Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrd 1116 CZ 06-04 and University Park Master PlanORDINANCE NO. 111-6 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT REQUEST: Consideration of approval of the University Park Master Plan (UPMP), change of zone to add the Planned Community Development Overlay zone (PCD) to the existing PR-5 zoning and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates thereto for 190 +/- acres generally located south of Gerald Ford Drive and east of Portola Avenue, 74- 500 College Drive. SUBMITTED BY: Steve Smith, Planning Manager APPLICANTS: Palm Desert Funding Company, LP Desert Wells 237, LLC 3 San Joaquin Plaza #215 By Palm Desert 124, Inc. Newport Beach, CA 92660 5005 Calle San Raphael Palm Springs, CA 92262 RBF Consulting 74-130 Country Club Drive, Suite 201 Palm Desert, CA 92260 CASE NO: C/Z 06-04 and University Park Master Plan DATE: April 27, 2006 CONTENTS: Staff Recommendation Executive Summary Discussion Draft Ordinance No. 1116 Planning Commission Minutes of April 4, 2006 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2385 Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 4, 2006 Staff Recommendation: That the City Council pass Ordinance No. 1116 to second reading approving the University Park Master Plan and Planned Community Development Overlay Zone (PCD), Case No. C/Z 06-04. Staff Report Case No. C/Z 06-04 and University Park Master Plan Page 2 April 27, 2006 Executive Summary: Desert Wells 237 LLC owns some 190 +/- residentially zoned acres in the University Park area east of Portola and south of Gerald Ford Drive. Parcel Map 31730 approved April 4, 2004 subdivided the University Park area into 17 parcels consistent with the general plan land use for the area. March 1, 2005 Planning Commission approved TT 32655 subdividing a 69.26-acre site (Parcel 9 of PM 31730) into 270 single family lots with modified setbacks and lot sizes. The area has recently been mass graded in anticipation of future development consistent with PM 31730. The City Council recently approved the Community Facilities District which will fund the basic public improvements in this area. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE North: PCD / Vacant South: PR-5 / Vacant East: PCD / Evans Commercial West: PR-5 / Single Family Dwellings CURRENT PROPOSAL The applicant seeks approval of the University Park Master Plan (UPMP) and a zone change to add the PCD Overlay to the existing PR-5 zoning. Specifically, the applicant seeks approval of the UPMP which is a detailed land use plan for this 190 +/- acre area. The plan provides development standards for low and medium density projects within the University Park area. Once the Master Plan is approved, the addition of the PCD Overlay to the existing PR-5 zoning will specify project densities throughout the Master Plan area consistent with the general plan medium density provisions (4-10 units per acre) and individual development criteria related to these specific projects. All this will be accomplished through one change of zone application. Staff Report Case No. C/Z 06-04 and University Park Master Plan Page 3 April 27, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION April 4, 2006 the Planning Commission considered the Master Plan, PCD Overlay and three (3) related tentative tract maps (TT 34055, 34057 and 34074) . The Planning Commission on a unanimous vote (5-0) recommended approval of the Master Plan and PCD Overlay with modification to the Master Plan to require that any height exception (homes great than 24 feet) be processed through the Architectural Review Commission, Planning Commission and City Council. In addition, the Planning Commission required that a policy statement be added with respect to the recently adopted Energy Conservation Plan. Both amendments are now reflected in the Master Plan document. There was also discussion with respect to landscape parkways along Portola and Gerald Ford. The plan provides a depth of 44 feet from curb face to property line along Gerald Ford which will be landscaped except for an eight - foot wide sidewalk. Since all the widening must occur on the east side of Portola, the applicant is dedicating 38 to 53 feet which is 13 feet in excess of the general plan requirement. This provides a 24-foot parkway with a six-foot sidewalk. At the main corners within the Master Plan area triangular shaped open space entry areas have been set aside for landscape treatment. At the southeast corner of Gerald Ford and Portola the triangular area has a maximum width of 160 feet and depth of 60 feet. Where Pacific intersects Gerald Ford, both corners will be park/retention areas (29,000 square feet on the west side and 15,000 square feet on the east side). At College and Portola a triangular area (100 feet wide by 50 feet deep) adjacent to a well site is shown. These landscape entry areas are consistent with the provisions of the general plan community design element. The parkway widths are generally consistent with the general plan except where they fall below 24 feet which occurs where Staff Report Case No. C/Z 06-04 and University Park Master Plan Page 4 April 27, 2006 northbound Portola Avenue widens to provide for the right -turn pocket at Gerald Ford Drive. The applicant is working on this matter and staff will report the results at the meeting. The Planning Commission also unanimously approved three tentative tract maps creating a total of 457 lots south and east of Gerald Ford Drive and Portola Avenue, subject to conditions, one of which requires that the Master Plan be approved by the City Council. Discussion: UNIVERSITY PARK MASTER PLAN The UPMP provides a vision statement and guiding principles for development in the area. The plan defines land use areas, the circulation network, general design criteria for the six (6) neighborhoods and prototypical architecture and landscaping for each neighborhood. Within the Master Plan area four park sites have been identified (11.2 total acres). A portion of each park will also serve as retention for the area. Pursuant to the approved assessment district for this area, the developers will be required to fully improve each of the parks consistent with the park designs shown on pages 35, 36 and 37 of the Master Plan document. The development criteria for tracts in the defined area is delineated at pages 68-69 of the UPMP document. Specifically, the standards are as follows: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PARCELS A AND B - MOTOR COURT - DETACHED & ATTACHED Reauirement Minimum Average Lot Size N/A Minimum Lot Size N/A Lot Coverage 50% Front Yard Setbacks (minimum from back of sidewalk) - Main Living Area (ground floor) 10, Staff Report Case No. C/Z 06-04 and University Park Master Plan Page 5 April 27, 2006 PARCELS A AND B - MOTOR COURT - DETACHED & ATTACHED (Continued) Reauirement - Porch / Balcony - Garden Wall (maximum 18" height) - Second Floor Living Space Offset from Face of Garage (may be recessed or cantilevered) - Garage (front access) - Driveway Length Rear Yard Setbacks - Living Area, Garage to Fence Line Side Yard Setbacks - Living Area, Garage to Fence Line - Max. Encroachment into Side Yard Setback (pot shelf or bay window) Perimeter Setback - Living Area (1 or 2 stories) Building Separation - Side to Side - Rear to Rear (living space) - Rear to Side - Garage Face to Garage Face Building Height Private Open Space (Side or Rear Yard) Minimum 6' 4.5' 2' 20' 3' 10, 5' 2.5' (maintain 3' clear) 20' 10, 20' 15' 30' 24'* 200 square feet * Height may be increased to 28 feet with approval from Architectural Review Commission, comment from the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council. PARCEL B - TRIPLEX Reauirement Minimum Average Lot Size N/A Minimum Lot Size N/A Lot Coverage 50% Front Setbacks (minimum from back of sidewalk or back of curb if there is no sidewalk) - Main Living Area (ground floor) 10, Staff Report Case No. C/Z 06-04 and University Park Master Plan Page 6 April 27, 2006 PARCEL B - TRIPLEX (Continued) Reauirement Minimum - Porch / Balcony 6' - Garden Wall (maximum 18" height) 3' Rear Setbacks - Second Floor Living Area 2' Offset from Face of Garage (may be recessed or cantilevered) - Garage to Alley Edge 31 Side Yard Setbacks - Living Area 10, - Max. Encroachment into Side Yard Setback 2.5' (pot shelf, bay window) (maintain 3' clear) Building Separation - Porch / Balcony to Porch / Balcony 12' - Front to Front 20' - Rear to Rear 26' - Garage Face to Garage Face 30' - Side to Side 10, Perimeter Setback - Living Area (1 or 2 stories) 20' Building Height 241* Private Open Space (patio) 60 sq. ft. with a min. dimension of 6' * Height may be increased to 28 feet with approval from Architectural Review Commission, comment from