that was possible with the way
this has been approved. He thought they had vast discretion and they
would spend many many hours on the 2,000 units shown here, or 4,
and that was his opinion.
Commissioner Finerty asked if he had a vision when looking at the low
density. She noticed that the standards call for a minimum of 7,200 square
foot Tots. Going back to the good old days, they had R-1 9,000 square foot
lots that were single story. She asked if he envisioned anything like that in
his project.
19
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
FT. SUBJECT It
REVISION
MAY 18, 2004
Mr. Marix said that some of the Tots are that big just the way it lays
out. He confirmed that those were the exceptions without any
question.
Commissioner Finerty stated that she appreciated his honesty.
Mr. Marix said he wasn't sure how to answer something like that and
wasn't trying to throw it back at her. If someone wanted to spend
more money, they would have Tots of other alternatives, perhaps not
in Palm Desert, but in La Quinta and now interestingly enough Indio
and other places. He thought what they would find with the 60-foot lot
and side yard setbacks that have been recommended some very nice
product. His guess was that under current circumstances, probably
$400,000 houses. These were not tar paper shanties that are going
to go up there.
Commissioner Finerty asked if that was in part because of the major
increase in property values right now. If they were to have talked about this
product two years ago, she didn't think they would be looking at anywhere
near $400,000.
Mr. Marix agreed. What he was suggesting was that the housing
would be the same. Whatever someone chose to market would be
what they project the demand in Palm Desert to be and the lot sizes
are an adjustment speaking in part to the question of subsequent
price. They could have acre lots out there. Anything like that was
possible, but in the series of compromises they make is a function of
all the information that they input including engineering, topo, view
lots, etc., it synthesizes itself into something that seems to make
sense. That was his opinion. The good news from the commission's
point of view is they have competent staff to guide them in that
process knowing full well that when the time comes, they would be
standing back up there sheepishly asking for the commission's
approval. And that is a good thing. He didn't know that increasing it to
8,000 square feet would necessarily provide them a better project or
development community.
Commissioner Finerty said she was talking about R-1 9,000 because it
seemed to her they were trying to do is take what they currently know as
medium density and rework it into a new low density. Because they are
20
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
R.
AFT. REV1SgoNSUBJECT
MAY 18, 2004
chipping away at the coverage, chipping away at the setbacks, chipping
away at the lot width, the lot size and they are making it so that the low
density they know was actually being turned into medium density. The low
density she is used to as far as the R-1 9,000 is as he put it an exception
rather than the rule.
Mr. Marix said he didn't know if she asked him a question, but his
answer to the non question would be that the dynamics of the
marketplace are changing substantially, so how does somebody, a
merchant in this business in one form or another, make the
accommodations to the changes that are made. He didn't know
people who are out proposing half acre lots or two acre lots or five
acre ranchettes which are things that were not too uncommon 15 or
20 years ago.
Commissioner Finerty said she was talking about the quarter acre Tots, the
R-1 9,000. That was something in the late 1990's they used to strive for and
were really encouraged when they saw a project come forward with that. But
it seemed to her, with all due respect, that they are trying to take these
standards and get every nickel and dime out of them when in reality they still
have with our current standards the ability to come in with a project of
exceptional design quality.
Mr. Marix said they were entitled to their opinion.
Commissioner Campbell asked how Mr. Marix envisioned the low density
standards they have now for 8,000 square feet and then they have the
medium density around there and she asked how he would envision having
low density and then a cluster of high density as described in the booklet.
Mr. Marix said he harkened back to the comments about
topographical features of the site. The low density is at the greatest
elevation of the property, so as they come down the slope, it gets to
be higher density and subsequently commercial. The point being that
the low density is still going to have fairly magnificent views in a large
part to the north part looking over those buildings that are even higher
density. So it was not like they are side by side and if the view is
impacted in some form or fashion. He thought not. As they evolved
through the planning process over what seemed like the last eight or
21
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
AFT. R€V
SUBISIONJEC C.
MAY 18, 2004
ten years, but really two or three, it evolved that way, largely driven by
topographic features.
