Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-06-16 PC Regular Meeting Minutes1 1 CITY OF PALM DESERT PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 2020 — 6:00 P.M. ZOOM VIRTUAL MEETING CALL TO ORDER Chair Lindsay Holt called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioner Ron Gregory Commissioner Nancy DeLuna Vice -Chair John Greenwood Chair Lindsay Holt Also Present: Ahcant- Commissioner Joseph Pradetto Craig Hayes, Assistant City Attorney Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development Eric Ceja, Principal Planner Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner Christina Canales, Engineering Assistant Monica O'Reilly, Management Specialist II III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner John Greenwood led the Pledge of Allegiance. IV. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Director of Community Development Ryan Stendell summarized pertinent City Council actions from the meeting of June 11, 2020. He suggested that the Commission read the City Council staff report regarding the Unite Palm Desert Business Support Program (May 14, 2020). V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 16, 2020 VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of May 19, 2020. Rec: Approve as presented. Upon a motion by Vice -Chair Greenwood, seconded by Commissioner DeLuna, and a 4-0 vote of the Planning Commission, the Consent Calendar was approved as presented (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, and Holt; NOES: None; ABSENT: Pradetto). VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None VIII. NEW BUSINESS None IX. CONTINUED BUSINESS None X. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION for approval of a Precise Plan (PP) application to convert an existing two -unit apartment complex into a seven -unit apartment complex on a 9,940-square-foot lot located at 74218 Alessandro Drive; and adoption of a Notice of Exemption in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Case No. PP 19-0005 (Josh & Vivian Stomel Palm Desert California Applicant). Associate Planner Kevin Swartz presented the staff report (staff report(s) are available at www.cityofpalmdesert.org). As part of the public hearing process, City staff received three letters in opposition to the project. He also spoke to one individual who was concerned that the proposed project would create sober living homes, which there is already a sober living facility next door. Staff supported the project, which captures the Downtown Edge Transition Overlay (DE-O) zone. He offered to answer any questions. Commissioner Nancy DeLuna felt that the project looks pleasing, and the concept is one that the City is glad to embrace. She voiced her concern with parking and asked if it is correct that the project is short by three parking stalls. Mr. Swartz replied that is correct. Commissioner DeLuna assumed that there would not be a couple with two cars. She stated that the applicant is relying on street parking, and inquired if there would be enough parking for others in the neighborhood. E MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 16, 2020 Mr. Swartz believed there is enough parking. He mentioned that he drove down the street at night a couple of times. He found that directly in front, parking was available on the south side, and there was more parking available further down Alessandro Drive. He said it is not uncommon for someone to walk a block or two to get to their home. Commissioner DeLuna inquired if there would be any type of covered parking for the apartment complex. Mr. Swartz said no, explaining that staff wanted the overall massing along the street. He stated that the applicant could provide carports in the back since there is a five-foot setback; however, they wanted to alleviate any massing for the adjacent neighbors. Staff felt that adding trees would provide the necessary shade. Commissioner DeLuna asked if the applicant would be installing solar panels. Mr. Swartz believed that the applicant is trying to accommodate solar panels and working with the Building and Safety Department on possibly installing panels on the one-story units located in the back. He said the Commission could ask the applicant and noted that there is room for the installation of solar panels. Commissioner DeLuna commented that she would prefer seeing carports, with solar panels on top. She asked what the material for the existing wall is. Mr. Swartz replied that the wall no longer exists, but it was a block wall. Commissioner DeLuna asked if the applicant removed the wall without a permit. Mr. Swartz believed that is correct. Commissioner DeLuna asked how that issue would be resolved. Mr. Swartz responded that the Code Compliance Division is working with the applicant. The City currently has an open case concerning the wall and landscape maintenance. He explained that if the City approves the project, there could be a penalty. If the City denies the project, the applicant would need to replace the wall. Commissioner DeLuna inquired if the apartments are intended to be short-term rentals (STRs) or permanent residences. Mr. Swartz answered that the proposed project is an apartment complex. As