The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0307 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - MARCH 7, 2000 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER °"" 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE �. � * � � .� * �. .� �. �. * .� .� � � � * � � .� �. � �- * � * �. �. � .� * � � � � � .� �. � � � .� I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Beaty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairperson Beaty led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Paul Beaty, Chairperson Sonia Campbell Cindy Finerty Sabby Jonathan � Members Absent: Jim Lopez, Vice Chairperson Staff Present: Philip Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Martin Alvarez, Associate Planner Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the February 15, 2000 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the February 15, 2000 minutes as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell indicated there were no pertinent February 24, 2000 City Council actions. �... MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7, 2000 ; � VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 00-02 - SUNRISE COLONY COMPANY, Applicant Request for approval of a lot line adjustment between Lots 71 and 72 in Tract 28277-3, Indian Ridge Country Club. B. Case No. PMW 00-03 - SUNRISE COLONY COMPANY, Applicant Request for approval of a lot line adjustment for Lots 95 and B in Tract 28227-3, Indian Ridge Country Club. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. ..ri VIII. 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 No. CUP 99-15 - COLUMBIA PAR CAR CORP., Applicant (Continued from December 21 , 1999 and February 1 and 15, 2000) Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow an outdoor golf cart display located at 73-168 Highway 1 1 1 . Chairperson Beaty noted that the recommendation was to table the matter. He asked if anyone wished to address the commission on this case. There was no one. � 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7, 2000 , `.. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, tabling Case No. CUP 99-15 by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. B. Case No. PP 00-3 - LANDMARK SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Applicants Request for approval of a precise plan of design to construct a 200,000 square foot sports complex with miscellaneous pads on 21 acres. Property is zoned Planned Community Development and is located at the northeast corne� of Cook Street and Gerald Ford, also known as APNs 653-690-001 through 01 1 . Chairperson Beaty noted that there was a request to continue this case. He opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to address the commission on this matter. There was no one. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, ,..� continuing Case No. PP 00-3 to March 21 , 2000 by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. C. Case No. CUP 11-80 Amendment #1 and ADJ 99-1 - MAURICE LEBANOFF, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to a conditional use permit to allow the addition of two apartment units located at 45-325 Sage Lane and an adjustment of three percent to the required site area to allow a total of eight units. Mr. Alvarez indicated that plans and exhibits were on display. He said the request was for an amendment to a conditional use permit to allow the addition of two studio units above an existing detached garage structure located at the northwest corner of Sage Lane and Tumbleweed Lane. TMe property was zoned R-3 multifamily residential and was constructed in 1980 as a six-unit condominium project. The units were converted to apartments and the applicant was now requesting approval to add two units. As shown on the site plan, the two units would be located above the existing garage structure which currently had garage units on the bottom floor. The garage �... 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7, 2000 . . . � structure would be remodeled to accommodate a staircase in the middle, would include 2 two-car garage units at the end, and would include seven single car garage units. Regarding parking, the proposal was sufficient to meet the ordinance. The ordinance required a total of 16 offstreet parking spaces; that was two per unit with at least one covered with a garage or carport, The applicant would provide a total of 16 spaces, 1 1 of which would be covered. The Architectural Review Commission reviewed the applicant's submittal on May 25, 1999, October 12, 1999, January 1 1 , 2000 and January 25, 2000. After various submittals the applicant received preliminary approval, which was granted unanimously on a 5-0 vote. Mr. Alvarez said that various architectural details were added to enhance the original design of the two units above the garage. As shown on the elevations, there were pop outs and other details added on the three sides. An appeal was filed by Mayor Crites on January 25. His concern was lack of detailing on the north elevation which was the elevation facing the commercial district and parking lot. ARC approved plans which were before Planning Commission without that additional detailing, which was added later to address the Mayor's concerns. The concerns were if the row of 15'-20' pine trees were ever destroyed or removed that the elevation would then look plain, so the applicant did address � that issue and the elevations on display reflected those concerns. He said the � Cit Council would be hearin the matter if it wasn't dro � y g pped by the Mayor. The adjustment request was a three percent reduction to the minimum site area per dwelling unit requirement. The property was zoned R-3 and required a minimum of 4,000 square feet of site area per dwelling unit. As a whole for eight units the project required 32,000 square feet. The existing property had 31 ,132 square feet, thus the request