Mr. Drell added that regardless of the fact that Council as a matter of right
eliminated the distinction in terms of spatially on the ground between the high
and the medium, they envision the high density to be where this commission
approved it, toward the commercial and along Gerald Ford and the medium
density in between. So they didn't envision a high density cluster against the
low density. Commissioner Campbell concurred, but what she envisioned
when coming to Palm Desert on the freeway on Cook and what did they see
first? The cluster would be of the multi -family. Mr. Drell said they would see
the commercial on the corner, behind that was a park, and then there was
medium density. The high density was shown down Gerald Ford. He said
there was nothing to be ashamed of. There is high density on Fred Waring,
high density on Country Club and there's nothing to be ashamed of to have
high density. It's all a matter of design and quality of a project.
Mr. Marix said that the commission would have the ability and their
own judgement to approve or disapprove what is brought before
them. He has seen one of the elevations being proposed for one of
the high density sites right now. It presides momentarily here in the
City because the City will be involved in it. In his view it is a very very
good looking development. That was his subjective opinion, but it was
not as though he thought they were giving up any of those abilities to
take a look at it and take a look at colors. They have the committees
to do that, to review the architecture, so they were just dealing here
with broad terms and the specifics would come before them any
number of times.
Commissioner Campbell said that she would be comfortable with the two -
stories, but not a three-story building.
Mr. Marix pointed out that the site is surrounded by three-story
buildings.
Commissioner Campbell concurred. Commissioner Finerty said they weren't
apartment buildings. Commissioner Campbell agreed. They are commercial
buildings.
Mr. Marix said there are two hotels and one college.
22
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
AFT' SUBJECT TC.
® REVISION
MAY 18, 2004
Commissioner Campbell said that was different. Chairperson Jonathan
indicated they would have an opportunity for discussion in a second and
asked if there were any other questions for the applicant. After no other
questions, Chairperson Jonathan told Mr. Marix that his candor was
refreshing and appreciated and thanked him.
Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or
OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public hearing was closed.
Chairperson Jonathan asked for commission comments.
Chairperson Jonathan said that if they wanted, they could just go down and
discuss items they want to comment on and ones they might have
disagreement on. Starting with the low density standards, he asked if anyone
had an opinion or exceptions to what was being proposed.
Commissioner Tschopp said that the average lot size is currently 8,000 and
this was maintaining an average lot size of 8,000, taking the minimum down
to 7,200, giving some latitude there. He believed the 60-foot lot width if
designed properly could work. The lot coverage stays fairly consistent. They
have a 10% increase in that. When he looked at the low density standards,
he didn't have a big problem with those.
Commissioner Lopez echoed that. He thought they needed to make a
change with the accessory structure from ten to 18 feet, but generally
speaking, low density was fine.
Commissioner Finerty disagreed. She thought the current standards in the
rest of the city worked fine and she didn't see a need to lessen the standards
as proposed here. Should there be a quality -designed project that a
developer would like to bring to them, they still had the ability to do so, but
to just chip away at the lot size, lot width and coverage, the rear yard
setbacks, the building heights, she didn't see that it was necessary.
Chairperson Jonathan asked if her issues were specifically the minimum lot
size and the minimum lot width. Commissioner Finerty said that and
coverage. There was a 10% increase in coverage and not having everything
covered with a building is nice and she tended more toward the 35%. The
rear yard setback would be lessened by five feet. They are increasing the
height from 18 feet to 24 feet up to 26 feet. She wasn't seeing a need to do
that at this time. She believed that when a project comes before them they
23
MINUTES
SUBJECT N.
REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18. 2004
have the option to make any changes, but she agreed with what other
commissioners have said and developers are going to push the envelope.
They push it now and if these lower standards are adopted, they would
continue to push it. It was human nature and she didn't blame them for doing
that, it was their business to maximize, but she didn't think that was in the
best interest of Palm Desert.