part of the City's STIR Ordinance, the applicant could not rent the apartments as an STIR. Therefore, the apartments are for year-round residents. Commissioner DeLuna commented that the aesthetics are pleasing and supports the concept. However, she has questions about solar panels and having enough parking for the residents. Vice -Chair Greenwood asked Mr. Swartz to display the architectural site plan. He referred to an internal wall adjacent to the pool and commented that the City is holding to an 18- 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 16, 2020 foot dimension. His concern that the applicant is placing the wall literally on the pool in with the pool, which he felt would have functional issues. He stated that they should look at a 16-foot drive aisle. He inquired if there was any discussion about the drive aisle. Mr. Swartz indicated that the DE-0 zone allows for more narrow driveways. He mentioned that the City looked at a 14-foot driveway; however, the City Engineer at the time was not comfortable with the 14 feet. For that reason, they came up with the 18-foot driveway. He mentioned that the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) had concerns with the amount of hardscape and recommended a narrow driveway for this project. He felt that the driveway could be 16 feet. Vice -Chair Greenwood stated that the 16-foot driveway should be considered. He mentioned that to comply with ADA and if there is a single parking stall, he believed it had to be a van accessible stall, which makes the access aisle eight feet and not five feet. It would also need to be on the right side. He stated that it would further affect the parking count. He asked if the Building and Safety Department had any comments. Mr. Swartz replied that they did not have any comments. He said that sometimes the Building and Safety Department do not get into the details until they receive the construction plans. He also said if the project is approved and a parking space is lost, staff could bring back the project to the Planning Commission for consideration. Vice -Chair Greenwood voiced his concern with trash bins. He pointed out that the floor plan indicates five bins. With seven units proposed, he asked if all the bins are for trash and no bins for recycling. He felt that things are being sacrificed on some functional requirements based on space. Mr. Swartz responded that there were discussions with Burrtec. There would need to be the same number of recycling bins as trash bins. He stated that there would be someone responsible for hauling the recycling and trash bins to the street. Vice -Chair Greenwood commented that trash might need to be picked up multiple times during the week. Mr. Swartz commented that Burrtec did not note any concerns in their comments. Vice -Chair Greenwood asked what the retention requirements are Engineering Assistant Christina Canales responded that the requirement is to retain on - site for the 24-hour and 100-year storm because the site is not large enough; therefore, the proposed site does not require a SWIPP or a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). Chair Holt inquired if all the first -floor units would be ADA accessible. Mr. Swartz believed only one unit needs to be ADA accessible and deferred the question to the architect. Chair Holt asked if it is correct that this is the first proposed project in the DE-0 zone. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 16, 2020 Mr. Swartz replied that is correct. Chair Holt commented that there is no set established precedent in terms of allowing a variance for parking. Mr. Swartz replied no, but there is another project coming forward located on Deep Canyon Road. The proposed project is on a similar size lot, and the applicant is proposing 12 units. He said staff is seeing more of these types of projects. Mr. Stendell added that this is the first project proposed in the DE-O zone, so it does present a different challenge. Vice -Chair Greenwood asked if there were discussions with the applicant regarding the density, such as proposing five units versus seven and eliminating the northern addition. Mr. Swartz responded that staff did discuss fewer units with the applicant. He said the applicant's financing was for seven units, but would let the applicant address that question. Chair Holt declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. MR. JOSH STOMEL, the Applicant, Palm Desert, California, thanked the Planning Commission for their time. He informed the Commission that they would be installing solar panels; however, he did not think of the carports. He shared that they have other long- term rentals and multi -units in the area, and none of them have carports or a garage. Not having carports has never deterred attracting good tenants. He said they have never built carports, or like the look of them, and that they rather have shade from trees. Mr. Stomel disclosed that all the units would have a washer and dryer inside each unit and quartz countertops, which will attract millennials (22-29 years of age). He felt that millennials do not care if they have shade for their car. He said a lot of them use electric bikes, scooters, and skateboards