Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-10-03 PC Regular Meeting Agenda Packet CITY OF PALM DESERT PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY MINUTES TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 – 6:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CA 92260 ______________________________________________________________________ I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Nancy DeLuna called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Commissioner Lindsay Holt arrived at 6:20 p.m. Commissioner Ron Gregory Commissioner John Greenwood Vice Chair Joseph Pradetto Chair Nancy DeLuna Staff Present: Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development Jill Tremblay, City Attorney Eric Ceja, Principal Planner Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner Ron Moreno, Senior Engineer/City Surveyor Christina Canales, Assistant Engineer Monica O’Reilly, Administrative Secretary III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice Chair Joseph Pradetto led the Pledge of Allegiance. IV. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Director of Community Development Ryan Stendell summarized pertinent September 7, 2017, City Council actions. Chair DeLuna referred to the Zoning Ordinance Amendment for freeway-oriented monument signs and asked how many signs the City Council approved at the Monterey Avenue interchange. PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 2 \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\9-19-17.docx Mr. Stendell replied no more than four signs; potentially two on the western boundary and two on the eastern boundary of Monterey Avenue and Interstate 10. Mr. Ceja clarified that there could potentially be four signs at the Monterey Avenue interchange. He noted that there must be 1,600 lineal feet to qualify for two signs and the development must be a commercial center with a minimum size of 10 acres. V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Planning Commission meeting of August 15, 2017. Rec: Approved as presented. Upon a motion by Vice Chair Pradetto, second by Commissioner Greenwood and a 3-0-2 vote of the Planning Commission, the Consent Calendar was approved as presented (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: Gregory and Holt). 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 of Design and a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 7.74 acres into 80 condominium units, common area amenities, and a future 1.3-acre commercial parcel located at the northwest corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Cook Street; and approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. Case Nos. PP 17-035 and TTM 37339 (PD Realty, LLC, Dana Point, California, Applicant). Associate Planner Kevin Swartz outlined the salient points of the staff report (staff report is available at www.cityofpalmdesert.org). He recommended PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 3 \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\9-19-17.docx approval and offered to answer any questions. He noted that the applicant and architects are also available to answer any questions. Chair DeLuna asked where the secondary fire access is located. Mr. Swartz referred to an exhibit and pointed to the secondary fire access. Chair DeLuna asked if the secondary fire access would have a gate. Mr. Swartz replied that it would only be a fire access gate. In the past, it was mentioned some turf was needed for people to walk their pets or an area for children to play. Chair DeLuna asked if there would be turf within the project. Mr. Swartz said there is turf in the retention area and in some areas around the pool. Chair DeLuna asked if the pool house would function as a community center. Mr. Swartz responded that it would function as a community center, with bathrooms. Commissioner John Greenwood commented there is limited street parking. He asked if parking will be an issue. Mr. Swartz noted that there are 43 guest parking spaces throughout the project; therefore, staff does not anticipate a parking issue from a resident’s standpoint. Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. MR. GILAD GANISH, applicant, Newport Beach, California, said they are excited about the project, and have been working diligently with City staff. He expressed that Palm Desert has the best planning staff and offered to answer any questions. Commissioner Greenwood asked if the architect is present to answer questions. MR. GANISH replied yes. Commissioner Greenwood pointed to the streetscapes off of Frank Sinatra Drive and Cook Street and referred to exhibit L-5.08. He noted that there are four model types and four elevations. However, two models are being used along the streetscapes, which have more depth and articulation to the architecture. He said he understands why the two models are being placed on the outer limits. He PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 4 \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\9-19-17.docx asked the architect what would be the impact and whether the applicant would be open to adding more depth to the architecture to the five units along Frank Sinatra Drive and the four units along Cook Street. MR. ALAN SCALES, architect, Irvine, California, responded that they are open to adding depth. He said their intent is to create different plain changes and provide a variety of materials. He briefly described the materials, design, and color schemes to create animation to the street scene. He felt they have done an adequate job of creating variety to the architecture. To answer Commissioner Greenwood’s question, he said it is a matter of setbacks, if the City is open to having masses closer to the street. He noted that there is some grade change, which is one of the attributes of the project that creates the dynamic street scene. Mr. Swartz added that there is space to add depth to the architecture. He said City staff could take a look at the grading plan, if requested by the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission is entertaining a broader scope, which is blurring the lines between the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Commission (ARC), Mr. Stendell recommended a condition with the final review and approval by the ARC concurrently with the construction documents. Commissioner Greenwood stated he did not mean to blur the lines between the two Commissions, but he still would like to make a couple of points. He asked about the exposed drains coming down the face of the building. MR. SCALES responded that the ARC placed a condition to provide internal roof drains. Commissioner Greenwood liked the three color schemes. However, at a quick glance, they are very similar. He suggested the applicant look at breaking up the color a little more. He asked the architect if there is any concern with parking. MR. SCALES explained that they do a lot of condominium type housing developments. Relative to the number of guest parking spaces, he is not worried about it being adequately parked and noted that they have met code. Relative to the resident parking, there will be a homeowners’ association that would have a purview related to the use of the garages so that it is managed effectively. Commissioner Greenwood asked the architect to explain the design of the site walls between the units. He said he had trouble understanding if the walls only go to the rear for some of the units. MR. SCALES explained that the entries for the units are on the side. Therefore, the entirety of the entry side would be for the exclusive use of one of the homeowners. He also explained that the rear