Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDiscussion of Medium Density Guidelines - University Park Section II Development CriteriaCITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT REQUEST: Discussion of medium density development guidelines. SUBMITTED BY: Steve Smith, Planning Manager DATE: January 27, 2005 CONTENTS: Staff Recommendation Background City Council Minutes of July 8, 2004 Draft Standards Recommendation: See conclusion. Discussion: The northern area of the City is currently zoned Planned Residential (PR). M.C. section 25.26.010 delineates the purpose of the PR district as follows: It is the purpose of the PR district to provide for flexibility in development, creative and imaginative design, and the development of parcels of land as coordinated projects involving a mixture of residential densities and housing types, and community facilities, both public and private. The PR district is further intended to provide for the optimum integration of urban and natural amenities within developments. The PR district is also established to give a land developer assurance that innovative and unique land development techniques will be given reasonable consideration for approval and to provide the city with assurances that the completed project will contain the character envisioned at the time of approval. July 8, 2004 staff presented development standards for low, medium and high density development in connection with the University Park Master Plan. The City Council denied the Master Plan and expressed a preference for the review of development standards on a project - by -project basis. October 28, 2004 staff presented the medium density tentative map project (at Gerald Ford and Gateway) with specific standards within the conditions of approval. After approving the project, Councilman Ferguson requested that more generalized standards be brought back for discussion. December 7, 2004 Planning Commission approved the medium density RDA project known as Hovley Gardens. 1 STAFF REPORT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JANUARY 27, 2005 Both of these projects involved standards consistent with those included in this report. The attached development guidelines for medium density projects will allow for "flexibility in development, creative and imaginative design...". These development standards, if endorsed, will become the general guidelines staff will use in the future and will give developers direction with how to design medium density projects. We fully expect to see additional modification of the standards as part of the "flexibility in development" provision of the ordinance. Medium Density Development Standards The guidelines will create 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. The standards provide for minimum lot size of 3,000 square feet with an average lot size of 3,500 square feet and maximum coverage of 50%. Setbacks: Front 15 feet (10' to an open porch) 20 feet to garage Rear 20 feet Side 5 feet (10' street side) Building Height: One story Two story 18' 24' 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. All other standards subject to discretionary exceptions provisions. Exceptions: The standards and guidelines presented in this section provide design criteria for the achievement of functional and attractive developments that fit within the context of the City of Palm Desert. Exceptions to the criteria contained within the Development Plan may be appropriate with the application of innovative and unique design techniques in keeping with the character envisioned at the time of approval. 2 STAFF REPORT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JANUARY 27, 2005 Conclusion: Prior City Council direction was for staff to bring the guidelines back for discussion. The City Council should now direct staff as to how it wishes to proceed at this time. Available options include: 1. Continue as we presently do on a case -by -case basis. 2. Adopt the guidelines by resolution, thereby, making them policy of the City. 3. Pass the guidelines pursuant to an ordinance, thereby, making them part of the zoning ordinance. Submitted by: Sfeve Smith Planning Manager Approved by: Homer Cr Assistant City. ► ager for Development -rvices SS/dq Department Head: Phil Drell Director of Community Development Approved by: Carlos Ortega City Manager G:\PLANNING\DONNAQUAIVER\W PDOCS\SR\SMLLTSTNDRDS.12705.SS 3 STAFF REPORT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JANUARY 27, 2005 Exhibit "A" Medium Density Development Standards Average Lot Size Minimum Lot Size Lot Coverage (Main Structure) Front Yard Setbacks (min) Main Residence Main Living Area Open Porch Garage (front access, where provided) Garage (side -in access) Rear Yard Setback Side Yard Setback Interior Corner / Street Garage Building Height Primary Structure Accessory Structure Projections / Architectural Features Exceptions 3,500 sq. ft. 3,000 sq. ft. 50% 15 feet 10 feet 20 feet - from back of sidewalk 10 feet - from back of sidewalk 20 feet 5 feet / 0-feet for garage 10 feet Same as house 18 feet / one story, 24 feet / two stories 18 feet (main building envelope) 5 feet above primary structure / No more than 10% of the roof area. The standards and guidelines presented in this section provide design criteria for the achievement of functional and attractive developments that fit within the context of the City of Palm Desert. Exceptions to the criteria contained within the Development Plan may be appropriate with the application of innovative and unique design techniques in keeping with the character envisioned at the time of approval. 