for a three percent reduction or adjustment. The Planning Commission could g�ant an adjustment up to ten percent if the findings addressed on page 5 and 6 could be affirmed. Staff believed that they could. For CEQA purposes he said this project was a Class 3 categorical exemption. Mr. Alvarez recommended approval, subject to the conditions attached to the draft resolution. Commissioner Jonathan asked what would happen procedurally if the Planning Commission approved the project, but there was a pending appeal with ARC. Mr. Alvarez explained that ultimately the decision made by the Planning Commission could be passed along to the City Council as a recommendation. I I Chairperson Beaty o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. � � � 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7, 2000 ` MR. MAURICE LEBANOFF, 45-325 Sage Lane in Palm Desert, informed commission that the main purpose for adding the units was that his project, which he has had for quite some time, had been a difficult one to keep rented with good people. He eventually had to take the unit that was the least desirable and that was the one that actually faced the commercial development to the rear. The existing garages had a row of eight full-grown pine trees behind them. He said they were quite bushy and were actually 20'-23' high. He had pictures to give to the commission. He said that the good thing about building the new units was that they would buffer the rest of the units from the commercial area. The commercial area was a little difficult to live with in the sense that they get trash trucks early in the morning and big trucks driving through. He said it was noisy and was difficult to live with. They added a gazebo which would block out some of the views. Regarding his photographs, he said some were taken down below in the commercial and some were up above. The ones taken above were taken from his balcony. One picture showed how the garages looked today. He said that from the commercial side looking up at his garages, the concern that the Mayor had was that if he didn't address the design �r.. at the rea� of the project and some day they had a pine tree blight or another owner came along and didn't want those trees and cut them down, he was concerned that there would be a bare-looking project looking up. He wanted more detail on the design and that was what they did. He said that he met with the Mayor, he was pleased with it, and thought there wasn't any problem from that standpoint. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. He asked for commission comments or action. Action: ft was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Cornmissioner Jonathan, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1975, approving CUP 1 1-80 Amendment #1 and ADJ 99-1 , subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0. ... 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7, 2000 ; ; i � D. Case No. ZOA 00-3 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 25.25.014, to allow as a conditional use ancillary commercial uses on O.P. zoned sites having land area of two acres or more. Mr. Smith noted that on the 1 st of February the commission reviewed a proposed POP district. At that time the commission was not interested in pursuing it, but were interested in pursuing the ancillary commercial uses in the O.P. district. He stated that ZOA 00-3 was the result of that revision. What they were looking at now was specifically allowing for ancillary commercial uses in the O.P. district on sites greater than two acres and then refining that a little further by limiting restaurant uses to not greater than 10%, limiting other ancillary commercial uses to those oriented to providing convenience to the primary office uses, and limiting the ancillary commercial uses to not more than a total of 25% of the leasable floor area. Staff took the revision to Zoning Ordinance Review Commission (ZORC) at its meeting on the 17th of February. Staff did not present the revisions just read to the commission to ZORC because staff didn't have them at that time. He did � present the information that Planning Commission was not interested in proceeding with POP but did want to proceed with ancillary commercial uses in the O.P. district and ZORC endorsed that. From a CEQA perspective, he said this would be a Class 5 categorical exemption. He recommended that commission recommended approval of the amendment to the City Council as described. Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. CHARLIE SWEET, 43-708 Virginia Avenue in Palm Desert, said he thought this was a good idea for that type of land use. He asked for clarification that 25% of the leasable area would be allowed for ancillary uses. Mr. Smith said that was correct, 25% of gross leasable on sites two acres or greater. Mr. Sweet said he was present to see how this item was acted upon by � � the commission. ; � 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7, 2000 rr.r Chairperson Beaty closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments or action. