Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-16-08 Draft Minutes ,:�� �'�•; MINUTES ri l PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION .•'2°� " -'' '. TUESDAY — DECEMBER 16, 2008 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Tanner called the meeting to order at 6:00p.m. II. ROLL CALL Members Present: Van Tanner, Chair Sonia Campbell, V144 Chair Russ Campbell Connor Litont Mari Schmidt Members None • Staff . ent: auri Aylaiitn, Director of Community Development yob Hargreaves, Deputy City Attorney ; t , •atop Principal Planner :der, Associate Planner Missy Grisa, Assistant Planner \\ �\��`' ���� Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer \P •nya Monroe, Administrative Secretary III. \y,,PLEDGE O LLEGIANCE • ers i nner led in the pledge of allegiance. IV. APPR AL OF MINUTES None. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Ms. Aylaian summarized pertinent December 11, 2008 meeting minutes. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2008 None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 08-353 — FOUNTAINHEAD INDIO, LP, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map to allow a lot line adjustment for a new Firestone T' ilding at 78-018 Country Club Drive. B. Case No. PMW 08-378 — JAME J. AND OL FILLER AND BIGHORN DEVELOPMENT, LLC, App s Request for approval of a,parcel map waiver to a a lot line adjustment to accommodate a swimming pool at 15 Mountain Springs Road. Action: It was moved by CommissionerS. Campb �seconded by Commissioner Limont, approving theConsent ar by mute motion. Motion carried 5-0. a la„ VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising onto: e issuesc he, she or someone else raised at the public hearingdescried herein, or in written correspondence .delivered to the 14:ii,,%/7 Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. CUP 08-433 — LAWRENCE M. ANDREWS, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow the used "AC Massage Therapy" in an existing Office Professional zone at 72-855 Fred Waring Drive, Suite C-16. Ms. Grisa reviewed the staff report and recommended approval of CUP 08-433 by adoption of the findings and the draft resolution, subject to the conditions. Chairperson Tanner opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2008 MR. LAWRENCE ANDREWS, 13107 Equestrian Lane in Whittier, California, said he was present to answer any questions. He didn't have anything to add. Chairperson Tanner asked if Mr. Andrews could tell them a little bit about his massage therapy business experience; he noticed that Mr. Andrews had received many accommodations. Mr. Andrews stated that he's faifir active in the community. Regarding his personal experience be ha partner who has been working in this business for ab• t20 years andhe has been doing it himself for about four ye.„, ey decided to open up their own business. He confirmed t himself is a therapist. Chairperson Tanner noticed tg his •e _ •ed statement of use, Mr. Andrews said that records at t 'i ry i e County Assessor's Office indicate that this unit has been use. , "''"assage business in the past. Mr. Andrews said that was wha found when he was going through the Assessor's records • Chairper _', r asked the „ was a conditional use permit granted for thi . Andrew as under the impression there was. When he asked ' •arnent, he was told that a CUP expires if Vt it iss after a ce period of time. Comm ner ampbell asked for confirmation that Mr. Andrews did v*NN not make y cha s to the floor plan. Mr. A ews confirmed that it was just like it was previously. C erson . anner asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of or in OP , N to the public hearing. There was no one and the public hearin ., 'as closed. Action: It was moved by Commissioner S. Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Limont, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner S. Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Limont, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2493, approving Case No. CUP 08-433, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2008 B. Case No. CUP 08-444— ULF STRANDJORD, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow the use of the "Desert Valley All-Star Mavericks Cheer" business in an existing service industrial building at 73-605 Dinah Shore Drive, Suite 500E. Ms. Grisa reviewed the staff report and recommended approval of CUP 08-444 by adoption of the findings and tlWresolution, subject to the conditions. Commissioner Schmidt noted th e Falling Waters condominium complex exists south of this pro ' .nd asked how far away it was. Mr. Bagato replied that the whole et was ad cent just to the south of this project. But the vacant po of FaIfr'g Waters had gone under financially and the bank owns ' h- ere under construction, but currently it was unoccupied and no g forward. The project covered 30 acres behind this et for 277 con.• 1 iums, and there was a 20-foot setback from the residential building to th .perty line. Chairperson „.nner asked how man = y of the F. `ng Waters condominiums had bee � s� •ate. Mr. Bagato thought 25 of the buildings. None of them ..Id. :;; Com c. ioner Lr t asked if this building was insulated and asked if Commi . 