Commissioner Campbell agreed with Commissioner Finerty on that. They are
looking at 8,000 square foot lot sizes right now, but if something like this is
approved, others would come to the commission and say they should be
able to do the same thing. She thought the minimum coverage they can do
is best for all of them. The 18-foot one story is fine. They don't have two-
story homes here in Palm Desert yet and she was sure it would be coming.
The apartments on 42nd are 24-feet high, but those are apartments and two-
story homes would be constructed, she would rather have them in one
cluster to look into each others yards and not have single story mixed with
two -stories.
Chairperson Jonathan said he agreed with all of them. The reason is he
shared the concerns of the two commissioners. They have an area
designated as low density and he hadn't heard a compelling reason that our
low density standards should be liberalized. On the other hand, he agreed
with the other commissioners in that it is possible under the right
circumstances to design an appropriate and attractive project with 7,200
square feet like they had done off of Hovley with reduced minimum lot
widths. So the suggestion he had to accomplish both was to leave the
standards as they are for the PR-4, but use the exception approach to allow
a developer to go down to 7,200 square feet minimum lot size or a 60-foot
lot width under appropriate or compelling circumstances. He could see in this
situation those could arise. He would have an open mind to it should the
applicant make his or her case. He would also suggest with regard to the
building height that they retain the one-story/18 foot height and the two-
story/24 foot height as indicated in the PR-4 standards and again, use the
exception approach for the two-story going to 26 feet in the event of a
pitched roof. But he thought there would be that additional bar to overcome.
He asked what the commission thought.
Commissioner Lopez said he was fine with that.
24
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2004
,liA T.
F.
SUBJECT TI
REVISION.
,,
Commissioner Finerty understood Chairperson Jonathan's suggestion, but
the developer already had that ability. The developer could already bring that
to them if it is a high -quality project. So she didn't see the point of giving
them an open invitation, but they would look at these lower standards. She
didn't understand the goal here. She didn't see how this was going to better
our city.
Commissioner Tschopp thought they were trying to give this area some
goals and to articulate in an agreement specifically what they are looking for
and acknowledging that the city has certain housing requirements to meet.
He thought in this area specifically both of the applicants mentioned that
there is a tremendous topography and there are some opportunities out
there to utilize that and he thought they were trying to give the builders some
direction so that they don't spend a lot of time designing something that isn't
going to work or spending a lot of time with staff. So they were trying to give
some minimums there and that is where the average lot size comes into play
with the maximum. He thought the topography was a huge issue out there.
A couple of other comments is that everyone is worried about height limits
as it pertains to views. So far in the homes in places he has lived in Palm
Desert in other areas, it isn't the house across the street that blocks his view,
it is the vegetation. They need to chop down trees or put a limit that they
can't grow beyond 24 feet. Thirdly, if they looked at country clubs and
planned unit developments, they will see that most of the houses in there are
closer than these. The setbacks from the golf course or common area are
less than this and it works very well. What they were trying to do here is give
some flexibility and say they will allow this if the design and specifics warrant
it.
Commissioner Finerty agreed they should give flexibility, but the mechanism
they have used in the past has worked quite well. Developers have come to
the commission, sometimes under miscellaneous, and they will say what
they would like to do with the area, present some ideas and ask for
commission comments to see if they are headed in the right direction or if
they need to make some changes. Then they will go back and change their
plans and then they bring it forward. They have done that before quite
successfully. Also, Planning Department staff is more than willing as
demonstrated to say they need "x" amount of units out there and if they
come in with a high quality project, which she thought Mr. Drell did just
recently when they approved the project over on the Charlie Sweet property,
25
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18.2004
FT� R€VtS109dSUBJECT 11
they came in with great standards as far as architecture and design for
medium density and they didn't have to have a differentiation in standards.
They recognized that was a great project and architecture. They knew the
issues with that area and the neighborhood, just like in this other area they
have issues with slope and the topography and they approved the project
and it moved forward, all without having different standards.