to get around. He stated they are not opposed to carports; they would have to design them, so they look good. Mr. Stendell asked Mr. Stomel to address the Planning Commissions question about having five units instead of seven. MR. STOMEL communicated that when they originally acquired the property, they were going to leave it as two units. Once they found out how much it would cost for the design, construction plans, etc. and considering the cost of acquiring the property, they decided to squeeze and leverage as much as they can on the land. He said they first were thinking of having nine units, but Mr. Swartz let them know that there would be an issue with parking. After talking to multiple lenders and penciled numbers out for the design, construction plans, grading, and landscaping; they would be underwater if they only built five units. He said they only way to be above the value was to build seven units on the lot. Vice -Chair Greenwood clarified if there are six or seven units, and is the northern unit only one. If the northern unit were eliminated, it would only be six units. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 16, 2020 Mr. Swartz replied that is correct. Commissioner DeLuna asked the applicant where they intend to install the solar panels. MR. STOMEL replied that it depends when the construction is approved. He mentioned that at their other properties, they did standard 285-watt panels on the roof. He explained that the units have a composite roof, the panels go on the composite roof, and the tiles go around the panels, so you do not see them. He said another option would be to install the solar panels at the rear of the structure. Commissioner DeLuna asked the applicant if he would be building the project. MR. STOMEL replied yes. Commissioner DeLuna asked if the property for sale. MR. STOMEL responded that they had the property for sale due to not knowing if the project would get approved. They also have other properties in Palm Desert for sale, but it is all contingent on the housing market. If the project is approved, they would take it off the market and build it themselves and keep it. At this point, Mr. Stendell read into the record the following letters opposing this matter. BRIDGETTE, communicated via email to voice her concern over the high -density of the proposed project. Additionally, the owner began demolition of the duplex without pulling the proper permits. The property is now demoed, vacant, and a public nuisance. She said the property is for sale and the owners have no intention of building the project. She felt the owners do not respect the City of Palm Desert or the residents, and the City should not reward bad behavior. MS. JENNY GROAT, Palm Desert, California, communicated via email. In summary, she shared she has lived in the neighborhood for nearly 30 years. She said it has become more difficult to walk on the sidewalk along the north side of Alessandro Drive due to the increasing number of cars and people congesting the area. She did not believe that each unit in the proposed project would house one person and one car and expressed her concern with parking. At one time, the property was well maintained and occupied. She indicated that now the property is neglected, the wall was removed, and windows are boarded up. She stated she is not against more apartments in the neighborhood. However, she asked the Commission to consider denying the application for a seven -unit apartment complex. MS. KIM HOUSKEN, Palm Desert, California, communicated via email. In summary, she expressed her concern about converting the duplex into a seven -unit apartment complex. After doing some research, she learned that the property is for sale, and the listing reads as follows, "NOW ready to break ground and transform this current, functional two -unit property into a seven -unit oasis. Plans and permits completed and in place." She presumed the applicant did not have the appropriate permits and raised the following issues. Land Use Compatibility, the proposed project is not compatible with the surrounding area. Properties to the east and west are duplexes and single-family L� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 16, 2020 residences to the north. The City code lists as a characteristic of a residential ground floor unit in the Downtown District zone as being set back with small front yards, which the project does not look to have small front yards. Parking, Section 25.18.050, requires a minimum of 1.25 spaces per unit for a studio or one -bedroom in the DE-0 zone. Therefore, there should be 8.75 (presumably round up to nine) parking spaces for the project. She pointed out that one space is a ADA accessible parking stall, which may further reduce the number of parking spaces. The design guidelines in the DE-0 zone state that all surface parking should be screened from street views by buildings, walls, etc. The design plans for the project indicate at least two parking spaces would be visible from the street. She noted that the ARC had a concern with the amount of hardscape along the west side and recommended the applicant work with the Fire and Public Works Departments to decrease the driveway and add