4 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 8, 2004 Mayor Pro Tem Crites moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 04-81, approving Case No. PP 03-22, subject to the conditions attached. Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by a 5-0 vote. C. CONSIDERATION OF THE 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 03-013 and DA 04-02 (American Realty Trust, Desert Wells 237, LLC, and RBF Consulting, Applicants) (Continued from the meeting of June 10, 2004). Planning Manager Steve Smith noted that at the last meeting, Council indicated it did not want to go forward with a Study Session, and he asked for Council direction at this time. Councilman Ferguson said it was his understanding from the last meeting that the discussion centered around the uneasiness of approving a new zone for medium density without any plans to go along with it so Council could see how it translates into the blueprints. He said he thought Council had asked this project to come back with a set of plans for one of those 17 parcels. He added that he was no more comfortable now than he was when this project first came to Council. He asked if there was any reason why we cannot take the first parcel that comes along for development, give the developer the report, and tell him this is what the Planning Commission recommended but the Council would feel more comfortable seeing it with a set of plans and do the change of zone at that time. Mr. Smith responded that Council could do that. He noted that the zone change to PCD would necessitate the Council acting on the master plan of development. However, if Council did not proceed with the zone change, it would not need to proceed with the master plan. He said it could be brought back when there is a proposal to bring to Council. Councilman Kelly said with regard to the Study Session mentioned by Mr. Smith, the Council did not want to consider the request the way it was presented. Some members of the Council, including himself, did not see the need for a Study Session because there was nothing there to study. 17 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 8, 2004 Mayor Spiegel said there were some areas of the City's North Sphere that had been developed as subdivisions (i.e., Petunia Place) where there is one long street, all the houses are by rote, and there is nothing very interesting about the street. He said he and Councilman Ferguson had talked to the developer and asked if this property would have subdivisions like that, and the developer said absolutely not. He said Council had not seen those subdivisions before they were developed and that they had just gone through. He expressed concern that if this request is approved, the same type of thing will happen. Mr. Smith responded that there were 17 planning areas shown on the master plan. Each of the 17 were some of the planning areas to be divided, and they would be going through the precise plan process and would be reviewed at least by Architectural Review Commission and Planning Commission. As always, Council had the ability to call up any of those actions. Councilman Ferguson agreed with Councilman Kelly that there was nothing to study, not that the document itself was not substantive, which it was. He said he would like to see it in application on a precise plan, and then he could see how it translates from an ordinance that would bind the City to kind of get a trial run to see what it is going to look like. He said if he liked it, he would probably vote for it. Mayor Pro Tem Crites stated that if the Council had approved something that looked like the documents they had in front of them a month and a half ago, the City would not have ended up with places like Petunia. He said those were the kinds of things that those planning documents would not have allowed. He said he felt there was a remarkable amount of substance and detail in those documents, and he remained perplexed by the reactions of some of his colleagues. Councilmember Benson said she could not see the reason for not rezoning to make it consistent with the General Plan when each of the plans has to come in to be approved as it goes along. Mayor Spiegel declared the public hearing open and invited testimony from the developer. MR. DAN ALLRED, American Realty Trust, representing one of the two property owners, 1800 Valley View Lane, Suite 300, Dallas, Texas, 75234, said they were trying to go beyond the call of duty to do a more detailed proposal for the property zoning than just putting basic zoning on the property, which is what was called for on the just -adopted General Plan. In an effort to reach a middle ground here, he said they would