wall, which separates the private PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 5 \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\9-19-17.docx yards, would be justified to a corner of the home. In the back, there will be a wall that connects to two homes at the rear and a wall in the middle that splits the yards. Commissioner Greenwood voiced his concern with the wall(s) on the units to the left of the project adjacent to Frank Sinatra Drive and asked how often it occurs. He referred to exhibit L-5.03 and noted that there is a tight setback, a wall splitting the middle, and there are windows with the view of a property wall. MR. SCALES stated that the condition pointed out by Commissioner Greenwood only occurs on the far left unit adjacent to Frank Sinatra Drive. He explained that they are placing front doors to face the public street and the interior spine road to create pedestrian movement. As you get to one end of the block on the left side, there are three-foot side yards on each side, which would be exclusively used by one homeowner. Chair DeLuna asked if she was a resident living on the side of Frank Sinatra Drive and at the end of the development, where would her guest(s) be able to park. MR. SCALES pointed to the exhibit and said there is parallel parking available on both sides of the spine road and the guest(s) could walk to the end unit. Chair DeLuna asked what the total number of guest parking spaces is. MR. SCALES replied there are a total of 43 guest parking spaces. Commissioner Lindsay Holt inquired if the Planning Commission would review plans for the planned future commercial development. In addition, the proposed development would be adjacent to the university and her concern would be parking as well. If the university expands, many of the units would be rented by students. Thus, there would be two to three people in a single unit, with two or three cars; however, it is their issue to deal with. Mr. Swartz responded that the future planned retail would come back to the Planning Commission, with its own precise plan. Commissioner Greenwood asked if the applicant’s development group is also looking at the future commercial or only the residential development. MR. GANISH responded that they have looked at a couple of different schemes and have talked to City staff about the future retail parcel. He said they will also complete some market studies in the future. Once they have something viable, they will present it to the City. PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 6 \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\9-19-17.docx Commissioner Greenwood felt there is a lot of opportunity between the commercial and residential developments. He is interested to see how it is laid out and how the two developments tie together; it is an important connection. Commissioner Holt asked if there are access points between the commercial and the residential developments. Mr. Swartz pointed to the site plan and the access points. Commissioner Greenwood referred to Plan 1 Perspective A3.0, and wondered if there is an opportunity for a color and material change on the garage element versus the element above the garage. He said there are a couple of other units that are like Perspective A3.0, in which there is a similar color on a large massing. MR. GANISH replied that as some of the private and side streets get finalized in terms of programming, they could look at the color and materials. The color and materials could be part of the package that will go back to the ARC. With no further testimony offered, Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Greenwood commented that it is a very nice project and a step forward on what the City is trying to achieve and develop as a whole in the University Village area. However, he is concerned with the frontage along Frank Sinatra Drive and Cook Street. He was interested to hear from other Commissioners to see if they were open to adding a condition for the applicant to take another look, along with staff, to further articulate the frontage as it faces both the streets mentioned above. Chair DeLuna asked Commissioner Greenwood when he is talking about further articulating the frontage, does he mean stacking. Commissioner Greenwood remarked that he is talking about depth. He explained that the plans show a couple of elements where the architecture will come out close to a foot, and in other architecture, it only comes out approximately four inches. Chair DeLuna asked if he is concerned the architecture would have a box look. Commissioner Greenwood replied yes. However, in his opinion, the frontage could use a little more punch and would probably have the greatest impact along the frontage. Commissioner Holt commented it is a great project for the location and fits in with the adjacent land use. She commented that no one wants to see boxes lined up in a row unless you are building Legos. She stated she does not have an issue to PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 7 \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\9-19-17.docx include articulation to the frontage, as long as it is a consideration and not a directive. Vice Chair Pradetto moved for approval, and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Holt with the recommendation. Vice Chair Pradetto interjected that Commissioner Holt would have to amend the recommendation. Commissioner Greenwood commented that the recommendation has been noted and the applicant is open to the recommendation. He asked Mr. Stendell if the recommendation needs to be added as a Condition of Approval. Mr. Stendell responded that staff cannot direct the Planning Commission on the level of comfortability as far as a vote. He stated that there is a difference between a Condition of Approval and a recommendation. He stated that knowing the project team, he is comfortable that the team will step up and take the Commission’s recommendation. If the Planning Commission wants to make it crystal clear, the Commission would need to ask the maker of the motion to amend the motion. Vice Chair Pradetto remarked that he would not amend the motion and it would have to die due to a lack of a second. Commissioner Holt clarified that she seconded the motion as a recommendation. Vice Chair Pradetto moved to waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2708, approving Case No. PP 17-035 and TTM 37339, with a recommendation that the applicant work with City staff to further articulate the frontage of the project facing Frank Sinatra Drive and Cook Street; and subject to the Conditions of Approval. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Holt and carried by a 4- 0-1 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: Gregory). Chair DeLuna thanked the applicant for choosing to do business in the City of Palm Desert. The Commission agreed that the City’s Planning Department has the best staff. XI. MISCELLANEOUS None PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 8 \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\9-19-17.docx XII. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner Holt reported that the Art in Public Places discussed the request for quotes for the traffic signal cabinets beautification projects. B. PARKS & RECREATION Mr. Stendell reported that the Parks & Recreation Commission discussed enhancing pickleball courts at Freedom Park. XIII. COMMENTS None XIV. ADJOURNMENT With the Planning Commission concurrence, Chair DeLuna adjourned the meeting at 6:44 p.m. NANCY DE LUNA, CHAIR ATTEST: RYAN STENDELL, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MONICA O’REILLY, RECORDING SECRETARY