The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRes 06-107 Ord 1122 C/Z 06-02 & PP 06-01 Sinatra and Cook ProjectCITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT REQUEST: Consideration of approval of a change of zone, precise plan of design including a height and parking exception, and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact to allow construction of 260 apartments and a 38,000 square foot neighborhood commercial center on 19.6 +/- acres north of Frank Sinatra between Cook Street and College Drive, 37-755 Cook Street. SUBMITTED BY: Steve Smith, Planning Manager APPLICANT: Sinatra and Cook Project, LLC 828 North Ogden Drive Los Angeles, CA 90046 MEETING DATF CASE NOS: C/Z 06-02 and PP 06-01 ❑ CONTINUED TO DATE: June 22, 2006 PASSED TO 2ND READING 0`0( CONTENTS: Staff Recommendation Executive Summary Background and Discussion Draft Ordinance No. 1122 and Draft Resolution No. 06-107 Planning Commission Minutes relating to Case Nos. C/Z 06-02 and PP 06-01 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2398 Planning Commission Staff Reports dated May 2 and June 6, 2006 Related Plans and Exhibits Staff Recommendation: That the City Council approve Case No. C/Z 06-02 and pass Ordinance No. 1122 to second reading. That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 06-107 approving Case No. PP 06-01, subject to conditions. Staff Report Case Nos. C/Z 06-02 and PP 06-01 Page 2 June 22, 2006 Executive Summary: The applicant seeks approval of a change of zone, a precise plan of design including a height and parking exception, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact to facilitate development of a mixed use residential (260 apartment units) and commercial (38,000 square feet) neighborhood commercial center. Specifically, the applicant proposes to rezone the 3.56 acres south of Berger between Cook Street and College Drive from PR-5 to PC-3 (regional commercial). On this property the applicant proposes a 38,000 square foot commercial center. Secondly, the applicant proposes to rezone the remaining southerly 16.04 acres from PR-5 to PR-17 and construct thereon 260 two-story apartment units. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION May 2, 2006 the Planning Commission requested certain changes to the project. June 6, 2006 the applicant presented a substantially improved project to Planning Commission. On a motion by Finerty, second by Campbell, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the mixed use project, including a height and parking exception, for certain residential units and setback modification for the commercial project, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. Background and Discussion: The vacant site has frontage on Frank Sinatra, Cook Street and Berger Drive (University) although it does not include the 7.74-acre corner property at Cook and Frank Sinatra. This 19.6 +/- acre site drops significantly (61 feet) from Frank Sinatra to Berger Drive (University). Staff Report Case Nos. C/Z 06-02 and PP 06-01 Page 3 June 22, 2006 GENERAL PLAN The general plan designates this property for Mixed Use (M.U.) Commercial / High Density Residential (10-22 du/ac). ZONING The site is currently zoned PR-5, Planned Residential five units per acre. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE North: PCD Commercial / Evans Commercial under construction South: PR-5 / Desert Willow Golf Course East: PR-5 / Vacant West: PR-5 / Vacant RESIDENTIAL Access and Circulation The residential component of this development will take access from Frank Sinatra, College Drive and Cook Street. The College Drive access will provide full turning movements to and from College. This access leads to a central recreation area on the site. The Cook Street access, right -in right -out only, leads to a traffic circle which diverts traffic west, south or north. This entry will provide access to the future development on the corner property to the south (7.74 acres) at Cook and Frank Sinatra, to this residential project (west), and to the previously discussed commercial project to the north. The Frank Sinatra access will be shared with the future corner project. This access will be right -in right -out only. Onsite circulation is via a series of 24-foot wide driveways. The access and onsite circulation for the residential project are acceptable. Staff Report Case Nos. C/Z 06-02 and PP 06-01 Page 4 June 22, 2006 Site Plan The irregularly shaped property presented a unique challenge from a site planning perspective. Generally units are located along the perimeter of the site and in clusters throughout the interior of the site. The project is provided with three recreation areas (total 1.73 acres). The central and largest area contains a 4,200 square foot clubhouse, 24' x 50' pool, spa, kiddie pool, tot lot, shade structure, half court basketball, putting green, lawn area and barbecue facility. The second area (south end) provides a 25' x 45' kidney -shaped pool, spa and shade area. The third recreation area at the north end provides a tot lot and 25' x 45' pool. In addition, the plan provides a meandering path / walkway system that curves between buildings and ultimately connects the residential site with the commercial site at the north. Unit Summary The project includes three (3) basic unit types as follows: • The 90 "A" units will include 18 studios, 45 one -bedroom and 27 two - bedroom units and will range in size from 450 square feet to 784 square feet to 1,226 square feet. • The 168 "B" units will all be one bedroom units with 978 square feet. • The 2 "D" units will be three bedrooms with 1,406 square feet. Parking The Municipal Code requires that apartments provide two parking spaces per unit with at least one space per unit covered. The 260-unit apartment project, therefore, has a code requirement of 520 spaces with at least 260 covered. In order to help keep the project as affordable as possible, it includes eighteen (18) 450-square foot studio units. The applicant seeks a parking adjustment for the studio units from two spaces per unit to 1 .25 spaces per unit. Staff Report Case Nos. C/Z 06-02 and PP 06-01 Page 5 June 22, 2006 The studio units are spread throughout the project so they will be able to share in the central parking fields. Given the location of the project across from the Cal State Campus and the affordability provisions built into this project (see affordability discussion) staff supports the parking adjustment for the studio units. All units will have at least one covered parking space (i.e., garage or carport). The project will be conditioned to provide a minimum of 507 total parking spaces with at least 260 covered. The plan as designed provides 511 parking spaces. Architecture and Building Heiaht The two-story 24-28 foot high buildings, with a tower element to 30 feet on Unit "D", have been attractively designed in a contemporary Mediterranean architecture. The structures feature pitched roofs with flat concrete 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. March 14, 2006 ARC unanimously approved the design of the project and did not have an issue with building height. The buildings utilize a 3.5/12-pitched roof design and nine -foot plates. The pitched roof elements provided in this project create a diversity on the roofs, which improves the architecture. In addition, the tower element on Plan "D" breaks up the longer expanses of the roof line on other buildings. 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 becoming easier to maintain. In this instance there are no impacts to adjacent properties caused by the height increase from 24 feet to 28 feet and 30 feet. The property to the southeast is the three-story Courtyard hotel, which is 46 feet to the ridge. To the north is the associated commercial project, which is 35 feet in height. To the east is a future office complex site, which will be at least 25 feet in height. To the west across Staff Report Case Nos. C/Z 06-02 and PP 06-01 Page 6 June 22, 2006 College is City -owned property where the development potential is unknown (golf course possible). On 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 Falling Waters). In these instances it was determined that the aesthetic improvements to the roof design warranted an exception. Based on its architecture, this project warrants similar consideration. Landscape Design All perimeter landscaping will be consistent with the City's standards for a desert landscape theme. Landscape plans are under review by the Landscape Manager's Office and pursuant to Community Development Condition No. 13 will be presented to Landscape Beautification Committee in due course. HIGH DENSITY OVERLAY CRITERIA The general plan land use element program 9.A (copy attached) requires that projects involving a change of zone in excess of ten units per acre be evaluated and found consistent with seven (7) performance criteria (1-7 below). An eighth item involving energy conservation has been added by the City Council. The percentage of residential units, whether single- or multi -family, that shall be available for home ownership. Response: One hundred percent (100%) of this project will be available as rental units. A rental project is appropriate in this location for the following reasons: a. The site is across Cook Street from the Cal State campus. Students require rental housing within walking distance of campus. b. In the University Park area 80%-90% of the residential units will be "for purchase." A mix of housing types is desirable. C. The City is currently experiencing the conversion of much of its existing rental stock to condominiums. Staff Report Case Nos. C/Z 06-02 and PP 06-01 Page 7 June 22, 2006 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 Cook Street adjacent to the project. Condition 11 requires that a bus pullout be installed along Cook Street. 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. Response: Schools: The property is within easy walking distance of the Cal State campus on the east side of Cook Street. Parks: The property is within walking distance of a designated neighborhood park site associated with the W.L. Homes project to the northwest and is providing significant onsite recreational amenities. Community Services: As noted elsewhere in this report, the project includes a 38,000 square foot commercial component and is adjacent to a commercial/office park to the north, both of which will provide convenient shopping and employment opportunities. 4. The percentage of proposed high -density units to be reserved to meet the affordable housing needs of the community. Response: This project if approved will be the first rental project approved in many years. The project will be conditioned to enter into a housing agreement with the City Housing Authority to provide 20% of the units affordable to those households earning 110% of median income and shall make available an additional 20% of the units at market rents established by a regional market survey. Housing Authority to have at its option the ability to provide rental assistance to "low" income households. Staff Report Case Nos. C/Z 06-02 and PP 06-01 Page 8 June 22, 2006 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. Within the site, the project includes a 1.4-acre central recreation area which includes a 4,000 square foot clubhouse, a large pool, tot lot, half court basketball, putting green and a kiddie pool. There are two additional pool areas, one at the north end and one at the south end. Access to the recreation areas is provided on pedestrian paseos provided throughout the residential units. All units are within walking distance of these facilities. 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. Response: Architecture for the project has been given preliminary approval by the Architectural Review Commission. Landscape treatment will be Desert Willow -style and will be water efficient. The project will comply with the updated energy requirements established by the Office of Energy Management. (See full discussion, item 8.) 7. Analysis of the potential fiscal impacts of the development. Staff Report Case Nos. C/Z 06-02 and PP 06-01 Page 9 June 22, 2006 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 on Gateway Drive. That report concluded that as a stand alone residential apartment project it would create a negative cash flow for 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 costs from the Sares Regis report, the break-even point is approximately $1.9 million per unit. The recent increase in residential property values and construction of the apartments will result in the value of this property being reset above the current base rate. The increase in the assessed value will flow to the Redevelopment Agency in tax increment. The project itself includes 38,000 square feet of commercial and it is in the immediate vicinity of 1,435,000 square feet of new commercial development which raises that property tax base which will result in tax flow to the Redevelopment Agency in tax increment. Also, most of these developments will generate sales tax revenues. The general fiscal analysis prepared with the general plan 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. 8. Project Energy Conservation Measures. The units as designed will comply with the new Title 24 energy standards. Units will also comply with the updated energy requirements established by the Office of Energy Management (attached). In addition, the project will be conditioned to install photovoltaic panels on the clubhouse and the pools shall have solar water heating. Staff Report Case Nos. C/Z 06-02 and PP 06-01 Page 10 June 22, 2006 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT DATA Code Provided Building Setbacks: West (College Drive) 20 feet 20 feet South (Frank Sinatra) 32 feet 32 feet East (Interior) 20 feet 20 feet North (Interior) 20 feet 20 feet Parking: Apartments: Covered 260 spaces 260 spaces Open 260 251 spaces Total 520 spaces 511 spaces Height 24 feet 24-30 feet Minimum Unit Sizes: Studios 450 square feet 450 square feet 1 Bedroom 600 square feet 784-978 square feet 2 Bedroom 800 square feet 1,197-1,226 square feet 3 Bedroom 1,200 square feet 1,406 square feet Unit height and studio unit parking modification are being sought through the "exceptions" process. COMMERCIAL Access and Circulation The commercial project will have access to/from Cook Street, College Drive and Berger (University). The Cook Street access will be right -in right -out only. The College Drive access provides full turning movements to and from the site. Berger Drive (University) will have a center median for its full length from Cook Street to College Drive. The Berger (University) access will be right -in right -out only. Staff Report Case Nos. C/Z 06-02 and PP 06-01 Page 11 June 22, 2006 Persons entering the site from southbound Cook Street will use the direct access to Cook Street 400 feet south of the Berger signal. Persons entering the site from northbound Cook Street may "U" turn at Berger to the direct Cook access or proceed west on Berger and "U" turn at College. Two way 24-foot wide driveways provide adequate onsite circulation. Access and onsite circulation are acceptable. Setbacks Building setbacks comply with code except for the ten -foot setback along College Drive. This reduction was incorporated at the request of staff so that the Cook Street landscape strip could be increased from 14 feet to 24 feet in depth. The 10-foot setback on College still provides 25 feet to the curb face and allows for adequate landscape treatment. Parkina The 38,000 square foot commercial center has a parking demand of 152 spaces. The site plan provides 149 spaces. The project will be required to provide parking at a minimum of four spaces per 1,000 square feet exclusive of non -usable space, not to exceed 15% of the gross building area. If, based on a review of the project working drawings (floor plans and grading plans) the project does not meet the four spaces per 1,000 square foot ratio, the project shall be reduced in size accordingly. (See Community Development Condition No. 10.) The applicant indicates that the building area can be reduced to comply with parking. Architecture The commercial center architecture is a desert contemporary style utilizing natural stone, stucco walls, metal overhangs and trellises. March 14, 2006, the ARC (Architectural Review Commission) granted preliminary approval. Staff Report Case Nos. C/Z 06-02 and PP 06-01 Page 12 June 22, 2006 Heights of the buildings range from 20 feet, 22 feet, 24 feet, 26 feet, and 30 feet to 35. INFORMATION TABLE Commercial Portion Proiect Ordinance / PC-3 Setbacks: Cook Street 32 feet 32 feet Berger Drive 20 feet 20 feet College Drive 10 feet* 20 feet Building Height 24-35 feet 35 feet Parking** 149 spaces** 152 spaces * Setback exception recommended to increase landscape depth along Cook Street. ** The applicant has indicated that the commercial center can be reduced in size to comply with parking if needed based on review of working drawings. CEQA REVIEW The project was reviewed for the purposes of CEQA. The Director of Community Development has determined that the project as conditioned will not have a significant impact on the environment and is recommending that a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact be certified by the City Council. CONCLUSION The mixed -use project complies with the general plan land use designation for the site. Considering the scarcity of apartment units, it is good to get rental units so close to the university campus. On the north end of the site the applicant proposes an architecturally attractive commercial center which is adjacent to the Evan's center to the north. These uses should complement each other. The plans comply with code except for certain issues for which Planning Commission and staff recommend that "exceptions" be granted. Staff Report Case Nos. C/Z 06-02 and PP 06-01 Page 13 June 22, 2006 Staff recommends approval of the change of zone and precise plan of design, subject to conditions. Submitted by: Department Head: ram, L Steve Smith Ph I Drell Planning Manager Director of Community Development Approval Homer Croy ACM for Develo fnent Services Approval: Carlos L. Orteg City Manager (Wpdxs'4r sr%pp06-01.cc) RESOLUTION NO. 06-107 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN WITH HEIGHT AND PARKING EXCEPTIONS AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR A MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL (260 APARTMENTS) AND COMMERCIAL (38,000 SQUARE FEET) NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL CENTER PROJECT ON 19.6 ACRES NORTH OF FRANK SINATRA DRIVE BETWEEN COOK STREET AND COLLEGE DRIVE, 37-755 COOK STREET. CASE NO. PP 06-01 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 22nd day of June, 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of Sinatra and Cook, LLC; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert did by its Resolution No. 2398 recommend approval of Case No. PP 06-01, subject to conditions; 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. 