Commissioner Lopez noted that Chairperson Jonathan had a suggestion as
to what might be a compromise and asked him to go through that one more
time. Chairperson Jonathan said yes, but prefaced it with saying that the
reason for doing it was answered by the applicant, Mr. Marix, when he was
asked by Commissioner Tschopp what developers prefer. He told
Commissioner Finerty that he recognized that they have granted numerous
exceptions where circumstances warrant them and he trusted that they
would continue to do so under the appropriate circumstances. But he thought
they were doing a service to the development community and to the city in
further delineating in greater detail when and how and what types of
exceptions would be granted. For example, when they say the standard is
8,000 square foot minimum lot size, but under the appropriate circumstances
they would grant an exception down to 7,200 square feet, the implicit
message there is that they really weren't expecting to go below that. So he
thought they were doing what the applicant has said developers prefer which
is to further define for them the standards.
For that reason, he was suggesting that they keep the standards in the
development agreement the same for low density as they are for PR-4 so
that for example the minimum lot size would be 8,000 square feet and there
would be a provision for exception down to 7,200 square feet. The minimum
lot width would remain at 70, but with a provision for an exception down to
60 under appropriate circumstances. He was also suggesting that in the
primary structure building height, that they again mirror the PR-4 standard
which is one story with 18 feet and two -stories with 24 feet, but that they
allow an exception for a pitched roof to go to 26 feet.
Commissioner Finerty recalled from the last meeting that Chairperson
Jonathan asked for a list of where these exceptions would apply. They didn't
have a list, so a list of appropriate circumstances right now remained
undefined. They didn't know where any of these standards would apply and
in what case, so if a developer comes in and thinks lots should be 7,200
because they have a great design, which is what Mr. Drell alluded to, the
26
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2004
E SUBJECT T(.
"' REVISION
quality of the design, she asked if that was going to be their only appropriate
circumstance? She hoped not.
Chairperson Jonathan said no, and agreed with that, which is why he asked
earlier about the exceptions language. He would not be opposed to agreeing
to these standards, but perhaps if necessary continuing the matter to
exclusively address the exceptions language where they can specify the
types of circumstances. Because Mr. Drell was looking puzzled, Chairperson
Jonathan asked if we already had that. Mr. Drell said no, but on the one
hand they didn't want to specify details, but they wanted to specify
circumstances for exceptions. Right now the exceptions language in the
ordinance is, and if what Ms. Finerty said is the appropriate way to go and
is perfect, it simply says that the way they've granted all the exceptions
they've alluded to is simply a section that says these are the standards that
apply unless they decide others are appropriate. That is what they have
operated on. They have complete control in that language and the simpler
the language in that argument is, the more control they have. Chairperson
Jonathan said he could see his point. Commissioner Finerty indicated that
when a developer comes in and sees 7,200 square feet, it hasn't been made
clear to them as to what circumstances the commission would look favorably
upon that size of a lot. She also didn't think it had been made clear that this
is an exception and not a new standard.
Commissioner Campbell asked why then they wouldn't be able to leave the
average lot size area from 9,000 to 8,000 square feet. Mr. Drell said the
current standard is 8,000 square feet. Chairperson Jonathan remembered
projects in the past that had 12,000. Mr. Drell agreed that people proposed
larger. Commissioner Finerty asked about the project by Regency Estates.
She asked if they had to change that. Mr. Drell said it was under the County
at 12,000 square feet. Commissioner Finerty agreed, but a developer came
in and wanted 8,000 and in some cases 7,200 square foot Tots and it looked
like little postage stamps, and when it got to Council they changed it. Mr.
Drell said they reduced them to 9,500 square foot lots and ended up going
to 10,500. But in terms of what is now in the PR standard is 8,000 square
foot Tots. All of these properties currently are zoned Planned Residential.
That is their current residential zone. Commissioner Finerty agreed that was
PR, but she was talking about R-1. Mr. Drell said that the properties they are
talking about are currently zoned and have been zoned since incorporation
PR. So the standards they have been subject to for 10-12 years is the PR
standard. The PR standard refers to the R-1 8,000 standard in the code.