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1976, recommending to City Council approval of ZOA 00-3. Motion carried 4-0. E. Case No. PP/CUP 97-14 - MICHAEL HOMME, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit for a 3,528 square foot restaurant in the proposed office complex at the northeast corner of Country Club Drive and Portola Avenue (37- 001 Portola Avenue). i.. Mr. Smith noted that this matter was before the commission on the 1 st of February. At that point they couldn't proceed because they didn't have an ordinance in place that would allow them to proceed. Commission had just taken care of the latter issue with that recommendation to council, so at this point they were talking about the same restaurant in the same location with the same conditions, although he wanted to add Condition No. 5 which would read that this approval would not go into effect until and unless the ordinance just recommended to the council became effective (ZOA 00-3). He also noted that the commission received a letter from Mike Homme that indicated that he couldn't be at the meeting tonight, but if there was information that the commission needed, he would ask for a continuance. Otherwise, he was asking the commission to proceed in his absence. Commissioner Jonathan noted that in his letter Mr. Homme requested up to 15% restaurant use and the proposed ordinance called for 10%. Mr. Smith said that Mr. Homme's proposal at this time was only asking for slightly less than 10%, so staff was suggesting they stay with 10%. Chairperson Beaty o ened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Beaty asked for commission comments or action. ` 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7, 2000 � i Action: � It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1977, approving PP/CUP 99-14, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 4-0. F. Case No. ZOA 00-1 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, Chapters 25.56, 25.64, 25.66, 25.70, 25.72, 25.84 and 25.86 as they relate to the appeals process. Mr. Smith explained that council asked staff to clarify some issues in the appeal process, specifically as it relates to applications that go through both the Architectural Review Commission and Planning Commission and how they would tie together the processing of appeals when they each occur. Between ; himself and City Attorney Hargreaves, they went through the Zoning � Ordinance. Right now there were seven or eight different areas in the code where appeals could be filed to various decisions. The idea was to consolidate that into one code section, Section "86", which would continue to be titled Public Hearings and Appeals. It outlined the noticing requirements, the process to follow for filing an appeal and what they must state. He thought the newest provision would create a distinction between an appeal which would generally be filed by someone in the general public and a request for review that a city council member could make. That was specified in Section "050". He asked if anyone had specific questions and indicated this was a Class 5 categorical exemption for CEQA purposes. Chairperson Beaty o ened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Beaty asked for commission comments or action. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0. ; .ri 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PIANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7, 2000 � It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1978, recommending to City Council approval of ZOA 00-1 . Motion carried 4-0. G. Case No. ZOA 00-2 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 25.70, Architectural Commission Goals/Policies/ Procedures. Mr. Smith explained that the City Council adopted a similar document by urgency ordinance back in January. Essentially what they were doing was increasing the number of inembers on the Architectural Review Commission from five to seven. The former five membership also included one or more alternates and now they were just going with a flat seven members and were declaring a quorum at four. Chairperson Beaty o�ened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR o� OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the ,,., public hearing was closed. Chairperson Beaty asked for commission comments or action. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as p�esented by staff. Motion carried 4-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1979, recommending to City Council approval of ZOA 00-2. Motion carried 4-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Case No. TT 27055 - MAINIERO, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC., for AMERICAN REALTY TRUST, Applicant Request for reconsideration of a request for a one-year time extension for Tentative Tract Map 27055. Mr. Smith noted that staff had a routine request for a one-year time extension for this tentative tract map. Commission at that time did not grant the request """ and subsequently the applicant filed an appeal which was before the City 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7, 2000 Council at its meeting of February 24. At that time the council referred the � matter back to the commission. The basic guidance was that if the commission was going to turn down the map, they should have a full packet of information before them so they had a full understanding of what the request was. Staff gave commission copies of the former staff report from 1992 and a print of the tentative map itself. He explained that the map provided for 296 single family lots, minimum 8,000 square feet with an average of 10,000 square feet. The map was originally approved April 21 , 1992. The map had a potential life of ten years under the map act. The map act had changed over the years and in 1994 and 1996 the State stepped in and created automatic extensions for all maps. Although the map act now provided for a maximum of seven years, with the extensions granted by the state in the middle of the time frame for this project, it had a maximum life expectancy of ten years. The zoning and the general plan of the property remained unchanged from that in effect in 1992, so staff could conclude that the map was consistent with the zoning ordinance, the subdivision ordinance, and the general plan. This matter was discussed at length with the City Attorney's office. The commission was under no obligation to grant the time extension. The City had the discretion to approve or deny time extensions. Time extensions could be turned down due to the time factor of when the map was originally approved. The past histo�y has been to grant time extensions � on maps that were still in compliance with the zoning, general