HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrd 1110 and Res 06-27 CZ 05-03 PP-CUP 05-22 TT 34179 Summit PropertiesCITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: Approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, a
change of zone from S.I. (Service Industrial) to PR-13 (Planned
Residential, 13 units per acre), a precise plan/conditional use permit
and tentative tract map for condominium purposes to construct 247
residential condominium units on a 20-acre site at the northeast
corner of Gateway Drive and 35th Avenue, 73-600 35th Avenue.
Project includes a height exception for roof elements to a maximum
of 34 feet 6 inches.
SUBMITTED BY: Steve Smith, Planning Manager
APPLICANT: Summit Properties
2082 Michelson Drive, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92612
CASE NOS: C/Z 05-03, PP/CUP 05-22 and TT 34179
DATE: February 23, 2006 continued from January 12, 2006
CONTENTS:
Staff Recommendation
Background and Discussion
Draft Ordinance No. 1110 and Draft Resolution No. 06-27
Planning Commission Minutes involving Case Nos. C/Z 05-03, PP/CUP 05-22 and
TT 34179
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2366
Planning Commission Staff Report dated December 6, 2005
Staff Recommendation:
That the City Council pass Ordinance No. 1110 to second reading
approving Case No. C/Z 05-03.
That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 06-27 approving Case Nos.
PP/CUP 05-22 and TT 34179, subject to conditions.
Staff Report
Case Nos. C/Z 05-03, PP/CUP 05-22 and TT 34179
Page 2
February 23, 2006
Background and Discussion:
SITE DESCRIPTION
The 20-acre site at the northeast corner of the future Gateway Drive and the future
35th Avenue is vacant and has natural dunes with minimal vegetation. The property
slopes 30 feet from south to north and from southwest to northeast approximately
53 feet.
ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE
North:
S.I. / approved business center
South:
PCD / vacant
East:
S.I. / approved industrial lots
West:
PC-3 / approved Wal-Mart center
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
General Plan
The site is designated medium/high density residential in the updated general plan.
This designation permits projects having 4-22 units per acre. The project at 13
units/acre falls into the high density category of 10-22 units.
Zoning
The property is currently zoned S.I. (service industrial). The application includes a
request to change the zone to PR-13 (planned residential, 13 units per acre).
Project Description:
The applicant proposes modification to the zoning and approval of a precise plan/
conditional use permit, a height exception and tentative tract map for 247 residential
condominium units.
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW
This matter was before the Planning Commission on December 6, 2005. At that
time several Commissioners expressed concern with having only one pool area and
Staff Report
Case Nos. C/Z 05-03, PP/CUP 05-22 and TT 34179
Page 3
February 23, 2006
would have preferred additional pools and/or spas. The applicant explained the
difficulty with the grade variation. The Commission also discussed the requested
height exception. The general consensus was that the height exception was
warranted due to the location, the surrounding uses, the topography and the project
design. (See copy of Planning Commission minutes and ARC minutes attached.)
After weighing the merits of the project, Planning Commission recommended to City
Council approval the project on a 4-0-1 vote (Commissioner Jonathan abstained).
ZONE CHANGE
The applicant proposes to change the zone from S.I. (service industrial) to PR-13
(13 units per acre). This will permit up to 260 units. The applicant proposes 247
units on the site.
PRECISE PLAN / CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT / TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
The applicant proposes to construct a series of four different residential building
types with four or five units per building. The project also includes a clubhouse /
sales center, large pool complex, volleyball and basketball facilities.
The project takes its main access from 35th Avenue at the mid point of the site.
Secondary accesses are provided on Gateway Drive and the east end of the site
on 35th Avenue.
The main access and the Gateway access will provide full turning movements. The
secondary 35th Avenue access will be limited to right -in, right -out only.
The site is served by a series of two way, minimum 24-foot wide, roadways which
provide access to the building complexes and garage areas.
The 35th Avenue main access driveway leads directly to the clubhouse facility
where it branches east/west. From this east/west street minor streets branch off to
the north and south. These roadways are all minimum 24-feet wide.
Circulation and access are acceptable.
1. Unit Summary
The project includes five basic plan types as follows:
Staff Report
Case Nos. C/Z 05-03, PP/CUP 05-22 and TT 34179
Page 4
February 23, 2006
PLAN 1
1 bedroom & den
1,151 s.f.
14 units
2 car garage
PLAN 2
2 bedroom
1,205 s.f.
42 units
2 car garage
PLAN 3
2 bedroom
1,254 s.f.
57 units
2 car garage
PLAN 4
3 bedroom
1,816 s.f.
76 units
2 car garage
PLAN 5
3 bedroom & loft
1,933 s.f.
57 units
2 car garage
2. Parking
The parking requirement for residential condominiums varies with the
number of bedrooms. Studio and one bedroom units are required to have
one covered space and one open space. Two bedrooms and larger are
required to have two covered spaces, plus one half open space per unit.
Based on 14 one bedroom units and 233 two bedrooms or greater, the
required parking is 470 covered spaces, plus 117 open spaces for a total of
587 spaces.
The project provides two garage spaces per unit (494 spaces) and 125 open
guest spaces for a total of 619 spaces. The project complies with code.
3. Architecture and Building Height
The two-story and two-story with a loft buildings have been attractively
designed in a prairie style architecture. The structures feature pitched roofs
with flat concrete beige colored tile. Walls will be finished in varying shades
of stucco accented with significant stone veneer elements anchoring the
base. The applicant has provided quality architecture on all sides of the
building and provided articulation on all facets of the structures.
The units have been designed to provide nine -foot high ceilings which when
coupled with the 3 in 12 pitched roof results in building heights which range
from 28 feet on the two-story units and 34 feet 6 inches on the two story with
loft units.
The Planned Residential District allows two-story development with a
maximum height of 24 feet. The applicant will require an exception to the
height requirement as provided in the PR zone. In the past the Planning
Commission and City Council have granted exceptions to the height limit in
Staff Report
Case Nos. C/Z 05-03, PP/CUP 05-22 and TT 34179
Page 5
February 23, 2006
instances where there is no impact to adjacent properties and if the design
of the buildings is enhanced with the additional height.
The City's Architectural Review Commission unanimously approved the
design of the multifamily residential units on October 25, 2005. The
commission did not have an issue with the height of the buildings. In fact,
Commissioner Hanson noted, "I'm happy that you've added that loft level (for
60-70 units) because I think that otherwise it might come across as a very
flat, uninteresting building." Commissioner Vuksic said that "he likes the loft
element and they make the buildings more special."
4. Grade Change and Tentative Tract Map
Grade Change
The natural slope in the area results in this property being below the curb
heights on Gateway Drive and 35th Avenue. This reduces the net building
heights.
Along Gateway Drive the building pads will be 4-12 feet below the adjacent
curb heights with the 12-foot difference occurring at the Gateway/35th
Avenue intersection. This reduces the net building heights to 23-30 feet
when viewed from Gateway Drive. Along 35th Avenue the pads will range
from 11 feet below adjacent curb to four feet above curb at the east end.
Buildings along 35th Avenue will therefore have net heights of 24 to 38 feet
when viewed from 35th Avenue with the highest only occurring on one
building.
In addition, this site is surrounded by service industrial property to the east
and north (30-foot buildings permitted) and regional commercial (Wal-Mart)
to the west (35-foot buildings permitted) with the pad height on the Wal-Mart
site expected to be set at 255 which will be 12-14 feet higher then the pad
heights of this project.
All of these factors should be taken into account in the granting of any height
exception.
Staff Report
Case Nos. C/Z 05-03, PP/CUP 05-22 and TT 34179
Page 6
February 23, 2006
Tentative Tract Man
The proposed map is a 12-lot map for condominium purposes. When
recorded, the map will allow the individual units to be sold.
PROJECT DATA
CODE
PROVIDED
Building Setbacks:
East
As approved
25 ft. To main building
South
20 feet
25 feet
West
20 feet
25 feet
North
As approved
20 feet
Coverage
50% maximum
33%
Parking:
Covered
470
494
Open
117
125
Total
587 spaces
619 spaces
Height
24 feet
28 to 34 feet 6 inches*
Minimum Unit Size:
1 bedroom
600 square feet
1,151 square feet
2 bedroom
800 square feet
1,205 - 1,254 square feet
3 bedroom
1,200 square feet
1,816 - 1,933 square feet
* Height exception being sought.
ANALYSIS
The project as designed will result in an architecturally attractive residential complex
with a townhouse feel. Quality touches added to the project include direct garage
access for more than half the units, balconies and private patios (160-180 square
feet) behind low walls at the entries. Building architecture includes articulation using
stone veneer, banding, glazing and color changes.
The project is pedestrian friendly with paseos linking units with the recreation
center. Garages face each other in auto courts.
As noted previously, the building architecture results in the project needing an
exception for height.
In this instance there are no impacts to adjacent properties caused by the height
increase from 24 feet to 28-34 feet 6 inches. The properties to the west, east and
Staff Report
Case Nos. C/Z 05-03, PP/CUP 05-22 and TT 34179
Page 7
February 23, 2006
north are zoned commercial/business park and allow buildings with a maximum
height of 30 and 35 feet. To the south across 35th Avenue is another medium/high
density residential site. Also, pads along Gateway will be 12-15 feet below the pad
on the Wal-Mart site to the west.
The buildings utilize a pitched roof design with a 3/12 slope. A majority of the
multifamily projects that have complied with the 24-foot height limit have utilized a
flat roof design. Flat roof designs such as the City -owned One Quail Place complex
have caused maintenance problems in dealing with water runoff and roof leaks. By
using a pitched roof, the buildings avoid problems with water runoff, thus become
easier to maintain.
The pitched roof elements provided for this project create a diversity in the roof
which improves the architecture (see comments of ARC members Hanson and
Vuksic on page 4). The loft elements will occur in 60-70 of the 247 units. In each
instance the loft area occupies less than 15% of the second floor roof area (see loft
level plan, page 4 in November 17, 2005 date stamped brochure).
Along Gateway Drive the building pads will be 4-12 feet below the adjacent curb
heights with the 12 foot difference occurring at the Gateway/35th Avenue
intersection. This effectively reduces the net building heights to 23-30 feet when
viewed from Gateway Drive. Along 35th Avenue the pads will range from 11 feet
below adjacent curb to four feet above curb at the east end. Buildings along 35th
Avenue will therefore have net heights of 24 to 38 feet when viewed from 35th
Avenue with the highest only occurring on one building.
In the last four major residential projects the City has granted a height exception
(i.e., Portofino, Hovley Gardens, the RDA project on Santa Rosa and Sares Regis).
In these instances it was determined that the aesthetic improvement to the roof
design warranted an exception. Based on its architecture and location, this project
warrants similar consideration.
The design as proposed complies with all the code provisions except for height (see
previous discussion) and should provide needed moderately priced housing stock.
The project at 13 units per acre is an appropriate land use given the surrounding
land uses: commercial to the west, east and north and a future medium/high density
residential project to the south across 35th Avenue.
Staff Report
Case Nos. C/Z 05-03, PP/CUP 05-22 and TT 34179
Page 8
February 23, 2006
ENERGY REVIEW CRITERIA
The units as designed will exceed the new Title 24 energy standards by at least
10.8 - 20.9% depending on unit floor plan and location. Units in the project will also
comply with the updated energy requirements established by the Office of Energy
Management. In addition, the applicant has agreed to install photovoltaic panels on
the roof of the model units. All units will be wired to accept the panels. The panels
will then be marketed to purchasers of units as an option.
With the rebate program and tax incentives, the Office of Energy Management
expressed support for the above noted program.
HIGH DENSITY OVERLAY CRITERIA REVIEW
The General Plan established the following seven (7) review criteria for evaluating
high density projects.
1. The percentage of residential units, whether single- or multi -family, that shall
be available for home ownership.
Response:
100% of this project will be available for home ownership.
2. High density residential neighborhoods shall be located in proximity and
have convenient access to public transportation.
Response:
Although the Sunline long range services plan has not been completed,
preliminary discussions have indicated that there will be service on Gateway
Drive adjacent to the project.
3. High density residential development shall be located in proximity to schools,
parks and commercial services, which shall be accessible by means of non -
motorized vehicle routes.
Staff Report
Case Nos. C/Z 05-03, PP/CUP 05-22 and TT 34179
Page 9
February 23, 2006
Response:
Schools: The property is within easy walking distance 450 +/- feet of the
property, being acquired by the Palm Springs Unified School District for a
future school(s).
Parks: The property is within walking distance of a designated neighborhood
park site adjacent to the school property noted above.
In addition, the project will provide its own large recreation complex including
pool and clubhouse.
Communitv Services: As noted elsewhere in this report, the site is
surrounded on three (3) sides by commercial and/or business park properties
many of which are currently under construction which will provide convenient
shopping and employment opportunities.
4. The percent of proposed high -density units to be reserved to meet the
affordable housing needs of the community.
Response:
Approving a project of this type will help to provide housing which is more
affordable than the usual three -unit per acre tract development.
The typical tract home in the city on an 8,000 square foot lot which used to
sell for $200,000 now goes for $750,000 to $800,000. This is a result of raw
land costs going to $500,000 per acre and construction costs going up from
$75.00/square foot to $200/square foot. When coupled with infrastructure
costs, the typical 8,000 square foot lot now costs $150,000 - $200,000. With
so much money in the land, developers need a minimum 3,000 square foot
home which currently costs about $200.00/square foot ($150,000-$200,000
and $600,000 = $750,000-$800,000).
This condo development at 13 units per acre reduces the land cost and
results in smaller units being built. The developer expects to sell their units
for $306,000-$490,000. Prices like this do not meet the City's definition of
low or moderate housing, but it will be 40%-60% less than a typical tract
home built at low density.
Staff Report
Case Nos. C/Z 05-03, PP/CUP 05-22 and TT 34179
Page 10
February 23, 2006
The applicant is seeking a waiver of the typical requirement to provide 20%
of the units as affordable to moderate income households.