27
MINUTES
TSUBJECT It
REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2004
Commissioner Campbell said that if someone comes in front of them with the
8,000 square feet, they can say they think they can put this size in a larger
lot. She asked if they could ask that. Mr. Drell said no, they couldn't do that
now under the current code. They couldn't force a developer to provide a
lower density than their zoning allows, unless they could show there was
some threat to public health and safety that would result. Again, developers
have chosen all through the history of the city all sorts of various lot sizes
based on the market. Some have chosen sometimes 10,000 to 12,000
square feet and some have chosen 8,000. He thought the vast majority have
chosen 8,000 to 9,000 square feet since most of our development has
occurred in the PR zone over the last 10-12 years.
Chairperson Jonathan suggested for the commission's consideration was
essentially to adopt the same standards as the PR-4 standards for the low
density and this development agreement. He wasn't suggesting that they
vary from them. He was suggesting that they embrace those same
standards. The only part "B" to that is that they define certain exceptions they
would be willing to consider under the appropriate circumstances without any
message or encouragement that they would do so. But just as a matter of
guidance to indicate that they would be willing to consider the exceptions
down to those certain limits and he thought that was the benefit. They were
just defining the types of exceptions and the extent of those exceptions that
they would be willing to consider again under appropriate circumstances and
adequately persuaded that an exception at all would be allowed. And that
would be their ability to say yay of nay.
Commissioner Lopez asked if they wanted to move on to medium or take
each one individually. Chairperson Jonathan asked if they were allowed to
take kind of an indication or vote on separate sections. Mr. Drell said they
could do like they did with the general plan with little minute motions for their
own purposes. Chairperson Jonathan said if that was allowed, then maybe
that was good because then they would know if they were in a position to
move forward.
Action:
It was moved by Chairperson Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Lopez,
by minute motion, to adopt the same standards for the development
agreement with regard to Low Density standards as we have for PR-4,
specifically the minimum lot size would remain at 8,000 square feet, the
minimum lot width would remain at 70 feet, the rear yard setback would not
28
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2004
DRAFT SUBJECT IC
REVISION
have a zero foot setback for garages, nor would the interior side yard (they
would delete the reference to zero feet for garages), building height will be
18 feet for one story, 24 feet for two story and the accessory structure will be
18 feet. The exceptions language will refer to the possibility of minimum lot
sizes of 7,200, minimum lot widths of 60 feet, and the five-foot
projections/architectural features would be discretionary as well, and up to
26 feet for a pitched roof.
Commissioner Campbell noted that Mr. Marix indicated that some of those
lots would be larger than 8,000 square feet, so anyone who wanted a larger
lot could pay more. Chairperson Jonathan said it was always possible that
someone would acquire property in the low density or even a medium
density and request a change, but they would come in and create 10,000 if
that is the direction the market goes in and if that is the economics. He
thought an applicant was always free, as they have been in the past, to
come in and bring us larger lots. Mr. Drell informed them there is actually a
difference today as was discussed with the general plan. It has now been
recognized under State law that cities have an obligation to actually provide
housing regardless of the market and that even developer -initiated down
zonings in residential required cities to find substitute units somewhere else.
Where we used to give people awards for not building housing, it has been
recognized that the purpose of cities is to house people and therefore those
awards are not being given out any more.
Given the motion and the caveat that design element will play a part in
granting the proposals, Commissioner Tschopp asked if Chairperson
Jonathan wanted to include any allowance for keeping the lot size 8,000, but
allowing for smaller Tots since they are trying to define this for the benefit of
developers in the city. Commissioner Finerty stated that it wasn't for the
developers in the city, it is just for the developers for this project. She asked
if that was correct. Chairperson Jonathan said yes. Commissioner Tschopp
clarified developers of this project within the city. Chairperson Jonathan said
if he read Commissioner Tschopp right, he was suggesting that there be
some language in the exceptions that indicates that one of the compelling
arguments for example for the exception in the minimum lot size is if the
8,000 square foot average lot size is still preserved. So if there is unique
topography so there is a mix of 9,000 square foot lots and 7,200 square foot
lots, that might be an example of a compelling reason to allow an exception.