4 er � � : ° . concerned about noise impacts to the residents cheers . . missioner Schmidt believed there was a sectionn the , •ns that showed there was a lot of baffling going on. That v was her nonce 'd it was answered. Ms. Grisa' explain: : that the applicant has plans in for tenant ,e,,,,i1,mprovemen . They have to make changes to the building for this roposed use., Char Tanner asked Ms. Grisa to show how many entries and exits were "" osed on the plans for the occupied space by the applicant. Ms. Grisa did so. She pointed out the front entrance, said there was a garage door with an adjacent door, and another door on the west side of the building. There were no other questions for staff. Chairperson Tanner opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2008 MR. CURTIS SHUPE, the architect, with offices at 72-880 Fred Waring Drive, stated that the building owner and the Director of the Mavericks were both present to answer any specific questions. He said they reviewed the staff report and agreed to the conditions of approval. He didn't see any issues that were a problem here. Condition No. 2 called for review by the P Im Desert Architectural Commission and also by the Public W - epartment, but they really weren't proposing any improve that are exterior to the building that would require Archit Review or grading and drainage from Public Works. H was probably broiler plate that it was in there to cover t t possi One other concern they might have there was Condition No. 5 cal =` or a maximum of 18 team members and there might be the occasional 24-25 that would be present at one time there at the site. thought the building and parking could accommodate that. Regarding the is ue with the adjacent condominium project, there are tall retainin to the west and to the south of this particular building and he1:, there would be any interaction between the two sites. A `c.r a xiting, the building meets Building Department requir ,ents. .;' ng code requirements. If they had any specific qu"` ;. •r th- ` ing owner or operator of the butng, they were p "' t. He thanked them. ��, Commissioner S. Campbell a • if they would be having dancing and tryouts and cheerier CIS AMY:GRAY, Director and CEO of the Desert Valley Mavericks, said they are in their 12th year. Between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. they had ages 3 thru 18. They've got four cheer teams, a dance team, and then on Tuesdays they have classes. So what they wr re doing was with their teams, and they are a nonprofit organization and they were not exclusive and no kids were cut from their program. Whoever wanted to do the program, it was open to them. So what they were doing was training their teams and they compete throughout Southern California. Last year one of their teams went to Florida and competed in the Worlds, which was like the Olympics of cheerleading. So they represent the Coachella Valley throughout the state of California, Nevada and Florida. They train them and they also do the tumbling training as well. Commissioner S. Campbell asked if they were doing any cheering with a lot of noise or loud music. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2008 Ms. Gray said that because of the walls and the way the building is constructed, only when they have that rollup door open during the hotter months could they hear something, but most of their business is done after the businesses around them are gone. She thought probably about 88% of the clientele are dropped off. The parents drop them off and go to the businesses and restaurants around the area and then come back and pick them up. It was only for the youngest members where the parents actually stay and watch. Most of what they do is mu is ba all of it was actually, but it was not blaring whatsoev Commissioner Schmidt asked w pey were currently located. Ms. Gray said for the fir x year = were nomadie they were renting space from Palm • '` a fied, working at Big League Dreams, etc. Fir the last � years they were in Thousand Palms across freeway ove 3°a Plantation renting from a man named Brian Orr.The rated to to Palm Desert. There were,. other questions Ch erso° anner asked if anyone wished t E FAVOR� or.r'i'OPPOSI ION to the proposed project. There tt "no re se and thepublic hearing was closed. Chairperson Tang ;"' sked for mission omments. Comm er. . id drove down there and he was kidding her withof the C `: sinners that he would have liked to have a` lead e o maps because it took him probably ten minutes to find ° the lob B did find it and they were right, it is back in the corner and he s w eand couldn't see where there would be any problems q with any ne ` bars.` a certainly would not want to try to scale that wall and then jurit .:down. But that being said, back in there was so well lighted thought wasa great area for parents to bring their children and drop t off bet' se they are off the main highways, not near Monterey and not thatd .e to Dinah Shore. He thought that was a great area, very well lighted arid there was more parking than they were ever going to need, unless all those buildings fill up. He was in favor of the project. Commissioner Limont said her only concern, which was addressed by her two colleagues, was noise and the bass, where you could be inside a building but the reverberation could be a little rough on the outside. As long as they watched that and it didn't become an issue or interfere with 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2008 other folks, she would agree that it was a great project and great for the kids. Commissioner S. Campbell concurred with the other Commissioners. With the hours of operation from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., no one would be there to oppose the noise and she was also in favor of the project. She made a motion to approve. Action: It was moved by Commissioner S. Cams seconded by Commissioner Limont, approving the findings as pre ted by staff. Chairperson Tanner wanted to atr t s the conditions of approval and the requirement for review by the z ectural R-view Commission. He asked they ��., the conditions..Mr. Bagato if this was somethingcou � � inate ���_ said yes, it was just kind of a g'L . .