take the "book" off the table. He said they would just like the property zoned. The property had been zoned three years ago and had an approved tentative tract map 18 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 8, 2004 and grading permit. They had stopped everything and told the City it could take all this property back through the General Plan process. He asked that the Council just zone the property, and they would bring each parcel in with a plan and have all the appropriate committees/commissions go through each project. Councilman Ferguson said there were two issues. One was a change of zone where the existing medium density zone is applied to the property where appropriate. There is also a change of the zoning ordinance where we modify all the standards from the old medium density zoning ordinance to this "book". His concern was with the "book"; if the applicant just wanted to change it to the City's existing medium density zone with the new bonus, he would not have a problem with that. Mayor Pro Tem Crites said it was his understanding the request for a zone was PCD. Councilman Ferguson asked if that was the City's existing PCD or if it was a new proposal. Mr. Smith said the legal notice for the application was for the property being rezoned to PCD. A requirement of the PCD zone is that there be a master plan. If there is not going to be a master plan, you do not want to change the zone to PCD. The master plan was the "book". Councilman Ferguson noted that one of the Planning Commissioners had voted against this; he had read her reasons why and talked to her, and if he were forced to vote on this tonight, he would probably vote against it. He said he was trying to vote for it, and the best way he could do that was to have the developer bring him a precise plan for one of those parcels so he could see how the master plan was implemented. If it looked good, he could support it, but if it did not, he was going to see if the Planning Commissioner was right about some of her concerns. MR. BOB ROSS, RBF Consulting, the engineering firm for American Realty Trust and Desert Wells 237, the applicants, asked if the application could be modified to go to an appropriate medium density zone, an appropriate low density zone, and get zoning in conformance with the General Plan land use that was approved. He said he was not sure what that does to the noticing, but that would take away the need for the master plan when they come in with a single family tentative map. Councilman Kelly said he felt this was more complicated. He did not see this as a master plan, and he did not feel there was enough description of what is going to be done with each of those parcels for him to consider it a master plan. He said for him, it has to be not just ten units per acre, but if the 19 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 8, 2004 developer has something above that proposed, he felt that should be in the master plan so he could vote against it if he does not think it is right. He said he wanted to see each of the parcels so he could see what density was proposed. He added that he wanted to be sure that anything that would increase the density comes through to the City Council for review. Councilman Ferguson asked Mr. Allred whether Mr. Marix was actually going to build something there or if he was just going to flip it to other developers. MR. ALLRED responded that Mr. Marix was away at a family wedding. Although he did not like speaking for Mr. Marix, he felt he would probably develop Tots for builders. He said it was his understanding Mr. Marix had recently sold his building company and was trying to get out of actually building houses. Councilman Ferguson said what he would tell Mr. Marix if he were here is to take the "book" and come back with a plot plan that shows where he is going to put things and what it is going to look like and have Council consider the master plan with at least some application of it on a blueprint. He noted that everything out there has been low density forever, but not everything that has been built out there is low density, and the zone is usually changed when an application is received to do something with a precise plan. While the law says that a zoning ordinance that is inconsistent with the general plan is unenforceable after a year, it does not say the zoning has to be changed. He said Mr. Marix could help him out if he could just come back with something for Council to look at. MR. ALLRED said from American Realty Trust standpoint and also he felt from Mr. Marix's standpoint, they needed some assurance before spending a lot of money. He said they would like to at least know that the City is going to recognize the zoning before spending a hundred thousand dollars on the first land plan. He clarified with staff that medium density is 4-10, and he said it would help to know the City at least recognized that this area is 4-10 density so that they don't come in with a 7-unit breaker project on an initial submittal that has had a lot of money spent on it and have the City say we really don't like that density there. Councilman Ferguson said if the applicant