06-78," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project will not have a negative impact on the environment and that a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be certified; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify approval of said precise plan: PRECISE PLAN The design of the precise plan will not substantially depreciate property values, nor be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 2. The precise plan will not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes. 3. The precise plan will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. 4. The precise plan for the commercial portion of the project will be consistent with the PC-3 zoning except for the west setback which can be approved as part of the "exception" process. RESOLUTION NO. 06-107 5. The precise plan for the residential portion of the project will be consistent with the PR zoning except for building height and total onsite parking which can be approved as part of the "exception" process. 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 Precise Plan 06-01 is hereby approved, including "exceptions" noted herein and more specifically in the staff report dated June 22, 2006, subject to conditions, Exhibit A attached. 3. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, Exhibit B attached, 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 ►I JAMES FERGUSON, Mayor RESOLUTION NO. 06-107 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. PP 06-01 Department of Communitv Development: 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. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to Architectural Review Commission submittal. 6. All onsite utilities shall be underground. 7. 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 3 RESOLUTION NO. 06-107 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. 8. The project shall be subject to all applicable fees at time of issuance of permits including, but not limited to, Art in Public Places, TUMF and School Mitigation fees. 9. That the residential portion of the project shall provide parking pursuant to Municipal Code Section 25.58.300.0 except that the studio units shall only be required to provide 1.25 spaces per unit. The 260-unit project, therefore, will be required to provide a total of 507 parking spaces of which a minimum of 260 spaces must be in garages or carports. If, based on the grading plan review, fewer parking spaces are provided, the number of units will be reduced accordingly. 10. That the commercial portion of the project shall provide parking at a minimum of four spaces per 1,000 square feet exclusive of non -usable space, not to exceed 15% of the gross building area. If, based on a review of the project, working drawings (floor plans and grading plans) the project does not meet the four spaces per 1,000 square foot ratio, the project shall be reduced in size accordingly. 11. That the applicant shall construct a bus turnout and shelter to be installed on Cook Street, per direction of Special Programs memo dated February 16, 2006. 12. That the applicant shall obtain approval of Waste Management and the Director of Community Development for location of all on -site trash enclosures. 13. That the project landscaping shall be reviewed through the City's Landscape Beautification Committee. 14. That the applicant shall enter into a Housing Agreement with the City Housing Authority to provide 20% of the units affordable to those households earning 110% of median income and shall make available an additional 20% of the units at market rents established by a regional market survey. Housing Authority shall have at its option the ability to provide rental assistance to "low" income households. 15. 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). Clubhouse shall have minimum 2 kw photovoltaic panels installed. 12 RESOLUTION NO. 06-107 Department of Public Works: GENERAL 1. Landscaping maintenance of any common areas and property frontages shall be provided by property owner and be water efficient in nature in accordance with the City of Palm Desert landscape design standards. 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 priorto the issuance of a grading permit. 3. The maintenance of the retention areas shall be by the property owner. BONDS AND FEES 4. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permit. 5. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permit. 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 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. 5 RESOLUTION NO. 06-107 11. 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. 12. Pad elevations, as shown on the tentative map dated 4-10-6, are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 26 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and shall take into account future grading of adjacent Lot 17. 13. Any entry gates for the project shall be set back 100 feet from the curb -line of the adjacent street. 14. Waiver of access to Cook Street, Frank Sinatra Drive, College Drive and University Park Drive, except at approved locations, shall be granted on the plan. REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION 15. Full public improvements required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards, i.e. 8' sidewalk on Cook Street and Frank Sinatra Dr., 6' sidewalk on University Park and College Drives Deceleration lane on Cook Street and Frank Sinatra Drive at project entrances. Modify Cook Street median to accommodate a "left turn only lane in" at the project entrance to be shared with future project at the Cook Street -Frank Sinatra Drive corner. 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. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Public Works Department. 19. Applicant shall comply with provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust Control as well as Section 24.20, Storm water Management and Discharge Control. Co RESOLUTION NO. 06-107 20. 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 21. Lot line between the subject property and parcel 17, shall be adjusted prior to issuance of any permits associated with this project. Fire Department: 1. That the project shall comply with City Municipal codes, appropriate NFPA Standards, CFC, CBC and/or recognized Fire Protection Standards. 2. That the circulation within the parking lot shall provide turning radii's of 31 feet inside and 52 feet outside as determined by the Fire Marshal. 7 RESOLUTION NO. 06-107 EXHIBIT B NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NOS: C/Z 06-02 AND PP 06-01 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Sinatra and Cook, LLC 828 North Ogden Drive Los Angeles, CA 90046 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: A change of zone, precise plan of design with height and parking exceptions, and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact to allow construction of 260 residential apartments units and a 38,000 square foot neighborhood commercial center on 19.6 +/- acres north of Frank Sinatra between Cook Street and College Drive, 37-755 Cook Street. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. PHILIP DRELL DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RESOLUTION NO. 06-107 ATTACHMENT RESOLUTION NO. 06-107 ATTACHMENT -----Original Message ----- 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 fiat 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. 9 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.2398 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE, A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR A MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL (260 APARTMENTS) AND COMMERCIAL (38,000 SQUARE FEET) NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL CENTER PROJECT ON 19.6 ACRES NORTH OF FRANK SINATRA DRIVE BETWEEN COOK STREET AND COLLEGE DRIVE, 37-755 COOK STREET. CASE NOS. C/Z 06-02 AND PP 06-01 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 2nd day of May, 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing, which was continued to June 6, 2006, to consider the request of Sinatra and Cook, LLC; 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 a negative impact on the environment and that a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be certified; 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 the recommendation of approval of said change of zone, precise plan and tentative tract map: CHANGES OF ZONE The requested changes of zone from PR-5 to PC-3 and from PR-5 to PR-17 are consistent with the mixed use commercial / residential general plan designation. PRECISE PLAN 1. The design of the precise plan will not substantially depreciate property values, nor be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 2. The precise plan will not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes. 3. The precise plan will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. 4. The precise plan for the commercial portion of the project will be consistent with the PC-3 zoning except for the minimum project size 3.56 acres versus PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.2398 five acres, the west setback, and building height which can be approved as part of the "exception" process. 5. The precise plan for the residential portion of the project will be consistent with the PR zoning except for building height and total onsite parking which can be approved as part of the "exception" process. WHEREAS, in the review of this tentative tract map the Planning Commission has considered the effect of the contemplated action on the housing needs of the region for purposes of balancing these needs against the public service needs of the residents of the city of Palm Desert and its environs, with available fiscal and environmental resources; and 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 Change of Zone 06-02 changing the zone for 3.56 acres at the southwest comer of Cook Street and Berger Drive from PR-5 to PC-3 and changing the zone for 16 +/- acres at the northeast corner of Frank Sinatra and College Drive from PR-5 to PRA 7 be recommended to the City Council for approval, Exhibit A attached. 3. That Precise Plan 06-01 is recommended for approval to the City Council including "exceptions" noted herein and more specifically in the staff report dated June 6, 2006, subject to conditions, Exhibit B attached. 4. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, Exhibit C attached, be recommended to the City Council for certification. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 6"' day of June, 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: CAMPBELL, FINERTY, ER, NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ATTES PHILIP DREL4, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission F41 1 SCHOLA E7 r ZOSOOPOUTAN LN I POI I It r7l. "'i- i.E I I'LUNI.Lij TrPIAC�Y� - PR5 ;T I CiR. l T-, � 1'1 TO •Gqcill PR- 17 KOKQPE LU R 7, :jJ6 UNIVERMY POINTE CT PELE PL FRANK-SINATR-A-1 i City of Palm Desert Case No. C/Z 06-02 CHANGE OF ZONE EXHIBIT A PR-5 TO PC-3 PR-5 TO PR-17 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2398 Date: June 6. 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2398 EXHIBIT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. PP 06-01 Department of Communitv Development: 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. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to Architectural Review Commission submittal. 6. All onsite utilities shall be underground. 7. 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 U PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2398 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. 8. The project shall be subject to all applicable fees at time of issuance of permits including, but not limited to, Art in Public Places, TUMF and School Mitigation fees. 9. That the residential portion of the project shall provide parking pursuant to Municipal Code Section 25.58.300.0 except that the studio units shall only be required to provide 1.25 spaces per unit. The 260-unit project, therefore, will be required to provide a total of 507 parking spaces of which a minimum of 260 spaces must be in garages or carports. If, based on the grading plan review, fewer parking spaces are provided, the number of units will be reduced accordingly. 10. That the commercial portion of the project shall provide parking at a minimum of four spaces per 1,000 square feet exclusive of non -usable space, not to exceed 15% of the gross building area. If, based on a review of the project, working drawings (floor plans and grading plans) the project does not meet the four spaces per 1,000 square foot ratio, the project shall be reduced in size accordingly. 11. That the applicant shall construct a bus turnout and shelter to be installed on Cook Street, per direction of Special Programs memo dated February 16, 2006. 12. That the applicant shall obtain approval of Waste Management and the Director of Community Development for location of all on -site trash enclosures. 13. That the project landscaping shall be reviewed through the City's Landscape Beautification Committee. 14. That the applicant shall enter into a Housing Agreement with the City Housing Authority to provide 20% of the units affordable to those households earning 110% of median income and shall make available an additional 20% of the units at market rents established by a regional market survey. Housing Authority shall have at its option the ability to provide rental assistance to "low" income households. 15. 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). Clubhouse shall have minimum 2 kw photovoltaic panels installed. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.2398 Department of Public Works: GENERAL Landscaping maintenance of any common areas and property frontages shall be provided by property owner and be water efficient in nature in accordance with the City of Palm Desert landscape design standards. 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 property owner. BONDS AND FEES 4. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permit. 5. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permit. 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. 8. In -lieu park fees shall be paid in a similar fashion to a subdivision. DESIGN PLANS 9. 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 increase in flows for a 100 year storm. 10. 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. 11. 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 0 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.2398 department for improvements in the public right of way prior to 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 dated 4-10-6, are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 26 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and shall take into account future grading of adjacent Lot 17. 14. Any entry gates for the project shall be set back 100 feet from the curb -line of the adjacent street. 15. Waiver of access to Cook Street, Frank Sinatra Drive, College Drive and University Park Drive, except at approved locations, shall be granted on the plan. REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION 16. Full public improvements required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards, i.e. 8' sidewalk on Cook Street and Frank Sinatra Dr., 6' sidewalk on University Park and College Drives Deceleration lane on Cook Street and Frank Sinatra Drive at project entrances. Modify Cook Street median to accommodate a "left turn only lane in" at the project entrance to be shared with future project at the Cook Street -Frank Sinatra Drive corner. 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. 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. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Public Works Department. 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.2398 20. Applicant shall comply with provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust Control as well as Section 24.20, Storm water Management and Discharge Control. 21. 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 22. Lot line between the subject property and parcel 17, shall be adjusted prior to issuance of any permits associated with this project. Fire Department: The project shall be subject to the conditions of approval from the Riverside County Fire Marshal. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.2398 EXHIBIT C NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NOS: C/Z 06-02 AND PP 06-01 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Sinatra and Cook, LLC 828 North Ogden Drive Los Angeles, CA 90046 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: A change of zone, precise plan of design, and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact to allow construction of 260 residential apartments units and a 38,000 square foot neighborhood commercial center on 19.6 +l- acres north of Frank Sinatra between Cook Street and College Drive, 37-755 Cook Street. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. r ' June 6. 2006 PHILIP DRELL DATE DIRECTOR OF IMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 0 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.2398 ATTACHMENT -----Original Message ----- 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. 