the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council. PARCELS C, D, E & F - SINGLE FAMILY - DETACHED & ATTACHED Reauirement Minimum Average Lot Size 3,500 sq.ft. Minimum Lot Size 3,000 sq.ft. Lot Coverage 50% Front Yard Setbacks (from back of sidewalk) - Main Living Area (ground floor) 15'(20'from curb when tree pocket occurs) Staff Report Case No. C/Z 06-04 and University Park Master Plan Page 7 April 27, 2006 PARCELS C, D, E & F - SINGLE FAMILY - DETACHED & ATTACHED (Continued) Reauirement - Porch / Balcony - Garden Wall - Garage (front access) - Garage (side -in access) Rear Yard Setback - Living Area - Garage (deeply recessed) Side Yard Setback - Interior Living Area (first and second story) - Corner / Street - Garage Perimeter Setback - Living Area (1 or 2 stories) Building Height Accessory Structure Height Second Story Windows Facing Sideyards of Single Family Homes from Floor Private Open Space (Side or Rear Yard) Minimum 10, 4.5' 20' 10, 20' 15'* 5' 10, 0'** 20' 24'*** 24' No Minimum Height 200 square feet * Rear setbacks of 0' for garages and accessory structures may be permitted as an exception. ** Area F lots may incorporate a sideyard reciprocal use easement - side setbacks to be measured from easement. *** Height may be increased to 28 feet with approval from Architectural Review Commission, comment from the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council. APPROVED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32655 - SINGLE FAMILY - DETACHED Reauirement Average Lot Size Minimum Lot Size Lot Coverage Front Yard Setbacks (minimum from back of curb) - Main Living Area - Porch / Balcony Minimum 8,000 sq.ft. 7,200 sq.ft. 45% 20' 10, Staff Report Case No. C/Z 06-04 and University Park Master Plan Page 8 April 27, 2006 APPROVED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32655 - SINGLE FAMILY - DETACHED (Continued) Reauirement - Garden Wall - Second Floor Living Space Offset from Face of Garage (may be recessed or cantilevered) - Garage (front access) - Garage (side -in access) Rear Yard Setbacks - Living Area - Garage (deeply recessed) Side Yard Setbacks - I nterior - Corner / Street Perimeter Setback - Living Area (1 or 2 stories) Building Height Accessory Structure Height Minimum 4.5' 2' 20' 15' 20' 15' 5' 10, 20' 24'* 24' * Height may be increased to 28 feet with approval from Architectural Review Commission, comment from the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council. PARKING "Single family and multifamily residential uses shall provide two covered (within a garage or carport) spaces per dwelling unit. Exceptions: The standards and guidelines presented in this section provide minimum 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." Staff Report Case No. C/Z 06-04 and University Park Master Plan Page 9 April 27, 2006 ANALYSIS The University Park Master Plan as proposed implements and is consistent with the general plan policies for this area, and specifically implements the general plan goals for urban design, housing diversity, circulation and recreation. The development criteria contained in the Master Plan is consistent with the medium density development standards adopted by the City Council per Resolution No. 05-16 February 10, 2005 except for building height which is proposed at 24 feet with 28 feet possible through the "exceptions" process through ARC. Resolution No. 05-16 prescribes a height limit of "18 feet/one story, 24 feet/two stories." Pursuant to the Master Plan, any height exception would be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission, Planning Commission and City Council. The Master Plan includes a policy statement endorsing the City's recently adopted Energy Conservation Plan which in general requires that new homes in this area exceed Title 24 energy standards and comply with the updated energy requirements established by the City Office of Energy Management (see November 28, 2005 memo from Office of Energy Management attached). In addition, developers of homes in this area will be required to install photovoltaic panels on the roof of the model units. A condition on all projects will require that all units be wired to accept the panels. The panels will then be marketed to purchasers of homes as an option. With respect to the development standards approved for TT 32655, the Master Plan proposes to alter conditions relating to building height, accessory building height and interior side yard setbacks. The building height limit in TT 32655 was set at 24 feet for two-story units and 18 feet for single story. The Master Plan proposes a basic height entitlement of 24 feet for two-story units with a maximum height of 28 feet possible through the "exceptions" process. For structures within the building envelope, the maximum will be 24 feet with 28 feet possible through the "exceptions" process. For accessory buildings not within the building envelope, the usual setbacks pursuant to Municipal Code 25.56.280 shall apply (i.e., one foot of setback for each foot of building height). Staff Report Case No. C/Z 06-04 and University Park Master Plan Page 10 April 27, 2006 Interior side yards were originally set at 14 feet combined, 5 feet minimum. The applicant proposes that this be changed to 5 feet minimum (10 feet combined versus 14 feet combined). Once the University Park Master Plan is approved, it will become the Master Plan for that area of the city. Chapter 25.23 Planned Community Development Overlay Zone allows a single zone change to implement the Master Plan. Criteria for Council to consider in whether to approve the PCD zoning is as follows: A. General Plan. Compliance with the General Plan shall be established. • The UPMP as proposed is consistent with general plan land use plan as approved by City Council March 15, 2004. B. Site Area. A minimum 100 acres shall be required for a planned community development. • The UPMP as proposed contains 190 +/- acres. C. Application. Any application for an overlay zone shall be accompanied by a master plan for the entire area covered by the application. • An acceptable master plan has been provided which covers the entire area. D. Ownership. All land in a proposed overlay zone shall be held in one ownership or under unified control or have the written consent or agreement of all owners of property proposed for inclusion in the overlay zone. • The property is currently in one ownership. E. Utilities. The existing utility systems (water, sewer, drainage, electrical, gas and communications facilities) are adequate, or new systems shall be constructed to adequately serve the development. • The City Council recently approved the CFD for the University Park area which will fund infrastructure improvements to serve the area. Staff Report Case No. C/Z 06-04 and University Park Master Plan Page 11 April 27, 2006 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Master Plan and proposed overlay zoning are consistent with the general plan designations for this area and were analyzed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report which was certified March 15, 2004. Based on that environmental assessment, staff concludes that there will be no significant environmental impacts associated with this project. Accordingly, staff recommends that a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact be approved. Submitted by: SVve Smith Planning Manager 4Appr al: Ho er Cro} ACM for De (W pdocs\fm\sr\cz06-04.cc3) Services Department Head: ead: v=i 0 Phil Drell Director of Community Development Approval: Al Carlos L. O ?cgia City Manager ORDINANCE NO. 1116 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE UNIVERSITY PARK MASTER PLAN, CHANGE OF ZONE TO ADD THE PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE (PCD) TO THE EXISTING PR-5 ZONING AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS IT PERTAINS THERETO FOR 190 +/- ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF GERALD FORD DRIVE AND EASTERLY OF PORTOLA AVENUE, 74-500 COLLEGE DRIVE. CASE NO. C/Z 06-04 AND UNIVERSITY PARK MASTER PLAN, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 27th day of April, 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of PALM DESERT FUNDING COMPANY, LP, for approval of the above described projects; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2385 has recommended approval of the projects, as amended; 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. 05-52," 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 in the General Plan Update 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 . The proposed University Park Master Plan document as amended is consistent with the low and medium density development provisions of the general plan. 2. That all of the required criteria (Municipal Code 25.23.020) for adopting the PCD overlay district can be affirmed. 