came in with a plan between 4 and 10, with the City's General Plan, there is legally nothing the City could to about it. It could not enforce the lower density ordinance against the applicant, nor would the City do so because the Council has just made up their minds to do it medium density. Councilman Kelly reiterated that he wanted to see something before he approved it. 20 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 8, 2004 Mayor Pro Tem Crites said the Council was not discussing approving a project; it was discussing making the zoning conform to what the Council has already voted to do, and that was medium density. Within medium density or low density or anything else that is zoned, the City has every right to make decisions about setbacks, heights, buildings, parkways, etc. He said the Council could approve straight medium density as shown on the plan. Mayor Spiegel said there were problems with what was shown. He said on the corner of Cook Street and Frank Sinatra, opposite the view corridor for UCR and CalState, there was office professional, and he was not sure that was what the Council wanted there. Council may want something else there. He said there were three pocket parks in there, and the Council was talking about doing a regional park and purchasing land not too far away from there. He wasn't sure the City wanted three parks there. But if the Council signs off on this, it is signing off on three pocket parks and office professional on the corner of Cook Street and Frank Sinatra. Councilman Crites said that was what was on the general plan, and that is what the Council voted to do several months ago. MR. ALLRED said that corner happened to be one of the pieces owned by American Realty Trust rather than Mr. Marix. He understood Mayor Spiegel=s concern but said his company had built quite a few nice office buildings over the years, and their plan would be to set it back and make a nice area at that corner. Mayor Spiegel invited testimony from the audience in FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to this request. With no further testimony offered, he declared the public hearing closed. Councilman Kelly moved to take no action at this time. Mr. Erwin said he would rather Council take specific action as opposed to taking no action or tabling the matter. Councilman Kelly amended his motion to DENY Ordinance No. 1070 and approval of Case Nos. C/Z 03-013 and DA 04-02. Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by a 3-2 vote, with Councilmember Benson and Mayor Pro Tem Crites voting NO. 21 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 28, 2004 D. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A 38.05-ACRE SITE INTO 159 LOTS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOMES, 11 LOTS FOR COMMON AREA AND LANDSCAPE PURPOSES, TWO LOTS FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT PURPOSES, AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS IT RELATES THERETO -- LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF GERALD FORD DRIVE, EAST OF GATEWAY DRIVE, KNOWN AS DOLCE DEVELOPMENT Case No. TT 31071 (Rilington Communities, Applicant). Mr. Bagato reviewed the staff report and offered to answer any questions. Councilman Kelly said it was his understanding that the General Plan discussed opening the corners. He said he would prefer that the corners have more open spaces than shown on the plans. Mr. Drell responded that the corners were on arterials, whereas this project is not on an arterial. He said those were probably larger lots already, and the corners could be pulled back. Upon question by Councilman Ferguson, Mr. Drell responded that there are no design standards for these types of subdivisions because the standards requires minimum 8,000 square foot lots. Upon further question by Councilman Ferguson regarding approval of other medium density projects in Palm Desert, he said the Vista Paseo project off of Fairhaven was a medium density project, as was Desert Rose. Both of those projects have unique standards with shorter front setbacks. The City had also approved condominium projects with zero side yards. This particular project has larger lots in order to make up the grade differences. Upon further question by Mayor Spiegel, Mr. Drell responded that originally the developer was incorporating all of the slope on one of the parcels, which is deeper than the other as you go from east to west. The project has been conditioned to instead add retaining walls, which will add another five -six feet to the depth of the lots. The rear yards of this project will exceed many of the rear yards in 8,000 square foot Tots because the site planning is better. He said although there would be perimeter walls, it would have public streets rather than being a private gated community. Mayor Spiegel asked that those walls be decorative walls as opposed to plain block walls. Mr. Drell responded that they would be either stuccoed or split - face, and they would be indented as has been done in other projects. There would also be sidewalks all the way around and inside the development as well. Mayor Spiegel asked whether there would be