In support of this waiver, the applicant has provided a project proforma which
confirms that as designed, this project is at the lowest end of the
condominium market. Cost savings from the increased density is being
achieved.
The proforma has been reviewed by the City Economic Consultant REASCO
who concluded that the applicant "will not earn an excessive profit from the
project." Based on this preliminary proforma, the Housing Authority has
determined that the project need not provide or contribute to the moderate
income housing program.
A final proforma will be prepared once the applicant has obtained actual bid
costs for the job. If the profit margin is the same or less based on the same
critical objective criteria as the preliminary proforma, then the housing
mitigation requirement will be waived. If the final proforma shows an
increased profit to the developer, then a housing mitigation agreement will
need to be negotiated.
The project as recommended for approval by the Planning Commission
included a condition requiring the applicant to make available 20% of the
units to the City Housing Authority with the intent being that the Housing
Authority would write down mortgages to make the units affordable to
"moderate" income households and apply resale controls to keep the units
affordable into the future.
In light of the results of the preliminary proforma, this condition will need to
be changed. The new condition, number 9 in the attached resolution will
read:
61
9. That prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall
provide the City with a final project proforma which reflects
actual bid costs for the project. This final proforma shall be
reviewed in a manner consistent with the preliminary project
proforma prepared December 15, 2005.
Staff Report
Case Nos. C/Z 05-03, PP/CUP 05-22 and TT 34179
Page 11
February 23, 2006
If the profit margin is the same or less, based on the same
critical objective criteria as the preliminary proforma, then the
housing mitigation requirement shall be waived. If the final
project proforma, using the same critical objective criteria,
shows an increased profit to the developer, then a housing
mitigation agreement will be required prior to issuance of
building permits."
5. Adequacy and usability of landscaped open space planned internal and
integral to the design of high -density developments.
Response:
The perimeter of the site will provide Desert Willow type landscaping which
will go back to the Landscape Beautification Committee once the project has
obtained required zoning approvals. This review will include an upgraded
corner statement for the intersection of Gateway and 35th Avenue.
Within the site the project includes a 1.2-acre central recreation area which
includes a 6,762 square foot clubhouse with terrace, a large pool, a cold
pool, cabana, tot lot and artificial putting green.
The clubhouse building includes a pool room (four tables), two lounge areas,
lobby, multi purpose room and exercise room with men's and women's locker
rooms and restrooms.
Access to this central recreation area is provided on pedestrian paseos
provided throughout the residential units. All units are within walking distance
of this facility (maximum distance 400 feet).
In the northeast corner of the project a minor recreation area provides half
court basketball and volleyball.
The recreation package was reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Manager
and found to be acceptable.
6. Development plans reflecting creative and innovative design in site planning,
building design and landscape treatment consistent with the General Plan
Community Design Element.
Staff Report
Case Nos. C/Z 05-03, PP/CUP 05-22 and TT 34179
Page 12
February 23, 2006
Response:
The project exhibits a high -quality of architecture. The project has been
designed with a series of internal auto courts which keep the parking lots out
of view. Each unit has two garage spaces.
Architecture for the project has been given preliminary approval by the
Architectural Review Commission.
Landscape treatment will be Desert Willow in style and will be water efficient.
The project will comply with the updated energy requirements established by
the Office of Energy Management.
7. Analysis of the potential fiscal impacts of the development.
Response:
A fiscal impact report was not prepared for this project, however, one was
prepared for the 13-unit per acre Sares Regis apartment project south on
Gateway Drive. That report concluded that as a stand-alone residential
apartment project it would create a negative cash flow to the City. The report
noted, "This can be expected of residential development, which is seldom
self-supporting."
The exception would be low density, high end country clubs such as Bighorn,
but they don't achieve the housing goals of the City. Extrapolating per unit
costs from the Sares Regis report, the break even point is approximately
$1.9 million.
The recent increase in residential property values and the future sale of
these units as condominiums will result in the value of this property being
reset above the current base rate.
This project is in the immediate vicinity of 1,000,000 plus square feet of new
commercial development which raises that property tax base and most of it
will generate sales tax revenue.
Staff Report
Case Nos. C/Z 05-03, PP/CUP 05-22 and TT 34179
Page 13
February 23, 2006
The general fiscal analysis prepared for the University Park Plan area and
the more recent Sares Regis Fiscal Impact report showed considerable
positive fiscal results to the area as a whole due to the dominance of
revenue producing commercial uses. This finding will not be altered by
approval of this project.
CEQA REVIEW
The project has been reviewed for compliance with CEQA. The Director of
Community Development has determined that the project will not have an adverse
impact on the environment. A Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should
be approved.
Submitted by:
Steve Smith
Planning Manager
Appr
Homer Cro
ACM for opment Services
Department Head:
Phil Drell V
Director of Community Development
Approv I-
r
Carlos L. O ga
City Manager
(Wpdocs\tm\sr\pp05-22.cc8)
ORDINANCE NO. 1110
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.
107, THE PALM DESERT ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE
ZONE FROM S.I. (SERVICE INDUSTRIAL) TO PR-13
(PLANNED RESIDENTIAL, 13 UNITS PER ACRE) FOR A 20-
ACRE SITE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 35TH
AVENUE AND GATEWAY DRIVE, 73-600 35TH AVENUE.
CASE NO. C/Z 05-03
The City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN,
as follows:
SECTION 1: That a portion of Ordinance No. 107 referencing Section 25.46.1
of the Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Map (Chapter 35.46 of the Palm Desert Municipal
Code) is hereby amended to read as shown on the attached Exhibit "A."
SECTION 2: That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is hereby
certified as shown on the attached Exhibit "B."
SECTION 3: The City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby
directed to publish this ordinance in the Desert Sun, a newspaper of general
circulation, published and circulated in the City of Palm Desert, California, and shall be
in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Palm Desert City Council this
day of , 2006, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
JAMES FERGUSON, Mayor
FCOZ
4
/4
P.C: (3)/FCOZ 111
Q
>-
W
rt
W
1-rc RVERS PZ
LZ_����
=DINAR-S -ORE DR
MONTERE-Y-AVE
City of Palm Desert
z
L
3STH-AV_
P.C.D.
P.C.D.
P. C: (2)
P.C:(2)
P.C.D.
P.R.-13 P.R.-5
Subject
Property
P.R.-5
S.I. S.L
Case No. C/Z 05-03 CITY COUNCIL
ORDINANCE NO.
CHANGE OF ZONE
EXHIBIT A
Date:
P.R.-5
Proposed
Zoning
Change
S.I.
To
P.R.-13
ORDINANCE NO. 1110
EXHIBIT "B"
Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the
California Code of Regulations.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NO: C/Z 05-03 as it relates to Case Nos. PP/CUP 05-22 and TT 34179
APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION:
Summit Properties
2082 Michelson Drive, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92612
A change of zone from S.I. (Service Industrial) to PR-13 (Planned Residential, 13 units
per acre) as it relates to a precise plan/conditional use permit, including a height
exception up to a maximum of 34 feet 6 inches, and a tentative tract map for
condominium purposes to construct 247 residential condominium units on a 20-acre
site at the northeast corner of 35th Avenue and Gateway Drive, 73-600 35th Avenue.
The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert,
California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the
environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons
in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid
potentially significant effects, may also be found attached.
PHILIP DRELL DATE
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
/t m
3
RESOLUTION NO. 06-27
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, A PRECISE
PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT INCLUDING A HEIGHT
EXCEPTION UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 34 FEET 6 INCHES,
AND A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR CONDOMINIUM
PURPOSES TO CONSTRUCT 247 RESIDENTIAL
CONDOMINIUM UNITS ON A 20-ACRE SITE AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF 35TH AVENUE AND GATEWAY
DRIVE, 73-600 35TH AVENUE.
CASE NOS. PP/CUP 05-22 AND TT 34179
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the
12th day of January, 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued
to February 23, 2006, to consider the request of SUMMIT PROPERTIES for approval
of the above described project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the project and
recommended to City Council approval by adoption of its Resolution No. 2366; 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 has been prepared; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council
did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify approval of the precise plan/
conditional use permit, height exception, and the tentative tract map for condominium
purposes as described below:
Precise Plan/Conditional Use Permit and Heiaht Exception:
1. The design of the project is consistent with the goals and objective of the
Planned Residential zone and the amended Palm Desert General Plan.
2. As conditioned, the project will be compatible with adjacent uses and will
not depreciate property values in the vicinity.
3. The precise plan/conditional use permit will not endanger the public
peace, health, safety or general welfare.
RESOLUTION NO. 06-27
Tentative Tract Map 34179 for condominium purposes:
The plan as designed complies with the municipal code requirements for
residential condominium projects.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm
Desert, California, as follows:
1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings
of the City Council in this case.
2. That the City Council does hereby approve Case Nos. PP/CUP 05-22,
including a height exception to allow units 28-34 feet 6 inches in height,
and TT 34179, subject to conditions.
3. A Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact attached hereto as
Exhibit A is hereby certified.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
City Council, held on this day of , 2006, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
2
JAMES FERGUSON, Mayor
RESOLUTION NO. 06-27
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NOS. PP/CUP 05-22 AND TT 34179
Department of Communitv Development:
1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file
with the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following
conditions.
2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from
the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said
approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the
restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal
ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may
be in force.
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated
by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from
the following agencies:
Coachella Valley Water District
Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission
City Fire Marshal
Public Works Department
Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented
to the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building
permit for the use contemplated herewith.
5. Applicant shall participate in a commercial recycling program as determined by
the City Environmental and Conservation Manager and applicable Waste
Disposal Company. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to
conflict with parking areas. Said placement shall be approved by applicable trash
company and Department of Community Development.
6. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the department of public
works prior to architectural review commission submittal.
3
RESOLUTION NO. 06-27
7. Final landscape plans shall comply with the parking lot tree planting master plan
and shall be approved by the Architecture Review Commission.
8. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant
to these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said
landscaping for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and
which agreement shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that
this condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors and
assigns. The final landscape plan shall include a long-term maintenance program
specifying among other matters appropriate watering times, fertilization and
pruning for various times of the year for the specific materials to be planted, as
well as periodic replacement of materials. All to be consistent with the Property
Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801) and the approved landscape plan.
9. That prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the City with
a final project proforma which reflects actual bid costs for the project. This final
proforma shall be reviewed in a manner consistent with the preliminary project
proforma prepared December 15, 2005.
If the profit margin is the same or less, based on the same critical objective criteria
as the prelimiminary proforma, then the housing mitigation requirement shall be
waived. If the final project proforma, using the same critical objective criteria, shows
an increased profiect to the developer, then a housing mitigation agreement will be
required prior to issuance of building permits.
10. In addition to the minimum energy efficiency standards set forth in the current
edition of Title 24 California Administrative Code (CAC), the project shall
incorporate the energy efficiency features as specified in the memorandum from
Pat Conlon (Office of Energy Management) dated November 28, 2005 (attached
hereto as Exhibit D).
11. Applicant shall install photovoltaic panels on the model units and market same
to unit purchasers as an option. All units to be prewired to accept photovoltaic
panels.
Department of Public Works:
GENERAL
1. Landscaping maintenance of any common areas and property frontages shall be
provided by a homeowners association, shall be water efficient in nature and in
L!
RESOLUTION NO. 06-27
accordance with the City of Palm Desert landscape design standards. Applicant
shall be responsible for executing a declaration of Conditions, Covenants and
Restrictions, which declaration shall be approved by the City of Palm Desert and
recorded with the County Recorder. The declaration shall specify: (a) the applicant
shall oversee the formation of a property owners association; (b) the property
owners association shall be formed prior to the recordation of the Map; and (c) the
aforementioned landscaping shall be the responsibility of the property owners
association. Landscaping plans shall be submitted for review simultaneously with
grading plans.
2. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer,
shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public Works prior to the
issuance of a grading permit.
3. The maintenance of the retention areas shall be by the homeowners association.
BONDS AND FEES
4. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code
shall be paid prior to recordation of final map.
5. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17
and 79-55, shall be paid prior to recordation of final map.
6. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF)
Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance.
7. A standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits.
DESIGN PLANS
8. Storm drain/retention area design and construction shall be contingent upon a
drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and
approved by the Department of Public Works prior to start of construction. Project
is required to retain on -site the incremental increase in flows for a 100 year storm.
9. Complete grading and improvement plans and specifications on electronic files shall
be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to
issuance of any permits.
5
RESOLUTION NO. 06-27
10. Improvement plans for utility systems shall be approved by the respective provider
or service districts with "as -built" plans submitted to the Department of Public
Works prior to project final. Utility plans shall be submitted to the public works
department for improvements in the public right of way prior to issuance of any
permits.
11. Complete tract map shall be submitted as required by ordinance to the Director of
Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits.
12. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the
issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works.
13. Pad elevations, as shown on the tentative map are subject to review and
modification in accordance with Chapter 26 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code.
14. Any entry gates for the project shall be set back 75 feet from the curb -line of the
adjacent street, or as approved by the Director of Public Works.
15. Waiver of access to 35th Avenue and Gateway Drive, except at approved
locations, shall be granted on the final map.
REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION
16. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm
Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City
standards including the following, or as approved by the Director of Public
Works.
• Half street improvement of 35th Avenue and Gateway Drive as shown on
the plans.
• Project shall install appropriate storm drain facilities on 351" Avenue and
Gateway Drive.
• Project shall pay for one fourth of the signalized intersection of 35th
Avenue and Gateway Drive.
Rights -of -way necessary for the installation of the above referenced
improvements shall be dedicated to the city prior to the issuance of any permits
associated with this project.
9
RESOLUTION NO. 06-27
17. All public improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works
and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits.
No occupancy permit shall be granted until public improvements have been
completed.