•1 sition for all projects and this project didn't need to go there, so it . b;. e eliminated. Chairperson Tanner said the second iss§ g .s the maximum of 18 team members at the approved site at any on ; .e. They heard that there might be a maximum of 24 and he asked if the as something they could amend. Commissioner S. Campbell amended her motion to allow up to 30 and eliminated Condition of Approval No. 2. Ms. Aylaian asked the case planner if Vero was sufficient parking for the increased number since the project was analyzed using 1€ Ms. Grisa said yes; she counted 30 plus �; „ spaces just immediately adjacent to the building, in addition to many stalls �per located farther away.. Commissioner Limont seconded the amended motion. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner S. Campbell, seconded by Commissioner wont, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2494, approving Case No. CUP 08-444, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. C. Case Nos. CZ/TPM/PP 08-191 - URBAN HOUSING COMMUNITIES, LLC, Applicant (Continued from December 2, 2008) Request for a recommendation to the City Council for approval of a change of zone from Planned Community 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2008 Development (PCD) to Planned Residential 14 dwelling units per acre (PR-14), a tentative parcel map to subdivide an 11.8-acre parcel into two lots to accommodate a future childcare facility not a part of the project, a precise plan of design to allow the construction of 144 affordable housing units with amenities, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates to theposed project. The proposed project is located at 73 35th Avenue on the south side of 35th Avenue betw ateway Drive and Cortesia Way (C Street), also kno ` A P; 694-130-005. Ms. Schrader reviewed the staff,; report. She corrected a couple of typographical errors on the draft resolution, correcting spelling of the word Council, changing The Living Desert to Urban Ho\ , LLC, and noted that Public Works Condition.of Approva No. 10 shoult , y Chapter 27, not Chapter 26. She also added Community Development Condition No. 12, "Prior to final . .proval of the change of zone, the applicant shall enter into a housing : a ,m •. ent with the City of Palm Desert establishing the percentage of ho • the projectthat shall be maintained as affordable to household ith i - between 25% and 60% of the area median income. The aff: .bill _ •e shall be 100% as proposed by the applioant, unless a : rcent ' deemed acceptable by the City Cob . However, in '; _ ent shall the affordability percentage be less than 20%. The agree,,,,,,-nt shall also establish the terms of affordability, and , include provisions requiring recordation of the affordabilityrestrictions, against a subject property." Staff recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the findings and the Resolution as amended recommending to the City Council approval of Case Nos. CZ / TPM / 08-191, subject to the conditions. r Commissioner R. Campbell asked if they were to deny this change, what effect that would have on the applicant as far as how many units the applicant could build. Ms. Aylaian explained that they were recommending a change of zone to get to a certain density of residential units per acre. Mr. Ba ato further explained that the current zoning is PCD, which require 'a master planned project, which could be anything under the General Plan. The General Plan allows anywhere from four to 22 units per acre, but under the General Plan, four to nine units per acres is allowed without having to meet the eight criteria of the high density overlay. Anything above ten units requires the eight criteria for high density, so either way the change of zone would be required under the PCD zone no matter what type of project. Ms. Aylaian said that would get them roughly 99 units at nine units per acre using 11 acres. 