10 ORDINANCE NO. 1122 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CI--Y COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 107, THE PALM DESERT ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FROM PR-5 TO PC-3 AND FROM PR-5 TO PR-17 FOR A 19.6-ACRE SITE NORTH OF FRANK SINATRA DRIVE BETWEEN COOK STREET AND COLLEGE DRIVE, 37-755 COOK STREET. CASE NO. C/Z 06-02 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 //11LNINbdutTit_11417: ---.... I WINDFLOWERTCV I _I I I • CC 0 a. JUUE LN = -COLLiEGE DR: r COSMOPOLITAN LN I -"--,..-PORTCLAILJ ACTIDEMYILNEE'. POINT-LN e--' • ITI - -• .] I ILL PETUNIA PL.'ACEWT - KQKQEELEI /11CIR I I COLLE6E.VIEN‹ iTyl I I _rALPINE LN TI —rETUNIA PLAgEri L CHINOOK `>. CllirEl f f 1, 0' KOKOPLLI -r COLLEGE.V EVN I CIR E UNIVERSITY POINTE CT DAISIILN PELE PL _ 717.1 I / , / cs,i) 1/4S> 70 GERALD.FQRD OR_ _... City of Palm Desert PACIFIC AVE. PR-5 TO PR-17 FRANK SINATRA DR 4— • 0 I 0,4 0 ' I 01. (.)' PR-5 TO \ PC-3 s\ / L.__ - DESERT' \,\<, ('T5 Vt$N 4 — BERGER RD Case No. C/Z 06-02 CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. CHANGE OF ZONE EXHIBIT A 04 Proposed Zoning Changes PR-5 TO PC-3 PR-5 TO PR-17 Date: ORDINANCE NO. 1122 EXHIBIT B NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: C/Z 06-02 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Sinatra and Cook, LLC 828 North Ogden Drive Los Angeles, CA 90046 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: A change of zone, precise plan of design, and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact to allow construction of 260 residential apartments units and a 38,000 square foot neighborhood commercial center on 19.6 --/- acres north of Frank Sinatra between Cook Street and College Drive, 37-755 Cook Street. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. June 6. 2006 PHILIP DRELL DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3 Allen ati 4 www.alleninatkins.com Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP Attomeys at Law 515 South Figueroa, 7th Floor I Los Angeles, CA 90071-3398 Telephone: 213.622.5555 I Facsimile: 213.620.8816 Patrick A. Perry E-mail: pperry@allenmatkins.com Direct Dial: 213.955.5504 File Number: S7548-00I/LA721615.01 June 12, 2006 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL Mayor Jim Ferguson Mayor Pro Tem Richard S. Kelly Councilmember Jean M. Benson Councilmember Buford A. Crites Councilmember Robert A. Spiegel City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Re: Case No. C/Z 06-02 and PP 06-01 Dear Members of the Palm Desert City Council: This firm represents Sinatra and Cook Project, LLC ("SCP") in connection with its application for approval of the above referenced zone change and precise plan to develop 260 residential units and 38,000 square feet of neighborhood serving commercial uses (the "Project") on the property located generally at 37-755 Cook Street (the "Property"). SCP has been working closely with City staff for a number of months to modify the Project in response to concerns regarding the need for rental housing and additional open space on the Project site. The Project has accordingly been reduced from 268 condominium units to 260 apartments, and more than 60,000 new square feet of open space and recreational area has been added. On June 6, 2006, the City Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Project by the City Council. The Project is now scheduled to be considered by the City Council on June 22, 2006. Shortly before the Planning Commission hearing on June 6, SCP was informed for the first time that it would be required as a condition of approval to enter into an agreement with the City Housing Authority to reserve 20 percent of the units in the Project for moderate income households, defined as households earning no more than 100 percent of area median income, and to restrict rents for an additional 20 percent of the units "at market per Section 8." The Housing Authority would have the option to buy down units to the "low" income level. In response to concerns raised by SCP, this condition was subsequently amended to read as follows: Los Angeles 1 Orange County 1 San Diego 1 Century City 1 San Francisco 1 Del Mar Heights Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP Attorneys at Law Mayor Jim Ferguson June 12, 2006 Page 2 That the applicant shall enter into a Housing Agreement with the City Housing Authority to provide 20% of the units affordable to those households earning 110% of median income and shall make available an additional 20% of the units at market rents established by a regional market survey. Housing Authority shall have at its option the ability to provide rental assistance to "low" income households. SCP recognizes the need for affordable housing in the current rental market. However, because the City of Palm Desert does not currently have an inclusionary housing ordinance, SCP did not anticipate a requirement to provide 40 percent of the units in the Project to low and moderate income tenants. The financial impact of this requirement is especially problematic due to the reduction in the number of units from 268 condominiums to 260 apartments to accommodate City requests. SCP is nevertheless prepared to provide up to 10 percent of the units in the Project as affordable to moderate income households. Any greater degree of affordability would impermissibly interfere with financial projections. Moreover, ill-defined provisions for rent controls and rental assistance by City agencies would likely be unacceptable to a lender or future purchaser of the Project, thereby reducing the value of the Property and jeopardizing SCP's ability to develop the Project at all. SCP accordingly requests that the conditions of approval for the Project require no more than 10 percent of the units to be maintained as affordable to moderate income households. Your careful attention to this request is greatly appreciated. SCP is prepared to meet with you at your convenience to discuss this matter in more detail. In the meantime, please call with any questions or if I can provide further information with respect to this issue. Ve truly yours, Sonia Ransom SJR:lvb cc: Mr. Philip Drell 06/21/2006 13:08 FAX 213 620 8816 ALLEN, MATKINS RI poi • Facsimile To: Mayor Jim Ferguson Mayor Pro Tern Richard S. Kelly Councilmember Jean M. Benson Councilmember Buford A. Crites Councilmember Robert A. Spiegel Fax: 760.340.0574 I Phone: 760.346.0611 Cc; Mr. Philip Drell Fax: 760.341.7098 I Phone: 760.346.0611 Subject: Case No. C/Z 06-02 and PP 06-01 Comments: Please see the attached. Oziainal will be sent via: 0 mail Alien Matkins www.allenrnatkins.com Allan Matkins Leelc Gatnblc Mallory & Natsis LLP From: Sonia J. Ransoms Telephone: 213.955.5593 E-mail: sransom@allenmatkins.com File Number: S7548-001/ . Date; June 21, 2006 Total pages including cover sheet: 02 ❑ messenger ❑ fedex/courier Q not sent Nome: The information contained in this facsimile document is confidential and is intended only jhr the use of the individual named above. lithe reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly .prohibited. gyms have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original document to us at the above address vin U.S Mail. We will reimburse you for the postage. Thank you. Los Angeles orange County !San Diego j Century City I San Francisco I Dal Mar Heights 515 South Figueroa, 7th Floor 1 Los Angele. CA 90071-3398 ( Telephone: 213.622.5555 I Facsimile: 213.620.81316 Received Jun-21-06 01:10am From-213 620 8816 To -PALM DESERT CITY CLE Page 01 06/21/2006 13:08 FAX 213 620 8816 ALLEN, MATKINS �J 002 Allen Ma -thins www.all1enmatkins.com Allen Matkins Leek Gamble Mallory & Na1'sis LLP Attorneys at Law 515 South Figueroa. 7`° Floor I Los Angeles, CA 90071-3398 'telephone; 213.622.5555 Facnimilc: 213.620.8816 Sonia J. Ransom B mail: sransorn@allenmatkins.com Direct Dial: 213.955.5593 Fite Number: 37548-001(LA722351.01 June 21, 2006 VIA FACSIMILE AND FIRST CLASS MAIL Mayor Jim Ferguson Mayor. Pro Tem Richard S. Kelly Councilmember Jean M. Benson CounciImember Buford A. Crites Councilmember Robert A. Spiegel City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm. Desert. California 92260 Re: Case No.. C/Z 06-02 and PP 06-01 Dear Members of the Palm Desert: This letter follows up on my correspondence to you ofJunc 12, 2006, which expressed concerns regarding the proposed condition of approval for the above -referenced case requiring Sinatra and Cook Project. LLC ("SCP") to enter into a Housing Agreement with the City Housing Authority to provide up to 40 percent of the proposed residential units to low and moderate income households. On the basis of further discussions with officials of the City Housing Authority, SCP understands that the terms of the required Housing Agreement may not adversely affect the economic feasibility of the project to the extent originally anticipated. SCP therefore withdraws its objections to the proposed condition of approval with the understanding that City staff will continue to work with SCP to address the City's need for affordable housing without jeopardizing SCP's ability to effectively develop and operate the project. Your careful attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. Please call with any questions or if I can, provide further information with respect to this issue. Very truly yours, Sonia J. i'anso SJR:Ivb cc: Mr. Philip Drell Los Angeles 1 Orange County I San Diego I Century City I San Francisco I Del Mar Heights Received Jun-21-06 01:10pm From-213 620 8816 To -PALM DESERT CITY CLE Page 02 CITY OF P ERI CF5E I 73-51O FRFD WARING DRIVE PALM DFSLRT, CAI IFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346-0611 FAX: 760 341-7098 info@palm-dcscr .nrg CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NOS. C/Z 06-02 AND PP 06-01 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by SINATRA Et COOK LLC for approval of a change of zone and precise plan of design for a 260-unit apartment project with height exception, a 38,000 square foot neighborhood commercial center and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for property north of Frank Sinatra between Cook Street and College Drive, 37-755 Cook Street. SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, June 22, 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 June 9, 2006 City of Palm Desert, California MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2. 2006 M* D. Case Nos. C/Z 06-02, PP 06-01 and TT 34304 - SINATRA & COOK LLC, Applicant (Continued from April 4 and 18, 2006) Request for recommendation to the City Council of approval of a change of zone, precise plan of design, tentative tract map and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for 268 condominium units and a 38,000 square foot neighborhood commercial center on 19.6 +/- acres north of Frank Sinatra between Cook Street and College Drive, 37-755 Cook Street. Mr. Drell said the purpose of this hearing was more of a working study session. This project was in reality a part of the University Park plan, but a separate property owner. It wasn't included in the plan. He said it was at the southeast corner of the University Park Master Plan and pointed out the location on a map. He said it would be the only high density project in the University Park area. They saw from the other master plan that all the projects were between five and nine units per acre. This project was 17-18 units per acre. He explained that the applicant's initial intent was to offer these as apartments and it would therefore be the only rental housing in the University Paris area, which has a lot of rationale to it given the fact that it is across the street from the university. For various reasons, most apartment developers try to design for condos since it increases the value and gives the applicant flexibility in the future in terms of what to do with the project based on what happens in the rental market. The problem with designing to condo standards, it required significantly more parking and in this case about 70 more spaces. Given the density that the applicant was trying to achieve and the size of the units he was trying to design in the project and the fact that it is a relatively irregular site to begin with, it also has significant slope to it, and that made site planning challenging. The Commission was given a book to give them an idea of the general architectural character. One of the issues they dealt with on Sares Regis, including a sufficient amenity area, and in this latest version, four buildings/eight units had been eliminated and the central amenity area had been significantly increased. He thought they were getting closer to the design they want. The other mitigating factor for this area is that the university park does include four other city parks, so in terms of general 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2. 2006 recreation available to the residents in terms of public parks, the University Park areas will be well served and those parks would be constructed as part of the assessment district which would be installing all of the public improvements. Those parks would be constructed in the near future. Mr. Drell stated that the applicant was present if they had questions or comments. The project also included a commercial component at the comer. He said it was different but very interesting architecture. Staffs feeling was that at that corner adjacent to the main entrance to the campus a commercial project was appropriate. In the general plan this whole section was designated for mixed use. He said there were both vehicular and a pedestrian connection between the residential project and the commercial one. There was a connection at the southwest edge of the commercial development. The applicant was present and he asked the Commission to give the applicant comments and get direction before doing the last redesign. Commissioner Tschopp asked for clarification on the access, specifically having the right -in and right -cut only on Cook Street. Mr. Drell concurred that Cook Street would be right -in right -out only. There would be no break in the median. The residential component's main access would probably be off College Drive and there was another significant access off Frank Sinatra. Depending on which direction someone wanted to go, they would have a signalized access at University Drive. Depending which driveway someone chose, they would be able to go any direction, either with a right -turn or at the signalized movement at Cook Street. Chairperson Lopez asked how someone would walk from these projects to the university. Mr. Drell pointed out the location. He said they could walk either through the commercial to the corner and cross there, or they could go to the entrance and walk along the sidewalk. There would ultimately be a sidewalk down to the corner at Cook and Sinatra and cross at Cook and Sinatra depending on which direction they wanted to go. From staffs perspective, Chairperson Lopez asked if people would walk from this project to the university or if they would drive. Mr. Drell said it all depended on the parking policy at the university. Since the university was now sitting on probably $800,000 an acre real estate, there was no such thing as free parking. Typically at universities, they would be encouraged to create as much disincentive as possible for commuters which would encourage those that could conveniently access it. He assumed that at $50 1.1 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2.2006 or $100 per month, a student living there would walk or ride a bike. Again, parking was very expensive and that campus was pretty small and hopefully they would be pursuing policies which would encourage people to live in the vicinity and not have to park onsite, or hopefully they would work out arrangements with Sunline to create incentives. When he went to college, with the registration fee came a bus pass for the Santa Cruz bus system. Hopefully things like this would encourage use of public transportation, walking or bicycles and then would encourage the location of housing appropriate along those routes. This was something that was kind of a radical change of thinking since the real estate has gotten very expensive. At 300 square feet and $20 a square foot just for real estate, it was a very expensive piece of ground to set a car on all day. Commissioner Tanner said he might be wrong, but he assumed that this was more of a commuter college. He understood the need for apartments, it went hand in hand with university type settings. He thought the university itself was going to be a commuter college and not so much a residence college. He asked if he was wrong. Mr. Drell said yes or up until such time it became a real campus it would be a commuter college. The fundamental problem, regardless of how they commute, they were talking about onsite attendance of 15,000 ultimately. There was no way, unless they started building five or six story parking, if we didn't address this problem somehow of getting students to and fro without all of them driving cars, they could fill up the whole 200 acres with surface parking. The goal would be to the greatest extent they could to provide convenient housing. For the staff itself, they were looking at a full and part time staff at this institution to be a couple thousand. It would be one of the largest employers in the Coachella Valley. Commissioner Tanner reiterated they would be surrounding that entire area with plenty of housing, both with affordable with the land being not so affordable. Mr. Drell concurred. In terms of housing onsite, it would be limited by the fact that they don't have much room. With the reduction in the number of units, Chairperson Lopez asked about the parking requirement. Mr. Drell said that it was parked for condos. There was also another interesting feature. His gut feeling was that it was probably, based on their observation of similar projects, the parking requirement was probably generous. The parking area toward Cook Street, there was access from a commercial driveway which allowed for there to be some sharing of that lot if per chance they get an extremely successful commercial center, he could see this for the condos to be overflow parking for either side. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING ,COMMISSION. MAY 2, 2006 Commissioner Tanner asked about students parking in the commercial lot. Mr. Drell said that typically parking was by permit or hourly so they would have to do that in the commercial lot as well. There would have to be some regulation to prevent students from parking there all day. Commissioner Tschopp asked what the purpose was of the large parking lot right at the corner at Berger. Mr. Drell said it was primarily to meet the condo standard. Commissioner Tschopp pointed out that it didn't look convenient to very many of the condos. Mr. Drell said that was a question they could direct to the applicant. Commissioner Tschopp asked where they stand on the park itself, the relationship as far as what a normal project of this size would require for parking and where it was at now. Mr. Drell said the applicant had that number. Using Sares Regis as the benchmark, they were closer. Sares Regis was a lower density project. It was at 12-13 units per acre. The applicant would like to be able to economically operate this as rental housing. Sares Regis kind of designed themselves out of rental housing. At the end of the day they decided they couldn't operate as apartments and were being sold as condos. It was all a matter of economics. Chairperson Lopez asked if Mr. Drell was okay with the 40-foot sign. Mr. Drell said he was okay with it. To him it was integrated into the architecture. It was a tower element that to him was architecturally compatible with the style. He said it could probably be lowered. A good part of it was the vines on the sign. The vines portion could be compressed, but he thought it was compatible with the architecture whether it had signage or not. Commissioner Tschopp asked for clarification that they were talking about the sign on page 17. Mr. Drell said that was correct. Commissioner Tschopp asked Mr. Drell if he thought it was architecturally integrated into the development. Mr. Drell said yes. Commissioner Tschopp said that was Mr. Drell's opinion. Mr. Drell said exactly, that's all it was. Commissioner Campbell asked when this development would be completed and if it would be prior to the completion of the university. Mr. Drell confirmed that the university would be 10-15 years. The main demand for housing would be normal folks. Commissioner Campbell indicated that this housing wouldn't be for students only because anyone could rent. By the time students come along, they really wouldn't find a place to live across from the college. Mr. Drell said there were always vacancies in any project. 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2. 2006 There was always a turnover. One of the challenges of all the commercial development in this area, as well as to a certain degree any development that in any way orients itself to the university, it has to be designed to survive with today's market and then be appropriate to address the demands of the university market once it materializes. This was not designed primarily as student housing. It is a conventional project. These weren't dorms and was designed for the general public. The units were designed for families of all sorts. The students, faculty and staff would have to compete with the general public when they show up. Commissioner Campbell noted that normally there weren't that many studio apartments of this square footage in this development. Mr. Drell thought it was the only project other than senior projects that has studio apartments. One of the issues they were dealing with in apartments, just as they were dealing with for single family homes, is as costs have escalated, in order to achieve some level of affordability they have to make some units smaller. The conventional two -bedroom apartments were $1,100, $1,200 or more per month. Commissioner Tschopp asked if staff or the applicant met with Cal State to get their opinion on this development. Mr. Drell said staff had not. He didn't know if the applicant had conversations with them. (The applicant said yes.) On the general subject, Mr. Drell said that in order for the campus to really become a university, obviously the folks at the university want the enrollment to grow as fast as it can because that generates funds. At a certain point they become eligible for bond funds which is based on enrollment. Realizing that they wouldn't attract students from out of the area unless there is rental housing, they have started focusing on campus housing or acquiring some of the undeveloped industrial property on the north side of Gerald Ford to build some housing. They are realizing that it's part of what they need to attract something more than part time commuter students. Commissioner Tschopp said he was hearing two different stories here. One is that this project is being designed for condominiums later. Mr. Drell said maybe. Commissioner Tschopp said perhaps students wouldn't be here. When they went through the whole general plan, the idea of higher density such as this was because there was a university across the street. Now they might be moving away from that because of economics. He wasn't sure economics plays a role at this part of the planning stage. Mr. Drell said that was a good point. This was a discretionary approval. Oddly enough, one of 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2. 2006 the seven, now eight, criteria put into the general plan for high density projects dealt with the percentage of units available for sale or rent. While certain councilmen had certain biases on one side or the other, the criteria itself didn't have a value either way. It was situational. In certain situations one might say something was appropriate for ownership housing here, regardless of density. Someone might say at this location the reason they were granting the higher density is because they want rental housing. For example, when they required Taylor Woodrow to build 100 units of apartments, they weren't given the option. They wanted to put a map on it and they were told no. The reason they were being forced to build apartments is because the City wanted them to stay rental housing. Otherwise, they wouldn't have bothered. They would have let them build condos along with the other 700 units. The issue of the preservation of rental units is something the Commission could consider in saying that all or a portion of them should stay apartments, unless the applicant could prove some severe financial hardship given the fact that everything else in University Park is ownership housing. This was the only rental project in this block. Whether they wanted to put some control on the City's ability to preserve it as rental housing was something they might want to consider. West of College Drive, Commissioner Campbell asked what might be there. She asked if there would be a golf course or medium density housing. Mr. Drell said there was a golf course, there was another residential development pad across the street, and thought it was on the nine to ten units per acre range. It might be a little bit higher, but it was within the ownership housing range; that's what it was designated on the master plan. The commercial property goes down Cook Street and a little on Gerald Ford. The rest of it all the way to Portola was various densities of ownership housing from the 3.5-unit per acre to about 9-10 units per acre. Commissioner Campbell asked for confirmation that they were having low density housing out there. Mr. Drell said it was low and medium everywhere else. All of it was slated for ownership except for this one. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the issue with the landscape plans not matching the site plan not matching the grading street plans had been ironed out. Mr. Drell said one of the problems is the project has been in a constant state of redesign and the various disciplines have not always caught up with each other. Those were being reconciled and the applicant could give them the latest update. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNINgLiCOMMISSION MAY 2. 2006 Commissioner Campbell said that tonight they really didn't have everything put together. Mr. Drell said this was a study session. Before the applicant redesigned it one more time, they should give whatever input they could relative to the architecture, the site plan, their ideas about amenity levels, areas of landscaping or anything they wanted to have the applicant think about before he comes back. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. RYAN OGULNIC:K, 828 North Ogden Suite 101 in Los Angeles, addressed the Commission. Chairperson Lopez asked if :here was anything Mr. Ogulnick wished to add. Mr. Ogulnick noted that Commissioner Campbell brought up studio units. He said they sort of included those in their plan and there were only 18 of the 260. He said they are a rental company. They thought it created a product that the whole community could live in. When they have units at 400 square feet in today's market, that would probably be $550. The bigger units at 1,450 square feet, that would be more like $1,600 or $1,700 a month. So they thought in a community like Palm Desert, it would create housing for a big segment of the population. That could be changed. It was not a problem to increase the size. Their average unit size was 1,048 square feet, which was large for apartments. He said that was the only issue he had to address at that point. Commissioner Tschopp asked why he needed to park at the condominium standard if the intent was to rent them as apartments. Mr. Ogulnick said he has always been clear with Phil and staff that they are developers that build rental housing. In certain communities, all of a sudden the economics don't make sense. It was sort of a safety net. If for some reason the rents were to go down or in the red, they would look at that as an option. They were never planning to record the map. They were going to keep it in limbo and it would expire after four year:; and they legally would not be condominiums anyway. They planned to keep it indefinitely as rental housing. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2. 2006 Commissioner Tschopp asked what the purpose was of the large parking lot to the north of Berger Drive. Mr. Ogulnick said they didn't want to put much housing behind the commercial. He didn't think tenants or homeowners would appreciate it. It sort of functioned as overflow for the commercial and long-term parking for the residential. At this parking count, which was just about 600, they had 2.3 per unit. Apartment dwellers never use that much parking. This was long-term guest parking. Adjacent to all buildings and attached to the buildings was parking that was adequate for the residents. In fact, 192 of the 260 units had attached garages. It was unique. As Phil said, this was not low income student housing. It was actually more on the high end. Commissioner Campbell said there would be studio, one bedroom, two bedroom and three bedroom units, so these larger rental units with the bedrooms would have lots of children presumably. She said there was a tot lot and asked about other amenities. She knew he made some changes to the pool area from the map they were given, but with all these units, they were talking about thousands of people living there. Mr. Ogulnick said that from the plan the Commission had, they expanded the central area. It was originally about 27,000 square feet. They expanded it to about 60,000 square feet. According to Phil's staff, it's ratio was in line with other multifamily projects with the revision. They have a central amenity area that's 1.3 acres. In a residential area, that's 16. They have a secondary pool. He didn't disagree with Phil last week when he said they needed to increase their amenity space. They removed four buildings and increased it from 27,000 feet to 57,000 feet. With all these studio units, Commissioner Campbell said the applicant knew there would be younger people living there, so she thought there was a need for additional pools around the area to service all these people who want to be cool in the summer time. Mr. Ogulnick asked how many pools she would like to see. 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2. 2006 Commissioner Campbell thought at least two or three more. Not large ones like the one in the middle, but the smaller one, the kidney -sized one. She thought there could be four more. Mr. Ogulnick didn't have an issue with that. He said this project has been at the city for about 10 months. They have had lots of revisions. He didn't think staff approved of that so he didn't go that route. He was finding out it was hard to please everyone. He wouldn't have a problem with that, but didn't know if everyone else here today thought six pools was overkill.. Mr. Drell said that One Quail Place is 384 units and it has three pools. That was adequate. Sevilla is 512 units and has five pools. One pool per 110-120 units is the typical ratio they have operated with. This was 260 units. He had two pools and might have a third pool, but he thought pools were relatively expensive to maintain. Commissioner Finerty noted that Mr. Drell was talking about units. She asked about the potential number of people in each unit at One Quail Place and Sevilla. Mr. Drell said they were similar. Those were predominately two - bedroom and one bedroom. This would have some studio and three bedrooms, but One Quail Place was very heavily families by its demographic. The issue was to distribute 1:hem adequately. So maybe they could add a third one. Commissioner Finerty asked what size of pools they were talking about when they were making these comparisons. Mr. Drell said the pools at One Quail Place and Sevilla were somewhat larger residential sized pools. They weren't huge. He suggested having pools for different uses. Maybe one for play, a long skinny one for people who want to swim laps. Commissioner Finerty said they probably wanted to have one for kids. Mr. Drell agreed. One could be deeper and one that was more shallow. So there could be a third pool. Having six pools in a project of this size would be pretty extraordinary. Commissioner Campbell thought at least four. Not large sized, but smaller sized pools. Chairperson Lopez noted that this was an informal session to give ideas. From his experience in the rental market, in the desert he noted that they added some space in the recreational area. He thought it might be a thought to add a second pool like a kids pool from the standpoint that it might be a nice amenity to have. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2. 2006 Mr. Ogulnick said he had never built a kids pool. Chairperson Lopez explained that it was a pool area that was maybe only three feet deep all the way across and provided the ability for families if they wanted to keep the kids in one area while the adults were in the main pool area. That was only a suggestion. That might be a nice amenity and nice addition to the project itself. As Phil said, pools are very expensive to maintain. They are used probably eight months out of the year and four months they weren't used that much. The other part was to make sure there was enough decking area to have enough chairs and some shade, especially in the heat of the summer time. They didn't want to rely on umbrellas. This area was windy and they wouldn't want to have a lot of umbrellas for shade because they could blow away. So they would want to make sure they had enough shade or trees in that pool area or some form of shade. Commissioner Finerty said that generally before they make exceptions there had to be something superior about the project. She was having a hard time finding anything superior about this project. From the lack of open space and recreational amenities to the project overall being too dense, to the architecture, to the size of the studio. It didn't even meet the minimum standard. She thought this project as is was certainly one of the worst projects Palm Desert has ever looked at. Usually they like things that have architectural superiority that go the cut above. She wasn't seeing that here. If this was after the result of working ten months, it seemed to her that they really needed to take initiative of putting something significant into the project to make it totally acceptable to the City. High density was one thing, which obviously she was opposed to. She understood a need in this area, but the high density could be classier looking high density and it could be a high density where the studio units conform to our minimum standards. It could be a high density that didn't need a height exception. And it could be a high density that has a superior architecture. Moving to the commercial, she was 100% opposed to the tower sign. She thought it stuck out like a sore thumb. She thought it needed to blend into the project. Just because there was an issue or need for rental housing, that didn't justify the exceptions that the project was requesting. Commissioner Tanner said that depending on the economics, they were going to remain with the apartment concept and Mr. Drell said that this would really be the only rental area around the University Park area. If they really W. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING_ COMMISSION MAY 2, 2006 wanted to be able to provide housing for the students in 10 or 12 years, he asked what kind of guarantee they had that it would stay that way. Mr. Ogulnick's statement was that if economics for the apartment complex weren't there, then it would go condominium. That kind of defeated the purpose of this concept. For them to come to the Planning Commission for variances and one thing or another and for them to even consider it, that was why if this did come back or when it comes back, that Mr. Ogulnick put in some guarantees that this would remain that rental unit establishment. They were going to need it. If it didn't make economic sense in projections for them in their 5 year, 8, year, 10 year prospectus, don't submit it as a rental piece of property. That was his comment. Mr. Ogulnick said that today it makes sense. It would take a large scale recession for it not to make sense. Commissioner Tanner said that wasn't a guarantee. He wasn't sure that was what he was looking for. Mr. Ogulnick said the City would have to recommend some sort of guarantee and he would see if he could live to that guarantee. MR. ROBERT RICCIARDI addressed the Commission. He stated that from what he understood and what he read, the biggest reason why college enrollment is down is because tuition is up drastically in the state of California. Therefore, if they were going to have students here, they needed to encourage students to come there. If tuition was going to be so expensive and if the inflation rate continued as they have experienced in the last five years, colleges in California were going to have less and less students. Especially if the students come from lower and lower income groups. Because then they would have to look for government loan programs to afford tuition. If they somehow could get their inflation under control and get things back down where they should be, then if these units here because of the high density, which means more people there even though the apartments are bigger, they keep the cost down. When he went to college, a lot of times four guys would go and rent a two -bedroom apartment and that way they could afford it. So they would have students there rather than families in a two or three bedroom apartment. That was the way they do it. When he went to college they looked into fraternities. Once in a fraternity they realized it wasn't a 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING. COMMISSION. MAY 2, 2006 conducive place for learning. There were too many other activities going on. When he was in architecture, by the junior year the fraternity guys were cut of the fraternity, they were still members, but they weren't living in the fraternity because they couldn't study or get things done. So they would get together two, three or four guys and rent a two or three bedroom apartment so they could have a kitchen and cook and have a little central place and then go to their rooms to study. He thought what was good about this was that they could have that. The apartments were a little bigger so they could have two guys in there, each with a little desk. He thought that was what they needed to look for. If they keep adding more and more cost to them because they want the aesthetics, eventually they could only work as condominiums. But if they truly wanted apartments, then they would have to say what they were willing to give up to get that. They might have to give up a little aesthetics because aesthetics cost money. There was no doubt about that. Going up to what they did at Cook and Hovley, that was a great looking office project. It has a ton of stone on it, but they are charging top dollar for those units. So they have a nice looking project. It was true that it wasn't comparable to others, but for student housing/student apartments, it was a nice looking project if they are looking at it from that view point. He thought that was the view point they should look at it because that was what they were trying to encourage. Adding a couple of pools wouldn't take away from this project at all. Students could walk. When he went to school, he had to walk three miles just to get there. He didn't think people were going to be able to afford cars like they do today. That was going to change unless they come up with other sources of energy. Things were going to change. They were going through an evolutionary process and what life was going to be 20 years from now would be drastically different. So people were going to do a lot more walking. These apartments were not that far away. They were less than a mile. Students could certainly walk and would encourage the youth to walk. Even older people were encouraged to walk. That's the other kind of thing this encourages. The fact that it was close to commercial, they could go and get food and whatever they needed, and that would cut down on energy. The flexibility of the condominium project only comes about if the tuition m MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2. 200§ costs spiral and all of a sudden college enrollment drops and there really wasn't the need for this campus like everyone thought today because the students weren't there to go to college. They might not be there to go to college, but they should be because we're no longer a society that makes shoes and glassware and things like that. They were really a high tech society and in the information business where people have to know how to use computers. That was the type of society they were going to. Therefore, they needed colleges in order to train people to do that. In his profession as an architect, he couldn't find anybody who knows how a building is put together. They knew how to work the computer, but they didn't know what to put into the computer. So they were worthless to him. Therefore, every person he gets he trains them for two or three years and they get some knowledge and then go start their own business or go work for another architect. So he becomes the training ground and the vocational educator. Mr. Drell thought they were getting a little far afield here. Mr. Ricciardi disagreed because they were talking about economics. They always had to consider economics. Everything done as a person, in some way economics was part of it. Getting back to the project, Mr. Drell said that was an issue they could impose; a limitation or a portion. Typically condos end up with about 30% rental over time. Commissioner Tanner agreed, but noted that it was individually owned and wasn't a project. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Tanner said that concerned him. They get an apartment project approved and three or four years from now in the back of everyone's mind is the question if this was ever going to go to condos, which is the trend more and more because economically it was more feasible to sell, even on a timeshare basis, then it is to rent. He just wanted to make sure everyone understood that even though it was coming 1:0 the Commission as an apartment, it could very well at the end of four or Five years or even earlier if the mapping is done, go into a condo project. Mr. Drell said it was up to the Commission. Commissioner Tanner thought it looked like a condo project with the garages and asked if it looked like condos to staff. Mr. Drell said no. He said he even challenged Mr. Ogulnick on it many times about why he was doing apartments and if he really intends to do apartments. He has been consistent that it really had to do with the unique economic situation of his major Ie7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2. 2006 investor by which owning and holding is what he wants to do. But again, if the Commission or subsequently the City Council believes that the economic justification of the high density is only there if it is rental housing, then that was a condition that could be imposed. Commissioner Tanner thought that was something they needed to consider. Did they want an apartment type complex there, or did they want to keep that entire area a condo/single family type? Commissioner Campbell noted that Mr. Ricciardi said that it was supposedly student housing, but this was also the entrance to the city and she asked if they just wanted student housing and apartments. Why shouldn't they be up to the standards of every other apartment? Commissioner Finerty agreed. Mr. Drell didn't believe they should be thinking of an alternative standard for students. As far as staff was concerned, this wasn't student housing. Commissioner Tanner said that if they were concerned about the entrance into Palm Desert and they want people to enter into Palm Desert, that was exactly how Palm Desert represents itself. If they were concerned about that, this was a study session and they were giving input. Mr. Drell said that whatever the Commission said, the applicant would have to consider. Chairperson Lopez pointed out that this would be continued, so they had this opportunity to provide the applicant with their comments and they would see this again. Commissioner Tschopp said that he was under the impression that the reason they were going a little bit higher density in these areas was because of the proximity to the university and the need to have some type of affordable housing, apartments, rental units available to possibly students. Today's students weren't the typical 18-20 year old kid. It would probably be someone older and more often times than not, someone married with even a child or two. This project didn't address that. He thought the intent down the road wasn't just to have the doors open, but to actually go to a condominium project and he thought that would defeat the purpose they originally had for this area. He thought the preservation of rental housing in proximity of the university was important. He could see how this was being designed was more for a condominium project down the road. Having said that, he didn't have a problem with the studio apartments because in a university there is a need for studio apartments. He didn't have a problem with that and it does allow larger units for students who have roommates. He didn't really have a problem with the architecture. It wasn't bad. But he didn't 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2. 2006 like the site layout because to him it wasn't pedestrian friendly at all. They tried to sell this whole area out there as being an area where people were going to be able to easily walk to commercial areas, stay in the area, go to the schools, and to him this didn't promote any kind of pedestrian friendly walking. Commissioner Tschopp didn't think the parking was convenient from the standpoint that if the commercial area there to the north was adequately parked, there was no need for inconvenient parking to the apartments/ condos north of Berger Drive. It looked like maybe as an after thought they needed some more parking and decided to stick it there. Truly anyone in the westem quadrant of this development wouldn't use that parking. They weren't going to walk there. The other reason is because it wasn't pedestrian friendly either. He didn't see -the City incorporating with Sunline mass transit in the area and they were talking about how to get these people across a busy street. He didn't think they were thinking this through very well. He didn't think it was just the applicant. The vision he had of the area was different from what they were presented, so he wasn't all that excited. Lastly, he didn't think the sign at all met the requirement of being architecturally necessary or an element germane to the architecture of the building. It looked like a big sign was just stuck on top of the building and at some point in time they could add some neon lights and really make it blend in. To him it wasn't an exciting project at this time. If the economics didn't hammer out, then they needed to go back to the drawing board. Mr. Ogulnick didn't disagree with the sign on the commercial. He didn't necessarily think it added anything to the center and had no problem losing the sign. It was a vision of an architect, not of a developer. He thought if they studied the project a little closer, it was unique in that it had five large motor courts which take up a lot of space, but created a European village kind of feel. These apartments, and they were apartments, Commissioner Tanner said that allowing the developer to go to this density, in turn the developer should give something to the city and that was a commitment to apartments. That hadn't been suggested to him and that was the first time he was hearing that, so he would visit that, it just had to be brought to his company and they would do it. He didn't know if unilaterally everyone on this Planning Commission would agree with that. It seemed that to some for sale housing would be a better product for the city, but they 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2, 2006 were apartment developers and they would commit to keeping it to apartments. He personally thought the architecture and the quality of the community was in line with the last big project the City approved, and that was Canterra. They looked at Canterra as a base model, but thought they had done better than Canterra. Their units were larger. There was diversity it their units. They tend to get these projects with the same architecture over and over again. They have created four building types, 12 floor plans, whereas Canterra was the same building over and over. They didn't do that. The section up toward future College operated separately from the courtyards and gave it some diversity, so it wasn't just a boring apartment community seen with most of the projects. He thought their commercial was extraordinary. He didn't know if they studied it carefully, but it went through the ARC at first pass and they raved about it. He thought if they studied the landscape plan, it is friendly. There are open areas and now they have an acre and a third behind the clubhouse and its ratio was consistent with lower density projects they have approved in terms of its amenity area per unit. Commissioner Campbell said she really didn't have any problem with the apartment buildings as far as architecture and things like that. She wanted it to look like the pictures they were given. Also, between these apartments, there was luscious landscaping. But then they had to have the desert scape too, so that would look completely different from the pictures. But she wasn't against the architecture if that was what they were going to get. Mr. Ogulnick said they would get exactly that. Commissioner Campbell thought the commercial areas were fine, but she had a problem with the big sign too. Mr. Ogulnick said the sign would go and Mr. Drell could contest that their company as a whole has worked with the City time and time again. They have been very accommodating with any requests. But it was difficult to please five people. Chairperson Lopez asked what kind of tenants he thought would occupy the commercial area. :22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION. MAY 2, 2006 Mr. Ogulnick said there was a restaurant, Manhattan Deli, that would like to occupy Spaces 15 and 14. They were over on Highway 111. Space 8 was a bank. For Space 7 they were in talks with a small gym. And Space 9 was Coffee Bean. That was about as far as they had gotten. Commissioner Tschopp thought the tenant mix sounded very exciting for a development where the people could conveniently get there, either bicycling or walking. He said it would be nice to see some of those types of elements incorporated into the site plan where they could easily get there. Mr. Ogulnick asked if he was referring to the residential tenants. Commissioner Tschopp concurred. Mr. Ogulnick said there was an access. To the north of Building AO1 and to the west of Commercial Building 6 there was a walkway going into the commercial. Commissioner Tschopp was referring to the whole area and getting people to park their cars, if they could even afford cars, and instead of getting into a car and driving down to go get coffee, go to the gym, go to school, somehow conveniently being able to get from Point A to Point B without having to get into that car. Part of that went to getting across Cook Street. There should be a very convenient way to get students from here to there. That may not be the applicant's problem or concern, he was stating that to City staff. They should be looking at ways to get people from this point over to that university campus without being killed. Mr. Ogulnick asked if there was a pedestrian signal right where Berger meets Cook. Commissioner Campbell said yes. Mr. Ogulnick asked if the pedestrian bridge had gone away. Part of their CFD contained a $1.5 pedestrian bridge. It was still part of their budget. Mr. Drell said the pedestrian bridge was eliminated by the Council because it was about $3 or $4 million and the City didn't want to pay for half of it. :23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2. 2006 Mr. Ogulnick said he signed documents yesterday and there was a $1.5 million bridge in the document. Mr. Drell said the Council refused to approve a contract and design, so he didn't know how that happened. He said part of the issue was inherent in the geometry of the site. He didn't care how it was designed, what they needed was an exhibit that showed the pedestrian paths of travel through the site and where there are sidewalks that were continuous and connecting from one site to the other. But part had to do with the laws of geometry that the applicant was stuck with and how the site was created. There was no further discussion and no one else present to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project. The public hearing was left open and Chairperson Lopez asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, continuing Case Nos. C/Z 06-02, PP 06-01 and TT 34304 to May 16, 2006. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner Campbell updated the Planning Commission. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty reported that the meeting was informational. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty reported that the meeting was canceled. U 1-. RAFT MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6. 2006 V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent May 25, 2006 City Council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR None. Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case Nos. C/Z 06-02, PP 06-01 and TT 34304 - SINATRA & COOK LLC, Applicant (Continued from April 4, 18, May 2 and May 16, 2006) Request for recommendation to the City Council of approval of a change of zone, precise plan of design, tentative tract map and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for 268 condominium units and a 38,000 square foot neighborhood commercial center on 19.6 +/- acres north of Frank Sinatra between Cook Street and College Drive, 37-755 Cook Street. Mr. Smith noted for the record that the agenda description should reflect the changes made to the project, which is that it no longer included the tentative map for condominium purposes and the project was now for 260 apartment units. He displayed the landscape and site plan. He noted that the plan was previously presented to Planning Commission on May 2. The Commission offered some comments to the applicant and those minutes were included in the Commission's packets. 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT JUNE 6. 