a landscape planter. However, she did not read any efforts being made in the staff report. Additionally, the Downtown Design Guidelines state that rear lots must meet setback requirements. She said there are parking spaces that encroach the rear and side yard setbacks. Square Footage, per the plans, the apartments would be in the range of 433 to 628 square feet. She stated that the minimum square footage in the R-2 zone should be a minimum of 600 square feet and under the R-3 zone a minimum of 450 square feet. Therefore, one or more of the units fail to comply with the minimum dwelling unit size. Required On -Site Open Space, Section 25.18.050 G, requires a minimum of 20 percent of the total lot area be on -site open space. The lot is 9,940 square feet, so at least 1,988 square feet should be open space. She stated that the open space requirement should be reviewed to see if the minimum amount is provided, noting that the staff report does not address open space. Wall Demolition, the plans note the existing C.M.0 wall to be removed. She communicated that the former concrete wall in front of the duplex was removed. However, a permit for the demolition of the wall was not on file with the Building and Safety Department. In closing, she felt the project was attractive and would fit nicely on a larger lot in an area of higher density. However, the project does not conform to the code, as addressed above. She urged the Planning Commission to deny the project as presented. She also felt that the applicant had deceptive advertising and failed to obtain a permit for the removal of the wall. She did not believe the applicant should be given the benefit of the doubt about any of the standards the project fails to meet. After Mr. Stendell read the letters, Ms. Housken decided to make additional comments. MS. HOUSKEN shared she grew up in Palm Desert, and her family home is on Cabrillo Avenue. She said it is the first project the Planning Commission was reviewing under the DE-0 zone and noted that the Commission would set a precedent. Therefore, the applicant should follow the underlying zoning code. She found it troubling that in both the ARC and Planning Commission staff report states the proposed project meets the parking standards, which do not. She pointed out that there should be nine parking spaces; however, it was lowered to seven parking spaces because of the millennials, which staff did not present to the ARC or the Planning Commission. It made her wonder what would have happened if she had not raised the parking issue. She mentioned that she drove by the property, and the units directly to the west appeared to have inadequate parking. There are two trucks parked in front of the duplex, which she believed to belong to the units next door. So for her to hear City staff say it is normal to walk one or two blocks to get to your house is news to her because it has never happened to her before. She would like to know who is constructing the project. She requested that the Planning Commission 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 16, 2020 deny the project. If the Commission considers approving the project, she indicated that Condition of Approval No. 3 gives the applicant two years to commence the project. She stated that the Precise Plan guidelines stated that the applicant has one year to commence construction, and may be given a second year. She recommended that the Planning Commission consider giving the applicant one year to commence the project. She commented that former Councilmember Dick Kelly once said that he would never put his mother-in-law in a unit less than 600 square feet. She said the project looks beautiful, but not on the proposed site. She thanked the Commission for the opportunity to speak. MR. STOMEL stated that they did ten or more projects in Palm Desert, and City staff has known him and his wife for quite a while. He mentioned that they have rehabbed homes in the same neighborhood into very nice properties. He said they bought the duplex intending to turn them into vacation rentals, and then the City told him that vacation rentals were not allowed. They decided to do new construction and add more units. He communicated that squatters were living on the property, and had legal issues trying to get them off the property. The only way to get the squatters off the property was to demolish the wall to physically serve the squatters with legal papers. He stated that the City was aware of this, and they gave verbal approval to demolish the wall. He said they do not want to see the property looking vacant and unappealing. They lose money every month as it sits vacant; however, they have been working diligently with the Planning Department to get the plans done and approved. He shared that he has a bid for solar panels for four of his properties in Palm Desert, and they have rehabbed two other properties on Alessandro Drive and sold them. Mr. Stomel stated it is not their first rodeo and have every intention to make the project more beautiful than when they first purchased the property. They have a good track record in Palm Desert, and they have been successful with all the projects they have done. They are ready to