18. Traffic safety striping shall be installed to the specifications of the Director of
Public Works. A traffic control plan must be submitted to, and approved by, the
Director of Public Works prior to the placement of any pavement markings.
19. Full improvements of interior streets based on residential street standards in
accordance with Section 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code shall be
provided.
20. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Department of
Public Works.
21. Applicant shall comply with provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section
24.12, Fugitive Dust Control as well as Section 24.20, Stormwater
Management and Discharge Control.
22. Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory
evidence to the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction
Permit for storm water discharges associated with construction. Developer
must contact Riverside County Flood Control District for informational materials.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
23. Project may be required to provide other traffic mitigation measures, as deemed
necessary by the city engineer for the project entries and exits.
24. Appropriate documentation shall be provided prior to issuance of grading
permits for the retaining walls along the project boundary shown to be
constructed by others, including sufficient calculations to show that the existing
retaining wall can support the additional surcharge of any proposed
improvements of this project.
Riverside Countv Fire Department:
1. With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plan
check, Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be
7
RESOLUTION NO. 06-27
provided in accordance with City Municipal Code, NFPA, CFC and CBC or
recognized fire protection standards.
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all buildings per UFC article 87.
2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating
pressure must be available before any combustible materials are placed on the
job site.
3. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of providing a potential
gallon per minute flow of 2500 gpm for commercial buildings and 3000 gpm for
commercial buildings.
4. The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant(s)
4"x2-1 /2"x2-1 /2", located not less than 25' nor more than 200 ' from any
portion of a single family dwelling measured via vehicular travelway (if applies),
and 165' from any portion of a multifamily dwelling measured via vehicular
travelway.
5. Water plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that
the water system will produce the required fire flow.
6. Install a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all buildings
with a 3000 square foot total cumulative floor area. The Fire Marshal shall
approve the locations of all post indicator valves and fire department
connections. All valves and connections shall not be less than 25' from the
building and within 50' of an approved hydrant. Exempted are one and two
family dwellings.
7. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and
water -flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per CBC Chapter 9.
8. Install a fire alarm system as required by the UBC Chapter 3 (100 spr heads).
9. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than one 2A10BC
extinguisher per 3000 square feet and not over 75' walking distance. A "K"
type fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens. (For clubhouse
only.)
RESOLUTION NO. 06-27
10. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within
150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall
be not less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance.
Where parallel parking is required on both sides of the street the roadway must
be 36' wide and 32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess
of 150' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn -around 55' in
industrial developments.
11. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates,
barriers or other means provisions shall be made to install a "Knox Box" key
over -ride system to allow for emergency vehicle access. Minimum gate width
shall be 16" with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6".
12. A dead end single access over 500' will require a secondary access, sprinklers
or other mitigative measures approved by the Fire Marshal. Under no
circumstance shall a dead end over 1300' be accepted.
13. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the City.
14. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must
be submitted separately to the Fire Marshal for approval prior to construction.
(If applies, 100 heads.)
Note: Some conditions may not apply. If buildings change from this conceptual plan,
other conditions may apply.
0
RESOLUTION NO. 06-27
EXHIBIT "A"
Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the
California Code of Regulations.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NOS: PP/CUP 05-22 and TT 34179
APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Summit Properties
2082 Michelson Drive, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92612
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION:
A precise plan/conditional use permit, including a height exception up to a maximum
of 34 feet 6 inches, and a tentative tract map for condominium purposes to construct
247 residential condominium units on a 20-acre site at the northeast corner of 35th
Avenue and Gateway Drive, 73-600 35th Avenue.
The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert,
California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the
environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons
in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid
potentially significant effects, may also be found attached.
PHILIP DRELL DATE
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
10
FALLING WATERS CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT
35th and Gateway - Palm Desert, California
1) Site located adjacent to Desert Gateway Business Park within City imposed MF (4 — 22 units per acre
overlay) zone as shown on General Plan Amendment;
2) Project has received unanimous approval from Architectural Review Committee and Planning
Commission;
3) Project on City Council Agenda for February 23, 2006.
4)
POINTS ADDRESSED WITH CITY STAFF:
BUILDING HEIGHT/
SITE SLOPE CONDITIONS: (a) Site drops 50' from SW corner to NE corner;
(b)
Site drops 30' from south to north;
(c)
To account for slopes, most buildings along streets are set approx. 8'
below street grade;
(d)
Industrial buildings on adjacent north and east boundaries rise up to
approx. 14' above subject site grade. These buildings are only 2' from
property line due to City waiving 25' setback requirements for these
industrial buildings;
(e)
Building loft level only occurs in limited locations within each building,
and typically in the rear of them (away from the streets).
DENSITY: (a)
12.35 units per gross acre;
(b)
Buildings cover only 33% of site area;
(c)
Developer study presented to City Staff indicates sales prices would
need to be higher if density were lower;
(d)
Subject complies with the City imposed seven criteria for higher
density.
AFFORDABILITY: (a)
Subject's projected sales prices are lower than most Coachella Valley
market comparables;
(b)
Developer has agreed to set aside 20% of the units for even lower sales
prices, as previously addressed with City Staff and City's independent
financial consultant.
ENERGY SAVINGS: (a) Units will exceed the new Title 24 energy standards by at least 10.8% -
20.9% (depending on unit floorplan and location);
(b) Developer has agreed to include the energy standards imposed by the
City on previous multifamily projects as well.
PUBLIC ART: (a) Developer will participate in City's Arts In Public Places program, and
will provide public art.
GARAGE LANE LANDSCAPING: Developer has greatly increased the width of the garage lanes, and
modified the building eaves to allow for the planting of canopy trees as requested by Phil Drell. Plant
species was determined through many conversations with Mr. Drell and the landscape section within the
Public Works Department.
�., Luuutriuir/ uUt14LKQ bU
F. UUIiUUI
AFRO
ENERGY
15434 She/ton Dr. • Lake Mathews, C4 92570 + (95.1) 776-4140 Phone (951) 776-4160 Fax
Summit Properties
3082 Michelson Drive, Suite 100
Irvine, Ca. 92612
(949) 852-0322
Attention: Steve Levenson, (949) 852-0325 Fax
RE: Proposed Residential Title 24 Energy Calculations
For "Falling Waters Townhomes"- Units #1; #2; #3; 04; #5
Palm Desert, California
Dear Steve,
February 6, 2006
To achieve at least 10% over the standard Title 24 energy budget, these are the requirements;
-Wall insulation to be R-15
Ceiling Insulation to be R-38
- Floor insulation to be R-30
- Window minimum U-Factor = .36; S.H.G.0 = .32
- Air Conditioner SEER to be 14.0 with 11.5 EER with a TXV valve
- Tight duct system with R-8 duct insulation
- Radiant Roof Barrier
Results:
(Min.)
(Max.)
- Plan #1
Facing South
= +12.5% ; Facing North
= +18.8%
• Plan #2
Facing South
= +14.4% ; Facing North
= +21.4%
- Plan #3
Facing West
= +12.1 % ; Facing North
= +20.9%
- Plan #4
Facing East
= +10.4% ; Facing North
= +17.5%
- Plan #5
Facing West
= +12.9% ; Facing South
= +19.0%
Sincerely, lQ�
Vv
Terry Statum
e-mail.-aero,Z9@webworlolinc.com
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 6, 2005
C. Case Nos. C/Z 05-03, PP/CUP 05-22 and TT 34179 - SUMMIT
PROPERTIES, Applicant
Request for a recommendation to City Council of approval of a
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, a change of zone
from S.I. (Service Industrial) to PR-13 (Planned Residential, 13 units
per acre), a precise plan/conditional use permit and tentative tract
map for condominium purposes to construct 247 residential
condominium units on a 20-acre site at the northeast corner of
Gateway Drive and 35th Avenue, 73-600 35th Avenue. Project
includes a height exception for roof elements to a maximum of 34
feet 6 inches.
Commissioner Jonathan stated that he had an ownership interest in property in the
area and that he would be abstaining from discussion and voting on this matter.
He left the room.
Mr. Drell informed Commission that the zoning on this property since its
annexation to the City has been designated for industrial business park. As well,
Planning Commission recommended in the updated general plan that it be
industrial business park. When it went to City Council, during shuffling around and
changing densities of residential properties, they found a need to create some
newly designated residential acreage and at the time, over the protests of the then
property owner, redesignated this property in the general plan to residential. It put
it in a rather unique situation in terms of its location. Unique in terms of how they
usually locate residential property. It is surrounded on the north and the east by
developing industrial park development. On the west it is bordered by the back
end of the big boxes at the south end of the Wal-Mart center. The residential to the
south pad height would probably be 12 to 15 feet below by virtue of the fact that
the residential on the north and south of 35th Avenue would be significantly higher
than 35th and they were significantly lower than 35th. In terms of designing the
site for residential design, they hadn't confronted the unique conditions confronted
by this property for a residential project in terms of its extreme urban nature based
on the surrounding properties. In reviewing it and recommending the design, they
took those unique conditions into account in that it is in essence within a
commercial / industrial environment, not a residential one essentially. So they had
to create their own residential quality consistent with what's around them to a
5
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 6, 2005
certain degree. Therefore, their change of zone was in response to the Council's
action to redesignate them from industrial to residential.
Mr. Smith reviewed the staff report in depth and recommended that the Planning
Commission recommended to the City Council approval of the project, subject to
conditions.
Commissioner Finerty asked if this project went to the Landscape Committee. Mr.
Drell said no, typically on projects that are still speculative in terms of their land
use, until they know the project is approved, they wait on the details on the
perimeter landscaping. It also involved a good deal of street frontage and would
go eventually. Commissioner Finerty noted that they had an example of a
landscaped lane and it was totally different from the usual type of landscaping. Mr.
Drell said he regretted that picture was in there. If they looked at the landscape
plan, they worked at length with the applicant to create opportunities for trees.
They insisted that the lanes include sufficient trees so they weren't stark alleys. H
assumed they had an exhibit of the landscape plan. Commissioner Finerty noted
that some of the trees shown in the picture, if it was accurate, looked like there
was hardly any room and that they would grow right into the building. Mr. Drell
agreed. He said they had details and the applicant had been working intensely
with Spencer Knight and Diane Hollinger to come up with a design to allow
sufficient planter area for the trees and actually modified the elevations eliminating
overhangs where the trees would be, pulling them out from the buildings to create
adequate space for the trees to grow.
Commissioner Finerty asked if they were proposing to use desert scape. Mr. Drell
concurred. In the lane situations, they were limited to trees that grow vertically and
they would be trees that survive and are compatible with the space. The
landscape architect provided a few alternatives. Adequately landscaping those
lanes was a high priority for the landscape department. He said it would be going
to a landscape committee meeting. Once they know there is a project, the final
details of the landscaping would be reviewed by everyone that needed to see it.
Commissioner Finerty asked Mr. Smith if there had been any discussion about
putting in another pool. She noticed that there was one pool for 247 units. For
example, where she lives they have exactly 247 units and they have five pools. Mr.
Smith said this was a large pool. Commissioner Finerty pointed out that there
C.
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 6, 2005
Campbell stated that she agreed with their statement regarding it and if Ms.
Hanson had anything more to add, would be happy to hear about it.
MS. KRISTI HANSON addressed the Commission. She said that like Mr.
Smith mentioned in the staff report, they really felt that with the style of
architecture, even though it was sort of a low prairie, low hung style, it
would come off very simple and boring if they did not add those extra
elements. She in particular was much more of a pro "let's do better
architecture" and give a little bit on height limits because they were sort of
arbitrary anyway. She thought they were moving into a different sort of
element when they started doing this many units grouped together which
was unusual for the desert, but she thought it was a trend they were going
toward and they would have to allow a little bit more height exceptions in
order to make interesting architecture. She thought the rest of the
Architectural Review Commissioners felt the same.
Mr. Drell pointed out that this was also one of those situations where no one's
views were being blocked because of its proximity.
There were no other questions and Chairperson Tschopp opened the public
hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission.
MR. STEVE LEVINSON addressed the Commission and said he was
representing the applicants, Summit Properties, and had a couple of
comments he wanted to speak to. First, he wanted to address some of the
Commission questions. With regard to comments and questions by
Commissioner Finerty, he said that regarding the photo in the packets, he
too regretted that it was included. Mr. Drell had asked him to provide a
photo of sample projects that have trees in their alleys. The majority of the
development world do not put large trees in their alleys primarily because
there are garage ways and cars were going through. He had a difficult time
finding such a project and that picture was of a single-family detached
project in Newport Beach and were homes selling in the $2 million range.
It was specifically because Mr. Drell asked for the picture and he, too,
commented in a meeting that it was nothing like they were doing here. His
reply to Mr. Drell was he knew that, but he asked for the picture.
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 6, 2005
As Mr. Drell mentioned, they spent hours on the issue with these garage
lanes with Diane and Spencer from Public Works Landscaping, as well as
Ron Gregory of RGA, their landscape architect. They discussed tree
species, how big and how tall, how they would grow, if they had room to
grow and room to live and they believed they came up with solutions that
Diane, Spencer and Phil were appreciative of. What they did was widen the
lanes to provide for adequate landscape planting islands in between these
garages where a canopy tree could be planted far enough from the building
where they can grow up and grow high and thrive and fill out the way they
believed everyone expected them to look. They created a lot of space to
the detriment of the landscaped paseo to make these look like pedestrian
friendly lanes and with staff's help and prodding, got a very amicable and
good solution. They also pulled the eaves back on those garage locations
to provide the tree with the amount of room it needs to grow, to thrive with
the amount of open ground area that it needs to thrive and not be a tree
that looks good the day it's planted and dead a year later. That wasn't the
intent. So a lot of work and study was done.