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 the University Park Master Plan, dated March 29, 2006, as amended by the Planning Commission and attached hereto as Exhibit 'A' is hereby approved. ORDINANCE NO. 1116 3. That C/Z 06-04, attached hereto as Exhibit 'B' is hereby approved and that in areas where this plan overlaps the Wonder Palms Master Plan, this plan shall take precedence. 4. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, attached hereto as Exhibit 'C', is hereby certified. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this day of , 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES.: CAMPBELL, FINERTY, TANNER, TSCHOPP, LOPEZ NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ATTEST: RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 4 JAMES FERGUSON, Mayor J :OSMOPOLITAN II LN -J( IP.8�T.6LA�..1' AC OEMNL-� IPII ITLI 11 .� z d KOKOPELLI CIR E �C�OI,LEG EVII W II 6'AR I z UNIVERSITY i POINTE CT x PELE PL City of Palm Desert MERGER RD ti o V INK-SINNTRA-D .... r DESERT �I I Case No. C/Z 06-04 CITY COUNCIL CHANGE OF ZONE ORDINANCE NO. EXHIBIT B Date: ryR RtiA C 9C�FC Proposed Zoning Change \�` PCD OVERLAY 1116 l a ORDINANCE NO. 1116 EXHIBIT 'C' NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: C/Z 06-04 and University Park Master Plan APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Palm Desert Funding Desert Wells 237, LLC Company, LP By Palm Desert 124, Inc. 3 San Joaquin Playa #215 5005 Calle San Raphael Newport Beach, CA 92660 Palm Springs, CA 92262 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: RBF Consulting 74-410 Highway 1 1 1 Palm Desert, CA 92260 A change of zone to add the Planned Community Development Overlay zone (PCD) to the existing PR-5 zoning and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates thereto for 190 +/- acres generally located south of Gerald Ford Drive and easterly of Portola Avenue, 74-500 College Drive. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant' effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. PHILIP DRELL DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 0 DATE CITY Of Pfl101 DESERT 73-5t0 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346-0611 PAx: 76o 341-7098 iohoipdm-deaecs org CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE UNIVERSITY PARK MASTER PLAN AND CASE NO. C/Z 06-04 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by RBF CONSULTING on behalf of PALM DESERT FUNDING COMPANY LP for approval of the University Park Master Plan and change of zone to add Planned Community Development Overlay zone to the existing PR-5 zoning for the area generally located south of Gerald Ford Drive and east of Portola Avenue. SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, April 4, 2006, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, Califomia, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information conceming the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL, Secretary March 24, 2006 Palm Desert Planning Commission MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION Action: DRAFT APRIL. 4. 2006. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. TERRY CECHIN, 77-717 Mountain View in Palm Desert, addressed the Commission. He was present to answer any questions. He said the neighborhood was pretty much set back that way and assured that the project would be nice when done. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project. There was no one and he closed the public hearing. He asked for Commission comments or action. Commissioner Finerty said it was a job well done and moved for approval. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2384, approving Case No. CUP 06-02, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. D. Case No. C/Z 06-04 and University Park Master Plan - PALM DESERT FUNDING LP, Applicant Request for a recommendation of approval to the City Council of the University Park Master Plan, a change of zone to add the Planned Community Development Overlay Zone (PCD) to the existing PR-5 zoning, and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates thereto for 190 +/- acres generally located south of Gerald Ford Drive and east of Portola Avenue, 74-500 College Drive. Mr. Smith reviewed the staff report, noting a correction to the total acres of park land as being 11.2 acres, not 8.3. He recommended that Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of Case No. C/Z 06-04 and the University Park Master Plan. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the Community Facilities District (CFD) would also contain a maintenance fund or if the park maintenance would be 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT APRIL 4.2006, picked up by the City in the future. Mr. Smith replied that the City would maintain the parks after acceptance of the parks. Mr. Drell said no, the parks are city facilities and maintained by the City, like all public parks. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the height exception on the units would only go to ARC (Architectural Review Commission). Mr. Smith explained that the way it was structured at this point was that all actions of the ARC were available for Council review and call up. That was the normal process it would go through. Commissioner Tschopp asked how many, what percent, of the models were anticipated to be requesting height exceptions. Mr. Smith said the applicant would have to address that question. Commissioner Tanner noted that interior setbacks were usually 14 feet combined with a minimum five feet on one side, but the applicant was requesting 10 feet combined. He asked for the purpose of the smaller setbacks. Mr. Smith said bigger houses. Commissioner Tanner asked if it was bigger houses or more homes. Mr. Smith clarified that the map at that standard had already been approved for 270 lots. Commissioner Campbell asked about the price range of the homes. Mr. Smith said the applicant could answer that question. Commissioner Finerty asked for confirmation that there would be a homeowner's association. Mr. Smith said yes, that all the streets would be private but not gated. Mr. Drell said no, they were public. Mr. Smith noted that they were only 33 feet wide. Mr. Drell said that didn't matter. Chairperson Lopez indicated that in the information given to them, these were considered private streets. Mr. Drell said the main spine streets through the project were all public. Commissioner Finerty asked if those would be maintained by the City. Mr. Drell said that was correct. They were being installed through the CFD and maintained by the City as a public street. The smaller streets would be private and maintained by the HOA. He thought there would be multiple HOA's; one for each of the neighborhoods. Commissioner Campbell asked if there would be any gates. Mr. Smith said no. Mr. Drell noted that landscape maintenance of the parkways would also be the responsibility of the HOA's. 5 DRAFT MINUTES PALM D PERT PLAN ,,VING COMMISSION- APRIL 4.200f Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. TOM HOVER, 3 San Joaquin Plaza in Newport Beach, said he was the representative for Palm Desert Funding Corporation. He said they worked closely with staff to prepare the document they had before them and he was present to answer any questions. Commissioner Finerty noticed in the book they were given that there were four styles: Tuscan, Spanish Monterey, Santa Barbara and Desert Prairie. She asked which architecture would require the 28 feet in height. Mr. Hover informed Commission that they were the master developer. They would be selling these different sites to merchant builders who would come before them with their prospective product. The product being shown was a prototypical product designed by their consultant to show typical product and architectural styles. It would vary depending on the product the builder wanted to bring in. The lots were narrow in nature and additional height would allow more square footage, but also provided a lot of diversity in architecture. So as far as the different styles, it would really depend on the lot size and the architecture that went with the builder's submittal. Commissioner Finerty asked for confirmation that they wouldn't know what percentage would require a height exception. Mr. Hover thought it would be fairly high given that the percentage of the preponderance of the product was pretty small. There were smaller and larger lots .and the higher height would allow higher square footage. The other thing that was popular today was a 10-foot plate on the first floor because people like more vertical space inside the house. On the two-story houses, there would be nine feet on the second floor, a foot in between for the floor joist, so right there with 10, 9 and 1 they were at 20 