get started on the project as soon as it is approved. Chair Holt asked if the applicant's architect or engineer participating in the Zoom meeting, in case the Planning Commission has questions for them. MR. STOMEL replied that the architect is in the meeting. Chair Holt stated she would like clarification on the parking issue. She understood if you only have one designated ADA accessible parking space, the space needs to be van accessible. She said she is also has concerns with the parking spaces adjacent to the pool. MR. ANTONIO SANTAMARIA, the designer, stated that there would be five-foot fencing all around the pool. The width of five feet for the ramp is the only space where they could fit an ADA accessible space. He said he is not sure if it is necessary to have an accessible parking space unless it is a requirement. He asked if there were any other questions. With no further testimony offered, Chair Holt declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Ron Gregory agreed that the architecture is attractive, and if it were on an appropriate site, the proposed project would be an asset to the neighborhood and the City. He felt that the project is pushing the envelope every which way possible. He said too much product is being put on too small of a space. He also said there is very little MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 16, 2020 landscaping at the front of the project, and landscaping is supposed to be an asset. He noted that he does not care too much about covered parking; however, he does care about shade from trees. He stated that Shoestring Acacia would not provide shade; they are non -shade trees. They are the type of trees used when there is an extremely tight planting, such as in this situation. He voiced his concern with the driveway. If the City is okay to narrow the driveway, it would be okay with him. He was also concerned with insufficient parking, and the ADA van accessible parking space. He commented that people, including millennials, are moving from the city because they want to getaway. He said his daughter still lives in the City, and he remembers parking many blocks away to get to her place. He mentioned he has been in Palm Desert for over 40 years and used to own property on Alessandro Drive. He is very familiar with the street and does not see the project as an upgrade, except the architecture is very attractive. He asked how do they know millennials are going to move into the apartment complex and is there going to be restrictions that only millennials could live in the apartments. He stated that the Planning Commission looked very closely at the first application for mixed -use on El Paseo to make sure it was a good one. He indicated that he would be looking very keenly at any development in the area concerning the precedent they are going to set. He was not comfortable with the project; perhaps the applicant could make modifications, with permission from the City. He felt this project is not something he could hang his hat on. Commissioner DeLuna voiced her concern with parking and heavy density. The architecture is superior, and she liked the concept. She asked what if the applicant considered six units instead of seven, and provide additional parking. She agreed with Commissioner Gregory about setting a precedent. Vice -Chair Greenwood echoed what was said by Commissioner Gregory. He believed they are sacrificing a lot of elements. He liked the concept and did not mind the density. However, a lot is going on, on a tight lot. He stated that he would be in favor of seeing this project come back with revisions showing how the site components are being addressed, i.e., trash, location of walls, plantings, the landscape in and around the area, and the reduction of one unit on the north side to provide additional parking. Commissioner DeLuna asked the Commission how they felt about continuing this item. Mr. Swartz interjected that he has been communicating with the applicant, and the applicant has recommended a continuance so they could re -study the project after listening to the Planning Commissioners comments. Commissioner DeLuna moved to, by Minute Motion, continue Case No. PP 19-0005 to a date uncertain. The motion was seconded by Vice -Chair Greenwood and carried by a 4- 0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, and Holt; NOES: None; ABSENT: Pradetto). B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION for approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application for approval to allow a 740-square-foot professional real estate office on the ground floor fronting El Paseo located at 73280 El Paseo, Suite 1; and adoption of a Notice of Exemption in accordance with CEQA. Case No. CUP 20-0006 (Smoketree Investments, Palm Desert, California, Applicant). 