Regarding the swimming pool, as Mr. Smith mentioned, they had a
considerable time dealing with the topography of this site between the 50-
foot drop in one direction and the 30-foot drop in the other direction and
trying to have flat areas to drive into garages and access units with. So they
were using the topography and stepping down by tiering and dropping
down the site in both directions. As Mr. Smith also mentioned, the
clubhouse pool area took on a considerable drop in terrain. With the
clubhouse level at the top, with the terrace level dropping to a mid terrace
level, dropping to a third level where the pool would be, about a 10-11 foot
difference between the top and down below. So it took a lot of topography
which they thought was a positive view from the top looking out and the
views from the pool area looking up over these terraces. They felt it would
be quite dramatic.
He said the pool would be 4,300 square feet in size. A typical pool seen in
most places were maybe 850 to 1,000 square feet, so it is a large pool. It's
a huge pool. They also had a cold pool and a warm pool. But with the
topography, what they found was that sometimes second pools or third
pools look like second pools or third pools. They look like they were stuck
Z
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 6, 2005
somewhere and didn't have a lot of true ambience. They felt they created
a lot of feeling here and certainly had a pool of a size well in excess of
many products of this nature. The slope was one condition, but really the
ambience of what they wanted to create mandated them to put in one spa
and the pool was quite large.
The third item with regard to landscape beautification committee, they were
actually on the agenda for December 7, so it was going to be discussed
then. But he wanted to stress that Public Works has been involved and
Diane and Spencer had been in numerous meetings with Mr. Drell and Mr.
Smith and others. They have been with this project for five or six months.
They've gone through four or five site plans and had a lot of great work and
help from the staff to get to this point. So there had been a tremendous
amount of work in getting to where they were. He hoped he addressed
those three comments.
Commissioner Finerty noted that they were going to have one bedrooms, which
might be for single people or couples or elderly and they might want to enjoy the
pool or perhaps the spa. The only option was going to be to go to this one area
where there would be kids and noise. She was thinking that since he addressed
the size of the pool, and she agreed that it is huge, but she wondered if there was
any consideration to putting a few spas throughout the complex because there
were so many people in the desert with arthritis and she knew in her association
it was really a plus to have a few where they can have peace and quiet and get
away from the kids.
Mr. Levinson said his engineer and architect were in the audience and they
probably needed to ask them the question and the reason why is really
more the physical nature of the topography they were dealing with, but he
understood her point. His only other comment was going to be that the
clubhouse pool complex would be almost two acres is size. He didn't
disagree with her comments by any means, but there really was a
difference between one side and another. It was a long way from one side
to the other and he felt there would be people scattered. With that in mind,
he has children and understood what she was saying, and they from a
marketing standpoint thought about it and felt comfortable with the resort
feel they thought they had provided. They thought it would be a place
10
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 6, 2005
people would really want to be. They could see what they could squeeze
in.
Commissioner Finerty asked what they would have inside the clubhouse.
Mr. Levinson said that the clubhouse was approximately 6,800 square feet.
He apologized that their floor plan had not been included in the
Commission packets, but he would try to help them visualize it. They would
walk into an entry foyer. There would be a series of different lounge type
rooms. A tv room, for example, where there would be comfy couches and
a big screen tv in one area. They had another area that would be a lounge
type and have a bar counter with refrigeration, an area that could be used
for functions and a raised area with potentially a grand piano. Again, a
separate lounge area as opposed to the tv room. Another room would
basically be an indoor/outdoor room that could open up that was more of
a recreational room with billiard tables and other recreational facilities for
the residents. The building would also have a couple of multi -purpose
rooms for arts and crafts or other uses, as well as a fitness center with full
bathroom, showers and lockers.
Commissioner Finerty asked what kind of fitness center would be provided.
Mr. Levinson wasn't sure of the square footage of the fitness center, but it
was a sizeable area. It wasn't a closet with a universal gym. It was a large
room that would have room for aerobics, yoga, etc., along with a
combination of cardiovascular and weight equipment. Multi stations. In their
projects they didn't believe in sticking one station in and calling it a workout
facility. It is a facility they could quit their gym membership for. That was his
opinion right now.
Commissioner Finerty asked if he knew what kind of equipment.
Mr. Levinson said he has used muscle dynamics and other types of
equipment in other projects and didn't know why they would change now
because it works. It is a room he would like to be impressive and the room
is impressive when filled with exercise equipment. When they walk in and
see lots of stuff and see four or five different cardiovascular, elliptical, stair
11
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 6, 2005
master or a treadmill. It is the same with the weight equipment. It just looks
impressive with all the pieces of equipment even if the average person only
uses three of the pieces. But that is their aim and what they would do. He
anticipated a room half filled with equipment and the other space being left
for physical activities such as yoga, aerobics, mirrors, ballet bars and that
type of thing.
Regarding energy efficiency, Mr. Levinson noted that the energy program
was mentioned. He received information from Mr. Smith that talked about
energy efficiency with regard to architectural efficiencies and appliances.
They didn't have any issues or problems with the information provided to
them. He said by design their project actually was energy efficient with its
prairie style look with the lower style roof lines, the larger overhang over the
glazing and that is actually one of the reasons they designed that long
before they thought about complying with the energy codes. So yes,
they've seen what has been provided to date and didn't have any issues.
With regard to the building elevations themselves, Mr. Levinson said he
wanted to reiterate their position. When they looked at the design of this
property, being a property that does stare on one side at the back of a Wal-
Mart, a high wall sitting many feet above them, being where they are sitting
over an industrial park on two sides and try to create something where
people would want to come and live in that environment. So they had to
create something that was special as far as they were concerned,
something that was unique and nice and something construction -wise that
is quite expensive.
But they did it because they thought they needed to be different. They did
not build the standard tuscan Mediterranean everyone wants to do. They
came up with a completely different look. A look they are very excited
about. They had to create this reason to be there and a reason they could
be seen there because of the position of their site below street grade, 8-12
feet in some locations. Those loft elements occur on two or three occasions
per building. Lofts typically were on the back side of the buildings, not on
the street. Even within the project they typically face the interior paseos and
not the internal drives.
12
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 6, 2005
A lot of thought was given to the location. They felt this was good for the
project even though they knew it was something that would be questioned.
They felt strongly enough and hoped the Commission would see the
situation they were dealing with on the site and would understand why they
needed to make sure they weren't forgotten in this location.
Mr. Levinson said they reviewed the conditions and the only question he
had for the record was Public Works Condition No. 14 where Public Works
asked that all the entry gates for the project be set back 100 feet from the
curbline of the adjacent street. He said that was the case on their main
entry. It was not the case on their secondary entries that are resident -only
gates. They did not anticipate stacking issues at these resident gates
because they are strictly for residents. They wanted the opportunity to
continue to address this issue with staff and Public Works as they move
forward with the project. Otherwise, the conditions were fine. He asked for
any questions. He noted that his architect and engineer were also present
to answer questions.
Commissioner Finerty asked if this would have a homeowners association.
Mr. Levinson said yes.
Commissioner Finerty asked if there would be CC&R's.
Mr. Levinson said yes.
Chairperson Tschopp asked what he anticipated the homeowners association
dues to be.
Mr. Levinson said they had not prepared the DRE budgets yet. It was their
intent, just as it was their intent to price these at a price level that if they
look at what the competition is doing lower, it is their intent to make this a
marketable project with price and they hoped to keep the association dues
within a very reasonable range, but he couldn't answer the question yet.
Commissioner Campbell asked if on the resident -only gates it allowed only one
car.
13
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 6, 2005
Mr. Levinson said the gates are 60-70 feet away and could stack three or
four cars. They were almost at 100 feet with the other gates, but not quite.
He attempted to address that with Mr. Greenwood, but they weren't done
talking.
Mr. Drell said the unfortunate alternative would be to convert them to exit only,
which would concentrate more traffic entering at the main gate which increases the
potential for a stacking problem at the main gate. He thought an alternative would
be to make it subject to experience with a condition that if it creates a stacking
problem, they could make it exit only or come up with another solution. At this
point in time changing the location of the gate started completely redesigning the
project.
Commissioner Campbell thought it was acceptable and asked why they would
want all the traffic for the complex going through the main gate. Mr. Drell thought
two were right -in and right -out only.
Mr. Levinson believed the one on 35th had a condition for right -in and right -
out.
Chairperson Tschopp asked if the plan allowed for parking for gardeners and
service personnel.
Mr. Levinson said they were over parked per code. They have two car
garages for each unit and the roadways were lined with parallel parked cars
sitting in landscaped islands. Instead of having head in parking and rows
of back ends of cars, they put cars parallel to the street and actually
brought the landscaping out into the street. So they have a considerable
amount of excess landscaping that could be used for service people as well
as guests.
Commissioner Finerty noted that she read that the streets would be 24-feet wide.
Mr. Drell explained that was exclusive of the parking areas. The travel lanes are
24-feet. It was similar to Hovley Gardens, but better landscaped. They would have
the two-way aisle and then parking pockets that are beyond the aisle. The street
width including the parking spaces were probably 40 feet. So they were well out
14
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 6, 2005
of the travel lane, but the good thing is the street trees are at the 24-feet so they
get the shaded travelway in addition to parking spaces.
Commissioner Lopez noted that the staff report indicated a request for waiver of
the housing agreement and asked if Mr. Levinson wanted to address that issue.
Mr. Levinson said that was kind of a blunt way to say it, but the idea and
the reason they had no problem addressing and bringing forth the
proformas and comparable analysis showing what everyone else in the
valley was charging is that their sales prices were already lower than what
everyone else was charging. So in order to come back and make it even
lower and put that restriction upon them literally would make it where they
couldn't afford to do the project.
They were agreeing to the 20% as addressed and reviewed by staff, which
was still well lower than market. Their idea was that their entire project is
basically lower than market. If they looked at a price value graph provided
to Mr. Drell, it had the sales prices on one side and square footages on
another and they could compare unit by unit, floor plan by floor plan the
projects out there of this similar density and they draw a line connecting
them and their project was the lowest on the chart. Everyone else was
charging more and in most cases well more. Only one project in the
summary lower than them was the conversion of Palm Lake Villas, which
wasn't quite what was being built here.
Commissioner Lopez asked for confirmation that Mr. Levinson was comfortable
with Community Development Condition No. 9. Mr. Drell said there is no specific
requirement for a housing agreement. What there was in the general plan is a
required criteria for high density projects to address affordable housing issues.
What they tried to do was ask what the project is capable of achieving based on
real costs of land, construction and normal risks and rewards for developers. What
they hoped to do is at the time all those costs are known is say here are some
units they know the cost of and make those available to the Housing Authority and
tell them what the cost was to build them and the only way to get them lower is
through assistance and that's what the Housing Authority's job is. So it would then
be up to the Housing Authority to decide if they want to use this project to achieve
15
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 6, 2005
some of their goals by putting some of the money they get from their 20% set
aside so they could be lowered further.
Commissioner Lopez asked if the Housing Authority continued through the resale
process and future resales. Mr. Drell said that was the other issue that really
required someone like the Housing Authority to be involved. Once the developer
sells the unit, he's gone. So in terms of controlling affordability of ownership
product, they need some governmental agency to participate. For the units to
count as part of the city's affordable housing supply, ownership housing has to be
kept affordable for around 45 years. The justification for that is whoever buys them
is going to have their mortgage payments significantly reduced. So basically there
would be a silent second which in essence becomes due and payable if it's not
occupied by a qualified resident.
Mr. Levinson said to answer Commissioner Lopez's questions, yes.
There were no other questions for the applicant and Chairperson Tschopp asked
for any testimony in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the application. There was none
and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Tschopp asked for Commission
comments.
Commissioner Lopez stated that overall the project was very interesting. He wasn't
too concerned about the height exception and could live with that because of the
extreme graphical ffuxuations. Also, because it would be located in an area he
didn't think would have a tremendous impact.
Architecturally, he thought it was very handsome and he liked the style. It was very
different from other parts of the community and he liked it. The pedestrian
walkways were a plus and added to a community and residential feeling. He
always enjoyed that portion of it. The pool area was a little bit of a concern. It is
large. Capacity would probably be stretched to the maximum during the summer
months, so for 90 days it might be a little bit crazy, but for the rest of the time it
would probably be just fine. The clubhouse and clubhouse elevations were very
handsome, so overall he thought the project looked good. And they were okay with
all the conditions of approval. He noted it was a little bit against their nature to
have as much put into one area because they like to see open space, desert and
the views, but this seemed to fit in this particular location.
16
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 6, 2005
Commissioner Campbell concurred. She indicated it was a great location to have
this type of development. Even though there were quite a few units, she was sure
there would be a variety of age groups in there. As far as the pool was concerned,
elderly people would probably not go to the pool anyway and would rather stay
inside where it's cool instead of going out to the pool. She didn't really see that as
a problem. There would also be areas for volleyball court, basketball court, tot lots
dispersed throughout this community. As far as the landscaping was concerned,
from the design and the way it was stated with regard to the street and the
parking, there would be quite a few trees and she was sure they wouldn't have to
worry about the landscaping with Spencer and Diane being on the job because
they would make sure everything's adequate. They wouldn't be blocking views
with the lofts or two -stories, there wasn't a problem with the height exception and
she was also in favor of the project.
Commissioner Finerty said she had some concerns. Overall she liked the
architecture. It didn't give her a real desert feel, but everything in the desert didn't
have to look like it belongs in the desert. It is attractive. She was concerned about
the one pool. She lives in a homeowners association with 247 units and spas are
a big deal. She would like to see more spas throughout the complex. She thought
it would be really enjoyable for the older people with arthritis. That seemed to be
the big use where she lives. The project reminded her of where she used to live
in Orange County in Cypress. It was the same kind of design and almost the same
style with the alleys. She could see a definite need for that here. She wasn't
thrilled with the ten -foot height exception, but she supposed if they were ever
going to have a height exception, being buried between Wal-Mart, Interstate 10
and the service industrial would be the perfect place for it as long as the
homeowners were content living in a service industrial area.