feet. That would only allow for a very shallow roof. The elevations in terms of the illustrations by the architect in the book primarily reflected a steeper pitched roof. He offered to take the Commission out on a project tour. He noted that the property has a lot of topo on it and there was quite a bit of fail; approximately 100 feet. It was now mass graded. So in terms of location, there weren't any preexisting communities nearby or MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT APRIL 4.2006, adjacent to the property, so when driving by the property, it was difficult to discern whether it was a 24, 26 or 28 foot height because some were below street level and some were elevated above the slope, so it was pretty hard to discern height differences with the topo. It was harder to ascertain the height difference because of the varying topography. In those areas Mr. Hover pointed out where the medium density would be, Commissioner Finerty asked if he was saying that was where the 100-foot fall was and that it was also below street level. Mr. Hover replied that the 100-foot fall went all the way across the site and identified on the map the location that was below street level (the area east of Portola, Portola and Gerald Ford). Commissioner Campbell asked if he would have any idea of home prices. Mr. Hover said he could give them a range. He guessed today they could range from the mid $300,000 to $900,000 depending on the size and lot size, amenities and so forth. Commissioner Finerty asked if the $900,000 would fall under the low density. Mr. Hover said yes. Commissioner Finerty asked about the square footage. Mr. Hover said they ranged from about 1,300 to 3,500 square feet. Commissioner Finerty asked in the triplex, other than the low density, the range of square feet. Mr. Hover said it was in the book, but thought it was 1,700 to 2,600 square feet for the triplex. Chairperson Lopez said the plan itself was in front of them, which was a very attractive booklet. The booklet went through the site plan and was pretty self- explanatory and gave them the criteria regarding the streets, the overall look of the potential building, and the landscaping. He asked for confirmation that the architecture was an example and was not what was going to be built. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERTPLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT APRIL 4.2006 Mr. Hover said they were showing styles encouraged for the builders to provide diversity within the community and diverse architectural style. The styles were very popular right now. They encouraged that diversity instead of having everyone come in with a straight forward Mediterranean with barrel top roofs and stucco. Chairperson Lopez stated that the "meat" of this document was really going to be the criteria and the site plan along with the landscaping. That was really the "meat" of the proposal. Mr. Drell said those were the standards by which the plans would be judged. So they do set a standard for the level of detail and authenticity of architecture. Part of the function was when one of the merchant builders design something, they have this document to see what is expected. They expected something as good or better in terms of the architectural examples. Commissioner Finerty said she knew that was what they expect, but the problem was the Planning Commission didn't get to look at the project when it is sold off to merchant builders. It would go to ARC and if City Council didn't like it, they could call it up. That bothered her. She would feel better if it could come back to the Planning Commission so they could see if what was represented to them was what they were actually going to get. Mr. Drell said they could make that recommendation relative to the process. He said it didn't need to be a public hearing, it could be a Miscellaneous agenda item with a recommendation to the Council if they wanted to review it. Commissioner Finerty said she really liked what she saw; she hoped it wasn't lost in communication from what they were shown and what merchant builders wanted to build. Mr. Hover thanked her and said for what it's worth, the product on page 24 was an actual builder's product. That was their preliminary design on a 10-acre site. Commissioner Finerty asked for clarification if it was page 24 or page 25. What she was seeing on page 25 wasn't as nice as on pages 58 forward. Mr. Hover said that was preliminary and was actually done by another architect. They weren't as far along on their design process as they were on the other product types. He thought they would see it enhanced in the submittals. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION Commissioner Finerty hoped he was right. DRAFT APRIL 4. 2006 Mr. Smith assured the Commission that that project would be coming through Planning Commission with the precise plan review. They just received the application this week. In six or eight weeks they would be seeing that project specifically. There were no other questions. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the project. MS. MARYJO KALAMON, 74-083 Scholar Lane, said she lives at the corner of Gerald Ford and Portola. She said this was the neighborhood to the east. When she moved in, there was supposed to be more green area then she was seeing at this point, so her question to the Commission was looking at the big picture here, what was left of the public green areas. She could see the lot divisions drawn in the middle, but not in the other areas. She asked what exactly was going to be on the corner of Portola and Gerald Ford, the southeast comer. She asked what kind of housing it was proposed to be. Her last question was the traffic problem. She asked if traffic was going to get crazy on Portola. She asked if everyone went either east to Cook to get on the freeway or west to Monterey to get on the freeway. She asked what was going to happen with all the traffic and how they were going to get all these people moving in out to work and so forth. She also said parks were important. Chairperson Lopez asked Mr. Drell to address Ms. Kalamon's concerns. Mr. Drell agreed that the corner of Gerald Ford and Portola should have a little more green. It didn't really show up that well on the exhibit. He thought the depth of that landscaping on Portola was 30 feet. (Mr. Bob Ross from RBF spoke from the audience and said it was 15-16 feet.) Mr. Drell asked if that map was before the Commission. Mr. Smith said yes, it was the next map on the agenda. Mr. Drell said that question would be answered then, but the speaker should take a look at the book. She was handed a book and he explained that it described a variety of unit types. He also said there were 11 acres of park included in the plan. One of the other developments that would occur, when they look at that master plan of the general plan map, they were going to have a big park at the corner of Gerald Ford and Portola, but that had actually shifted north and the City, in association with the parcel map that was continued to April 18, had one of the parcels the City was buying. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT APRIL 4. 200f It was a 30+ acre parcel which would be another community park similar to Freedom Park which would be built there. Not on the corner, because the price of that land was a little prohibitive, but toward the north up against the freeway. Mr. Drell explained that the depth of landscaping at the corner needed to be at least 50 feet from curbline to project perimeter wall, but he said they would be able to see that when they got to the next map on the agenda and what those exact dimensions were. If they were not that width, they should be. But again, the projects on Portola on the other side have about eight feet of landscaping. Hopefully they were doing much better than that and had at least twice that depth on this side and the 24-foot parkway. But they would look at that map next. Chairperson Lopez noted there was a question regarding traffic and how it was going to be addressed. Mr. Drell said it was studied as part of the general plan. One thing this project had, which was unusual in terms of developments they were used to which have very limited access where they end up with a concentration of access that create bottlenecks. As seen in this plat, there was a street out to Portola, two major streets out to Gerald Ford, a street out to Cook Street and a street out to Frank Sinatra. So the project had five major accesses to allow people to go in every direction instead of concentrating traffic. He used Palm Valley Country Club as an example. He thought they had a similar number of units and only two driveways. This had a similar number of units with five driveways to disperse the traffic. In terms of the recreational facilities, they hoped a lot of the trips would be internal. A certain number of the trips would be internal to the commercial areas which would be developing on Cook and Gerald Ford. So in the analysis in getting origins and destinations closer together, that would reduce traffic and congestion. That was also why they were widening Gerald Ford to six lanes. Portola would also ultimately be widened to six lanes. In the long term, there would be an interchange built at Portola. In comparison to the rest of the city, this was going to be a very intensely circulated area with lots of alternative options for people to get from place to place, thereby reducing the traffic at any one point. 