plan and map act. If commission wished, they could as a policy establish maximum time limits for maps. As indicated, the current map act provisions were for a two- year initial approval and then up to 5 one-year time extensions beyond that for a total of seven years. Mr. Smith indicated that staff treated this as a routine time extension when it came to the commission the first time. They did not have any of the information that the commission now had before them. He said it would be staff's practice in the future to get commission that type of information so that they weren't coming in blind. They would provide a basic summary anci copies of the previous reports so that they knew what was before them. Staff's recommendation on this map at this time was approval of the one-year time extension because it continued to comply. Chairperson Beaty commented that Mr. Smith ope�ed his remarks by stating that "routine requests for an extension", and he felt this was not routine in that it was the fourth request. The information provided was what he wanted to see and he appreciated the information. He asked if Mr, Mainiero would like to address the commission. � 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7, 2000 +r.. MR. BOB MAINIERO, of Mainiero, Smith and Associates, representing American Realty Trust, stated that he was present to try and answer any questions the commission might have and asked that the time extension be approved. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the project was going to be built soon. Mr. Mainiero stated that the lack of action was a result of the previous market condition, although the market was about as good as it was going to get right now. There had been some interest in it, but no one had actually come forward. Mr. Drell asked if it was listed for sate. Mr. Mainiero said he didn't think it was actually listed, but knew that the owners were being approached on other parcels that weren't listed. Mr. Drell indicated that once the Marriott project was completed, there might be some action. He stated that typically residential developments, especially `,. in the desert, didn't like to occur out in the middle of the sand dunes. People liked to have the feeling that they were somewhere in civilization, so possibly as other property developed around it, there would be some interest. Commissioner Jonathan asked staff if given the current development in the area this project would still be consistent. Mr. Drell said yes, unless at some time resort interest overpowered it. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the development occurred as presented, it wouldn't be inconsistent with current surrounding development. Mr. Drell said it was a complying consistent subdivision. Chairperson Beaty asked for commission comments or action. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving a one-year time extension for Tentative Tract Map 27055. Motion carried 4-0. B. DISCUSSION OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE O.P. DISTRICT TO INCREASE FRONT SETBACKS WHEN BUILDING LENGTH EXCEEDS A CERTAIN LENGTH. ` 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7, 2000 � . . . � Mr. Smith said that there was no staff report and explained that this item was put on the agenda at the request of Commissioner Finerty. Commissioner Finerty noted that as a result of the Shah building and the Niall Saunders building the setback wasn't enough and felt the commission didn't want to repeat the same mistake as with the Shah building and have that boxed in feeling with a lot of concrete, so she was wondering if the commission might want to make an amendment to increase the setbacks when a building's length exceeded a certain length and that length would need to be determined by the commission, ZORC and/or Architectural Review. She wanted to get "the ball rolling" so that there was something in place to help not make that mistake again. Mr. Drell said he would almost rather not have the length at all. He thought that maybe they could just look at different buildings and say that the length of single buildings should not exceed a certain number of feet. Commissioner Jonathan asked if they could do that. Mr. Drell said sure. Cornmissioner Campbell stated that she would rather have more setback. Cornmissioner Jonathan said he would rather have both. Commissioner Finerty concurred. ; Mr. Drell said that practically speaking in the O.P. zone, they couldn't. � Inherently they were dealing with shallow lots, so the effect would be � architecturally not building long buildings. The minimum width of a building plus the minimum width of parking was squeezed in most of the O.P. areas, which was Fred Waring and Monterey. He thought the result would effectively break up the buildings. Commissioner Finerty asked how long the Shah building was; Mr. Smith said it was 300 feet and the setback averaged 15 feet with the height of the main building 24 feet. M�. Drell said it was a combination of the very strict height limit which created an unbroken horizontal roof line. There were ways to create interest, and they had taken away all the vertical interest by the height regulations. Cornmissioner Jonathan said that didn't apply to all buildings, but the point he wanted to make was that on the setback, there was another part besides the length of the building. As he mentioned before, he had some of his ARC counterparts say that they liked a setback ratio of 1 :1 and asked if that made sense to staff. If something was 24 feet high, it had a minimum of 24 feet of setback. Mr. Drell said that practically speaking, it would eliminate second story buildings in the zone. Commissioner Jonathan pointed out that it might in the Palma Village area, but not necessarily in all areas. Mr. Drell said that was where 90-100% of the O.P. property was located. Commissioner Jonathan noted that there weren't many lots left. Mr. Drell