She was also worried that it was too congested of an area. Her concern was that
with the traffic from the Wal-Mart going in, Sam's Club, and with the existing
Costco. That intersection is already extremely busy. She voted against the Wal-
Mart project largely because of the traffic that is already there. That is a real
concern and they would be adding another 247 with such a high density of 13
units per acre. She also wanted to see the energy program that the Taylor
Woodrow project was looking at adhered to. She was really on the fence on which
way to go and was glad it was going to the City Council because she hoped they
would take her comments to heart. But she knew she needed to make a decision
17
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 6, 2005
and would vote in favor of the project, but with serious reservations as discussed.
She looked forward to the Landscape Committee meeting to see what they came
up with because that was also a concern.
Chairperson Tschopp thought it was a good project for a difficult location with three
sides being industrial and commercial, the shape of the property as far as the
height of the land, and the grade. He thought the developer did a good job given
those limitations and changing this from service industrial to a housing
development. At 13 units per acres, it was at the midpoint of the high density type
zoning and fit here fairly well given the location and future schools that would be
built in the area.
He didn't have a problem with the height exception. If they were going to do it
anywhere, like Commissioner Finerty said, this would be the place to do it given
the topography and the commercial property surrounding it and 35th Street and
how it would back up to it. It wouldn't impact anyone elses view. He liked the
architecture. He thought it was good and looked very appealing. He didn't have the
concern with the swimming pool that the other Commissioners did. He thought
pools were over rated in country clubs and under used quite a bit. This central type
pool would be easier to maintain and much more efficient in the long run than a lot
of small pools that don't get used.
All in all he was in favor of the project. It is a higher density, but that's what they
wanted to create in the general plan and they also wanted to create affordable
housing and the prices the developer is anticipating at this time to offer them at is
probably as affordable as they could get in that area. He was in favor of the
project.
Commissioner Lopez said he would move for approval.
Mr. Drell asked if, in terms of a motion, they wanted to deal with the stacking issue
raised by the applicant relative to that condition. Chairperson Tschopp said the
motion should incorporate Condition No. 14 to allow Public Works to work with the
applicant. Mr. Drell concurred.
iff
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 6, 2005
Mr. Smith also suggested Condition No. 10 relative to the energy program, that the
project shall be reviewed for consistency with the energy criteria contained in the
memo from the Office of Energy Management dated 11-28-05.
Mr. Joy indicated that Public Works Condition No. 16 might also need some work.
He suggested adding the same language that was added to Condition No. 14
because there might be a community facilities district being formed that could
affect some of the requirements. Mr. Drell said they say these improvements are
their responsibility unless they are taken on by a future community facilities district.
Mr. Joy referred to the requirement for the signalized intersection. That would
probably be part of the facilities assessment district, so it wouldn't be the
responsibility of the developer himself. The same language in Condition No. 14
regarding working with Public Works staff should be incorporated into Condition
No. 16.
Commissioner Lopez said he would incorporate all of that into his motion for
approval. Commissioner Campbell concurred and seconded the motion.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell,
adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner
Jonathan abstained).
It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell,
adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2366, recommending to City
Council approval of Case Nos. C/Z 05-03, PP/CUP 05-22 and TT 34179, subject
to conditions as amended. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan
abstained).
(Commissioner Jonathan rejoined the meeting.)
D. Case No. ZOA 05-04 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant
Request for consideration of an amendment to Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 25.30 to allow "supermarkets" not exceeding 50,000 gross
square feet as conditional uses in the Regional Commercial PC(3)
zone.
19
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2366
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, A CHANGE
OF ZONE FROM S.I. (SERVICE INDUSTRIAL) TO PR-13
(PLANNED RESIDENTIAL, 13 UNITS PER ACRE), A PRECISE
PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT INCLUDING A HEIGHT
EXCEPTION UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 34 FEET 6 INCHES,
AND A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR CONDOMINIUM
PURPOSES TO CONSTRUCT 247 RESIDENTIAL
CONDOMINIUM UNITS ON A 20-ACRE SITE AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF 35TH AVENUE AND GATEWAY
DRIVE, 73-600 35TH AVENUE.
CASE NOS. C/Z 05-03. PP/CUP 05-22 AND TT 34179
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did
on the 6th day of December, 2005, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the
request of SUMMIT PROPERTIES 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 has been prepared; 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
to City Council approval of the change of zone, the precise plan / conditional use
permit and height exception, and the tentative tract map for condominium purposes
as described below:
Chanae of Zone:
The proposed change of zone is consistent with the General Plan Update
approved March 15, 2004.
Precise Plan/Conditional Use Permit and Heiaht Exception:
1. The design of the project is consistent with the goals and objective of the
Planned Residential zone and the amended Palm Desert General Plan as
recommended for approval by the Planning Commission.
2. As conditioned, the project will be compatible with adjacent uses and will
not depreciate property values in the vicinity.
N
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2366
3. The precise plan/conditional use permit will not endanger the public
peace, health, safety or general welfare.
The plan as designed complies with the municipal code requirements for
residential condominium projects.
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 Commission in this case.
2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval to the
City Council of C/Z 05-03 as shown on Exhibit "A" (attached), PP/CUP
05-22 including a height exception to allow units 28-34 feet 6 inches in
height and TT 34179, subject to conditions (Exhibit "B" attached).
3. A Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is hereby recommended
for certification (Exhibit "C" attached).
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 6th day of December, 2005, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: CAMPBELL, FINERTY, LOPEZ, TSCHOPP
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: JONATHAN
DAVID E. TSCHOPP, CI
TEST
PHILIP DRELL, ecretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
2
n
n_
=Uifw"
-L
I
P.C.D.
A=
I
P.CA.
Subject
Property
P.C,(2) P.RAS PAA ARA
Proposed
Zoning
.... ...... ..........._ ana_ Chan
i ge
P.C: (4 P.M P.R: s \\\\
Sl
To
/r P.R.43
City of Palm Desert Case NO. C/Z 0$-03 PLANNING COMMISSION
CHANGE OF ZONE RESOLUTION NO. 2366
EXHIBIT A Date: 12-06-05
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2366
EXHIBIT "B"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NOS. PP/CUP 05-22 AND TT 34179
Denartment of Communitv Development:
1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file
with the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following
conditions.
2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from
the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said
approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the
restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal
ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may
be in force.
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated
by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from
the following agencies:
Coachella Valley Water District
Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission
City Fire Marshal
Public Works Department
Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented
to the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building
permit for the use contemplated herewith.
5. Applicant shall participate in a commercial recycling program as determined by
the City Environmental and Conservation Manager and applicable Waste
Disposal Company. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to
conflict with parking areas. Said placement shall be approved by applicable trash
company and Department of Community Development.
4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2366
6. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the department of public
works prior to architectural review commission submittal.
7. Final landscape plans shall comply with the parking lot tree planting master plan
and shall be approved by the Architecture Review Commission.
8. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant
to these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said
landscaping for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and
which agreement shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that
this condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors and
assigns. The final landscape plan shall include a long-term maintenance program
specifying among other matters appropriate watering times, fertilization and
pruning for various times of the year for the specific materials to be planted, as
well as periodic replacement of materials. All to be consistent with the Property
Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801) and the approved landscape plan.
9. That the applicant shall enter into a Housing Agreement with the City agreeing
to make up to 20% of the project units available to the City Housing Authority
at a specified price with the intent that the Housing Authority will write down
mortgages to make these units available to "moderate" income households and
apply resale controls to keep the units affordable into the future.
10. In addition to the minimum energy efficiency standards set forth in the current
edition of Title 24 California Administrative Code (CAC), the project shall
incorporate the energy efficiency features as specified in the memorandum from
Pat Conlon (Office of Energy Management) dated November 28, 2005 (attached
hereto as Exhibit D).
Deoartment of Public Works:
GENERAL
1. Landscaping maintenance of any common areas and property frontages shall be
provided by a homeowners association, shall be water efficient in nature and in
accordance with the City of Palm Desert landscape design standards. Applicant
shall be responsible for executing a declaration of Conditions, Covenants and
Restrictions, which declaration shall be approved by the City of Palm Desert and
recorded with the County Recorder. The declaration shall specify: (a) the applicant
shall oversee the formation of a property owners association; (b) the property
owners association shall be formed prior to the recordation of the Map; and (c) the
5
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2366
aforementioned landscaping shall be the responsibility of the property owners
association. Landscaping plans shall be submitted for review simultaneously with
grading plans.
2. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer,
shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public Works prior to the
issuance of a grading permit.
3. The maintenance of the retention areas shall be by the homeowners association.
BONDS AND FEES
4. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code
shall be paid prior to recordation of final map.
5. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17
and 79-55, shall be paid prior to recordation of final map.
6. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF).
Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance.
7. A standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits.
DESIGN PLANS
8. Storm drain/retention area design and construction shall be contingent upon a
drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and
approved by the Department of Public Works prior to start of construction. Project
is required to retain on -site the incremental increase in flows for a 100 year storm.
9. Complete grading and improvement plans and specifications on electronic files shall
be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to
issuance of any permits.
10. Improvement plans for utility systems shall be approved by the respective provider
or service districts with "as -built" plans submitted to the Department of Public
Works prior to project final. Utility plans shall be submitted to the public works
department for improvements in the public right of way prior to issuance of any
permits.
C� f
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2366
11. Complete tract map shall be submitted as required by ordinance to the Director of
Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits.
12. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the
issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works.
13. Pad elevations, as shown on the tentative map are subject to review and
modification in accordance with Chapter 26 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code.
14. Any entry gates for the project shall be set back 100 f0t from the curb -line of the
adjacent street, or as approved by the Directot of,PWic Works.
15. Waiver of access to 35th Avenue and Gateway Drive, except at approved
locations, shall be granted on the final map.
REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION
16. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm
Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City
standards including the following, or as approved by the Director of Public
Works.
• Full improvement of 351" Avenue and Gateway Drive as shown on the
plans.
• Project shall install appropriate storm drain facilities on 35" Avenue and
Gateway Drive.
• Project shall pay for one fourth of the signalized intersection of 35th
Avenue and Gateway Drive.
Rights -of -way necessary for the installation of the above referenced
improvements shall be dedicated to the city prior to the issuance of any permits
associated with this project.
17. All public improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works
and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits.
No occupancy permit shall be granted until public improvements have been
completed.
KA
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2366
18. Traffic safety striping shall be installed to the specifications of the Director of
Public Works. A traffic control plan must be submitted to, and approved by, the
Director of Public Works prior to the placement of any pavement markings.
19. Full improvements of interior streets based on residential street standards in
accordance with Section 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code shall be
provided.
20. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Department of
Public Works.
21. Applicant shall comply with provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section
24.12, Fugitive Dust Control as well as Section 24.20, Stormwater
Management and Discharge Control.
22. Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory
evidence to the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction
Permit for storm water discharges associated with construction. Developer
must contact Riverside County Flood Control District for informational materials.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
23. Project may be required to provide other traffic mitigation measures, as deemed
necessary by the city engineer for the project entries and exits.
24. Appropriate documentation shall be provided prior to issuance of grading
permits for the retaining walls along the project boundary shown to be
constructed by others, including sufficient calculations to show that the existing
retaining wall can support the additional surcharge of any proposed
improvements of this project.
Riverside Countv Fire Department:
1 . With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plan
check, Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be
provided in accordance with City Municipal Code, NFPA, CFC and CBC or
recognized fire protection standards.
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all buildings per UFC article 87.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2366
2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating
pressure must be available before any combustible materials are placed on the
job site.
3. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of providing a potential
gallon per minute flow of 2500 gpm for commercial buildings and 3000 gpm for
commercial buildings.
4. The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant(s)
4"x2-1 /2"x2-1 /2", located not less than 25' nor more than 200 ' from any
portion of a single family dwelling measured via vehicular travelway (if applies),
and 165' from any portion of a multifamily dwelling measured via vehicular
travelway.
5. Water plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that
the water system will produce the required fire flow.
6. Install a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all buildings
with a 3000 square foot total cumulative floor area. The Fire Marshal shall
approve the locations of all post indicator valves and fire department
connections. All valves and connections shall not be less than 25' from the
building and within 50' of an approved hydrant. Exempted are one and two
family dwellings.
7. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and
water -flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per CBC Chapter 9.
S. Install a fire alarm system as required by the UBC Chapter 3 (100 spr heads).
9. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than one 2A10BC
extinguisher per 3000 square feet and not over 75' walking distance. A "K"
type fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens. (For clubhouse
only.)
10. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within
150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall
be not less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance.
Where parallel parking is required on both sides of the street the roadway must
be 36' wide and 32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess
of 150' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn -around 55' in
industrial developments.
E
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2366
11. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates,
barriers or other means provisions shall be made to install a "Knox Box" key
over -ride system to allow for emergency vehicle access. Minimum gate width
shall be 16" with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6".
12. A dead end single access over 500' will require a secondary access, sprinklers
or other mitigative measures approved by the Fire Marshal. Under no
circumstance shall a dead end over 1300' be accepted.
13. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the City.
14. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must
be submitted separately to the Fire Marshal for approval prior to construction.
(If applies, 100 heads.)
Note: Some conditions may not apply. If buildings change from this conceptual plan,
other conditions may apply.
10
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2366
EXHIBIT "C"
Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the
California Code of Regulations.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NOS: C/Z 05-03, PP/CUP 05-22 and TT 34179
APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Summit Properties
2082 Michelson Drive, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92612
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION:
A change of zone from S.1. (Service Industrial) to PR-13 (Planned Residential, 13 units
per acre), a precise plan/conditional use permit including a height exception up to a
maximum of 34 feet 6 inches, and a tentative tract map for condominium purposes
to construct 247 residential condominium units on a 20-acre site at the northeast
corner of 35th Avenue and Gateway Drive, 73-600 35th Avenue.
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.
mber 6. 2005
PHILIP DR L DATE
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
AM
11
PLANNING COMMISSION ;OLUTION NO. 2366 EX .BIT D
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) All 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 80%
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.