10 DRAFT MINUTES ELM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 4. 20t4 There were no other questions. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone else wished to address the Commission. Mr. Drell had another comment. He believed that ultimately there would be a signal at Julie where College hits Portola. That would allow people on Shepherd to have a signalized access going north and south. There was no one else wishing to speak. Chairperson Lopez closed the public hearing and asked for Commission comments or action. Commissioner Finerty stated that she liked what she was seeing and liked the layout, but as stated before, she was concerned about the difference in the book in architecture on pages 23, 25, 27, 29, 31 and 33 versus what they were seeing on pages 58 through 65. For that reason, she would feel better and have a level of comfort if the projects came before the Planning Commission after ARC review and perhaps before going to Council, especially if there was a height exception. Commissioner Campbell noted that this case was asking them for a recommendation to City Council. As Mr. Smith stated, the other individual sites, homes, etc., would come in front of the Planning Commission anyway. But this was a recommendation to City Council. She said she would go ahead and move to recommend approval to City Council. Commissioner Tschopp said he would second the motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, recommending approval to City Council. Commissioner Tschopp commented that the proposal was consistent with the general plan and it was on the lower side of medium density. He understood there was a considerable topography change there that could give some latitude to different height limits on the houses. But he shared Commissioner Finerty's comments on the expectation of extremely superior architectural design and quality given what they were shown as examples that would behoove the granting of those requests for heights and setbacks. But that was the kind of standards they were looking for. So he was in favor of this, but he would also like to see the project come back before them given the height if it was granted. Mr. Drell said the project architecture. Commissioner Tschopp said yes. 11 DRAFT MINUTES PALM DEStT,,,,PLANNING,,,, C,O,,MM,I,,S,SION APRIL 4, 2006 Commissioner Tanner stated that he, too, was in favor of the project. He asked for a clarification from Mr. Smith who said this would come back before the Planning Commission as the merchant builders buy the parcels. Mr. Smith clarified that when he responded to that he was talking about Parcels A and B specifically in the master plan, which were cluster and triplex units which go through a different process. Unless they specifically specify that the architecture come back through Planning Commission on the single family lots, the three maps before the Commission next on the agenda would not through the normal course come back to Planning Commission. That being said, Commissioner Tanner thought the project was great and was something that particular area needed, but he too would like to see and be able to control what goes there, as opposed to looking at a variety of different architectural schematics. He concurred with Commissioners Finerty and Tschopp. Mr. Drell said this got back to their perennial discussion of architecture versus site planning and the authority of the architectural commission and authority of the Planning Commission. They were not going to control the architecture. That was the statutory purview of the Architectural Commission, appealable to the City Council. They could still request as part of the process the ability to review and comment on it, which is what they normally do. Commissioner Finerty noted that they've had this discussion before and stated that Planning Commission does have the authority to review what ARC does and she has had that confirmed by members of the Council. Commissioner Tschopp pointed out that they were being asked to grant exceptions on something they hadn't seen that would be on the actual plans. Mr. Drell said they weren't. Commissioner Tschopp said they were in terms of.height exceptions. Mr. Drell said they weren't granting exceptions. They were providing the opportunity for exceptions. The exceptions wouldn't be granted until they actually see the actual architecture. What the applicant was suggesting and what they were obviously taking issue with was that the exceptions would be handled through the architectural review process, which is Architectural Review and (if called up) City Council. Commissioner Tschopp asked for correction if he was wrong, but the way he read this was the general plan was for 18 feet and this was granting 24 feet with a 28-foot approval by ARC. Mr. Drell said no, in the general plan the PR zone is 24 feet. So they are asking for, and in reality they could always ask 12 DRAFT MINUTES PALM DESIRT PLANNING COMMISSION _ APRIL 4, x006 for the exception, the PR zone has a very generalized exceptions section in it. They've approved an eight -story hotel in the PR zone, which was a little higher than 24 feet. So this was narrowing the exception a little bit. It was a wink to the developer. The purpose of this document was to provide guidance to a developer. It is saying that as a matter of right they are only guaranteed 24 feet, which is what the ordinance said. If they make the case that the various factors of interior and exterior architecture justify 28 feet, they can ask for 28 feet. In fact, they could ask for 28 feet without this. But again, the language in the existing PR zone allowed them to ask for anything they wanted. This provided a little bit of an acknowledgment that there will be reasonable consideration of heights up to 28 feet if their architecture justified it. If the Commission wanted as part of the process, which it sounded like they did, in essence they wanted to provide input on that decision and that was a recommendation they could make to be included in this document as part of this process. Then if there was a controversy, the Council could decide. Chairperson Lopez asked if it would be a recommendation on the University Master Plan and on the following items coming up. Mr. Drell said it would be in the book because the process describes the height as being part of the architectural review process, which was ARC reviewable by City Council. Commissioner Tanner asked if the recommendation for up to 28 feet was for the entire project, not just Parcels A and B. Mr. Drell said that any unit in the entire area would be eligible to ask for 28 feet. Again, there was no obligation on the City to grant anything over 24 feet to anybody. So again, it was a matter of them making the case. He noted that Falling Waters made the case for 32 feet. Marriott made the case for 80 feet. Over the last three or four years, mainly generated by the market desire for these larger interior spaces, it has been more driven by the interior and the 10-foot and 9-foot plates that people want. That adds three feet right there and gets them from 24 to 27. And then there was staffs desire to get variety. One of the criteria, and in all the projects they have approved exceptions, he didn't think any project has had uniformity of 28 feet or any exception, it has always been justified by creating some ups and downs in the ridge heights and peaks that has been a justification. If they read the exceptions section in the book, it talked about the sort of things that would warrant an exception. But again, if they wanted to participate in that discussion they needed to insert that as a recommendation in the language to go to Council, in the booklet document, to say that it would be reviewable by both ARC and Planning Commission. They could ask for that and was why it was before them. 13 DRAFT MINUTES PALM DESERT, PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 4.2006 Action: Commissioner Campbell amended her motion to include Planning Commission review. Commissioner Finerty appreciated that and also pointed out that the applicant stated that the