a traffic signal on Gateway, and Mr. Drell responded that there was no proposed stop sign or 27 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 28, 2004 traffic signal at Gateway and the main entrance, although Gateway and Gerald Ford would be signalized. Mayor Spiegel suggested the addition of a condition that if a traffic signal is needed, the developer will contribute his fair share of the cost. Councilman Ferguson asked whether the landscaping plan had been reviewed and approved by the City's Landscape Beautification Committee, and Mr. Drell responded that typically private projects do not. Councilman Ferguson stated that if the Council is blazing a trail on medium density standards now, he would like to have some agreement on what the landscaping guidelines will be. Mayor Pro Tem Crites felt reducing the front yards was a positive thing because it would maximize the rear yards. He said almost without exception, no one in this Valley uses their front yard, and he felt it was a good idea to increase the rear yards and allow homeowners to use and enjoy it. Mayor Spiegel declared the public hearing open and invited testimony from the applicant. MR. PAUL DEPALATIS, a local planning consultant representing the applicant, Rilington Communities. With regard to corner landscaping at Gerald Ford and Gateway, he said they would be happy to expand that landscaped area, and it would not be a problem in terms of their lot configuration. With regard to a future traffic signal, they would not be opposed to paying their fair share portion of any signals needed at intersections impacted by or adjacent to their development. He added that they were required to do an assessment of water usage for the project landscaping, and they were trying to make sure there is no excessive use of water. Perimeter and interior landscaping was reviewed by City staff and had been revised several times in favor of a more desert theme in fitting with the adjacent streetscapes along Gerald Ford and Gateway. Upon question by Councilmember Benson, he said it was his understanding that the prices would be in the $400,000 range. Mayor Spiegel invited testimony in FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to this project. With no testimony offered, he declared the public hearing closed. Councilman Ferguson said he liked what he saw so far. If this is going to go to the Landscape Committee, he would like to take Mr. Drell's guidelines as a whole and review the project in light of those guidelines before he votes on the project. Mayor Pro Tem Crites said he would vote to approve the project if it was subject to approval through the Landscape Committee. 28 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 28, 2004 Councilman Kelly said he felt this was the type of project the Council had been looking for in that area, with property maintenance being cut down and made more practical. Councilman Kelly moved to: 1) By Minute Motion, approve the findings as presented for this case; 2) waive further reading and adopt Res. No. 04-118, approving Case No. TT 31071, subject to: a) Review by the City's Landscape Beautification Committee; b) Applicant's willingness to contribute a fair -share financial portion to a potential future traffic signal at the project, based upon a review of traffic volume. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by a 5-0 vote. Councilman Ferguson asked that Mr. Drell also bring back those guidelines to a Council meeting for review and approval. E. REVIEW OF AB1600 DEVELOPER IMPACT FEE REPORT. Mr. Ortega noted the staff report and recommendation in the packets, and he offered to answer any questions. Mayor Spiegel declared the public hearing open and invited testimony in FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to this request. With no testimony offered, he declared the public hearing closed. Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, receive and file the report. Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by a 5-0 vote. XVIII. REPORTS AND REMARKS A. CITY MANAGER Upon a motion by Kelly, second by Ferguson, and 5-0 vote of the City Council, the following request was added to this Agenda. 1. APPOINTMENT TO THE SISTER CITIES COMMITTEE. Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, concur with Mayor Pro Tem Crites' recommendation and appoint Mr. Rolf D. Hoehn to the Sister Cities Committee to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Peggy Steen, whose term expires December 31, 2007. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by a 5-0 vote. 2. Permit Fees -- In response to Mayor Spiegel's question about fees charged for construction of a block wall, Mr. Ortega recalled for the City Council that it had recently approved a new schedule of fees for permits. He said the schedule was developed by an independent consultant based upon a survey of the time/material utilized by the 29 UNIVERSITY PARK 2005 JAM 25 A 4) Homeowners should be encouraged to limit turf areas used in conjunction with other landscaping design elements to reduce water usage, maintenance time, and expense. 