1
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO:
DATE:
CASE NOS:
Planning Commission
December 6, 2005
C/Z 05-03, PP/CUP 05-22 and TT 34179
REQUEST: Recommendation to City Council of approval of a Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact, a change of zone from S.I.
(Senrice Industrial) to PR-13 (Planned Residential, 13 units per acre),
a precise plan/conditional use permit and tentative tract map for
condominium purposes to construct 247 residential condominium
units on a 20-acre site at the northeast corner of Gateway Drive and
35th Avenue, 73-600 35th Avenue. Project includes a height
exception for roof elements to a maximum of 34 feet 6 inches.
APPLICANT: Summit Properties
2082 Michelson Drive, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92612
I. BACKGROUND:
A.
B.
SITE DESCRIPTION:
The 20-acre site at the northeast corner of the future Gateway Drive and the
future 35th Avenue is vacant and has natural dunes with minimal vegetation.
The property slopes 30 feet from south to north and from southwest to
northeast approximately 53 feet.
ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:
North:
South:
East:
West:
S.I. / approved business center
PCD / vacant
S.I. / approved industrial lots
PC-3 / approved Wal-Mart center
C. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING:
General Plan
The site is designated medium/high density residential in the updated
general plan. This designation permits projects having 4-22 units per acre.
The project at 13 units/acre falls into the high density category of 10-22 units.
STAFF REPORT
CASE NOS. CiZ 05-03, PPiCUP 05-22 AND TT 34179
DECEMBER 6, 2005
Zonin4
The property is currently zoned S.I. (service industrial). The application
includes a request to change the zone to PR-13 (planned residential, 13
units per a�re).
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant proposes modifiication to the zoning and approval of a precise plan/
conditional use permit, a height exception and tentative tract map for 247 residential
condominium units.
A. ZONE CHANGE:
The applicant proposes to change the zone from S.I. (service industrial) to
PR-13 (13 units per acre). This will permit up to 260 units. The applicant
proposes 247 units on the site.
B. PRECISE PLAN / CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT / TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
The applicant proposes to construct a series of four different residential
building types with four or five units per building. The project also includes
a clubhouse / sales center, large pool complex, volleyball and basketball
facilities.
The project takes its main access from 35th Avenue at the mid point of the
site. Secondary accesses are provided on Gateway Drive and the east end
of the site on 35th Avenue.
The main access and the Gateway access wilf provide full turning
movements. The secondary 35th Avenue access will be limited to right-in,
right-out onfy.
The site is served by a series of finro way, minimum 24-foot wide, roadways
which provide access to the building complexes and garage areas.
The 35th Avenue main access driveway leads directly to the clubhouse
facility where it branches east/west. From this east/west street minor streets
�
.�
STAFF REPORT
CASE NOS. C/Z 05-03, PP/CUP 05-22 AND TT 34179
DECEMBER 6, 2005
branch off to the north and south. These roadways are all minimum 24-feet
wide.
Circulation and access are acceptable.
1. Unit Summary:
The project includes five basic plan types as follows:
PLAN 1 1 bedroom & den
PLAN 2 2 bedroom
PLAN 3 2 bedroom
PLAN 4 3 bedroom
PLAN 5 3 bedroom & loft
2. Parking:
3.
1,151 s.f. 14 units
1,205 s.f. 42 units
1,254 s.f. 57 units
1,816 s.f. 76 units
1,933 s.f. 57 units
2 car garage
2 car garage
2 car garage
2 car garage
2 car garage
The parking requirement for residential condominiums varies with the
number of bedrooms. Studio and one bedroom units are required to
have one covered space and one open space. Two bedrooms and
larger are required to have finro covered spaces, plus one half open
space per unit.
Based on 14 one bedroom units and 233 two befinreen or greater, the
required parking is 470 covered spaces, plus 117 open spaces for a
total of 587 spaces.
The project provides two garage spaces per unit (494 spaces) and
125 open guest spaces for a total of 619 spaces. The project
complies with code.
Architecture and Building Height:
The two-story and two-story with a loft buildings have been
attractively designed in a prairie style architecture. The structures
feature pitched roofs with flat concrete beige colored tile. Walls will be
finished in varying shades of stucco accented with significant stone
veneer elements anchoring the base. The applicant has provided
3
STAFF REPORT
CASE NOS. C/Z 05-03, PP/CUP 05-22 AND TT 34179
DECEMBER 6, 2005
quality architecture on all sides of the building and provided
articulation on all facets of the structures.
The units have been designed to provide nine-foot high ceilings which
when coupled with the 3 in 12 pitched roof results in building heights
which range from 28 feet on the two-story units and 34 feet 6 inches
on the two story with loft units.
The Planned Residential District allows finro-story development with
a maximum height of 24 feet. The applicant will require an exception
to the height requirement as provided in the PR zone. In the past the
Planning Commission and City Councif have granted exceptions to
the height limit in instances where there is no impact to adjacent
properties and if the design of the buildings is enhanced with the
additional height.
The City's Architectural Review Commission unanimously approved
the design of the multifamily residential units on October 25, 2005.
The commission did not have an issue with the height of the buildings.
In fact, Commissioner Hanson noted, "I'm happy that you've added
that loft level (for 60-70 units) because I think that otherwise it might
come across as a very flat, uninteresting building." Commissioner
Vuksic said that "he likes the loft element and they make the buildings
more special."
4. Grade Change and Tentative Tract Map:
Grade ChanQe
The natural slope in the area results in this property being beiow the
curb heights on Gateway Drive and 35th Avenue. This reduces the
net building heights.
Along Gateway Drive the building pads will be 4-12 feet below the
adjacent curb heights with the 12-foot difference occurring at the
GatewayJ35th Avenue intersection. This reduces the net building
heights to 23-30 feet when viewed from Gateway Drive. Along 35th
Avenue the pads will range from 11 feet below adjacent curb to four
feet above curb at the east end. Buildings along 35th Avenue will
4
STAFF REPORT
CASE NOS. C/Z 05-03, PPICUP 05-22 AND TT 34179
DECEMBER 6, 2005
therefore have net heights of 24 to 38 feet when viewed from 35th
Avenue with the highest only occurring on one building.
In addition, this site is surrounded by service industrial property to the
east and north (30-foot buildings permitted) and regional commercial
(Wal-Mart) to the west (35-foot buildings permitted) with the pad
height on the Wal-Mart site expected to be set at 255 which will be
12-14 feet higher then the pad heights of this project.
All of these factors should be taken into account in the granting of any
height exception.
Tentative Tract Man
Building Setbacks:
East
South
West
North
Coverage
Parking:
Covered
Open
Total
The proposed map is a 12-lot map for condominium purposes. When
recorded, the map wilf allow the individual units to be sold.
PROJECT DATA
CODE PROVIDED
Height 24 feet
Minimum Unit Size:
1 bedroom
2 bedroom
3 bedroom
* Height exception being sought.
I11. ANALYSIS:
As approved 25 ft. To main building
20 feet 25 feet
20 feet 25 feet
As approved 20 feet
50% maximum 33°to
470 494
117 125
587 spaces 619 spaces
28 to 34 feet 6 inches*
600 square feet
800 square feet
1,200 square feet
1,151 square feet
1,205 - 1,254 square feet
1,816 - 1,933 square feet
The project as designed will result in an architecturally attractive residential complex
with a townhouse feel. Quality touches added to the project include direct garage
5
STAFF REPORT
CASE NOS. C/Z 05-03, PPiCUP 05-22 AND TT 34179
DECEMBER 6, 2005
access for more than half the units, balconies and private patios (160-180 square
feet) behind low walls at the entries. Building architecture includes articulation using
stone veneer, banding, glazing and color changes.
The project is pedestrian friendly with paseos linking units with the recreation
center. Garages face each other in auto courts.
As noted previously, the building architecture results in the project needing an
exception for height.
In this instance there are no impacts to adjacent properties caused by the height
increase from 24 feet to 28-34 feet 6 inches. The properties to the west, east and
north are zoned commercial/business park and allow buildings with a maximum
height of 30 and 35 feet. To the south across 35th Avenue is another medium/high
density residential site. Also, pads along Gateway wifl be 12-15 feet below the pad
on the Wal-Mart site to the west.
The buildings utilize a pitched roof design with a 3/12 slope. A majority of the
multifamily projects that have complied with the 24-foot height limit have utilized a
flat roof design. Flat roof designs such as the City-owned One Quail Place complex
have caused maintenance problems in dealing with water runoff and roof leaks. By
using a pitched roof, the buildings avoid problems with water runoff, thus become
easier to maintain.
The pitched roof elements provided for this project create a diversity in the roof
which improves the architecture (see comments of ARC members Hanson and
Vuksic on page 4). The loft elements will occur in 60-70 of the 247 units. In each
instance the loft area occupies less than 15% of the second floor roof area (see loft
level plan, page 4 in November 17, 2005 date stamped brochure).
Along Gateway Drive the building pads will be 4-12 feet below the adjacent curb
heights with the 12 foot difference occurring at the Gateway/35th Avenue
intersection. This effectively reduces the net building heights to 23-30 feet when
viewed from Gateway Drive. Along 35th Avenue the pads wi11 range from 11 feet
below adjacent curb to four feet above curb at the east end. Buildings along 35th
Avenue will therefore have net heights of 24 to 38 feet when viewed from 35th
Avenue with the highest only occurring on one building.
L•�
STAFF REPORT
CASE NOS. C/Z 05-03, PP/CUP 05-22 AND TT 34179
DECEMBER 6, 2005
In the last four major residential project the City has granted a height exception (i.e.,
Portofino, Hovley Gardens, the RDA project on Santa Rosa and Sares Regis). In
these instances it was determined that the aesthetic improvement to the roof design
warranted an exception. Based on its architecture and location, this project warrants
similar consideration.
The design as proposed complies with all the code provisions except for height (see
previous discussion) and should provide needed moderately priced housing stock.
The project at 13 units per acre is an appropriate land use given the surrounding
land uses: commercial to the west, east and north and a future medium/high density
residential project to the south across 35th Avenue.
IV. HOUSING AGREEMENT:
Normally high density projects are required to enter into a housing agreement
which requires the owner to provide 20°l0 of the units as affordable to moderate
income households.
In this case the app{icant is requesting a waiver of this requirement.
{n support of this waiver the applicant has provided a project proforma which
confirms that as designed, this project is at the lowest end of the condominium
market. Cost savings from the increased density is being achieved. These units will
sefl between $306,000 and $490,000 while an eight-unit per acre project would be
expected to sell between $367,500 and $561,500. Low density (3.5 units per acre)
projects are selling at $750,000 - $800,000.
Based on the proforma, it does not appear that the developer is receiving excessive
profits.
If the City wishes to lower unit costs further, then the appropriate means is to
contribute funds to lower mortgage costs. This could be achieved through the City
providing a silent second mortgage and being able to control resales on units where
mortgages have been bought down.
Staff recommends that this project be required to enter into a housing agreement
requiring it to make available 20% of the units to the City Housing Authority with the
intent being that the Housing Authority will write down mortgages to make the units
7
STAFF REPORT
CASE NOS. C/Z 05-03, PP/CUP 05-22 AND TT 34179
DECEMBER 6, 2005 .
V.
VI.
affordable to "moderate" income households and apply resale controls to keep the
units affordable into the future.
CEQA REVIEW:
The project has been reviewed for compliance with CEQA. The Director of
Community Development has determined that the project will not have an adverse
impact on the environment. A Negative Declaration of Environmentat Impact should
be approved.
RECOMMENDATION.:
That Pfanning Commission adopt the findings and Planning Commission Resolution
No. , recommending to the City Council approval of Case Nos. C/Z 05-03,
PPlCUP 05-22 including a height exception to a maximum of 34 feet 6 inches, TT
34179, and the associated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it
relates thereto, subject to conditions.
VII. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft resolution
B. Lega1 notice
C. Comments from city departments and other agencies
D. Plans and exhibits
Prepared by:
� ,.G�
� eve Smith � �
Planning Manager
ACM for Development Services
/tm
Reviewed and Approved by:
, .
�
Phil Drefi
Director of Community Development
�
,
0
�._._,
RIVERSIDE �;OUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
In cooperatian witlz the
California Department of Forestry anci Fire Pr��tectic�n
210 West San Jacinto Avenue • Perris, California 92570 •(909) 940-6900 • FAX (909) 940-5910
Tom Tisda{e
Fire Chief
Proudly serving the
unincorporated
areas of Riverside
County and the
cities of:
Banning
�A
Beaumont
�3
Catimesa
rf
Canyon Lake
4
Coachelfa
0
Desert Hot Springs
�
Indian Welis
.�
Indio
«
lake Elsinore
�,
La Quinta
0
Moreno Va{ley
��
Palm Desert
c�
Perris
a
Rancho Mirage
�
San Jacinto
.�,
Temecula
Board of Supervisors
aob euste�
District t
John Tavaglione
District 2
Jim Venable
District 3
Roy Wilson
District 4
Tom Multen
Disirict 5
C`.A�� �- '��?'o� ' 3 (o cl
Covc Fire Marshal's Officc
73710 Fred Wariug Drive # 102
Palm Desert CA 92260
(760)346-1870
TO: �rnv� �`� n �Z,o ��s-�'T�z�
�C,i `b o� M� � ��.5�^'-�'L72��t'�. �',J-u li;. � GSo
��.�;� c�. �ac,ta
REF:��_Us-aa•,-� =-�y �-�, ; c1Z �-� -�3
DATE: tv` �aZtc�s
If circled, conditions apply to project ,��u' ��S 1:�'aan.� .
�
V
3.
�
�
�.�'
Q
8.
�
10.
With respect to the conditions of approvaf re�arding the above
referenced project, the fire department recommends the following fire
protection measures be provided in accordance �th City Municipal
Code, NFPA, CFC, and CBC or any recognYzed Fire Protection
Standards: '.