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2008 Commissioner R. Campbell indicated that the problem he was faced with, and the other members might not agree with him, but the City basically at this point in time has about a 10% differential between owned and rental and he felt they should be closer to 5% and 7%. If they looked at the one statement under B, it says in the University Park area 80% to 90% of the residential units would be for purchase. That made it between 20% and 10%. The problem he was looking at is they Are slowly increasing more and more and more so he felt the rental units were getting too high versus how many are purchased, and that's where his concern is and was his question. Commissioner Limont said it i b ,, get us up to our requirement for affordable housing. Ms. Sc_, =r said y-s, these ark rental units. Commissioner Limont said it to hel• �et our affordable housing requirement as opposed to situp • als; Ms. Schrader concurred. Commissioner Limont„rioted that the Y is mandated to have a certain amount of affordable housing and th -:_.s going down that path. Ms. Aylaian explained that this project could • here from 20% affordable to 100% affordable, so what it does prove• an assemblage of rental r units that we be appropriate for marketrate for subsidized affordable housing n es, they do try"to ma`irtd a balance of rental units to owner, nits, in particular in the north sphere or University Park planningarea, the` ought it was appropriate that there be more rental units perhaps other pa�of the city, because of the proximity of the unit theroximity to some of the jobs and the big detail k s that 'v_ there. So they were trying to maintain a anproximity between our workforce, housing and actual jobs they wou be fl y� Commissioner R. Campbell said that basically what they were saying to him is that thtype of project •is almost a set aside project and it cannot be d in the.ciculations for the City as a whole which he is concerned wi h ,Beca se if they are mandated, then they've said to him that he doe have any choice; he has to have a higher percentage than they would t€ rmally allow or want. Ms. Aylaian said they don't put a limit on the number of rental or ownership units in the city as a whole. They do look for strategic locations to locate rental versus ownership units and this particular location is one staff felt would be ideal for rental units. Commissioner R. Campbell said if he wanted to do that calculation and felt they were having too many rentals, he would have to basically set that aside and not count that in as the city of Palm Desert where the federal 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2008 government or anyone else was involved. Ms. Aylaian said no, it was appropriate if he had a concern and felt we have too many rental units in the city; she thought it was appropriate for him to state his concern as a policy issue. Nonetheless, the State of California does mandate, and is passed down through our RHNA allocation for affordable housing units and housing units of all types, moderate income as well as affordable, a certain number of housing units that need to be made available in the city. In order to produce that, the City is obligated to produce a large number of affordable housing units and those almost by definition need to be rental units. They have found that for some people of moderate or slightly above moderate income, it is appropriate th they be homeowners and they do provide them owner units like at rt Rose, or Falcon Crest. But in general, they've had greater s =s making affordabler units be rental type units for rental tenancy. use of thi particular locaon, staff felt this was an appropriate locatioi , rental �� . If the Commission or the Council in general were concer th -y were ending up with too many rental units in t n, she wou i% 1,,, •ose that other locations not as fortuitously situatedconsidered for •, rship to readjust that balance, because if they are ' k a pla ' •propriate for rentals, staff believed this was an id �, ocat t Commissionr Schmidt sa a lit . fusing because on the plat buildings ere identified nu ;a;- cally, and then on the rendering it talked about 16-plex Building A. Shasked how many of these buildings would exceed the 25-foot,height limn s. Schrader explained that there are eight 1'6 plex buildings and the y tart •at 24 feet and they progress with almost five different root pitches all the way to 29, but the portion that exceeds the 24 is only 21%. The rest of it, 79%, was under the 24-feet or at 24 feet If they looked at the site plan at the buildings along35th, these g larger buildings were the 16-plex buildings. There are two 8-plex buildings, Building No. 4 and Building No. 8. The remainder of the buildings was the 16-plexes. They were two stories with eight units on each floor. Of the ten structures, Commissioner Schmidt said that eight of them have this roof. Ms. Schrader showed a rendering with the varying roof pitches. Commissioner S. Campbell asked if this would be a gated community. She didn't see any gates on the plan on 35th Avenue. Ms. Schrader didn't see a gate on 35th; there was, however, a gate on the west side on Gateway. She thought that might be conceptual and might be something they were still deciding. She would imagine there would be a gate, but was something they could ask the applicant. 