said that on Fred Waring � there was still the whole block between Portola and San Pascual. He thought �,■,� 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7, 2000 r... that no more than half was developed. Chairperson Beaty stated that he thought it should still be reviewed on a case by case basis. They had seen some examples of things they didn't like, staff now knew about it, ARC knew about it and the Plan�ing Commission knew about it. Mr. Drell said that was what the commission did with Niall Saunders. The commission basically had Mr. Saunders change the building to break up the facade. Commissioner Jonathan noted that another option to the setback was to put parking in the front and it wouldn't limit the amount of space. Mr. Drell said that they would still have the required dimension of a double loaded parking aisle of 65 feet, the building and then a setback. Right now the parking lot could occupy the rear setback. If they put the building in back, a two story building by code could not be closer than 65 feet from a rear property line. Secondly, he didn't think they wanted parking lots in front. He thought it was a much cleaner look on the street with buildings and landscaping in front, not parking. Commissioner Jonathan said he agreed with that, but on the other hand, when they think of beautiful areas in any city that were occupied by offices, it was because it was wide open. He asked why they were losing the battle before they fought it. Why were they accepting these closed-in buildings that were ta(I that were creating a tunnel vision along major arteries? They had the �, capacity and ability to say no, that they want to retain the desert look and feel. There were places where he could not see the mountains. When he was driving in this morning and wanted to look at the snow on the mountains, it was two blocks before he could see them whereas before, they could see them. It was because now they had buildings like the Shah building and others that were too close to where they were driving. He didn't think they needed to accept that and if they wanted to create an ordinance that required a 1 :1 setback, applicants would have the option to build single story or single story in front and two story in the rear area as some have done. The commission would also have the ability to make exceptions to the ordinance. Mr. Drell said yes, if they wrote the ordinance that way. Again, exceptions had to be rationally based on a consistent criteria. Otherwise they would get into a situation of someone getting something that someone else didn't. That was why ordinances should contain as many criteria to address the problem. Practically speaking they would eliminate two stories. Commissioner Finerty said that would eliminate the tunnel effect. Mr. Drell thought that it was a matter of testing the market. He said this zoning was initiated with the Palma Village Plan in 1983 and it has taken 17 years to get five buildings, of which all of them were two story except for one. He pointed out what that street looked like before the buildings were there. He said the lots on Monterey on the east side were so shallow that they couldn't build two story. The lots `"" were only 60 feet wide, therefore, it was impossible for them to build two 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7, 2000 ; ; � story. If that was the goal, the commission could adopt these changes and see what happened. Chairperson Beaty suggested that they refer this matter to Architectural Review for their comments. Mr. Drell said it would go to ZORC and ARC and suggested talking to people like Mike Homme and some others that have built some of the buildings. Commissioner Finerty noted that a single story building could still be up to 18 feet high. They could still get two stories in part of it if they put it on the back, so it wasn't like they were totally eliminating it. They would just be eliminating it from the front. She said she could definitely support a 1 :1 ratio for the setback on major arterials. $he thought it was important to preserve the quality of the desert that they currently enjoy that was slowly slipping away. Commissioner Jonathan agreed and asked what would be the procedure if they wanted to change it. Mr. Drell said that the commission had the power to initiate an amendment to the zoning ordinance. Commissioner Jonathan asked where it would go from there. Mr. D�ell said that staff would draft an ordinance, they would take it through ZORC, ARC, and then it would come back to Planning Commission as a public hearing item, then to City Council. Commissioner Campbell asked Commissioner Jonathan if ARC said they would like to have a 1 :1 ratio. Commissioner Jonathan said that he had discussions with two of the members ' and they both expressed the opinion that this was the ratio they would prefer. � That was what initiated his concern and thoughts about the subject. Actually, one commissioner called him after one building was approved and there was some sorrow that it was approved since it didn't meet that 1 :1 ratio. He said he would be in favor of initiating the process and then if ZORC or ARC had good reasons not to do make the change, then it might not fly, but he would be very interested in beginning that process. Commissioner Campbell stated that would be fine with her, too. Commissioner Jonathan asked if they needed a motion to that effect. Mr. Drell said yes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, instructing staff to initiate a zoning ordinance amendment to require a 1 :1 setback to building height ratio in the Office Professional district. Motion carried 3-1 (Chairperson Beaty voted no1. C. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT PROVISIONS RELATING TO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES (GUEST HOUSES). Mr. Smith noted that this item was put on the agenda at the request of Commissioner Campbell. 