0 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 16, 2020 Mr. Swartz outlined the salient points of the staff report. He stated that the proposed project meets the intent of the El Paseo Overlay District (EPOD), and offered to answer any questions. Commissioner Gregory asked if there is any discussion by the City about enforcement of controlling office uses in the commercial area, other than not having them consecutive. In other words, could every other storefront potentially be an office. Mr. Swartz responded that staff is leaving it to the Planning Commission as part of the CUP process; each CUP would be on a case -by -case basis. He explained that staff would provide a map indicating office uses. If this item were approved, City staff would add the office use to the map. With potential future office uses on El Paseo, staff would refer to the map and control where office uses are recommended for approval. On a different note, Mr. Swartz mentioned that the primary business for the CUP is a real estate office. However, the applicant would also provide financial services. Commissioner DeLuna inquired if the project was approved and the business vacates, would the location automatically become office use completely, or does it vary. Mr. Swartz replied that there would be a new CUP on a case -by -case basis. He noted that the City wants the exterior to remain to have a retail look. If an office user does leave the space, the space would still be attractive for another future retail user. Commissioner DeLuna asked if it is correct that the applicant is proposing a sign against the wall of the building. Mr. Swartz said this situation is a little tricky because the building is a little older, and there are other tenants. City staff would prefer to work with the property owner on an overall sign program in the future. Vice -Chair Greenwood asked if there was any discussion with the applicant about the display of available properties. He said he has seen other real estate offices post papers on their windows. Mr. Swartz responded that the applicant would like to keep the window clean and nice, and not over advertise because they are marketing to a different clientele as well. Chair Holt commented that she has seen offices use monitors that change the listings every couple of seconds, and do not have papers all over the place. She asked if having a monitor at this location possible. Mr. Swartz replied yes, and noting that the applicant has proposed having a monitor for listings. The applicant has also planned to work with other businesses to advertise specials, e.g., restaurant happy hours. Chair Holt declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 16, 2020 MR. JOSEF JONATHAN, the Applicant, Palm Desert, California, thanked the Planning Commission for their time. He also thanked Planning and Economic Development staff for being helpful as they bring a new business to El Paseo. As Mr. Swartz mentioned, the request for approval is to include financial services in addition to the real estate offices. He mentioned that they have pre -purchase agreements in place to buy furniture from businesses on El Paseo to furnish the suite. Ultimately, the office is intended to have an activated storefront to draw people in and generate passerby interest. He said the business is predicated upon client growth and being on El Paseo, not only to assist in bringing new businesses to this office, but to the street as well (post -meeting dining and shopping). He shared that he is a lifelong resident of Palm Desert, and truly excited to be one of the first applicants to bring this request before the Planning Commission. He is hopeful what the City had envisioned last year, and what they are starting today is only the beginning of rejuvenating the streets and their setting. He thanked the Commission again for their time and consideration. He offered to answer any questions. With no further testimony offered, Chair Holt declared the public hearing closed. Vice -Chair Greenwood moved to waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2778, approving Case No. CUP 20-0006 for a real estate and financial services office use, subject to the conditions of approval. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gregory and carried by a 4-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, and Holt; NOES: None; ABSENT: Gregory). Chair Holt thanked the applicant and looked forward to seeing him on El Paseo. XI. MISCELLANEOUS None XII. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES None B. PARKS & RECREATION Mr. Stendell reported that the Parks and Recreation Commission briefly met to discuss the naming of a feature in the Civic Center Park. The Commission received an update on park use during the pandemic. XIII. REPORTS AND REMARKS Vice -Chair Greenwood stated that San Pablo Avenue is almost done, and it is looking good. Mr. Stendell remarked that the circle is fully operational, the colored crosswalks are complete, and the landscaping is in the process of being installed. He mentioned El Rodeo 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 16, 2020 Cafe is hiring and ordering new patio furniture. Businesses are starting to see how they could use the newly created space. Vice -Chair Greenwood asked what is going in the center of the roundabout. Mr. Stendell replied that a future public art project would be installed in the center. XIV. ADJOURNMENT With the Planning Commission concurrence, Chair Holt adjourned the meeting at 7:32 p.m. ATTEST: RYAN STENDELL, SECRETARY I_ hila &A A LIN Y HOLT, HAIR MONICA O'REILLY, RECORDING SECRETARY 1 1 12