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2008 Commissioner Schmidt asked if the parcel that was set aside for future daycare use was owned by the same group that owns the rest of the property. Ms. Schrader said it is right now. There were no other questions for staff. Chairperson Tanner opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address he Commission. MR. MARK IRVING, Urban Housing unities, 2000 E. Fourth Street, Suite 205, in Santa Ana, C ' , 92705, said he had a few things. One thing that wasn't,mentionedin terms of noting into the record was that UHC is actual the ow f the property now. He thought the initial staff report had the pre owner. In terms of the project, just to address:some of the questionshey had about it, it is a gated community. Secondly, the days facility was designed initially on the corner of Gateway and 35to. ity asked that it be relocated to its 'current, location. The thought of the daycare center as also an idea Of the City's, so they included it and that's why -re asking for a subdivision of the parcels. In terms of the ` •ition • entioned that regarding Condition No. 12, they belt d it ,zif • ad as per code, which was essentiallythat sorry, • oul• k i o a housing agreement and that would b based E 'e requirements of the housing in the area. It was their full intents ,! to have it as 100% affordable, but their understanding� was theentitlements and the economics were separate and this conditioncombined the two. So they believed that the section regarding the affordability, the income levels, should not se part of it. He asked for any questions. Commissioner S. Campbell noted that with the economy the way it is going, if they nave approval for this project, how far down the line it would be built. Mr. Irving replied that the process of affordable projects is to utilize tax credits and bonds. Upon approval of the project, the project would then apply for the bonds and then the tax credits. They would anticipate that through that process they would be looking at a start time of approximately August-September of 2009. Chairperson Tanner asked if they anticipated because of the location that they would be renting in the future to college students aged 18-22. He asked if demographically that was what they were heading for or trying to get. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2008 Mr. Irving couldn't say they have ever sat down and said they were going to target it to college students. If they applied and then showed the documentation pursuant to the relative income levels, they would qualify. He wasn't a legal expert on that, but thought if someone was qualified, regardless of their age, they couldn't say no, they weren't going to rent to them. Their thoughts were that it is a multi-family project. It would be adjacent in the future, and due to the slowdown in the economy maybe a Cale bit further in the future, but it is adjacent to an elementary Schad They find that a very important element to the affo .ble housing community because families make multiple trips . _ to a school. Wasn't it best if kids walk to school and paren �, ' walk with them and they could then go off to work and corn-� ,: ' e and th- kids are able'ikpome home and they don't have to abou as opposed toing back and forth from work and so was actually ideal in the fact that they don't have a redu« traffic relative to this project because it will be' close to the •ol and close to the amenities: the Costco, Wal-Mart, Sam's Club, • that was important to them too because it makes life better for th ple that live there. Commis ampbell`said he had a couple of questions. He learned yesterdayat theCity has a project and they had a fire in a unit and they wer .,� ng a newype of stops and because of that, the fire was containedto that section, which was important. He asked if something like that" bud ` ect. �y rt *-* r. I said they are all designed to the California codes and in 2007theyincrease the firewall requirements between the units. As tykkl,1 thenits will have sprinklers in them. Each unit will have that iithe eve of a fire, and they would like to think that it would be contained within that unit, preferably in that little space before it got to ig. Comm ssloner R. Campbell noticed that because of the height changes on the plans on some of these buildings they would take dirt out and drop them down. He asked if that was part of the reasoning to make the roofline user friendly for the city. Mr. Irving said that the user friendliness came from the Architectural Review Board. They had initially had a prairie style design and the roof was level, it fit within the height requirement, and Architectural Review said they didn't like that roof and to come back with a 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2008 different roof style. And they actually came back with a completely different architectural style and with the variations in the roof, which then did break up the plane of the building. In the process, the architecture was approved and it wasn't until after the fact that it came to light that the elements of the roof were higher than the code. As far as the site itself, the site actually does slope 50 feet from one end to another. He said it didn't appear to be that way when you're on the corner of C Street and 35th. When you look there, you don't realize that you do have that kind of fall in there. There would be some excavation or dirt because there was a fair amount of fall overall on the site. Commissioner R. Campbell thanked him and said he liked the new design. Chairperson Tanner asked for. any testimony in FAVOR- of or in OPPOSITION to the proposed project. There was no one and the public hearing was close Chairperson Tanner asked for Commission comments. ffi- Commissioner Limont d that the answer to architectural questions or concerns is t o upi feet up from 24 to basically 30. She just ha4diffi lty with was or of the project and in favor of addressing our needs for rdable