majority of the units would require the 24 to 28 feet. Commissioner Tschopp seconded the amended motion. He noted that they all have a very high comfort level with ARC and the Council, but they were looking at something nice here and wanted to see that; even if it was just four feet, it could make a big difference and they have seen good architecture in the past and expect it on this project. So it would be nice to have a say on it in the future. Chairperson Lopez commented that the plan itself and the need for this recommendation to City Council was one that gives the entire project a guideline for builders and developers in the future. He liked this document and the meat of it; obviously, there was a lot written into the statistics than in the pretty pictures, but thought it was a great idea and agreed with the rest of the Commission that they would like to be active in what does go there in terms of the heights and height exceptions. The topography could allow a lot of variations in that area because of the flow of the land. He personally would like to see a lot of different things going on in there instead of just having a tract of homes with flat roofs and that would add a lot to that particular area. He was in agreement to recommend approval to the City Council with the amendment. Chairperson Lopez called for the vote. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting the findings and Planning Commission Resolution No. 2385, recommending to City Council approval of Case No. C/Z 06-04 and the University Park Master Plan as amended, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. E. Case No. TT 34055 - PALM DESERT FUNDING COMPANY LP, Applicant Request for approval of a 244-lot residential tentative tract map and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact on property located at the southeast corner of Gerald Ford Drive and Portola Avenue, 74-255 Gerald Ford Drive. 14 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: April 4, 2006 CASE NO: C/Z 06-04 and University Park Master Plan REQUEST: Recommendation of approval to the City Council of the University Park Master Plan, change of zone to add the Planned Community Development Overlay zone (PCD) to the existing PR-5 zoning and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates thereto for 190 +/- acres generally located south of Gerald Ford Drive and east of Portola Avenue, 74-500 College Drive. APPLICANTS: Palm Desert Funding Company, LP 3 San Joaquin Playa #215 Newport Beach, CA 92660 RBF Consulting 74-410 Highway 111 Palm Desert, CA 92260 I. BACKGROUND Desert Wells 237, LLC By Palm Desert 124, Inc. 5005 Calle San Raphael Palm Springs, CA 92262 Desert Wells 237 LLC owns some 190 +/- residentially zoned acres in the University Park area east of Portola and south of Gerald Ford Drive. Parcel Map 31730 approved April 4, 2004 subdivided the University Park area into 15 parcels consistent with the general plan land use for the area. March 1, 2005 Planning Commission approved TT 32655 subdividing a 69.26-acre site (Parcel 9 of PM 31730) into 270 single family lots with modified setbacks and lot sizes. The area has recently been mass graded in anticipation of future development consistent with PM 31730. The City Council recently approved the Community Facilities District which will fund the basic public improvements in this area. STAFF REPORT CASE NO. C/Z 06-04 AND UNIVERSITY PARK MASTER PLAN APRIL 4, 2006 ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE North: PCD / Vacant South: PR-5 / Vacant East: PCD / Evans Commercial West: PR-5 / Single Family Dwellings 11. CURRENT PROPOSAL The applicant seeks approval of the University Park Master Plan (UPMP) and a zone change to add the PCD Overlay to the existing PR-5 zoning. Specifically, the applicant seeks approval of the UPMP which is a detailed land use plan for this 190 +/- acre area. The plan provides development standards for low and medium density projects within the University Park area. Once the Master Plan is approved, the addition of the PCD Overlay to the existing PR-5 zoning will provide the developer with greater flexibility in development criteria for the residential units and will allow densities consistent with the general plan medium density provisions (4-10 units per acre). A. UNIVERSITY PARK MASTER PLAN The UPMP provides a vision statement and guiding principles for development in the area. The plan defines land use areas, the circulation network, general design criteria for the six (6) neighborhoods and prototypical architecture and landscaping for each neighborhood. The project vision statement provides, in part: "As a Master Planned Community, University Park's design embodies the qualities of a great American college town: intimate neighborhoods, tree -shaded sidewalks, inviting open spaces, and architectural diversity in a strategic location. At the vibrant heart of University Park is College Drive, providing safe connectivity to neighborhoods, parks, and the University through the incorporation of a multiuse circulation system designed for pedestrians, bicycles, and golf carts. A traditional, modified grid pattern of local streets provides the framework within each STAFF REPORT CASE NO. C/Z 06-04 AND UNIVERSITY PARK MASTER PLAN APRIL 4, 2006 neighborhood, extending the pedestrian environment to each home. Parks are as much a part of the community experience as the mountains, offering opportunities for relaxation and recreation from sunrise to sunset. Amenities such as barbecue areas, playgrounds, and basketball courts will be featured, and an 18 hole public golf course is proposed to be developed by the city along the western boundary. Along the eastern edge, mixed use and commercial districts are envisioned to include a plaza, main street and public spaces." B. LAND USE PLAN "Creative and imaginative design is encouraged for the residential home builders of University Park. All of the planning areas will fall within the "Medium Density" category of 4 to 10 homes per acre, based on gross parcel acreage. Both single family detached and attached homes will be featured in order to appeal to a range of income levels and buyer preferences. The first priority in the design of the Land Use Plan for University Park is compatibility with existing and proposed land uses. The lowest density homes are located at the western portion of the site near to existing single family homes. The highest density homes are assigned to portions of the site that are adjacent to mixed use areas and commercial uses. Public parks ranging from 2 acres to 4.2 acres have been strategically located to allow easy access from every residential neighborhood." C. CIRCULATION "Local Residential Streets. Residential streets within University Park are designed in a modified grid pattern, and are narrowed to provide a pedestrian scaled experience. All streets within the neighborhoods will be privately owned and maintained by a homeowners association. A public access easement will provide public access to the parks. Short street segments will be incorporated to reduce traffic speeds, and create a pedestrian friendly environment. Parking provided within each neighborhood exceeds minimum requirements established by the City. Parcels C, D, E & F will be ungated and allow public access while parcels A and B may be gated or ungated (see Figure 23-25). 3 STAFF REPORT CASE NO. C1Z 06-04 AND UNIVERSITY PARK MASTER PLAN APRIL 4, 2006 Entries to single family detached neighborhoods feature a 78-foot wide right of way including two 16-foot travel lanes, an 8-foot raised median, a 7-foot parkway and a 5-foot sidewalk on each side. Each entry street terminates in a large public park (see Figure 22). Local streets in parcels C, D, E & F have a 33-foot right-of-way, including parking and a 5-foot sidewalk on both sides. The right-of-way will expand to 37' in areas directly adjacent to public parks." D. PRODUCT CRITERIA "Traditional neighborhood design promotes a high emphasis on the visual quality of neighborhood streets. University Park will be designed so that the "living" portion of the homes is oriented toward the street, in order to minimize the impact of the garage. A variety of garage placements, such as deeply recessed garages, tandem garages, split garages, and porte-cocheres, along with attractive landscaping will result in residential neighborhoods with a desirable street scene ambiance. Another consideration is the attention to detail of all four sides of a residence, rather than an emphasis on only the front. Since many homes back onto internal collector streets, the design of the rear elevations is important. The inclusion of auxiliary units and casitas is encouraged within traditional single family neighborhoods. Homes within parcels A, C, D, E and F will have private rear