The Fire Department is required to set a minin�m fire flow for tl�e
remodei or construction of at! buildings �er UFC article 87.
A Pre flow of 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20 psi residual
pressure must be available before any combustible materia{ is placed
on the iob site. ,
Provide or show there exists a water system capable of providing a
gpm tlow of• '
1500 gpm for single family dweUings
2500 gpm for multifamily dweilings
3000 gpm for commercial buildin�s
The required fire tlow shall be availabie from a wet barrel Super
Hydra�t (s) 4"x 2'h" x 2'/:", located not less than 25' nor more ti�an:
200' from any portion of a sing{e family dwetling measured vi:i
vehicular travelway�� �L�S �
165' from any portion of a multifamily dwelling measured via
vehicular travelway
150' from a�y portion of a commercial building measured via
vehicular trave{wav
Water Plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and inciudc
verificHtion that the water system will produce the required tire tlow.
Please be advised the proposed project may not be feasi6le since the
eaistin� water mains witl not meet the reauired fire flow.
� Install a completc NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This �pplies to al{
buildings with a 3000 square foot total cumul:►tivc floor arca. Tlie f+irc
Marshal shall approved the locations of alt post i��dicator v�lves and
fire department connections. A!! valves and connections sh�ll not be
less than 25' from the buiiding and within 50' of an approved
hvdrant. Exemqted are one and two familv dweilings.
� Alt valves controlling the water supply for aatomatic sprinkler
systems and Water-flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per
CBC Chaqter 9.
e
� instatl a fire alarm system as reauired bv tfie UBC Cha�ter 3�t�,�R �`>�
�� install portable tire extinguishers per NFPA 10, Uut not tess than onc
2A10BC extinguisher per 3000 square feet and not over 75' w�lking
distance. A"K" type fire extinguisher is required in all commerciat
kitchens. �"�t C� �r.as.� c�,.�. �
15. Install a Hood/Duct automatic fire extingu�shing system per NFPA 9G
in ail public and private cooking operations except singie-f�mily
residentiaf usa�e.
1 G. Install a dust cotlecting system per CFC Chapter 76 if condacting an
oneration that produces airborne narticles.
� All building shail be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending
to within 150' of afl portions of the exterior walls of the first story.
The roadway shall not be less than 24' of unobstructed width and
13' 6" oTvertical clearance. Where parallel parking is required on
both sides of the street the roadv�vay must be 36' wide and 32' widc
with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shatl be
nrovided with a minimum 45' radius turn-aroui�d S5' in industrial
develoaments. '
� Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of
gates, barriers or other means provisions shall be made to install a
"Knox Box" key over-ride system to altow for emergency vehicle
access. Minimum gate width shall be 16" with a minimum vertic�l
clearance of 13'6". ,
1� A dead end singte access over 500' will require a secondary access,
sprinklers or other mitigative measures approved by the Fire
Marshal. Under no circumstance shall a dead end over 1300' be
accepted. -�,� s'�o� � Q.s�,l,�e� �r.s A--t- --►'1n �s T'iv�
20. A second access is required. This can be accompiished by two main
�ccess points from a main roadway or an emergency gate from �n
adioinin� development.
21. This project may require licensing by a state or county agency, to
facilitate plan review the applicant shall prepare and submit to tl�e
Fire Marshal a letter of intent detailing the proposed usage and
occu�ancv tvae.
� Ail buildings shall have iUuminated addresses of a size approveci by
the citv.
2�. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm
plans must be submitted seParately to the Fire Marshal tor approv�{
arior to construction. � 1$ �L,� �_ i �
24. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordin�nces,
laws, or when building permits are not obtained within twefve
months.
25. All elevators shAll be minimum Qurnev size.
All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shouid bc re%rred to
the Fire Marshal's Ot�'ice at (760) 346-1870 in Pafm Desert.
Location: 73710 Fred Warin� Drive #222, Palm Desert CA 92260
Other:
t�: �ccYv�. ppn��T�ca..� Y��� ►.�x� .���.� RoA�:`aC'�2
�kR � '{�t1rJ�n[�c �rcr�n-� �Irir�i �-, C��f11�'C'VrJ-�. ���p�t� CJ��i'•�(L
,
��r�,c t
Sincerely,
t�c �� - - ---_,_,
David A. Avila
Fire M�trshai
�ATEq
��srR�c�
4
ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY
V J�:�
5�'
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
POST OFFlCE BOX 1458 • COACNELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELfPHONE (760) 398-2651 • FAX (760) 398-37i1
DIRECTORS: OFFICERS:
PETER NELSON, PRESIDENT STEVEN B. ROBBINS,
PATRICIA A. LARSON, VICE PRESIDENT GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER
TELLIS CODEKAS MARK BEUHLER,
JOHN W.McFADDEN ASST.GENERAL MANAGER
RUSSELL KITAHARA dULIA FERNANDEZ, SECRETARY
October 17� ZOOS DAN PARKS, ASST. TO GENERAL MANAGER
REDWINE AND ShERRILL, ATTORNEYS
File: 0163.1
0421.1
R��EIVEI�721.1
Depariment of Community Development �.'.. + 1 4 2�j
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive �'OMMUNITY DEvELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Palm Desert, CA 92260 CITY UF PALM DESERT
Gentlemen:
Subject: Plot Plan No. OS-22, Tentative Tract
Man No. 34179 and Chan�e Zone OS-03
This area lies on the sandy area in the northern portion of Palm Desert and is considered safe
from regional stormwater flows except in rare instances.
This area is designated Zone C on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in effect at
this time by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Drainage from this area is contributory to the Mid-Valley Stormwater Project. The City may
require mitigation measures to be incorporated into the development to prevent flooding of
the site or downstream properties. These measures may include on-site retention of water
from the 100-year storm, dedication of right-of-way for regional flood control facilities or
other participation in the financing of regional flood control facilities.
Since the stormwater issues of this development are local drainage, the District does not need
to review drainage design further.
The District will fumish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with
the current regulations of this District. These regulations provide for the payment of certain
fees and charges by the subdivider and said fees and charges are subject to change.
7RUE CONSERVATION
USE WATER WISELY
0
Department of Community Development
City of Palm Desert 2 October 17, 2005
Additional domestic water pipelines will have to be installed by the subdivider in order for
the District to provide service to all parcels.
This area shall be annexed to Improvement District Nos. 58 and 81 of the District for
sanitation service.
Plans for grading, landscaping and irrigation systems shall be submitted to the District for
review. This review is for ensuring efficient water management.
The groundwater basin in the Coachella Valley is in a state of overdraft. Each new dwelling
unit contributes incrementally to the overdraft. The District has a Water Management Plan
in place to reduce the overdraft to the groundwater basin. The elements of the Water
Management Plan include supplemental imported water, source substitution and water
conservation. The elements of this plan should be incorporated in the environmental
mitigation plan for this development to reduce its negative impact on the Coachella Valley
groundwater basin.
If you have any yuestions, please call Kesi Sekhon, Stormwater Engineer, extension 2290.
Yours v truly,
Mark L. Johnson
Director of Engine�ring
cc: Jeff Jahnson
Riverside County Department of Public Health
82-675 Highway 111, CAC Building, Second Floor, Room 209
Indio, CA 92201
KS:md\eng�sw\OS�octlpp-05-22
040629-1
COACHELLA YALIEY WATER OISTRICT
CITY OF PALM DESERT
�
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
' �� INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Department of Community Development/Pianning
Attention: Steve Smith
FROM: Mark Greenwood, City Engineer
SUBJECT: TT 34179 Summit Properties, Falling Waters
DATE: February 9, 2006
The following are revised conditions of approval for the project;
GENERAL
Landscaping maintenance of any common areas and property frontages shall be
provided by a homeowners association, shall be water efficient in nature and in
accordance with the City of Palm Desert landscape design standards. Applicant shall
be responsible for executing a declaration of Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions,
which declaration shall be approved by the City of Palm Desert and recorded with the
County Recorder. The declaration shall specify: (a) the applicant shall oversee the
formation of a property owners association; (b) the property owners association shall
be formed prior to the recordation of the Map; and (c) the aforementioned landscaping
shall be the responsibility of the property owners association. Landscaping plans shall
be submitted for review simultaneously with grading plans.
2. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer,
shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public Works prior to the
issuance of a grading permit.
3. The maintenance of the retention areas shall be by the homeowners association.
BONDS AND FEES
4. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code
shall be paid prior to recordation of final map.
5. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and
79-55, shall be paid prior to recordation of final map.
6. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF).
Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance.
7. A standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits.
DESIGN PLANS
8. Storm drain/retention area design and construction shall be contingent upon a
drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved
by the Department of Public Works prior to start of construction. Project is required
to retain on-site the incremental increase in flows for a 100 year storm.
9. Complete grading and improvement plans and specifications on electronic files shall
be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to
issuance of any permits.
10. Improvement plans for utility systems shall be approved by the respective provider or
service districts with "as-built" plans submitted to the Department of Public Works prior
to project final. Utility plans shall be submitted to the public works department for
improvements in the public right of way prior to issuance of any permits.
11. Complete tract map shall be submitted as required by ordinance to the Director of
Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits.
12. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the
issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works.
13. Pad elevations, as shown on the tentative map are subject to review and modification
in accordance with Chapter 26 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code.
14. Secondary entry gates for the project shall be set back 75 feet from the curb-
line of the adjacent street and the main entry gate minimum 100 feet.
15. Waiver of access to 35th Avenue and Gateway Drive, except at approved locations,
shall be granted on the final map.
REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION
16. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert
Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards
including the following.
Half-street improvement of 35th Avenue and Gateway Drive as shown on the
plans .
Project shall install appropriate storm drain facilities on 35th Avenue and
Gateway Drive.
Project shall pay for one fourth of the signalized intersection of 35th Avenue
and Gateway Drive.
Rights-of-way necessary for the installation of the above referenced improvements
shall be dedicated to the city prior to the issuance of any permits associated with
this project.
'�8. All public improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works and a
��' standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits. No
; occupancy permit shall be granted until public improvements have been completed.
19. Traffic safety striping shall be installed to the specifications of the Director of Public
Works. A traffic control plan must be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of
Public Works prior to the placement of any pavement markings.
20. Full improvements of interior streets based on residential street standards in
accordance with Section 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code shall be provided.
21. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public
Works.
22. Applicant shall comply with provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 24.12,
Fugitive Dust Control as well as Section 24.20, Stormwater Management and
Discharge Control.
23. Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to the
Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit for storm water discharges
associated with construction. Developer must contact Riverside County Flood Control
District for informational materials.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
24. Project may be required to provide other traffic mitigation measures, as deemed
necessary by the city engineer for the project entries and exits.
25. Appropriate documentation shall be provided prior to issuance of grading permits for
the retaining walls along the project boundary shown to be constructed by others,
including sufficient calculations to show that the existing retaining wall can support the
additional surcharge of any proposed improvements of this project.
Mark Greenwood, P.E.
G:IPub WorkslCondifions of Approvall rMAPSITT 34179 Summit Prop. Falling Waters. cc cond. wpd
�� >>
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW C4MMISSION
OCTOBER 11, 2�05
MINUTES
LOCATION: 73-010 EI Paseo, (building "A" at the forme� Columbia
Center},
ZONE: PC
Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner
Vuksic for approval by minute motion, subject to changing the green
cotor to a sage green, to be approved by staff. Motion carried 7-0.
C. Misceiianeous
� 1. CASE NO.: PP 05-22
APPLICANT tAND ADDRESS): SUMMiT PROPERTIES, 2082
Michelson Drive� Suite 100, Irvine, CA 92612
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPRL�VAL SOUGHT: Discussion regarding
etevations of a new three-story condominium complex. Falling Waters
LOCATION: 35"' Avenue and Gateway Drive, behind Wal*Mart
ZO�NE: SI
The appiicant stated that this is currently an industriai site and that they
are fulfilling the requirements of the revised general plan and bringing
muiti-family to the site. There is a Wal''Mart on one side and a business
park on the other side. The product that they're proposing is a series of
two-story buildings with a foft feature that occurs on two floor plans out
of the f+ve floor plans that they are offering. The loft level is not across
the whole building and it rises 6' above the second floor ridge line. We
are really calling these a two-story building with lofts as opposed to
three-story buildings. The loft adds a nice architectural feature to the
project. The site drops 50' from one corner to the other (from west to
east) and 30' from south to north. Those buildings along the street
(Gateway and the future 35"' Avenue) wili essentially be 8' below street
grade.
Greg Bucilla, architect from Bucitla Group Architecture, was present
and gave an introduction to the project. There will be a clubhouse with
a variety of pools and other amenities. The main entry is off 35`�
Avenue. The site plan shows that the recreation facility is in the center
of the site. The buildings are prairie style with a flat roof, multi-colored
G:Planning�Donna t�uaiverlwpdocsVlgminWR051011.MlN !
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
OCTOBER 11, 2005
MINUTES
There will be guest parking but the cars for the residents will be loaded
into the garages off the main street. The buildings will be three and four
unit townhome buildings with a major recreation facility, a guarded
entry, paseos and open space. We're trying to address the lane and
hide the garages.
Commissioner Oppenheim asked about the total number of units in the
p�oject. Mr. Bucilla stated that there are a total af 247 units.
Commissioner Van Vliet asked if there was a separate gate for the
service people, such as gardeners. Mr. Bucilla stated that they would
be going through the main gate and there's also a secondary gate.
Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the HOA would include a gardening
service. Mr. Bucilla stated that the HOA would take care of the
landscaping needs. The private patio area would be the responsibility
of the homeowner to maintain. They're 95' deep into the guard gate
and the minimum is 75'. If we need to push this back, we could push it
back further but they're double loaded at this point. If there's a
homeowner with a card access they go in on the right side and if you're
a guest you pufl into the guard gate and you puli in. Homeowners can
also enter through the side gate. The square footage of the units will be
1,150 square feet for the smaller units to 2,000 square feet for the
larger units. Commissioner Lambell asked about the number of units
that have a loft. Mr. Bucilla stated that there would be about 60-70
units with a loft.