Commissioner Tschopp said yes. Chairperson Jonathan said that in fact has
been a rationale for granting exceptions in the past. He thought that would
29
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2004
A ,
SUBJECT T(.
R
r 4% i °® REU1S10'id
enhance what they were doing here. He asked if there was any further
discussion before the vote. There was none. The vote was 4-1 with
Commissioner Finerty voting no.
Using the same approach for Medium Density for five to ten units,
Chairperson Jonathan asked the commissioners if there are areas they have
concerns on or take issue with.
Commissioner Campbell asked if they were changing the rear yard setback
to 20 feet. Mr. Drell said that was correct, and coverage to 50%. Chairperson
Jonathan asked if the medium density minimum lot size of 3,000 square feet
is the highest minimum that would be required to accommodate ten units per
acre. Mr. Drell said no, the 3,500 average. So even with 3,000 they would
still be at the 3,500 average.
Commissioner Campbell asked for the minimum lot size if they could do the
same thing suggested by Commission Tschopp before that so many lots
could be 3,000 square feet, but most should be 3,500 square feet. Mr. Drell
said that was inherent in it and Chairperson Jonathan said that was already
the standard that was being proposed. A project would have to have an
average lot size of at least 3,500. Commissioner Campbell said she meant
minimum lot size. She didn't think they wanted to have too many at 3,000.
Chairperson Jonathan said that would be correct, because there would be
others at 4,000 to balance out and an equal number would be at 4,000. That
was exactly right.
Chairperson Jonathan said he was okay with these standards and didn't
have any exceptions. Commissioner Lopez asked if it would be appropriate
to add one story at 18 feet. Chairperson Jonathan agreed that needed to be
clarified. It would say one story/18 feet and two stories/24 feet.
Commissioner Tschopp assumed those would be incorporated into the
proposed changes that staff highlighted at the bottom of the table.
Chairperson Jonathan concurred.
Mr. Drell questioned why the accessory structure was listed as 20 feet
instead of 24 because if the main house could be built at 24 feet high, he
thought there would be no reason for 20 feet. It was too much for single story
and not enough for two-story. If it is located where a two-story main dwelling
could be built, it should be the same. Commissioner Lopez suggested
making it 18/24. Mr. Drell said it would be the same as the primary dwelling
30
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2004
SUBJECT T(.
REVISION
DRAF
as long it was within the setbacks. Chairperson Jonathan confirmed 18 for
one story and 24 for two stories. They already had the change for the 26 feet
for a pitched roof.
With those modifications clarifying that the building height is 18 feet for one
story, 24 feet only for two stories and the same for accessory structures,
Chairperson asked if there was a motion to accept the Medium Density
development standards for this development agreement.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp,
accepting those development standards. Motion carried 4-1 with
Commissioner Finerty voting no.
High Density, 11 to 22 units per acre, was the next section. As a point of
clarification, Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mr. Drell proposed adding
language as far as side yard setback for 20-foot setbacks on the perimeter
of the project. Mr. Drell agreed that project perimeter setbacks should be
differentiated from interior building setbacks within a project. Referring to the
chart, he said they are saying 10 feet to interior property line and we would
say 20 feet to interior property line. Chairperson Jonathan asked for
clarification. Mr. Drell said they do have a perimeter section proposed, which
is 20 feet from curb. Commissioner Campbell noted that on Medium Density
under the proposed changes, the following footnote - "Cluster/Attached units
may include 0-feet setbacks within the project but will provide 20-foot
setbacks from all perimeter project area lines upon discretionary approval."
She said that same thing would apply here. Mr. Drell concurred that it should
apply. The basic perimeter setback should be 20 feet for both.
Chairperson Jonathan said the side yard setback, in High Density they are
now not really talking about single family detached residences. Mr. Drell said
they are apartments. Chairperson Jonathan agreed and said possibly
condos. Mr. Drell concurred. Chairperson Jonathan said that side yard
setbacks would really refer to distance between structures. He asked if they
needed a standard there. Mr. Drell said they really didn't. Structure
separation ultimately was governed by fire codes. That's why in the current
PR zone the setback standards only refer to the perimeter of how the project
relates to surrounding properties. In multi -family projects and even condos,
they don't have property lines to measure setbacks from usually.