2006 Mr. Smith stated that the applicant responded to those comments. Access remained unchanged from Sinatra, College Drive and Cook Street. Onsite circulation improved and was more efficient due to the combination of changing from condominiums to apartments which reduced the amount of parking required. That area went into common open space. The applicant also reduced the number cf motorcourt type units which were not land deficient in the layout. The revised site plan now provided for a central large recreation area in excess of 60,000 square feet opposite the College Drive entry and two other smaller recreation areas: one at the north and one at the south end. Building setbacks were now in compliance with code at 32 feet from Sinatra, 20 feet from College, and the interior east side yard complied with the required setback. Studio units had been increased in size to a minimum of 450 square feet consistent with code. He said the project complies with parking with the exception of the 18 studio units to be allowed to have a parking provision of 1.25 spaces per unit as opposed to two spaces. The project also required a height exception to allow for up to 30 feet, 24 feet per code. The report went into some depth relative to common open space on the site plan. Previously it was approximately 166 square feet per unit and now it was in excess of 290 square feet per unit. The project included three pool areas plus a separate kiddie pool at the main recreation area, plus two tot lots. Staff made an argument for':he parking adjustment for the studio units on the bottom of page two of the staff report. Mr. Smith felt that given that this would be apartments and that there would be a parking total in excess of 511 spaces that the reduction of some 14 spaces out of the total would be insignificant. If that was what it took to get smaller apartment units in this area where they need them, staff felt it was a good idea. It was also noted that building height varied from 24 to 28 feet and one unit with tower elements to 30 feet. The project was approved by Architectural Review. Mr. Smith said they didn't have an issue with the height of the buildings. Staff noted some problem areas where they've used flat roof structures such as One Quail Place with long-term maintenance being an issue. Similar to four or five previous projects such as Portofino, Hovley Gardens, Santa Rosa and Falling Waters, staff felt this project warranted similar consideration relative to the heights of the buildings. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLAN NING.COMMISSION DRAFT JUNE 6, 2006 The project would provide a certain number of affordable units, specifically 20% of the units to be reserved for moderate income households at 110% median. That was a change from the report which indicated 100%. And 20% of the units would be price controlled at a market rate per regional market su rvey. Relative to the commercial development, it basically remained unchanged. However, staff did have revised elevations showing elimination of the former tower element, which was at 40 feet. The west setback continued to require an adjustment from 20 feet tc 10 feet. Staff felt it was warranted in that it was staff's suggestion to increase the landscape depth from 14 feet to 24 feet. Building architecture along College Drive was attractive and didn't need dense landscaping, but there was still 24 feet there if they wanted. Regarding parking, Mr. Smith said the commercial center came up three spaces short. The typical situation was to allow up to 15% reduction. They would have a better idea of that when they received the working drawings and staff would do the calculations at that point. If necessary, the applicant might need to amend the plan at that point and there was a condition to that effect. Staff circulated to Commission just prior to the meeting, and staff apologized for the lateness of it, a response to the required high density overlay criteria. Mr. Smith said staff felt it warranted the 17-unit per acre density and that all the required criteria had been met. Mr. Smith also proposed adding two additional conditions. Community Development Condition No. 14 requiring the applicant to enter into a housing agreement; and No. 15 requiring energy conservation measures consistent with the memo from the Office of Energy Management dated November 28, 2005. Additionally, the clubhouse should have minimum two kilowatt photovoltaic panels installed. With that, staff recommended approval of the project, subject to conditions as modified. Chairperson Lopez indicated that the public hearing was still open and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. RYAN OGULNICK, 828 North Ogden, Los Angeles, California 90046, stated that he was present to answer any questions. 0 DRAFT MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 2006 There were no questions. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Lopez asked for Commission comments or action. Commissioner Finerty stated that she was very pleased to see that Mr. Ogulnick took all of the Commission's comments to heart. She thought with their inclusion it was a much better project which the City and he could be proud. She appreciated his cooperation and the timely manner with which he addressed this and moved for approval. Commissioner Campbell concurred. She liked the changes made and he took the Commission's comments to heart; not everyone did. She thought it was a great project and seconded the motion. Action: Commissioner Tschopp concurred. Commissioner Tanner gave the project the thumbs up. He said it was nicely done and thanked Mr. Ogulnick for removing the sign. It was a job well done. Chairperson Lopez also congratulated Mr. Ogulnick on a great job working with staff and Commission, taking their comments and making some outstanding changes to the plan. He knew it would be a very successful project and thought it looked great. He noted that there was a motion and a second on the floor, which included the two additional Community Development conditions. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2398, recommending to City Council approval of Case Nos. C/Z 06-02, PP 06-01 and TT 34304, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. X CITY OF P�►LM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF CONIMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: June 6, 2006 continue�� from April 4, April 18, and May 2, 2006 CASE NOS: C/Z 06-02 and PP 06-U1 REQUEST: Recommendation to the City Council of approval of a change of zone, precise plan of design, and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact to allow construction of 260 apartments and a 38,000 square foot neighborhood commercial center on 19.6 +/- acres north of Frank Sinatra between Cook Street and College Drive, 37-755 Cook Street. APPLICANT: Sinatra and Cook Project, LLC 828 North Ogden Drive Los Angeles, CA 90046 I. BACKGROUND The project has been revised significantly to address the issues discussed at the May 2, 2006, hearing. II. GENERAL RESIDENTIAL OVERVIEW • The applicant now seeks approval of 260 apartment units (previously 268 condominium units). • Access remains unchanged �vith access from Frank Sinatra, College Drive and Cook Street. • On site circulation has been revised to be more efficient (i.e. eliminated single loaded driveways and addressed Fire Department concerns). • Access and circulation is acceptable. • Site plan has been revised to provide a large recreation area (60,390 square feet) opposite the College Drive entry and two (2) smaller recreation areas one at the north end and one (1) at the south end. • Building setbacks from Frank Sinatra Drive and College Drive comply with code (32 feet from Frank Sinatra Drive and 20 feet from College Drive). • Studio units have been increased in size to minimum 450 square feet in compliance with code. • The condominium portion of the request has been abandoned reducing the required parking by 70+/- parking spaces. These spaces have been removed in favor of open sp��ce (approximately half an acre). STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. CIZ Ofi-02 AND PP 06-01 JUNE 6, 2006 • Project complies with parkir�g requirements except for the applicant's request for an adjustment to allow 1.25 spaces per studio unit versus 2 spaces per unit per code. T�ere are 18 total studio units so the actual reduction is 14 spaces out of 511 spaces. • Units require a height exception to allow up to 30 feet (24 feet code), see discussion on "height". III. RESIDENTIAL ANALYSIS A. Common Open Space: The previous plan provided approximately 44,600 square feet in three open space areas or 166 square feet per unit. The revised plan provides 75,457 square feet or 290 square feet of per unit. This is made up of 60,390 square feet at the main clubhouse area, 8,290 square feet at the north area 6,777 square feet at the south area. In addition, the plan provides a meandering path/walkway/bike system that curves between buildings and is not included into the 75,457 square feet noted above. This increase is a result of trie applicant removing some of the inefficient motor court complexes, removing parking spaces required for "condominiums", eliminating single loaded driveways and reducing the project by 8 units. B. Pools: The project now includes three (3) pool areas plus a separate "kids" pool at the main recreation area and two (2) tot lots. C. Parking: In order to help keep the project as affordable as possible it includes eighteen (18) 450 square foot studio units. The applicant seeks a parking adjustment for the studio units from 2 spaces per unit to 1.25 spaces per unit. The studio units are spread throughout the project so they will be able to share in the central parking fields. Given the location of the project across from the Cal State Campus and the affordability provisions built into this project (see affordability discussion) staff supports the parking adjustment for the studio units. All units will have at least ��ne-covered parking space (i.e. garage or carport). The project will be c��nditioned to provide a minimum of 507 total 2 I,. STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. C/Z 06-02 AND PP 06-01 JUNE 6, 2006 parking spaces with at least 260 "covered". The plan as designed provides 511 parking spaces. E. Building Height: The building heights vary from 24 feet to 28 feet with 30' tower elements. The project as designed will result in an architecturally attractive residential complex. Quality touches added to the project include direct garage access for some units, balconies and enhanced paving. The buildings utilize a 3.5/1?-pitched roof design and 9-foot plates. The pitched roof elements provic�ed in this project create a diversity on the roofs, which improves the architecture. In addition, the tower element on plan "D" breaks up the longer expanses of the roof line on other buildings. 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 v��ith water runoff, thus becoming easier to maintain. In this instance there are no impacts to adjacent properties caused by the height increase from 24 feet to 28 feet and 30 feet. The property to the southeast is the 3-story Courtyard hotel, which is 46 feet to the ridge. To the north is the associated commercial project, which is 35 feet in height. To the east is a future office complex site, which will be at least 25 feet in height. To the west across College is City-owned property where the development potential is unknown (golf course possible). On the last four major residential projects the City has granted a height exception (i.e., Portofino, f-ovley Gardens, the RDA project on Santa Rosa and Falling Waters). In these instances it was determined that the aesthetic improvements to thae roof design warranted an exception. Based on its architecture, this project warrants similar consideration. F. Affordability Provisions: The Housing Authority is pr��paring a housing agreement for this project which will require that 20% of the units be reserved for moderate income households (100% of inedian) and 20% of the units will be priced controlled at market per Section 8. Additionally, the Housing Authority wi(I have the option to buy down units to the "low" income level. 3 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. C/Z 06-02 AND PP 06-01 JUNE 6, 2006 IV. GENERAL COMMERCIAL OVERVJEW The commercial project remains unchanged except that the applicant has agreed that the 40-foot tower/blade sign �vill be removed. Plans showing this will be distributed at the meeting. The pl�n complies with code except for the west setback of 10 feet versus 20 feet per code, and a 3 parking space shortfall. A. Parking The 38,000 square foot prcject requires 152 parking spaces. The plan provides for 149 parking spaces. Net building area can be calculated when working drawings are prepared. The applicant indicates that the building can be redesigned to comply with code if necessary at that time. B. West Setback Staff suggested this modification in order that the landscape planter along Cook Street could be increased from 14 feet to 24 feet in depth. There will still be 25 feet between the College Drive curb and the building. The building's storefront archite�ture along College Drive is attractive not needing dense landscape planting. V. CEQA REVIEW The project was reviewed for the purposes of CEQA. The Director of Community Development has determined that the project as conditioned will not have a significant impact on the environment and is recommending that a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact be recommended to City Council for certification. VI. CONCLUSION The mixed-use project complies with the general plan land use designation for the site. Considering the scarcity of apartment units it is good to get rental units so close to the University campus. The plans comply with code except for certain issues for which staff is recommending that the "exceptions" be granted. The Architectural Review Commission has approved architecture for both portions of the project. Staff recom�mends approval of the application, subject to conditions. VII. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of C/Z 06- 02, PP 06-01 and TT 34304, subject to conditions. � STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. C!Z 06-02 AND PP 06-01 JUNE 6, 2006 VIII. ATTACHMENTS A. Legal Notice B. Comments from city departments and other agencies C. May 2, 2006, Staff Report D. Plans and Exhibits E. ARC Minutes Prepared by: C . - ` .i .�� ./ Steve Smith Planning Manager Revie " and Co ur: , �� .;' , '� � Homer Cro� ACM for De I ment Services Reviewed and Approved by: r r ` .1 \� 1--- �..� �C,'� Pt�il Drell Director of Community Development 5 CITY OF PALM DESERT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT INTEROFFICE 1�1EMORANDUM TO: Department of Community DevelopmenUPlanning Attention: Steve Smith FROM: Phil Joy, Associate Transportation Planner SUBJECT: PP 6-1 Vineyards, Sinatra-Coo�k LLC DATE: June 2, 2006 The following are conditions of approval for the project; GENERAL Landscaping maintenance of any common areas and property frontages shall be provided by property owner and be water efficient in nature in accordance with the City of Palm Desert landscape design standards. 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 property owner. BONDS AND FEES 4. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code shall be paid prior to issuance of gradif�g permit. 5. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Pa(m Desert Resotution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance uf grading permit. 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. 8. In-lieu park fees shall be paid in a similar fashion to a subdivision. DESIGN PLANS 9. 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 increase in flows f�r a 100 year storm. 10. Complete grading and improvement plans and specifications on electronic files shall be submitted to the Director of Publ�c Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. 11. 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 shatl be submitted to the public works department for improvements in the public right of way prior to 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 ten�tative map dated 4-10-6, are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 26 of the Palm Desert Municipa! Code and shall take into account future grading of adjacent Lot 17. 14. Any entry gates for the project shall be set back 100 feet from the curb-line of the adjacent street. 15. Waiver of access to Cook Street, Frank Sinatra Drive, Gollege Drive and University Park Drive, except at approved locations, shall be granted on the plan. REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION 16. Full public improvements required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards, i.e. • 8' sidewalk on Cook Street and Frank Sinatra Dr., 6' sidewalk on University Park and College Drives • Deceleration lane on Cook Street and Frank Sinatra Drive at project entrances. • Modify Cook Street median to accorrimodate a"left turn only lane in" at the project entrance to be shared with future project at the Cook Street-Frank Sinatra Drive corner. Rights-of-way necessary for the installation of the above referenced improvements shall be dedicated to the city prior t�� 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. 18. Traffic safety striping shall be instalied 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. All public and private improvemer�ts shall be inspected by the Public Works Department. 21. Applicant shall comply with provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust Control as well as Section 24.20, Storm water Management and Discharge Contral. 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 (NPCiES) General Construction Permit for storm water discharges associated with construction. Developer must contact Riverside County Flood Control District for informational materials. SPECIAL CONDITIONS 23. Lot line between the subject prope�-ty and parcel 17, shall be adjusted prior to issuance of any permits associated �nrith this project r �� Phil Joy � G'Pub Waks�ConditiCns olApproval'PPLANS'PP 6-J Nneyards-SinaVa-Cook LLC wptl 3 � � ��- � i � .:� '� : �t .� r� .,i_.