Commissioner Vuksic asked about the density of the project. Mr.
Bucilla stated that it's about 12 units per acre. Commissioner Vuksic
asked about the thick red bands that are drawn around the windows on
the elevations. Mr. Bucilla stated that it's a vinyl window sash.
Commissioner Vuksic stated that the architecture is really good looking.
Something that strikes me that's a little disappointing is that there's
nothing about it that says to me that it's in the desert. It looks like it can
be anywhere. Mr. Bucilla stated that the landscape will be desert
landscaping. We wanted the architecture to be very distinct so we
chose prairie style. We plan on using desert colors on the buildings.
There are 30" overhangs on the buildings and they have close to 3'-4'
of overhang in some instances on the clubhouse. All of this helps to
provide shade and deep shadowing for the desert. Commissioner
Vuksic stated that he's critiquing what is obviously a quality project. Mr.
Bucilla stated that they didn't want to come in with a
Mediterranean/Tuscan look that everybody does all over Southern
California. We chose the Prairie style because it's a litt{e retro; a little
G:Planning\Donna Quaiver�wpdocsWgminWR051011.MIN
.i
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
OCTOBER 11, 2005
MINUTES
There are 30" overhangs on the buildings and they have close to 3'-4'
of overhang in some instances on the clubhouse. All of this helps to
provide shade and deep shadowing for the desert. Commissioner
Vuksic stated that he's critiquing what is obviousiy a quality project. Mr.
Bucilla stated that they didn't want to come in with a
Mediterranean/Tuscan look that everybody does all over Southem
Califomia. We chose the Prairie style because it's a little retro; a little
Frank Lloyd Wright. We thought that this might be unique to the area
and thought that this was a positive idea. We're looking at our
landscape architect to incorporate the desert back into the project.
Commissioner Vuksic asked about the depth of the retention basin. Mr.
BuciNa stated that it's about four feet deep. Commissioner Vuksic
stated that in the rendering it looks level. What t see is a road lined with
buildings with a retention basin on one side. Mr. Bucilla stated that it
will look like a park area and serve as a recreation area. That's where
the basketbail aourt and volleyball courts wil! be. Commissioner Vuksic
stated that he's disappointed in the site plan because it looks like it was
done with very tittle imagination. Mr. Bucilla stated that they've been
through 4-5 variations of this site plan and have spent a r+umber of
months deaiing with the site itself. It's difficult because the site drops
50' from one comer to the other and it also drops 30' from south to
north. We reaNy did spend a tot of time and there are a lot of site ptans
in the trash because of the elevation changes. Commissioner Vuksic
stated that he sees the "Wrightian" architecture and I would expect that
a"Wrightian" site plan wouid have a iot more imagination thrown into it.
Mr. Bucilfa stated that the buifdings will be stepping down the slope and
there will be a Iot of detaii in the buildings themselves. We feel that the
articufation will be there. Commissioner Vuksic stated that long,
straight streets could work if there's a really striking, powerFul axis.
These really just look like roads to me. I think that you've got your work
cut out for you to make it look the way that you've described it. Mr.
Bucilla stated that the roads are only 24' wide so that we would have a
iarger landscaped area. The buiidings do open up on the street side so
when you're driving down iooking at the paseos, you're looking at the
wider side. Those are alf things that we did to open up the site so we
coutd use the landscaping properly.
Commissioner Hanson commented that it isn't very often that she and
Commissioner Vuksic disagree, but today I'm disagreeing with him on
the architecture onfy because each of the elements that you've
presented show desert architecture. i think that the roof forms, the
large ovefiangs, the use of stone, plaster and metal a!I are very
indicative of desert architecture. 1 think it does have an obvious
G:PIanning�Donna QuaiverlwpdocsWgminV1R051011.MIN 9
.. ........ . .
�
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
OCTOBER 11, 2005
MINUTES
"Wrightian" prairie-style of architecture, but it stitl seems very desert-
like. I really like it and the applicant has done a realiy nice job and i'm
happy that you've added that loft level because i think that otherwise it
might come across as a very flat, uninteresting building. Trying to
accommodate two stories could produce a bui{ding with no interest
vertically. f'm really pleased with it. You're challenged on the site, but
as a community, we're now starting to be reaily challenged with what
we can do on a site and how much we need to incorporate onto a site.
it's getting more difficult to do some of the fun things that we're used to
doing, although we will still chal{enge you to work realiy hard to make
that happen.
Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the guest parking. If the streets
are 24' wide, then you wouidn't be abie to park on the street. Mr.
Bucilia stated that they have 2.5:1 parking in the whole project. There
are finro-car garages for every unit and another half on the surface.
There are parallel parking spaces all the way through the roadways.
Some areas have head-in parking as well.
Commissioner Lopez commented on the retention basin with the
volleybail and basketball courts and stated that heavy rains could make
the basin overflow. How will the area handle a basketbaff court and a
volleyball court? Mr. Bucilia stated that there's a pipe at the end of the
alley that takes water into the storm channe{. They have to have a
combination of both retention and drainage to the storm channel.
Commissioner Lopez stated that he didn't see the trash locations on the
site pian. Will �esidents put out trash cans once a week, or wili there be
dumpsters? Wiil the trash cans be screened? A lot of peopie don't put
their trash cans back into the garage and leave them on the side of
their house. Hopefully, your CC 8� R's would take care of that. I don't
see any trash locations near the clubhouse and I was wondering how
you were going to handle those and how many there would be. Mr.
Bucilla stated that residents will be required to bring their trash cans
inside, per their CG 8� R's. The clubhouse will have carts that they're
rnove in and out for their trash. Commissioner Lopez stated that the
secondary entrance shows gates that go right into the wall and a
rnedian island. If somebody accidentally tums into the entrance, they
would have to back out. ! would suggest having an opening so that
somebody could get out. Mr. Bucilla commented that that's a good
point and he would look into making that change. Commissioner Lopez
stated that it looks like they put as many buildings on the project as
possible.
G:PlanninglDonna Ouaiverlwpdocs�AgminWR051011.MIN 1 �
�i
}
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
OCTOBER 11, 2005
MINUTES
�
Commissioner Vuksic asked if they could squeeze enough room out of
the site to stagger the buildings so that there aren't long iines of
buifdings. There are sixteen buildings in a row that are afl at the same
setback fine. The applicant agreed that they co►uid stagger the
buiidings. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he likes the Ioft efement
and they make the buildings more special.
This item was on the agenda for discussion purposes only. No action
was taken. �
2. CASE N4.: MISC OS-09
�1PPLiCANT �,g,N�DDRES3�, BARBARA ROMANO, 48-120 Ocotillo
Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request an exception
to the wall ordinance with a 6' high block wall at 8' from the curb.
LOCATION: 48-120 Ocoti{lo Drive
ZONE: R-1
Mr. Bagato stated that the applicant is requesting an exception to the
wall ordinance. Mr. Stendell stated that we've been working with the
applicant for a long time. In 2002, we approved a wall exception at 12'
from the curb. Unfortunately. that approval has expired and the
applicant has revised their pfan to show an 8' setback from curb at 6' in
height. They have submitted a landscape plan for the outer part of the
wall. Based on the previous approvai, we do feel that the landscaping
is nice and the block wall will have cultured stone applied to it. From a
staff perspective, we've given them approval on a 12' setback
previously, therefore, we couid possibly altow it again. The wall does
justifjr an exception in that they've had their wall hit by a car so this
would be a safety issue. The code currenUy states that a 6' wall be
located 20' from the curb.
Commissioner Van Vliet commented that they could still have the same
design at 12' from the curb, as opposed to 8' from the curb.
Commissioner Hanson stated that it would be tough to approve the walf
at 8' from the curb. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the design looks
good on the pian, but it looks awfuliy close to the curb. Commissioner
Hanson commented that she likes the curved aspect of the wall and
how it follows the street, but if it could be moved back to the 12' mark� I
think that that would be much easier for us to approve with a 6' high
G:Plann�ng�Donna (�uaiver�wpdxsWgminWR051011.MIN 11
I ,,
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
OCTOBER 25, 2005
MINUTES
Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner
Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with
Commissioner Gregory absent.
.� 2. CASE NO.: PP 05-22
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI: SUMMIT PROPERTIES, 2082
Michelson Drive, Suite 100,1rvine, CA 92612
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT:, Request preliminary
approval of elevations of a new three-story condominium complex.
Fafling Waters
LOCATION: 35�" Avenue and Gateway Drive, (behind Wal'`Mart)
NE: SI
Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner
Vuksic for approval of archite�ture by minute motion, subject to
approval by the Landscape Manager. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with
Commissioner Gregory absent.
3. CASE NO.: PP / CUP 05 24
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI: ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR, TODD
KOVALCIK,14594 7"' Street, Victorville, CA 92395
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT:, Request approval of
new building including signage for Enterprise Rent-A-Car.
LOCATION: 73-086 Highway 111
ZONE: C-1
Mr. Bagato stated that the proposed Enterprise-Rent-A-Car building will
be focated on the site that formerly housed the Radioactive business.
They will be required to have a conditional use permit and a precise
plan. The precise plan is for the new site design. As part of the
conditionaf use permit, they are going to be requesting a special use to
sell cars from the site. The parking lot in the rear is for a storage yard.
One area will be for vehicle cleaning, however, we don't have any plans
G:Planning\Donna QuaiverlwpdocsWgmin1AR051025.MIN 5
�
Ci1Y �F Pfll�l
D E S E �c '1
73—Sio PRED WAPING DRIVE
PAGM DESHRT� CALIFORNIA 944G0-2378
rac: 760 346—o6i i
FAX: �CO 341-7098
�nEo� palm-deser[.org
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO.: PP/CUP OS-22, TT 34179, C(Z 05-03
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing wi11 be held before the Palm Desert
Planning Commission to consider a request by Summit Properties for approval of a precise plan,
height exception, tentative tract map, change of zone and negative declaration of environmental
impact to aliow construction of 247 attached residential condominiums on 20f acres at 73-600
35th Avenue, APN 653-250-007.
oiK,s�N`o�R '`--'``-J' _� _ � . -------
�
�
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
' � ��� . �o
�
� 1 \ . GERALD FORD DR �
��r I 1 i� �T
SAID public hearing will be held at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 6, 2005 in the Council
Chamber in the Palm Desert City Hall, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which
time and place all interested persons aze 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. Informarion concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for
review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of
8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you
may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described
in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the
public hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
November 25, 2005 Palm Desert Planning Commission
CI1V Of Pfll�l DESERI
'Jj-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-25'J8
TELs �60 ;46—o6i�
Fnx: 760 ;q�-7oq8
info@palm-desert. org
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NOS. PP/CUP 05-22, TT 34179, AND C/Z 05-03
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City
Council to consider a request by SUMMIT PROPERTIES for approval of a precise plan, height
exception, tentative tract map, change of zone and Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact to allow construction of 247 attached residential condominiums on 20 +/- acres at
73-600 35th Avenue, APN 653-250-007.
oUGttFfrwNaoic
��
u _ I--1 f'�—
SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, January 12, 2006, at 4:00 p.m. in the
Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert,
California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard.
Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be
accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or
negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development
at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in
written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk
December 30, 2005 City of Palm Desert, California
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 12, 2006
C. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM S.I. (SERVICE
INDUSTRIAL) TO PR-13 (PLANNED RESIDENTIAL,13 UNITS PERACRE),
A PRECISE PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES TO CONSTRUCT 247
RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS ON A 20-ACRE SITE AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF GATEWAY DRIVE AND 35T" AVENUE
(73-600 35T" AVENUE) — PROJECT INCLUDES A HEIGHT EXCEPTION
FOR ROOF ELEMENTS TO A MAXIMUM OF 34-FEET 6-INCHES
Case Nos. C/Z 05-03, PP/CUP 05-22, and TT 34179 (Summit Properties,
Applicant).
Mayor Ferguson noted that a request to continue this matter had been
submitted.
Mayor Ferguson declared the public hearing to be open and invited public testimony
on this application. No public testimony was offered.
Responding to question, Planning Manager Steve Smith said that the
Applicant now requested a longer continuance to February 23.
Councilman Spiegel moved to continue this matter to the meeting of February 23,
2006. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by a vote of 5-0.
D. CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE PALM DESERT
MUNICIPAL CODE, ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 25.30, TO ALLOW
"SUPERMARKETS" NOT EXCEEDING 50,000 GROSS SQUARE FEET AS
CONDITIONAL USES IN THE REGIONAL COMMERCIAL PC(3) ZONE
Case No. ZOA 05-04 (City of Palm Desert, Applicant).
Mr. Smith reviewed the case, noting that supermarkets were prohibited in the
PC(3) zone as a result of the adoption of Ordinance 636 in response to
neighborhoods' concerns aboutthe impacts of some aspects of supermarket
use, particularly the loading areas and hours of operation. He said having
the threshold at 20,000 square feet allowed the City to bring in Trader Joe's,
but it eliminated traditional supermarkets, which at that time were in the
range of 50,000 square feet. He observed that the City had recently become
aware of several prospective vacancies on large tenant spaces in the PC(3)
zone; and concurrently, representatives of several specialty food stores had
also approached the City about locating in these prospective vacant spaces.
He went on to say that in the interim between 1990-91 to date, traditional
supermarkets had grown to be in the 70,000+ square foot range, while
specialty food stores (i.e., Trader Joe's, Bristol Farms, Whole Foods) have
also grown into the 40,000-50,000 square foot range. Accordingly, staff
proposed amending the Municipal Code to allow supermarkets up to 50,000
square feet in the PC(3) zone with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit,
15