housing. She thought it was in the right place in the city. She th t it also fell in line with regard to the bike lanes that Parks 8i,Recreation working on and a lot of different issues with regard,,to transportation. ,- thought it was a perfect spot for this type of prays. But thearchite re didn't do a lot for her. Commissioner S. Campbell had no objection to the height as shown. She thought the different buildings were strategically placed on the location and it gave it more movement rather than having a flat roof or looking the same. She had no objection to that and they (Architectural Review mmissioners) are architects and knew better than they did. ^;r Commissioner R. Campbell also had no problem with the height. In talking with someone in the past here he was expressing the type of concern that Commissioner Limont had and they reminded him that was part of the reason why the code was written as it is written, to give them some flexibility. As long as it slopes and they are sitting it down, that wasn't going to be a large concern for him. Commissioner Schmidt stated that she had the same concern as Commissioner Limont. They seemed to agree on this, but for this project 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2008 in that place, she would not object to the height. But it was curious to her that apparently the applicant came in within the restrictions of the 24-foot height limit and Architectural Review Commission said let's make it higher. She had trouble with that and thought maybe they should have a joint meeting or something and kind of talk it through, but she felt it was a good project in a good, needed place and she would not object to it. Chairperson Tanner also agreed with comm at had been made. He was not opposed to the 29.5 or 30-foot par,,, t gave a nice break to it. Again, it was in a location that was e' F hat was going to be needed for the appearance. He ro ` to a— ve the applicant's submission. The motion was secondetby CommissionerR. Campbell. Action: It was moved by Chairperson Tanner, seodnded by Co sioner R. Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Mr. Bagato noted thapplicant brought up the issue of Condition No. 12. As Mr. Irving st , t, ance approval was separate from the planning approval of the, to p any ut until the financing was worked out, staff wanted to make sureit add ` minimum of 20% low income. That was- pretty standardion oar' " kind of housing/apartment project. Ms. Aylaian said it was also app •riate for the application of the criteria in the General, Plan, so they were , •king at a land use issue that says in order to get the high density overlay, you need to meet certain criteria, including that a, percentage be made available for affordable housing. Theref` e, they wanted to keep in the criteria a requirement of a minimum of 20% of affordability. Commission Schmidt noted that a revised resolution was given to them that evening- She asked if what they were talking about was included in that resolution. Ms. Aylaian said yes. That resolution was the same one that was It tie packet with the exceptions that Ms. Schrader read into the record, which included that one new condition and the three minor typos. Commissioner Schmidt stated that she just wanted to make sure she was comparing apples to apples. Chairperson Tanner noted that there was a motion and a second as it stands. 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2008 Mr. Irving wanted to ask a question about that because pursuant to the questions that went back and forth on Condition 12, they weren't saying it shouldn't note 20%, they were just saying per the code, and that would be 20%. They were just saying that the additional language in it related to affordable housing 100% should be separate from the condition. Commissioner Schmidt thought they should I • t it. Ms. Aylaian asked Janet Moore, the Director of Housing, to addre° the issue. Ms. Moore stated that the applicant h. 7 made a comment that this issue is separate from the financing from t , :nning approval. However, as part of the General Plan high den •verlay, there is a requirement for affordable units within the •£ •pment o any housin ' project. This project, although it is being prop -d as 1 1 - affordable, the applicant is seeking financing. If he is unable •b, at financing, he may decide to reduce the number of affordabili' a project. In the event he does that, he would come hack to the City°` ; _= ncil for approval of a reduced amount so that the City Councilcould re _ the financial aspects of that. However, she believed that the applicant i ;: requesting that the 20% requirement placed in as a condition, h -ever, she would ask the applican is challenging or requesting is the level of affordability that w a into words within Condition No. 12. Ms '' •an also ded that this project would have to go to the City Council f pthey,could always make minor modifications in a z, cular n subject o cussion and working out details with the particular any al counsel before getting to the City Council. ^\ Mrs ing in answer to the question, Ms. Moore was correct. They ere asking in terms of the specific language regarding the affor ;ility 25% to 60%, 100% affordable, not be part of the condit i. Just have the condition standards as if it were just any prof coming before them. That was what they were