5) All right-of-way landscaping shall utilize low -water -use plant material whenever feasible with a view towards ease of maintenance. 6) Landscaping should be used to frame, soften, and embellish the quality of the residential environment, to buffer units from noise or undesirable views, and to break up large expanses of parking. 7) Layered tree shrub/turf plants and decorate hardscape features complementary to protect site and building design should be utilized to enhance the visual character of the project. 8) A minimum of two 24-inch box canopy trees shall be provided within each front yard. Street trees count towards this requirement. 9) Street trees shall be provided as part of the front yard landscape requirements and to provide diversity through species selection and setback requirements. 10) The Landscape Plan should incorporate a deep watering irrigation system (as prescribed per City of Palm Desert Landscape Concepts Guide). 11) The developer of each phase of development shall incorporate water conservation techniques and irrigation appropriate for desert landscape. A Final Irrigation Schedule shall be prepared based on historic evapo- transpiration rates for landscape areas, plant factors of the plant palette, slope factor, micro -climate factor, root depth and shall cover a one-year period with a separate schedule for each month of the year. 12) The developer shall install landscaping in conformance with the City's Landscape Ordinance for slopes of 10-foot vertical height or greater. The slopes shall be maintained by either the Homeowners Association or individual homeowner depending on the location of said slope. 2. Residential — Medium Density Intended Character: The Medium Density Residential Land Use Designation is intended to provide for the development of a range of single-family detached and attached product types with a density range of 5-10 dwelling units per acre. The intent is to accommodate a variety of product types and styles that appeal to a range of market segments. The development standards allow a variety of densities and styles yet maintain the overall limits on the total number of dwelling units. Refer to Figure 9 and Figure 10, Typical Single -Family — Medium Density. Refer to the High Density discussion regarding applicability. Section II — Development Criteria 11-15 May 31, 2004 MOT TO SCALE TYPICAL SINGLE-FAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY Figure 9 UNIVERSITY PARK b. Allowable Uses 1) As prescribed in Chapter 25.18 of the Zoning Ordinance. c. Design Obiectives The design guidelines for medium -density developments are based on the following objectives. 1) Establish medium -density residential architectural designs that complement various neighborhood characteristics, contribute to neighborhood compatibility, and support high quality development. 2) Provide attractive, functional, and convenient site arrangements. 3) Encourage landscape designs that enhance the appearance of medium - density developments and contribute to the overall quality of the community. 4) Provide for amenities and passive recreational activities appropriate to the different age groups of medium -density developments within the project. 5) Apply design principles that enhance safety and security within medium - density developments. d. Site Planning 1) The citing of buildings should take advantage of natural views. 2) Residential units may include a 20-foot minimum usable yard as part of a courtyard between the garage and house. 3) Residential dwelling units should be sited to take advantage of solar and wind efficiencies where possible. 3) Linkages (e.g., walkways, common landscape areas, building orientation) between residential areas and commercial areas are strongly encouraged. 7) The placement and design of residential dwelling units should convey a visual link to the street and sidewalks. 8) Garages with common access drives should be accented with trees between garages to soften the architecture, provide shade, and screen unattractive areas. 9) Minimize solar exposure through the incorporation of overhangs to cover exposed glass. Section 11 — Development Criteria 11-18 May 31, 2004 UNIVERSITY PARK e. Architecture 1) There is no specific architectural style required. Diversity is encouraged, with the goal to create high quality, human scale, and architecturally detailed buildings. 2) Architectural style should consider compatibility with surrounding character, including harmonious buildings style, form, size, color, materials, and roofline. 3) Building details and architectural elements should be employed on all building elevations, not just in the front facade. 4) Building forms should be designed to create and define a visually attractive and functional exterior. 5) Enhanced architectural elements are strongly encouraged when exposed to public view or adjacent to open space (Le. trim surrounds, pot -shelves, recessed windows, shutters, structural projections). 6) Architectural elements (e.g. overhangs, shade structures, window coverings) should be located along the western and southern sides of buildings to provide shade and reduce solar exposure. 