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7, 2000 �r.. Commissioner Campbell indicated that within the project called Sandpiper at Hovley Lane West there was a tract map approved with a specified height of the pads and it was found later that they added more dirt and it ended up getting approved at a higher pad height. Commissioner Campbell said that she objected to that and it was lowered. An amendment was then approved that said that the maximum height change someone could make to a tract map was six inches. That was done, so the plans were approved by ARC for the homes. The homes went up, the wall went up and now all of a sudden they could see a guest house behind one of the homes and then the same home had a guest house in the front yard. There were two guest homes that just popped up and she checked with Mr. Alvarez and he told her they just receive approva( over the counter for something like that if they had a setback of five feet from the rear and five feet from the side yards. She didn't think that was appropriate. It they had an approval for the plans by Architectural Review, it should be a complete plan. This particular home was all stuccoed and finished and now all of a sudden they were adding something else. Mr. Smith passed out some copies of photographs he took of the house in question. He said that the building under construction was the one that backed up to the tract to the east. He shot a picture of one where the unit in the front yard was �., completed with the stone work along the front and he thought it actually blended in quite well with the streetscape. The landscaping was still not completed on it, but there were a couple of trees in the ground. Mr. Drell explained that the front yard one met the required front yard setback for a single family home. Mr. Smith concurred and said the setback was 15 feet. Commissioner Campbelt asked about the square footage of all the livable space compared to the lot size. Mr. Smith said he checked into that on that specific lot and it was just under the 35% tota� lot coverage limit. The lots were a little over 10,000 square feet and they were looking at just under 3,500 square feet of total coverage on the site. In the backyards they were all casitas and in the front yard some were casitas and some were garages. The one in question was going to be a ga�age, a third car garage with a side entry an it. He indicated that all the design on them went through Architectural Review. Not all of the lots would have them, so that was why they were over-the-counter approvals. It was a buyer's option. The design of them was reviewed at four or five different ARC meetings. Commissioner Campbell asked if they were reviewed at the same time that the homes were reviewed. Mr. Smith said they started out with the homes. The homes were approved at one point in time. ARC wasn't satisfied with the original architecture and it came back three or four times before it was acceptable, but they did review the casitas and they wanted it to tie in with the rest of the architecture on the ""' buildings. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7, 2000 Commissioner Jonathan asked about the restrictions for these units. Mr. Drell said the ordinance called them senior second units and there was a special conditional use permit process for them. The ordinance differentiated between a unit and an accessory building. What differentiated an accessory structure from a unit was a kitchen. If it didn't have a kitchen (i.e., full living facilities) then it was and had always been since the zoning ordinance was first created in 1975 something that people could build in their backyards. Mr. Drell said that the units in question did not have kitchens. Mr. Smith clarified that they have a tub and a shower, but no kitchen. They were 360 square feet. Commissioner Campbell asked if she wanted to put something like that in her backyard, she could. Mr. Smith said she could if her homeowner's association allowed them. He said there was a major discussion about one in Commissioner Campbell's development. Commissioner Campbell clarified that in that case it was an addition to a home, not a separate building. She asked if ihe rear structure was really five feet from the wall. Mr. Smith said yes. Mr. Drell explained that the current code allowed buildings that didn't exceed 25% of the required rear yard. He thought they probably hadn't had that many this large and these were kind of long. He asked Mr. Smith what the length of them were. Mr. Smith repfied 12 x 23 and 11 feet high. Mr. Smith thought that was the real issue. The ones in question were raised above the adjacent property by about three feet. Mr. Drell said that the existing subdivision was actually lowered and had a retaining wall. It was a combination of the design of the existing subdivision which actually lowered this part of the street relative to the adjacent ground. There was a combination of the lowered pad height of the existing houses and this new one. Commissioner Campbell said they didn't mind having the wall and the other home built, which at least had the setback of a backyard, but now this thing just rose right there in front of them and was pretty bad. Chairperson Beaty asked if Commissioner Campbell had a proposed amendment for the commission. Commissioner Campbell thought that maybe they could stipulate that something like this couldn't be approved just over the counter. That it would have to be approved by Architectural Review, the complete home, and if they wanted to have a guest house, all the plans should be completed and not added as an after thought. Mr. Drell asked if she was saying that after a house was built, someone couldn't come back and ask for an accessory structure. Commissioner Campbell said that was correct. Mr. Drell said that right now single family homes in general were all approved over