Chairperson Jonathan noted that commercial properties can have zero
31
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2004
DFil% A FT SUBJECT R€VIS16yTl.
setbacks on the sides with the fire wall, so for example he would not want a
developer to think the city was embracing zero side setbacks between
structures. If he can create a fire wall between them, he still didn't want to
see ten buildings all next to each other. Mr. Drell reminded the commission
that everything in this zone is discretionary on design. He said he has seen
horribly designed projects that meet our standards. Ten -foot building
separation allows windows and doors. They could require at a minimum a
10-foot building separation within a project. He said the issue they were
talking about is at the perimeter of a project as it relates to other properties
and other projects they want 20 feet as identified in the R-2. So those are
different and measured from property lines, but within a condo project, town
houses or apartments, they don't necessarily have property lines to measure
from so they are just talking about building separation and they are saying
a minimum 10-foot building separation which allows for windows and doors.
Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was any problem with specifying a
minimum side yard setback between structures, something like 10 feet for
single story and 15 for two stories. Mr. Drell said he didn't have a problem
with that. Chairperson Jonathan said he would be more comfortable with
giving that kind of direction to a potential developer so they at least know that
and have that in mind. Mr. Drell said that was building separation, so building
separation between two-story buildings would be 15 feet.
Chairperson Jonathan said he had one other area he would want to open up
for discussion. That was the three-story structures. His threshold for the
desert is generally two-story. He has seen projects that go three stories that
he can live with and one approach would be to make the three-story an
exception rather than just built into the standard. For example, if there was
a slope and it was two -stories from the street side but goes down to three
stories in the rear, he would probably not have a problem with it. Or if it was
really nicely designed and they were shown some pictures where it is not
massive from the front and looks two -stories from the front. Or part of it is
down into the ground. There were lots of possibilities. So he wasn't opposed
to three stories under the right circumstances, but he was a little more
comfortable making that an exception rather than the standard.
Commissioner Lopez concurred. When looking from the highest point to the
lowest point, three stories is going to stick up a little bit. When looking from
Gerald Ford back up, three stories looks like four, four and a half or five. Now
that he was kind of retired, he didn't think anyone really perceived the mass
32
R
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECTI NTc
RCVISV
MAY 18, 2004
that Shadow Ridge is at three stories until they had actually built the
buildings. So he would rather see that be the exception and in knowing
where the high density would probably fall, it would have to be an exception
and a beautiful structure or use of topography that would make it work.
Mr. Drell pointed out that everything in this zone is an exception. Chairperson
Jonathan said that was understood, but in terms of offering guidance, he
thought it kind of emphasized the point that three stories was really higher.
Commissioner Tschopp indicated that footnote number one specifies that
very distinctly shall require discretionary approval, shall demonstrate the
advantages of development of three story structures, may include additional
common open space, the building foot print, incorporation of slopes." He
thought it was already handled in that manner. Chairperson Jonathan said
it wasn't specified as an exception. Commissioner Tschopp said this whole
thing is an exception so they are saying here is a little bit of parameters and
if someone decides to build at three stories, we are looking at these types of
things. Chairperson Jonathan said he was saying make it an exception, but
build in this language. Commissioner Tschopp noted that right in the foot
note it says it's an exception.
Commissioner Campbell asked why an accessory structure would be
required in High Density. Mr. Drell agreed that it didn't make any sense in an
apartment project. He thought it was a hold over from when they were
thinking about a detached product, but since a detached product really
wasn't going to exist, it was irrelevant.
Commissioner Campbell noted that on the projections for architectural
features, it says five feet above primary structure. She said it was already a
35-foot building. So they would have five feet on top of that? Mr. Drell said
it was like our three-story hotels; we've granted architectural projections
above 35 feet for hotel structures, for tower elements, for almost every single
hotel we've approved. Chairperson Jonathan clarified that he was talking
about tower elements, chimneys and stuff like that. Mr. Drell concurred. He
said they could specify the same language that is in the current code which
is not exceeding 10% of the roof area. For it to be a projection, it had to be
a minority feature and our current code specifies that at 10%. Chairperson
Jonathan thought that was a good idea.