yards, and parcel B will feature homes with and without private rear yards. Parcels A and B will include private recreation areas." E. OPEN SPACE J PARKS "Public parks are incorporated throughout University Park, offering functional space for passive and active activities, as well as gathering spaces for surrounding residents. Open space within all public parks will be dedicated to the city. Ranging in size from 2 to over 4 acres, the public parks include basketball area, volleyball courts, children's play area, seating areas, and restroom facilities, (refer to figures 7 - 10). A dog park is planned at the corner of College Drive and University Park Drive and will feature separate areas for large and small dogs. 4 STAFF REPORT CASE NO. C/Z 06-04 AND UNIVERSITY PARK MASTER PLAN APRIL 4, 2006 Private open spaces provide additional green areas within each neighborhood at a smaller scale. Parcels A and B will include private recreation centers featuring pool and spa facilities. The pedestrian circulation system provides accessibility to all the open space areas of University Park." 4 k'a. Within the Master Plan area four park sites have been identifleacres). A portion of each park will also serve as retention for Pursuant to the approved assessment district for this area, the developers will be required to fully improve each of the parks consistent with the park designs shown on pages 35, 36 and 37 of the Master Plan document. Once improvement of the park is complete and acceptable to the City, the site will ? be dedicated to the City. , DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PARCELS A AND B - MOTOR COURT - DETACHED & ATTACHED Reauirement Average Lot Size Minimum Lot Size Lot Coverage Front Yard Setbacks (minimum from back of sidewalk) - Main Living Area (ground floor) - Porch / Balcony - Garden Wall (maximum 18" height) - Second Floor Living Space Offset from Face of Garage (may be recessed or cantilevered) - Garage (front access) - Driveway Length Rear Yard Setbacks - Living Area, Garage to Fence Line Side Yard Setbacks - Living Area, Garage to Fence Line - Max. Encroachment into Side Yard Setback (pot shelf or bay window) Perimeter Setback - Living Area (1 or 2 stories) 5 Minimum N/A N/A 50% 10, 6' 4.5' 2' 20' 3' 10, 5' 2.5' (maintain 3' clear) 20' STAFF REPORT CASE NO. C/Z 06-04 AND UNIVERSITY PARK MASTER PLAN APRIL 4, 2006 PARCELS A AND B - MOTOR COURT - DETACHED & ATTACHED (Continued) Reauirement Minimum Building Separation - Side to Side 10, - Rear to Rear (living space) 20' - Rear to Side 15' - Garage Face to Garage Face 30' Building Height 24'* Private Open Space (Side or Rear Yard) 200 square feet * Height may be increased to 28 feet with approval from Architectural Review Commission PARCEL B - TRIPLEX Reauirement Average Lot Size Minimum Lot Size Lot Coverage Front Setbacks (minimum from back of sidewalk or back of curb if there is no sidewalk) - Main Living Area (ground floor) - Porch / Balcony - Garden Wall (maximum 18" height) Rear Setbacks - Second Floor Living Area Offset from Face of Garage (may be recessed or cantilevered) - Garage to Alley Edge Side Yard Setbacks - Living Area - Max. Encroachment into Side Yard Setback (pot shelf, bay window) Building Separation - Porch / Balcony to Porch / Balcony - Front to Front - Rear to Rear - Garage Face to Garage Face 1.1 Minimum N/A N/A 50% 10, 6' 3' W14111111 Willill 10, 2.5' (maintain 3' clear) 12' 20' 26' 30' STAFF REPORT CASE NO. C/Z 06-04 AND UNIVERSITY PARK MASTER PLAN APRIL 4, 2006 PARCEL B - TRIPLEX (Continued) Reauirement Minimum - Side to Side 10, Perimeter Setback - Living Area (1 or 2 stories) 20' Building Height 24'* Private Open Space (patio) 60 sq. ft. with a min. dimension of 6' * Height may be increased to 28 feet with approval from Architectural Review Commission PARCELS C, D, E & F - SINGLE FAMILY - DETACHED & ATTACHED Reauirement Average Lot Size Minimum Lot Size Lot Coverage Front Yard Setbacks (from back of sidewalk) - Main Living Area (ground floor) - Porch / Balcony - Garden Wall - Garage (front access) - Garage (side -in access) Rear Yard Setback - Living Area - Garage (deeply recessed) Side Yard Setback - Interior Living Area (first and second story) - Corner / Street - Garage Perimeter Setback - Living Area (1 or 2 stories) Building Height Accessory Structure Height 7 Minimum 3,500 sq.ft. 3,000 sq.ft. 50% 16 (20' from curb when tree pocket occurs) 10, 4.5' 20' 10' 20' 15'* 5' 10, 0'** 20' 24'*** 24' STAFF REPORT CASE NO. C/Z 06-04 AND UNIVERSITY PARK MASTER PLAN APRIL 4, 2006 PARCELS C, D, E & F - SINGLE FAMILY - DETACHED & ATTACHED (Continued) Reauirement Minimum Second Story Windows Facing Sideyards of Single No Minimum Height Family Homes from Floor Private Open Space (Side or Rear Yard) 200 square feet * Rear setbacks of 0' for garages and accessory structures may be permitted as an exception. ** Area F lots may incorporate a sideyard reciprocal use easement - side setbacks to be measured from easement. *** Height may be increased to 28 feet with approval from Architectural Review Commission APPROVED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32655 - SINGLE FAMILY - DETACHED Reauirement Minimum Average Lot Size 8,000 sq.ft. Minimum Lot Size 7,200 sq.ft. Lot Coverage 45% Front Yard Setbacks (minimum from back of curb) - Main Living Area 20' - Porch / Balcony 10' - Garden Wall 4.5' - Second Floor Living Space Offset from Face of Garage 2' (may be recessed or cantilevered) - Garage (front access) 20' - Garage (side -in access) 15' Rear Yard Setbacks - Living Area 20' - Garage (deeply recessed) 15' Side Yard Setbacks - Interior 5' - Corner / Street 10, Perimeter Setback - Living Area (1 or 2 stories) 20' Building Height 24'* Accessory Structure Height 24' STAFF REPORT CASE NO. C/Z 06-04 AND UNIVERSITY PARK MASTER PLAN APRIL 4, 2006 * Height may be increased to 28 feet with approval from Architectural Review Commission F. PARKING "Single family and multifamily residential uses shall provide two covered (within a garage or carport) spaces per dwelling unit. Exceptions: The standards and guidelines presented in this section provide minimum 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." Ill. ANALYSIS The University Park Master Plan as proposed implements and is consistent with the general plan policies for this area, and specifically implements the general plan goals for urban design, housing diversity, circulation and recreation. The development criteria contained in the Master Plan is consistent with the medium density development standards adopted by the City Council per Resolution No. 05-16 February 10, 2005 except for building height which is proposed at 24 feet with 28 feet possible through the "exceptions" process through ARC. Resolution No. 05-16 prescribes a height limit of "18 feet/one story, 24 feet/two stories." The Master Plan document currently does not include a policy statement with respect to the City's recently adopted Energy Conservation Plan which has a goal for a 30% reduction in energy use citywide within five years. A policy statement endorsing the Energy Conservation Plan will be added to the document prior to it being forwarded to City Council. In general, the policy statement will provide that new homes will be required to exceed Title 24 energy standards. Homes in this area will be required to comply with the updated energy requirements established by the City Office of Energy Management (see November 28, 2005 memo from Office of Energy Management attached). 7 STAFF REPORT CASE NO. C/Z 06-04 AND UNIVERSITY PARK MASTER PLAN APRIL 4, 2006 In addition, developers of homes in this area will be required to install photovoltaic�r�4^ panels on the roof of the model units. A condition on all projects will require that all units be wired to accept the panels. The panels will then be marketed to purchasers of homes as an option. With respect to the development standards approved for TT 32655, the Master Plan proposes to alter conditions relating to building height, accessory building height and interior side yard setbacks. The building height limit in TT 32655 was set at 24 feet for two-story units and 18 feet for single story. The Master Plan proposes a hasic height entitlement of 24 feet for two-story units with a maximum height of 28 feet possible through the "exceptions" process. Staff recommends that for structures within the building envelope the maximum be 24 feet with 28 feet possible through the "exceptions" process. For accessory buildings not within the building envelope, the usual setbacks pursuant to Municipal Code 25.56.280 shall apply (i.e., one foot of setback for each foot of building height). Interior side yards were originally set at 14 feet combined, 5 feet minimum. The applicant proposes that this be changed to 5 feet minimum (10 feet combined versus 14 feet combined). With the addition of a policy to implement the City's energy conservation policy, the approved Master Plan will implement -all of the goals and objectives of the general plan for the University Park area. Once the University Park Master Plan is approved, it will become the Master Plan for that area of the city. Chapter 25.23 Planned Community Development Overlay Zone allows a single zone change to implement the Master Plan. Criteria for Commission/Council to consider in whether to approve the PCD zoning is as follows: A. General Plan. Compliance with the General Plan shall be established. 