� INTEROFFICE MEMORADUM City of I�alm Desert TO: FROM: STEVE SMITH, PLANNIIVG MANAGER � �3 � 7 2��5 ��!.L',il; ti iTY DE'� F.LOF\t::5 P DEP:IRT1�t�vT '""t ;?e PAL'd JESEitT FRANKIE RIDDLE, ACTING DIRECTOR OF SPECIAL PROGRAMS SUBJECT: TT 34304, CZ 06-02, PP 06-01- THE VINEYARDS DATE: FEBRUARY 16, 2006 The submitted site plan has been reviewed to determine the need for a bus shelter/stop at the project {ocation and inclusion of required trash/recycling enclosure for each project. Bus Shelter: After reviewing the plans it has been determi�ed that this project will be conditioned with a requirement for a bus shelter and turnout on Cook Street. However, if service is not provided in the area at the time of construction, then the condition will be reexamined by the City to determine if the need for public transit facilities still exists. Trash Enclosures: The plan does nat appear to reflect a trash enclosure. The plan must provide for a trash/recycling enclosure that is consistent with the Palm Desert Municipal Code. The construction of trash enclosures shall be consistent with PDMC, Chapter 8.12. Waste Management of the Desert must review and approve the plans prior to final appraval by the City, since its vehicles will be servicing the complex and the responsible agency to determine trash capacity for the comp{ex. They should also assist in determining the Iocation of enclosure to meet the circulation needs of the disposal (waste) trucks. The Applicant may contact Jennifer at Waste Management of the Desert at (760) 340-6445 regarding this issue. FRANKI tflDLE ACTING DIRECTOR OF SPECIAL PROGRAMS cc: Mark Greenwood, Director of P�iblic Works Amir Hamidzadeh, Director of BF�ilding and Safety MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNINCa_C.Q_MMIS�IQ�N = ______ _ MAY 16. 2006 � It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2396 as amended, recommending to City Counci� approval of Case No. PP 03-11 Amendment #1, subject to conditions. Mution carried 5-0. D. Case Nos. C/Z 06-02:, PP 06-01 LLC, Applicant (Continued from April 4, 18 and and TT 34304 - SINATRA & COOK May 2, 2006) Request for recornmendation to the City Council of approval of a change of zone, precise plan of design, tentative tract map and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for 268 condominium units and a 38,000 square foot neighborhood commercial center on 19.6 +/- acres north of Frank Sinatra between Cook Street and College Drive, 37-755 Cook Street. Mr. Drell said that taking the Commission's di�ection relative to the need for rentaf housing and expanding open space in the project, the applicant engaged in a fairly extensivE redesign and wouldn't be ready until June 6. Chairperson Lopez noted ttiat the public hearing was open and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one. The public hearing was ieft open �and Chairperson Lopez asked for Commission action. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, by minute motion, continuing Case Nos. C/Z 06-02, PP 06-01 and TT 34304 to June 6, 2006. fVlotion carried 5-0. E. Case No. PP 06-02 - PACIFIC POINTE PARTNERS, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design for seven industrial buildings totaling 143,942 square feet and a Negative Declaration of Enviror�mental Impact as it relates thereto. The property is located at 34-300 Gateway Drive. 10 � CITY OF P�LM DESERT DEPARTIIAENT OF COMIMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: May 2, 2006 continued from April 4 and 18, 2006 CASE NOS: C/Z 06-02, PP 06-01 and TT 34304 REQUEST: Recommendation to the City Council of approval of a change of zone, precise plan of design, tentative tract map and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact to allow construction of 268 residential condominium units and a 38,000 square foot neighborhood commercial center on 19.6 +/- acrEs north of Frank Sinatra befirveen Cook Street and College Drive, 37-�755 Cook Street. APPLICANT: Sinatra and Cook Project, LLC 828 North Ogden Driv�� Los Angeles, CA 9004�6 I. BACKGROUND The vacant site has frontage on Frank Sinatra, Cook Street and Berger Drive (University) although it does not incliade the 7.74-acre corner property at Cook and Frank Sinatra. This 19.6 +/- acre site drops significantly (61 feet) from Frank Sinatra to Berger Drive (University). A. GENERAL PLAN The general plan designates �:his property for Mixed Use (M.U.) Commercial High Density Residential (10•�22 du/ac}. B. ZONING The site is currently zoned PR-5, Planned Residential five units per acre. C. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE North: PCD Commercial / Evans Commercial under construction Sauth: PR-5 / Desert VVillow Golf Course STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. C1Z 06-02, PP 06-01 AND TT 34304 MAY 2, 2006 East: PR-5 / Vacant West: PR-5 / Vacant II. CURRENT PROPOSAL The applicant seeks approval of a change of zone, precise plan of design, tentative tract map and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impactto facilitate development of a mixed use residential (268 condaminium units) and commercial (38,000 square feet) neighborhood commercial cen�:er. Specifically, the applicant proposes to rezone the 3.56 acres south of Berger between Cook Street and College Drive from PR-5 to PC-2 (neighborhood commercial). On this property the applicant proposes a 38,000 square foot commercial center. Secondly, the applicant proposes to rezone the remaining southerly 16.04 acres from PR-5 to PR-17 and construct thereon 268 two-story condominiums. A. COMMERCIAL 1. Access and Circulation The commercial projec.t will have access to/from Cook Street, College Drive and Berger (University). The Cook Street acce:�s will be right-in right-out only. The College Drive access provides full turning movements to and from the site. Berger Drive (University) will have a center median for its full length from Cook Street to Colleg� Drive. The Berger (University) access will be right-in right-out only. Persons entering the site from southbound Cook Street will use the direct access to Cook Street 400 feet south of the Berger signal. Persons entering the site from northbound Cook Street may "U" turn at Berger to the direct Cook access or proceed west on Berger and "U" turn at College. 2 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. C/Z 06-02, PP 06-01 AND TT 34304 MAY 2, 2006 Two way 24-foot wide driveways provide adequate onsite circulation. Access and onsite circulation are acceptable. 2. Setbacks Building setbacks comply with code except for the ten-foot setback along College Drive. This reduction was incorporated atthe request of staff so that the Cook Street landscape strip could be increased from 14 feet to 24 feet in depth. The 10-foot setback o.� College still provides 25 feet to the curb face and allows for adequate landscape treatment. 3. Parkinq The 38,000 square foot commercial center has a parking demand of 152 spaces. The site plan provides 149 spaces. The project will be rec�uired to provide parking at a minimum of four spaces per 1,000 squ�re feet exclusive of non-usable space, not to exceed 15% of the gr��ss building area. If, based on a review of the project working drawings (floor plans and grading plans) the project does not meet the four spaces per 1,000 square foot ratio, the project shall be reduced in size accordingly. The applicant indicatesthatthe building area can be reduced to comply with parking. 4. Architecture The commercial center architecture is a desert contemporary style utilizing natural stone, stuccowalls, metal overhangs and trellises. March 14, 2006 the ARC ;Architectural Review Commission) granted preliminary approval. Heights of the buildings range from 20 feet, 22 feet, 24 feet, 26 feet, 30 feet to 35 feet with a tower element with project identity sign extending �� STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. C!Z 06-02, PP 06-01 AND TT' 34304 MAY 2, 2006 to 40 feet. Heights abave 30 feet require specific approval by the City Council. INFORMA.TION TABLE Commercial Portion Proiect Setbacks: Cook Street Berger Drive College Drive Building Height (Top of Sign) Parking** 32 feet 20 feet 10 feet* 2-4-35 feet * 40 feet * 149 spaces Ordinance / PC-2 32 feet 20 feet 20 feet 30 feet 20 feet 152 spaces * The applicant seeks approval of an "exception" per Municipal Code Section 25.30.220. ** The applicant has indicated that the commercial center can be reduced in size to comply with parking if needed based on review of working drawings. B. RESIDENTIAL 1. Access and Circulat�on The residential companent of this development will take access from Frank Sinatra, College Drive and Cook Street. The College Drive acr.ess will provide full turning movements to and from College. This acc�ss leads to a central recreation area on the site. The Cook Street access, right-in right-out only, leads to a traffic circle which diverts traffic wEst, south or north. This entry will provide access to the future developr�ent on the corner property to the south (7.74 acres) at Cook and Frank Sinatra, to this residential project (west), and to the previously discussed commercial project to the north. � STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. CIZ 06-02, PP 06-01 AND Tl' 34304 MAY 2, 2006 The Frank Sinatra acc�ss will be shared with the future corner project. This access will be right-in right-out only. Onsite circulation is via a series of 24-foot wide driveways. The access and onsite circulation for the residential project is acceptable. 2. Site Plan Along the west side of the site the project has a series of 12 buildings take their access from an internal 24-foot wide driveway which runs parallel to College Drive. To the east ofthis internal driveway are a series of eight buildings also taking access from the driveway. Along the east and soF�th limits of the site are a series of six buildings which will each be builtaround a centermotorcourtyard. The courtyard provides four open parking spaces. The project is provided with three park areas (total one acre). The central and largest area contains a clubhouse, pool and spa, and tot lot. The second area has a 45' x 15' kidney shaped pool. The third area, in the north end, providEs half court basketball and volleyball. This very limited open space area is a major constraint to our recommending approval of the project. (See "Conclusion" later.) 3. Unit Summan� The project includes fF�ur (4) basic unit types as follows: • The 90 "A" unitr will include 18 studios, 27 one bedroom and 45 two-bedroom units and will range in sizefrom 396 squarefeetto 784 square feet to 1,226 square feet. • The 64 "B" units will all be one bedroom units with 978 square feet. �� STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. C/Z 06-02, PP 06-01 AND TT' 34304 MAY 2, 2006 • The 90 "C" unit.s will be comprised of 18 one bedroom and 72 two bedroom units with sizes at 836 square feet and 1,196 square feet. • The 24 "D" units will all be three bedrooms with 1,406 square feet. Average unit size in tr,e project is 1,048 square feet. 4. Parkinq The parking requirement for residential condominiums varies with the number of bedrooms. Studio and one bedroom units are required to have at least one covered space and one open space per unit. Two bedrooms and larger a��e required to have two covered spaces plus one half open space per unit. Based on 127 studio and one bedroom units and 141 two bedrooms or greater, the required parking is 409 covered spaces plus 198 open spaces for a total of 6�7 spaces. As an apartment projectthe parking requirementwould be reduced by 70 +/- spaces. This area could be put into needed common open space (see further discussion under "Conclusion"). 5. Architecture and Buildin4 HeiQht The two story 28-foot (27-30} high buildings have been attractivefy designed in a contemporary Mediterranean architecture. The structures feature pitched roofs �Nith flat concrete 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. March 14, 2006 ARC unanimously approved the design of the project and did not have an issue with building height. 0 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. C/Z 06-02, PP 06-01 AND TT 34304 MAY 2, 2006 ,� 7. The units have been designed to provide nine-foot high ceilings which when coupled with the 3.5 in 12 pitched roof results in building heights which range from 27 feet to 30 feet. The Planned Residential District allows two-story development with a maximum height of 24 feet. The applicant will require an exception to the height requirement as provided in the PR zone. In the pastthe Planning Commission and City ��ouncil have granted exceptions to the height limit in instances wher�: there is no impact to adjacent properties and if the design of the buildings is enhanced with the additional height. Landscape Desiqn All perimeter landscaping will be consistent with the City's standards for a desert landscape theme. Tentative Tract Map The proposed map wili create 16 new lots in the residential portion of the project and when recorded will allow the individual residential units to be sold. The 3.56�-acre commercial site is to be created as a remainder parcel. RESIDENTIAL PROJECT DATA Building Setbacks: West (College Drive) South (Frank Sinatra) East (Interior) North (Interior) Parking: Condos: Covered Open Total Code Provided 20 feet 16 feet to 20 feet min, 25 feet avg* 32 feet 30 feet* 20 feet 10-12 feet* 20 feet 25 feet 409 spaces 186 spaces 198 404 607 spaces 590 spaces* 7 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. CJZ 06-02, PP 06-01 AND TT 34304 MAY 2, 2006 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT DATA - Continued Code Provided Apartments: Covered 409 spa�:es To Be Provided Open 128 Total 537 spaces Height 24 feet 27-30 feet ** Minimum Unit Sizes: Studios 450 square feet 397 square feet 1 Bedroom 600 square feet 784-978 square feet 2 Bedroom 800 square feet 1,197-1,226 square feet 3 Bedroom 1,200 square feet 1,406 square feet * Unit height, parking, studio unit size and setback "modifications" are being sought through the "exceptions" process. III. ANALYSIS This property was the subject of discussion during the general plan update public hearings. The City Council designated the site "Mixed Use - Commercial/High Density Residential." The general plan did not specify a ratio of residential to commercial, but it did allocate up to 360 units which at 22 units per acre would use 16 acres. The current proposal fits the mixed use ��esignation. A. COMMERCIAL COMPONEMT The applicant proposes a 38,OOQ square foot commercial center on the northerly portion of the site. The project is architecturally attractive. Access and circulation are acceptable. The center is adjacent ta the Evan's center to the north and they should complement each other. This part of the project complies with code except for: - Minimum project size 3.56 acres versus 5-acre minimum : STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. C!Z 06-02, PP 06-01 AND TT 34304 MAY 2, 2006 - Parking, 152 spaces r��quired, 149 spaces provided - West setback adjacent to College Drive 10 feet versus 20 feet from property line - Building height 35 fee�: versus 30 feet - Roof sign height 40 feet on the roof versus 20 feet wall mounted Responses To These Issu�s Parking Net building area will be calc�lated when working drawings are prepared. The applicant indicates that these buildings can be reduced in size to comply with code if necessary at tha•: time. West Setback This modification was suggested by staff in order that the landscape planter along Cook Street could be increased from 14 feet to 24 feet in depth. There will still be 25 feet befinreen the curb and the building. The building architecture along College is a of a sto��e front and is attractive not needing dense landscape planting. Building Height The extra building height (35 feetversus 30 feet maximum) provides forvariety and improved architectural interest. The roof heights in the complex range from 20 feet to 26 feet, to 30 feet, and 35 feet with a 40 foot tower element provides for a center identification sign. Tower Element with sign 4�� Feet In Height Code generally limits wall signs to 20 feet maximum height. In this instance the tower/sign has been designed as an integral feature ofthe building architecture and it works with the building design. Staff recommends that the commercial project be approved with the above "exceptions." �7 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. C/Z 06-02, PP 06-01 AND TT' 34304 MAY 2, 2006 B. RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT The 268 condominium units comply with the general plan designation and density. As designed the project neecs several "exceptions" from the basic PR zone provisions. - Setbacks - Total parking 598 spac�s versus 607 required per code for condos, 537 for apartments - Building height 30 feet maximum versus 24 limit - Studio unit size 396 square feet versus 450 square feet required Setbacks In orderto achieve the 17-unit per acre density and the unit sizes as proposed, the applicant needs modified setbacks from College, Frank Sinatra and certain interior setbacks. On College, the code prescribes a minimum of 20 feet of setback from property line. The units along College step in and outwith a minimum of 16 feetfrom the property line and an overall a�ierage of 25 feet. From curb these buildings will be 31 feet to 34 feet. Given the average 25-foot property line setback, staff supports this modification. On Frank Sinatra, an arteri�l street, code requires a minimum 32 feet of setback. The plan shows 30 f�et. Total distance from the curb will be 34 to 45 feet. Interiorsetbacks between this site and the corneroffice site are prescribed at 20 feet. The plan provides 1 C to 12 feet with the sides of the buildings facing this property line. Building Heights The units are basically 27-28 feet in height to the ridge line. On plan "D" the basic height is 24 feet with a tower element to 30 feet. 10 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. C/Z 06-02, PP 06-01 AND TT' 34304 MAY 2, 2006 The project as designed will result in an architecturally attractive residential complex with a townhouse fe�l. Quality touches added to the project include direct garage access for half o'�the units, balconies and enhanced paving in the auto courts. In this instance there are no impacts to adjacent properties caused by the height increase from 24 feet to 27 and 30 feet. The property to the