Chairperson Jonathan thought they were heading toward adopting the High
Density standards with the following modifications. The side yard setback
33
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
FT.RVti
SUBJSI(dECT T+
MAY 18, 2004
would be specified between structures as 10 feet for single story and 15 feet
between two story or more. The building height as discussed would be an
exception, but with the footnote language indicated. They were going to
delete the accessory structure and would modify the projections to provide
the 10% or Tess limit. Mr. Drell said it should be applied to all the categories.
Commission concurred. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was a motion
to that effect.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Lopez,
to approve those modifications. Motion carried 3-2 with Commissioners
Campbell and Finerty voting no.
Action:
Chairperson Jonathan summarized that the vote for the Low Density and
Medium Density was 4-1 and for High Density 3-2. As modified as discussed,
he asked if they were ready for a formal motion with regard to the matter
before them.
Mr. Drell said they might want to talk a little about the commercial in that they
probably want to refer to Planning Area 9 as a general reference, as modified
by the text, to PC-3 commercial zone. He wasn't sure how they would deal
with the Mixed Use since they didn't have a zone, but he thought they could
probably reference most of the PC-3 and PR zone. Chairperson Jonathan
didn't think they needed to reference anything. It would be as it came before
them. He asked if Mr. Drell was suggesting that for area 9 that the
commission reference it as a PC-3 standard. Chairperson Jonathan asked
if anyone had a problem with that. There was no response. Including that
and the discussion earlier for the residential, Chairperson Jonathan asked
if anyone was prepared to bring forth a motion with regard to the entire
application before them.
Commissioner Lopez said he would move that they go ahead and approve
this application as amended. He would also like to incorporate what he
thought was a great job. There were some minor changes here this evening,
but overall for this particular very important entrance to our city, these
guidelines were necessary, helpful and would only embellish the projects that
come before them. He thought they did a great job and moved for approval.
Commissioner Tschopp seconded the motion. Chairperson Jonathan asked
if there was discussion.
34
MINUTES
SUBJECT 7(
I� i'r
REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2004
Commissioner Campbell said she had a problem because she voted against
the High Density. Chairperson Jonathan said she was going to have a choice
to make in terms of the overall package and whether her issues with the high
density were of sufficient magnitude to preclude her from voting in favor of
the whole project. Mr. Drell reminded them that the plan does specify the
language as from the General Plan saying that every high density project is
absolutely discretionary.
Chairperson Jonathan thanked the applicant and staff for doing a great job.
He thought this was really an important step in the whole process of looking
at this area, arriving at a conclusion as to what is appropriate for the area,
and then taking it to the next level and getting into those details. He hoped
it would make it easier for a developer to understand where they are going.
He also wanted to say that initially with the whole north sphere he had a
major problem with medium density and high density and after listening to
Mr. Drell and others, he could see that there is no need for them as a city to
lower our standards. Whether it is low density, medium density or high
density, he intends to maintain our very high standards and hoped the
applicants as they develop their projects understand that and join us in that
objective because he thought it was possible economically and from a design
stand point to meet everybody's needs. So he supported the motion.
Commissioner Campbell stated that she would vote very reluctantly in favor
of it, but when the high density standards come in front of her, she would
look at them very closely. But she thought the rest of the project was very
good, so she would vote in favor.
Chairperson Jonathan called for the vote. Motion carried 4-1 with
Commissioner Finerty voting no.
It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by , adopting Planning
Commission Resolution No. 2269, recommending to City Council approval
of C/Z 03-13 and DA 04-04. Motion carried 4-1 with Commissioner Finerty
voting no.
C. Case No. PP 03-22 - PATEL ARCHITECTURE, Applicant
Request for approval of a precise plan of design to allow the
construction of a 12,450 square foot office building located on
35