saying. Th�` � .. would be certainly a time when they would be discussing the Using agreement and all that language would be going into the housing agreement at that time. Ms. Moore explained that staff's concern was that staff had not been able to, based on a simple 20% affordability requirement, had not had an opportunity to review a project with only 20% as far as the proforma and the financial feasibility of the project. It was reviewed with 100% affordability with respect to all of the amenities that they have seen, the 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2008 child care facility, etc., and they have reviewed it as a 100% affordable project, however, as a. condition of approval with a requirement between 20% and 100%, there has been no evaluation of those conditions. So for staff to recommend a percentage of that 20% to be anywhere from very low to low, she would need further time to review that with the applicant in order to insure they are asking for the correct number of affordable units within the feasibility of the finances of the projects Chairperson Tanner noted that there wa ,,� tion and a second and asked if there was any further discussio Commissioner Schmidt said she was unclear as to t they would be approving. What she heard was that the condition was'' of set to meet the criteria of low income housing as they view it in th k . What she heard the applicant just say is that he would like that restric ; set aside and verbalized another way. In her view, with a change of zone they couldn't really just had that up in the air.They were either going to have it that way or not. Shefavor of what she just saw and read. She was not in favor of opening a it not being affordable housing and she needed some clarificati n f n tha Mr. Hargrave _recommendedit goy and and be approved as is. This wasai issue that just up within the last day or so and this was a recommendation the CI ouncil and would give them time to sit down and work through it. Not that happened tonight was going to be binding and he didn't want to hoitt p the project based on this aspect of it. �y were satisfied with it from a zoning / planning kind of perspective, t re (*quidwor Commissioner Schmidt clarified without changing the resolution as written. Mr. Hargreaves concurred, without changing the modified remotion before them. N 'here was no further discussion; Chairperson Tanner called for the vote. . n carried 4-1 (Commissioner Limont voted no). It was moved by Chairperson Tanner, seconded by Commissioner R. Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2495, recommending to the City Council approval of Case Nos. CZ/TPM/PP 08- 191, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Limont voted no). 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2008 IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner S. Campbell indic ze h e next meeting would be December 17, 2008. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE kql Commissioner Limont said the next meeting would be in, anuary. C. PROJECT AR 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner ll reported on the issues discussed at their last meetings D. PARKS& RECREATION Chairperson Tanner iewed the issues discussed at their December 16 meeting. XI. COMMENTS 1. Ms'. Aylaian reminded the Commission that the Westfield Study Session with the City Council and Planning Commission would be on January 8, 2009 at 2:00 p.m. in the Administrative Conference Room (ACR). 2 Ms. Aylaian also noted that there would be another study session, btnot a joint study session, and the City Council would be taking a look at bike lanes and golf cart lanes throughout the city in a study session on January 26 at 2:00 p.m. in the ACR. An illustrative project would be the Cook Street proposed widening and what to do with the bike lanes there, and it was kind of a big picture of the relative importance of motorized versus non-motorized transportation within the city. She thought that might be of interest to the Commissioners. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2008 3. Ms. Aylaian proposed bringing a representative from the Architectural Review Commission to a meeting as an informational or miscellaneous item to give them a description from their perspective of the use of height and why they would make recommendations like the one they saw tonight, which was contrary to what the zoning ordinance would prescrib,. , but they felt it was in the best interest as far as use of height. 'they wanted, she could ask someone from the Architectural Review Commission to the meeting to answer any questions they might have. The Commission thought that was ood idea. 4. Ms. Aylaian also reporte t at the last meetingt there was a concern regarding one., a conditio s of approval that had been applied to the Jiffy L roject n it was approved. The condition indicated that th should be left closed. She believed it was Commission , nt who brought up the concern that doors had been, left open. oted that the problem resolved itself since Jiffy Lube had gone out siness. XII. ADJOUR It w ved by ; missionerr R. Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Sch adjourn*: the meeting by minute motion. The motion carried 5- 0 The in at 7:13 p.m. � a � E g3 t LAURI AYLAIAN, Secretary ATTEST VAN t N R, Chair Palm Degert Planning Commission 18