southeast is the Courtyard hotel whicfi is 46 feet to the ridge. To the north is the associated commercia! projec:t which is 35 feet in height. To the east is a future office complex site which will be at least 25 feet in height. To the west across College is City-owned property where the development potential is unknown (golf course possible). The buildings utilize a pitched roofdesign with a 3.5/12 slope. A majorityof the multifamily projects that have complied with the 24-foot height limit have utilized a flat roof design. Flat roof d�signs such as the City-owned One Quail Place complex have caused mainte��ance problems in dealing with water runoff and roof leaks. By using a pitched roof, the buildings avoid problems with water runoff, thus becoming easier to maintain. The pitched roof elements provided in this project create a diversity on the roofs which improves the architecture. In addition, the tower element on plan "D" breaks up the longer expanses of the roof line on other buildings. On the last four major resic:ential projects the City has granted a height exception (i.e., Portofino, Hovley Gardens, the RDA project on Santa Rosa and Falling Waters). In these instances it was determined that the aesthetic improvements to the roof design warranted an exception. Based on its architecture, this project warE�ants similar consideration. IV. CONCLUSION Staff met with the project proponent on Thursday morning and outlined our areas of concern which prevent us from recommending approval at this time. Specificatly, the project lacks enough usable common open space. The plan provides approximately44,600 total square feet in the three open space areas or 166 square feet per unit. For comparison, the Sares Regis project has approximately 99,500 square feet which equates to 311 s��uare feet per unit. 11 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. C1Z 06-02, PP 06-01 AND TT' 34304 MAY 2, 2006 The applicant agreed to revise the p;an to eliminate the condominium map from the requestwhich reduces the required parking by 70 +/- spaces. The applicant indicated that he would eliminate the 73 parking spaces west of the traffic circle at Cook Street and put in a larger recreation area vrhich based on very preliminary figures should increase the open space by 19,710 square feet and bring the per unit amount of open space to 240 square feet. There were other issues such as lan�scape plans not matching site plans which didn't match the grading/street plans. W ith this level of confusion and the lack of open space, staff is not prepared to proceed with � recommendation. As well, we do not have Fire Department or Public Works conditions of approval. The applicant has assured us that hE will have revised, consistent plans to present to Planning Commission at the meeting. The purpose then is have Commission review the current plans to get a feel for the project, review the revised plans at the meeting to see if they have addressed the issues and give staff and the applicant your input. V. RECOMMENDATION That Case Nos. CIZ 06-02, PP 06-U1 and TT 34304 be continued to May 16, 2006. VI. ATTACHMENTS A. Legal Notice B. Comments from city departments and other agencies C. Plans and Exhibits D. ARC Minutes Prepared by: ��G��ee � St(eve Smith Planning Manager , Review d C� r: / , .._'' � Homer Cr�y� ACM for D e pment Services /tm Reviewed and Approved by: �� r � Phil Drell Directorof Community Development 12 ' �ITY Of PflL�I DES��rl1 ]j—j10 FRED WARI'�G I)RIVE PALM DESERT, CnuFORhtn 9zz6o—z578 TEL: ]60 ;46—o6i� F�vt: 760 ;qi-7og8 � info(Epalm-deserc.org CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NOS. C/Z 06-02, PP 06-01 ANCr TT 34304 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by SINATRA & COOK !_LC for approval of a change of zone, 268 residential condominium units, a 41,476 squar�: foot neighborhood commercial center and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for property north of Frank Sinatra between Cook Street and College Drive, 37-755 Cook Street. �v w s i � v ,�TFR�p�. j-.. — 4��0 I vcn rcn II --- --- -� �-- 1L _ o. _��.eF�«o�— � �� o/��''a /PF 5 1 —_�� SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, April 4, 2006, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun PF�ILIP DRELL, Secretary March 24, 2006 Palm Desert Planning Commission Smith, Steve From: Joy, Phii Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 5:10 PM To: Smith, Steve Cc: Greenwood, Mark; Garner, Paqe Subject: University Park Master Plan, Lots 10 & 14 revised plans The revised plans still do not show 24' wide parkways on Frank Sinatra Dr. and Cook Street and show encroaching parking spaces into this area. The parallel parking spaces show a depth of 18' rather than the 24' we recommend. The Coliege Drive parkway should show an easement so that the total width would be 18'. I'll have to wait till Monday to show Mark the new access from Cook Street. I'm sending these comments since they will require ptan revision. . _ . ' . _ ._ T `: � _� `i� ... �r ...�. S.J --_. � . ..�.9 '� INTEROFFICF MEMORADUM City of Palm Desert TO: STEVE SMITH, PLANNING MANAGER � ..._'J 3 i _...�:i , :,i'SL'�.:'Y D_ ��;LI�F`.... ' L:;?.4ii:};E`; �. .. �,I' !':11,:�. J�;�:;i;i FROM: FRANKIE RIDDLE, ACTING DIRECTOR OF SPECIAL PROGRAMS SUBJECT: TT 34304, CZ 06-02, PP 06-01- THE VINEYARDS DATE: FEBRUARY 16, 2006 The submitted site plan has been re�,�iewed to determine the need for a bus shelter/stop at the project location and inclusion of required trash/recycling enclosure for each project. Bus Shelter: After reviewing the plar:s it has been determined that this project will be conditioned with a requirement for a bus shelter and turnout on Cook Street. However, if service is not provi��ed in the area at the time of construction, then the condition will be reexamined by the City to determine if the need for public transit facilities still exists. Trash Enclosures: The plan does not appear to reflect a trash enclosure. The plan must provide for a trash/recycling enclosure that is consistent with the Palm Desert Municipal Code. The construction of trash enclosures shall be consistent with PDMC, Chapter 8.12. Waste Management of the Desert must review and approve the plans prior to final approval by the City, since its vehicles will be servicing the complex and the responsible agency to determine trash capacity for the complex. They should also assist in determining the location of enclosure to meet the circulation needs of the disposal (waste) trucks. The Applicant may contact Jennifer at Waste Managernent of the Desert at (760) 340-6445 regarding this issue. r .; ., FRANKI�fDDLE ACTING DIRECTOR OF SPECIAL PR��GRAMS cc: Mark Greenwood, Director of Public Works Amir Hamidzadeh, Director of Building and Safety �a�� I��s�r� �'�i�-� l��ar�g�� i�� °�v�n��n �u�-��.� £n �uoperatia�� ith I2i�ei•siuc C:iunt� Tri3•c I�r��rE�nrnt ?;?iii f�rcii �\'nrin� 1)r Sun� lu� 1'a{ui 1)�s�r, �:a �)�:'_i,n ?t;�i-;-ii,-IS�i;, i�a� �6��_�`�) I`);`� June 2, 2006 To: Steve Smith Planning Manager Re: Vineyard Case # PP 06-01 PP-06-264 Wiih respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above reference plan check, the Fire Department recommends the fotlowing fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal code�, appropriate NFPA Standards, CFC, CBC and/or recognized Fire Protection Standards. After reviewing the plans provided to the Fire Marshal Office for the Building to be instalied at the above address the Fire Marshal office has Denied the submitted plans with the following conditions. The Fire Department circulation plan shall be revised to meet Palm Desert Fire Prevention Bureau requirements for turning radius 31' inside and 52 outside radius. Ptease resubmit precise grading plans with corrections_ Any questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to the Palm Desert Fire Marshals office at 760-346-1870, located at 73710 Fred Waring Suite #102 Palm Desert, Ca 92260 Respectfully, � .L� -�-s.�--_.� Neal Stephenson Fire Safety Specialist David A. Avila Fire Marshal ,3 .��r. �, � � .r--,, �� `: � PALM �ESERT POILICE DEPAR'11VIENT Served by the Riverside County cheriff s Department Bob Doyle, Sheriff-Coroner 73520 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 (760)836-1600 Fax(760)836-1616 � �. � � /i. > /`-�� f`,3( ' , i l.. ��'�� _ , February 21, 2006 City of Palm Desert Planning Department 73510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 ATTN: Steve Smith, Planning Manager RE: TT 34304, CZ 06-02, PP 06-01 Dear Mr. Smith, Q�Z\ B f S �,n1. � � � �-�: ,��--.� .: f� c �, i t`� Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the planned subdivision of property located at Fra.nk Sinatra Drive and College Drive into 268 Multi-Family dwelling units and 41,476 sq.ft. of commercial space. The plans submitted did not show detailed diagrams of the interiors for the buildings so I will comment on the exterior building desi�s and rese�ve the right to comment on the interior plans if requested to do so. The recommendations in this report are not intended to contradict or override any order of the Fire Marshal or Palm Desert Building Codes. The following issues of concern related to public safety and law enforcement are presented: 1. Exterior Lighting: I recommend landscape lighting along the length of the exterior walls in all areas along the public roadways. This could deter any potential tYiieves from attempting to climb over the walls during darkness and could help prevent vandalism to the walls. 3. Exterior Wa1UFence: The exterior wall should be a minimum of six feet high and should not have any landscaping boulders or trees placed close enough to the wall that would allow a potential thief the assistance for climbing. The exterior wall should have landscaping of the type, and situated in locations, to maximize observation while providing the desired degree of aesthetics. An example of this would be the Bougainvillea that has green foliage with red flowers but also has thorns throughout the bush that would deter climbing over it. These plants along the wall could also prevent graffiti. 4. Exterior Gates: Any exterior gates should have Knox box k.ey systems installed on the outside of each gate to allow police and fire department access in the event of an emergency response. The builder should also consider installing a security camera system that records vehicle traffic entering and or leaving these gates. This could assist Palm Desert Police track suspects involved in criminal activity within the complex. Page '1. 5. Common Areas: The common areas such as the putting �een/lawn area should be well lit during darkness and the landscaping should not be so dense as to provide hiding places for would be thieves. The business district of the area should also be ��ell lit with minimal landscaping and should also use security cameras in strategic areas. If the pool area is to be closed in the evening hours, it should have a locked gate surrounding the pool with "NO TRASSPASSIl�iG" signs placed all outward facing areas of the fence. 6. Construction: Exterior Fence: Prior to construction of the complex, a material storage area should be established along the perimeter of the property and enclosed by a six (6) foot chain link fence with locking gates to minimize theft of materials and/or equipment. "No Trespassing" signs should be clea.rly mounted on all outward facing fence areas. All expensive appliances should be installed in the units only after all doors and windows are installed and locked to prevent theft of these appliances. Equipment, Staffing, and Supervision: It is recommended that a list of serial and/or license numbers of equipment stored at the location be maintained both at the site and at any off-site main office. The public and non-essential employees should have restricted access to the construction areas. Current emergency contact information for the project and construction supervisor should be kept on file with the Palm Desert Police Department. A list of construction employee's names who are permitted to be on the construction site in the evening hours should be kept with the construction supervisor in the event deputies check the site and locate unauthorized personnel or trespassers at night. The employment of a security guard should strongly be considered during the evening hours to prevent theft of materials. Lighting and Storage: The developer and/or builder's name, address, and phone number should be conspicuously posted at the const:ruction site. Visibility into the construction site should not be intentionally hampered by equipment or storage af construction materials. Any stored construction material should be stored near as possible to the center of the site and should be kept at a minimum height to a11o�N view into the site from the roa.dway. The construction site should be well lit during hours of darlrness to prevent intruders with all entrances and exits clearly marked and locked when not in use. Should the Planning Department, developer, or coristruction staff have any questions regarding the above law enforcement and public safety concerns, they rnay contact Deputy Robert Bishop at (760) 836-1671, between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PVI, Monday through Friday. Re 1�� Yu�jmitted, /<.�� ' Deputy Ra�ert $.�'shop ID # 2759 Palm Desert Police Department �1ATEq ��STRIC� ESTABlI5H1:D IN 7918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY . � '__fi rJ f� l, ,,_ t�1 � ^..�1 � . ti •�� COACHELLA V�4LLEY WATER DIS�TR��-�;T;;`�FT,L��T:�:t��.t::;� POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALiFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (760) 398-2651 • FAX (760) 398-3711 �IRE�TOFS: r�1�� /�{/' / CFF!CERS � - f<�',Y ?cTER N:LSOU u9ESIDE�T �% S?t'��N B R098'NS. 'ATPICIA A. LAPSO�V, �iICE PRES�CENT GEiJERAL UAtiAGeR-CrIEF Ei•JGRJE=R TELLIS CGDEKAS 1"AFK 3EUHLER. JONN bV. P�cFkDD�N ASSi G=h�RA� �\4ANAGER RUSSF.LL �(I'AHdRk Februa 24 20�6 �U�I�1 FER^JnNDEZ. S:CRE'ARY ry � UA�: PAR�(S, .1SS'. �0 GENEaAL '�,1A�AGER R�L'L'JI�VE ANJ SrIERRILL. ATiOfiWEYS File: 0163.1 0421.1 0721.1 Department of Community Development City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Gentlemen: Subject: Tentative Tract Map 34304, Change of Zone CZ06-02, Precise Plan PP06-01 This area lies on the sandy area in the northern portion of Palm Desert and is considered safe from regional stormwater flows except in raxe instances. This area is designated Zone C on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in effect at this time by the Federal Emergency Managesnent Agency. Drainage from this area is contributory to the Mid-Valley Stormwater Project. The City may require mitigation measures to be incoiporat�d 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 regionai 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 furnish 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 subjeet to change. This area shall be annexed to Improvement District No. 58 of the District for sanitation service. TRtJE CUNSERVATtC�V USE WATER WiSELY Department of Community Development City of Palm Desert 2 February 24, 2006 Plans for grading, landscaping and irrigation systems shall be submitted to the District for review. This review is for ensuring efficient �water management. If you have any questions, please call Tyme Fruscella, Stormwater Engineer, extension 2229. ��i r % ,truly i � ^ Mark L. Johnson Director of Engineering cc: Jeff Johnson Riverside County Department of Public Health 82-675 Highway 111, CAC Building, Second Floor, Room 209 Indio, CA 92201 TF:dd\eng�Sw106\feb\ttm-34304 040633-4 COACHELLA VALLEY WATER OISTRICT 25.58.290 D. Landscaping shall include shrubs, trees, vines, ground covers, hedges, flowers, bazk, ctrips, decorating cinders, �avel. and similaz material which will improve the appearance of pazldng areas. (Ord. 9T7 § 2{part), 2001; Ord. 98 § 1(part). 1975: Exhibit A§ 25.33-5.06) 2558.300 Residential oS-street parking schedule. � In any district where a residential use is permitted, off-street public pazlcing for r�sideniial uses shall be in conformiry with tbe following requiremans unless otherwise specified in any approved planned development district: A. Single-family parking requireraents (conventional detached or mobile ho�mes), two Parlang SPac� Pa dv�'elling unit shall be required. B. Apartrnent parking space requirements: 1. Studio one-beclroom unit, 2.0 per unit 2. Two-bedroom or larger uniu. 2.0 per unit , G Condominium and cluster units: 1. Studio and one-bedroom aa�e spaca covered, 2.0 per unit 2. Two-bedroom and lazger two spaces covered, 2S per unit. (Ord 337 (part), 1983: Ord. 98 § 1(part), 1975: Exhibit A § 25.33-6) 2558310 Commercial and industrial off•street parking schedeile. The following land uses shall �ovide off-street parking in conformity %vith the following requirements unless otherwise specified 'm any approved planned development distric� MINIMUM PARKING STALLS USE REQUIRED USE Beauty parlors and bar- her shops Buildings usui solely for coin-operated laundro- mats or dry cleaning Commercial banks Commercial financisi institutions, savings and loan offices, public and private utility o�ces Community and reaional shopping centers -- . - . -- -A-�4m�c�cial and In- dusaisl Uses. Automobile leasing and rentaLs 1 for 400 square feet of �oss floor area plus 1 for each rental vehicle Contractors' storage yards in connection with contractors' business; storage yard Automobile service sta- tlOA Automobile washing and cleaning establishmonts, except sclf-servic� 10 spaces Food store, supermarket, or drugstare containing — over 2W0 square feet 16 minimum of gross floor area i11I1�1IMi71Vi PARKING STALLS REQUIRID 1 for �ach 250 square feet of gross floor area 1 for each 3 machines 5 fa eac� 1,000 square feet of gross floor area 1 for each 250 square feet of gross floor area 5.5 for each 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area; The standards may be re- ducod in the followina ratio percentage: 1000 car parlono ar+ea,10°�0; 1500 c�r p�rldng area,l2°�b; 200U car parldng area,l4°,b; over 2500 car parking area up to 15°6; subject to justification of the findings as set forth in Section _ 2538.3118�---. -- Spaces shall be provided to mcet the needs of the fac7ity 1 for each 200 square fcet of gross floor azea (�m �sen s-ol) 428