10 STAFF REPORT CASE NO. C/Z 06-04 AND UNIVERSITY PARK MASTER PLAN APRIL 4, 2006 The UPMP as proposed is consistent with general plan land use plan as approved by City Council March 15, 2004. B. Site Area. A minimum 100 acres shall be required for a planned community development. The UPMP as proposed contains 190 +/- acres. C. Application. Any application for an overlay zone shall be accompanied by a master plan for the entire area covered by the application. An acceptable master plan has been provided which covers the entire area. D. Ownership. All land in a proposed overlay zone shall be held in one ownership or under unified control or have the written consent or agreemdnt of all owners of property proposed for inclusion in the overlay zone. The property is currently in one ownership. E. Utilities. The existing utility systems (water, sewer, drainage, electrical, gas and communications facilities) are adequate, or new systems shall be constructed to adequately serve the development. The City Council recently approved the CFD for the University Park area which will fund infrastructure improvements to serve the area. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Master Plan and proposed overlay zoning are consistent with the general plan designations for this area and were analyzed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report which was certified March 15, 2004. Based on that environmental assessment, staff concludes that there will be no significant environmental impacts associated with this project. Accordingly, staff recommends that a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact be approved. V. RECOMMENDATION That Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of the University Park Master Plan and C/Z 06-04, subject to conditions. 11 STAFF REPORT CASE NO. C1Z 06-04 AND UNIVERSITY PARK MASTER PLAN APRIL 4, 2006 VI. ATTACHMENTS A. Draft resolution B. Legal notice C. Comments from city departments and other agencies D. Plans and exhibits Prepared by: t I _ .&M Steve �mith Planning Manager Review and Concur: Homer Croy ACM for Development Services AM Reviewed and Approved by: Phil Drell Directorof Community Development gecollnwux� /-Ib W, -P 41 2-) CP O&W� 12 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2385 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE UNIVERSITY PARK MASTER PLAN, CHANGE OF ZONE TO ADD THE PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE (PCD) TO THE EXISTING PR-5 ZONING AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS IT PERTAINS THERETO FOR 190 +/- ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF GERALD FORD DRIVE AND EASTERLY OF PORTOLA AVENUE, 74-500 COLLEGE DRIVE. CASE NO. C/Z 06-04 AND UNIVERSITY PARK MASTER PLAN WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on 4th the day of April, 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of PALM DESERT FUNDING COMPANY, LP, 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. 05-52," 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 in the General Plan Update 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. The proposed University Park Master Plan document as amended is consistent with the medium density development provisions of the general plan. 2. That all of the required criteria (Municipal Code 25.23.020) for adopting the PCD overlay district can be affirmed. 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 the University Park Master Plan, dated March 29, 2006, is recommended for approval to the City Council subject to the addition of: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2385 r a. A policy statement to recognize and implement the City's Energy Conservation Plan. b. Modifications of the height exceptions process to include review and comment by the Planning Commission after preliminary action by the Architectural Review Commission. 3. That C/Z 06-04, attached hereto as Exhibit A, is hereby recommended to City Council for approval. 4. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, attached hereto as Exhibit B, is hereby recommended to City Council for certification. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 4th day of April, 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CAMPBELL, FINERTY, TANNER, TSCHOPP, LOPEZ NONE NONE NONE ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 t� q� �O P.cD. P.R.-S i� P.R.•3 I �� �rovo�row W Z, ORWI P.C.D. Fca ORDC37 4qo .CD„ pc O PoZ �7 y ;0 ORDS37 a C +e s qNA .pro P.c p C Fc P.C.D. P.C.D. P.C.D. 1 P.CD., FCO2 R 2 4 iy oam Dst ARA Proposed PR.-3 E Zoning P.R. 3 Change - PCD (� OVERLA Y ase No. C/Z 06-04 PLANNING COMMISSION CHANGE OF ZONE RESOLUTION NO. _2 3 R 5 EXHIBIT A Date: April 4, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2385 EXHIBIT B NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: C/Z 06-04 and University Park Master Plan APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Palm Desert Funding Desert Wells 237, LLC Company, LP By Palm Desert 124, Inc. 3 San Joaquin Playa #215. 5005 Calla San Raphael Newport Beach, CA 92660 Palm Springs, CA 92262 PTION&OCATION: RBF Consulting 74-410 Highway 111 Palm Desert, CA 92260 A change of zone to add the Planned Community Development Overlay zone (PCD) to the existing PR-5 zoning and a Negative Declaration ,of Environmental Impact as it relates thereto for 190 + /- acres generally located south of Gerald Ford Drive and easterly of Portola Avenue, 74-500 College Drive. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. PHILIP DELL DIRECTOR OF�DEVELOPMENT 4 April 4. 2006 DATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2385 EXHIBIT C Smith, Steve From: Conlon, Pat Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 10:17 AM To: Smith, Steve Subject: Conditions of Approval Office of Energy Management. In ADDITION to the minimum energy efficiency standards set forth in the current edition of Title 24 Calif. Administrative Code (CAC) the project shall incorporate the following energy efficiency features. 1) Architectural design for energy conservation shall incorporate structural overhangs, or architectural projections, for shading of all eastern, southern and western facing glazing. Where shading by architectural design is unfeasible in these locations, glazing shall consist of the following: a) Thermal break design window and/or door frames. b) U factor of .40 or less (NFRC tested) c) SHGC value of 0.35 or less (NFRC tested) 2) All vented attics shall have a radiant barrier roof sheathing installed per Title 24 CAC 2005 edition. 3) Ail flat or low sloped exterior roof surfaces shall have a Cool Roof reflective coating. 4) HVAC equipment minimum standards: a) Fuel type: All heating shall be by natural gas. b) Furnace efficiency to be a minimum AFUE rating of 800/4 c) SEER: 14.0 minimum d) EER : 11.5 minimum e) HSPF: 8.0 minimum. f) Duct insulation shall be R-6 or better. g) All ducts shall be pressure tested for leakage conforming to current standards in Title 24 CAC 2005 edition. 5) Energy Star Appliances. If provided by the developer, all the following appliances shall be Energy Star rated: a) Dishwashers b) Refrigerators c) Clothes Washers d) Clothes Dryers ( Must be Natural Gas only) e) Ceiling fans f) Exhaust fans 6) Lighting: Lighting in all laundry rooms, utility rooms, mechanical rooms, closets and garages shall be fluorescent controlled by a manual - on, automatic - off occupancy sensor. All common area landscape lighting shall be fluorescent. 7) All common area public pools and spas shall have solar water heating conforming to current Plumbing Code and Solar Energy Code standards. Natural gas heaters for the common area public pools and spas are permitted with a AFUE of .92% minimum. 5 11- *4J_ "(ft 3Ania atiOj a1Vd30' • T." Cs>jir =GOMM ... !MIMI! .110•11.111••••••10 Hfr1i t Mi AO% .,11 * 011. 2 3111 it I - 11 A I 110 3 0 T 0 f „ •, 3 t 01 _ 0 A 1 a 4.1S— s H 4.1* — AN. 4. `44-1 13.411S-W 1.1 Oal. /..VS 11 55 5 ®- Ke9:, 4,4 •' - 511vE sTp 5klyi * 5 ak 4.332.11:3 .7 Zib,s‘ nb,s\, ;,rn ge'-• 5m: 5F0- 12 lk § “ 6 • ribF:xp 11;10 .« , Iti • •,; ,.., i®,.. g 3.11V4 ' 5, 5, 5: p, t:„:-.4i,,,,,,,,,l.,, ..... 1Y.''',2.'SEP- ''' • .:', .„, '' - ,OS .0S 5