7) Orient the building for natural air flow, to the extent feasible. f. Mass and Scale 1) Architectural design treatments such as building offsets, recessed windows, trellises, overhangs, or other features shall occur on those facades of the residence that are visible from street facades or open spaces. 2) The use of one-story elements such as porches is encouraged to provide undulation and variation within the community. 3) One-story massing on exposed side and front elevations is encouraged especially on comer lots. 4) Large expanses of unarticulated flat wall planes are not allowed. Buildings should incorporate articulated wall planes and varied massing elements. Materials and Colors 1) The color of exterior surfaces should harmonize with and complement the natural colors of the area. The color palette should take into consideration the building's primary color, accent colors, and the color of the garage doors. Section 11— Development Criteria 11-19 May 31, 2004 1 1 j J UNIVERSITY PARK 2) Exterior wall surfaces should be of materials that blend and complement the natural landscape. Plaster or stucco should be smooth, sand, Tight lace, or semi -smooth finish, and should complement the architectural style of the elevation. 3) Accent materials may include wood, brick, tile, and appropriate stone veneers. 4) Materials that are highly reflective or that form a high contrasting or graphic pattern that would cause visual distraction is strongly discouraged. 5) Open stairways should incorporate solid wall, portions, columns and/or a decorative balustrade. Prefabricated metal stairs are prohibited. h. Landscaping 1) Landscaping should be used as a unifying element within a project to obtain a cohesive appearance and to help achieve compatibility of a new project with its surroundings. Front yard landscaping shall be improved and installed prior to final approval. 2) Non -toxic drought tolerant vegetation should be utilized, incorporating appropriate landscape materials for the desert. Turf areas should be kept to a minimum. 3) Access drives and motor courts should be landscaped with desert landscape including trees and shrubs. 4) Landscaping around the building perimeter is required. 5) Landscaping shall be protected from vehicular and pedestrian encroachment by raised planting surfaces and the use of curbs. Concrete step areas should be provided in landscape planters adjacent to parking spaces. 6) Water conserving vines and climbing plants integrated upon buildings, trellises, and perimeter walls are encouraged. 7) Decomposed granite rock may be used in -lieu of plant groundcover materials. 8) Landscaping shall emphasize water -efficient plants. 9) The developer shall install landscaping in conformance with the City's Landscape Ordinance for slopes of 10-foot vertical height or greater. The slopes shall be maintained by either the Homeowners Association or individual homeowner depending on the location of said slope. 10) Landscaping shall be incompliance with State Assembly Bill AB 325, the Water Conservation in Landscaping Act. Section 11— Development Criteria 11-20 May 31, 2004 1 UNIVERSITY PARK 11) Deciduous trees are encouraged to be incorporated along the southern and western exposure of buildings, providing shade in the summer and light in the winter. 12) All right-of-way landscaping should utilize low -water -use plant material whenever feasible with a view towards water conservation and ease of maintenance. 13) The developer of each phase of development shall incorporate water conservation techniques and irrigation appropriate for a desert landscape. A Final Irrigation Schedule shall be prepared based on historic evapo- J transpiration rates for landscape areas, plant factors of the plant palette, slope factor, micro -climate factor, root depth and shall cover a one-year period with a separate schedule for each month of the year. 14) All irrigation systems shall be designed to reduce vandalism by placing controls in appropriate enclosures. 3. Multi -Family — High Density Overlay Intended Character: The High Density Residential Overlay is intended to provide for the development of a variety of multi -family residential dwellings with a density range of 11-22 dwelling units per acre upon City review and approval. The intent is to allow the flexibility to offer a variety of product types and styles that appeal to a range of market segments, from first-time buyers to families. Flexibility is provided in the development standards to allow a variety of densities and styles while maintaining the overall limits on the total number of dwelling units. Typical products include detached and attached residences, apartments, townhomes, condominiums, clustered, and courtyard homes. The applicant shall submit documentation —1 regarding conformance with specific performance criteria to the City for review and approval. High Density Residential uses are permitted within the Mixed Use District per Precise Plan review and approval by the Palm Desert Planning Commission, Section 25.70 of the Zoning Ordinance. Refer to Figure 11, Typical Multi -Family — High Density and Figure 12, Cluster and Courtyard Homes. Section 11— Development Criteria 11-21 May 31, 2004