the counter. Commissioner CampbeN said that they could go ahead and make an extension , of their home instead of building a separate building. Otherwise someone � could put in a shack, a prefabricated shack, in there. Mr. Drell noted that it � would still have to get staff's approval and the home under discussion was w� 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7, 2000 u.. reviewed by ARC. He asked if the issue was any building there, the size of it, the length of the wall against it, or the height. He said that this was something that people have been doing and staff has been approving them since he has been with the city (1979). This was the first time they had probably had it included and reviewed architecturally as part of a whole project and the first time a developer was putting them in himself. Usually people come in after a house was built. Commissioner Campbell said that there were guest homes and guest houses in other developments and they were all a part of the garage and so forth. It might not be attached to the house, but at least it looked like something that belonged together. This was just a building in the middle. Mr. Drell asked if the commission wanted to go out and look at it. Commissioner Jonathan pointed out that there was nothing the commission could do about this project. Mr. Drell said they could look at them, look at the conditions, and see what was objectionable and whether an amendment to the ordinance was needed to cure it without necessarily prohibiting these things. Or, because it was a type of exception to the rear setback, they might want to make it a conditional use and require a public hearing. He pointed out that this was something that people could do throughout the city. Anyone could who had the room in their backyard. It was somewhat limited by the fact that �,.. a lot of people had swimming pools in their backyards, which were pushed up fairly close to the rear fence. Therefore, that created a setback. The lots on Hovley by their nature were long, fairly skinny, deep lots. Therefore they had a greater opportunity to have them. Again, it was a form of a setback exception that was provided in the ordinance and he suggested that maybe the commission might want to look at them. He said if there was a hearing, that would allow the rear property owner to have a chance to look at it. Commissioner Finerty said that she was willing to go look at them. Commissioner Campbell said they were located in the Sandpiper development on Hovley Lane West. Mr. Smith said that if the commission wanted to see a whole series of them, they could go to Sandcastle Lane between Carlotta and Eldorado. Sunterrace was on one side and Tierra Vista on the other. Almost all the homes along there had similar types of structures, if the commission wanted to take a drive to see a lot of them in a hurry. Commissioner Jonathan asked staff to fax those two locations and the names of the projects so they would know where they were going. He asked if they were both accessible to the public. Mr. Smith concurred. Cornmissioner Campbell said they weren't in gated communities. Chairperson Beaty noted that Sunterrace was gated. Mr. Smith indicated that they wouldn't have to go into the developments to see them. They could just drive along Sandcastle Lane. It was a connecting street just north of Hovley. The units were all in ""' the rear. Commissioner Jonathan said he did not want a public notice at this 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7, 2000 x . � time. He thought they should look at them and then have further discussion. Commission concurred. Action: None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (February 16, 2000I Commissioner Campbell indicated that they had a presentation of the community garden project on San Pablo by the city's arborist, Spencer Knight. They were told that one particular lot would have a building on it which would include a couple of offices and storage area for tools. They would also need some kind of a fabricated gate. If they had too many of the people coming to their gardens, they probably wouldn't be able to park on San Pablo, so they thought the gate wouldn't be feasible for the front. Afterwards, since it was going to cost so much money, they probably would not have the buiiding. � B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) � C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) Commissioner Finerty noted that the meeting was canceled and they would now be held on an as needed basis. She noted that the grand opening of the clubhouse would be March 29 and understood that invitations were mailed on Friday. Mr. Drell noted that they had a trial lunch today and he thought the building was spectacular. It was one of the more interesting buildings he has seen in the desert. D. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (No meeting) E. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (February 28, 2000) Commissioner Finerty stated that it was just an informational meeting. F. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) � k � 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7, 2000 � G. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (February 17, 2000) Mr. Smith noted that they just covered the items that were already covered tonight during the public hearing items. XI. COMMENTS Mr. Drell informed that at the last council meeting they discussed the Niall Saunders building which was approved with the deletion of the sidewalk on . the cul-de-sac, the addition of more landscaping and the extension of a six foot wall bordering the cul-de-sac per the request of the adjacent neighbors. Caesar's Emperor was also approved. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. r--,_ ... � . � PHILIP DRELL, cretary ATTEST: � � �4...� �� L�� PAUL R. BEATY, Chairpersor� Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm �... 19