The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0518 ��'�� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION `` - TUESDAY - MAY 18, 2004 '�� . . 6:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * � * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Jonathan called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Tschopp led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sabby Jonathan, Chairperson Dave Tschopp, Vice Chairperson Sonia Campbell �., Cindy Finerty Jim Lopez Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Dave Erwin, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Assistant Planner Phil Joy, Associate Transportation Planner Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent May 13, 2004 City Council actions. � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18. 2004 f 1 3 # VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 04-06 - DESERT ASSOCIATES, LLC, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge three lots at the southeast corner of San Anselmo and Fred Waring Drive, 73-271 Fred Waring Drive. Chairperson Jonathan stated that he would be abstaining from this item, turned the meeting over to Vice Chairperson Tschopp, then left the room. Action: It was moved by Commissioner �opez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0-0-1 (Chairperson Jonathan abstained). ..� Vice Chairperson Tschopp turned the meeting back over to the Chair. VIII. PUBL{C 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. PP 04-10 -TIM DiTOMASO, Applicant (Continued from May 4, 2004) Request for approval of a precise plan of design for a 7,475 square foot food court and a 3,300 square foot drive-thru restaurant located on the north side of Gerald Ford Drive approximately 250 feet east of Cook Street (APN 653-690-017 and 018). Mr. Drell informed the commission that there was no new information. He said they should open the public hearing and continue the item. � � 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18 2004 ` Chairperson Jonathan o ened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission on this matter. There was no one and Chairperson Jonathan asked for action. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, by minute motion continuing Case No. PP 04-10 to June 1, 2004. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case Nos. C/Z 03-13 and DA 04-04 - DAN ALLRED/AMERICAN REALTY TRUST AND DESERT WELLS 237, LLC/PALM DESERT 124 INC., Applicants (Continued from April 20 and May 4, 2004) Request for approval of a change of zone from PR-5 (planned residential, five dwefling units per acre) to PCD (planned community development), a development agreement, a master plan of development, and a Negative Declaration of '"'� Environmental Impact as it relates thereto. Property is generally located south of Gerald Ford Drive between Portola Avenue and Cook Street, 37-500 Cook Street. Mr. Drell explained that at the last meeting the Commission requested a matrix to compare existing standards as best they could assemble them with the proposed standards. One thing that was interesting about it was that in general they are not that different, but they could just go down them and highlight the differences. He thought they might want to have the applicant come forward and engage in the discussion together. He suggested that they open the public hearing to do that and engage in discussion with the applicant on what they think the significance of the differences are and whether they are in a direction we want to go. Chairperson Jonathan thought that was a good plan. Before proceeding, he asked the commission if there were any specific questions for staff with regard to the report and the matrix attached to the report. There were none. Chairperson Jonathan o�ened the pub(ic hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. � 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNiNG COMMISSION MAY 18, 2004 i MR. BOB ROSS, RBF Consulting, 74-410 Highway 111 in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. Mr. Drell indicated that one of the questions that got asked last time was why do this at all? Why have any standards? One of the reasons is that they want something documented that is on paper that goes beyond the personalities of those who either work on the commission or work in the Planning Department that provides appficants with a guide of what the general direction is that we want them to go. He said that he and Mr. Smith will not be around to kick around any more in a couple of years and a lot of the things they saw with the Sares Regis, the Fairhaven housing deal, and Desert Rose came about because of staff influencing, convincing and arguing with developers on what a good project looks like. They've seen a lot of projects that came into the city that meet the standards in our code book that are lousy designs. They could say they meet the standards and ask what eise did they want. Part of the goal of this document is to provide more specific guidance as to what is good design beyond pure numbers. He said staff compared this with the R-1 standards and up to the PR-4 � because the low density general plan designation goes to four units per acre. � That is why they did it that way. The big difference that is shown here is that they are talking about an average of 8,000 square feet but allowing some flexibility to go below that and basically 8,000 is when they take in roads that on a gross basis that's about the limit or the lot size that achieves the four units per acre density. So the first thing the standard should do is allow them to get to the density that the general plan allows. They shouldn't say four units per acres and then have standards that allow only three units per acre. So the 8,000 square feet basically in a perfect world would allow them to have four units per acre density. The problem is the way subdivisions usually lay out, if the minimum is 8,000 the�e are going to be some that are 8,500 and that's just the way that the geometry of properties and streets lay out. So they want some flexibility to in essence, based on the design of a subdivision and in this particular case this area has particular problems because it has slopes which will dictate unique design solutions that allow for a little bit of flexibility to go down to 7,200 square feet which woutd then require that certain lots be at 8,800 square feet. That was the motivation for having both an average and a minimum. He asked for any comments on that. Chairperson Jonathan noted that the first column didn't have a heading. Mr. � Drell said it is the proposed standards. Chairperson Jonathan said that - � 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2004 �.. compared to the existing R-1 and PR-4 standards. Mr. Drell concurred. Mr. Drell asked if they wanted to go through them and comment on them. Chairperson Jonathan said they should go through the more salient points and any of them, including the applicant, could jump in with comments. Regarding lot width, Mr. Drell said that one of the results of the re- examination the applicant said he didn't want to be limited to 70 feet and if they looked at the footnotes under the proposed changes they are actually proposing a width of 60 feet. One of the design issues that is applicable to this property is because of slope. Large lots inherently are going to be deep because a large portion of the backs of the lots is going to be slope. It is going to be making up the grade break. Therefore, inherently the lots are going to be deeper than one would normally do on a flat site. Again, that was to make the geometry work in terms of an 8,000 square foot lot. If they are going to be excessively deep, then they are going to be narrower. That was their request to allow a 60-foot wide lot instead of 70 feet. Mr. Drell said they have done that fairly often over on Hovley on the five acre parcels where the unique geometry of those five-acre pieces dictated a deep, somewhat narrower lot. So it wasn't something they've done frequently, but he didn't �+ think it caused us any problems. Lot depth. Mr. Drell said we don't have a standard for lot depth. It is just they are providing one with a minimum of 90 feet and inherently it would probably be 130 on this project. Coverage. They were seeing 35% to 50%. He said that in many respects, a lot of the PR-4 standards simply refer back to the R-1 standards with certain exceptions. With one story buildings/one story homes the PR-4 standards were identical to the R-1 standards and they would see that since the R-1 doesn't allow two-story and the PR-4 standards provide unique setback requirements for two-story buildings. Setbacks. He said setbacks are similar or really greater than the R-1 and they were just more detailed. They have been trying to encourage interaction with houses and streets and so they were allowing porches to encroach into a front setback, othen�vise, the 20 was pretty standard. They are encouraging side-in garages because they provide a better, more attractive elevation so they are allowing side-in garages to be closer to the street. They don't need the long driveway straight out like they do for a straight-in garage. � 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18. 2004 � For rear setbacks, the project is proposing a greater rear setback at 20 feet instead of 15 feet for the one story, but they're requesting that they can use the same setback for one or two story. He wasn't sure the project was even proposing two story. He said the applicant could shed some light on that. Mr. Ross didn't think they were far enough along to determine if it is one or two or a mixture. MR. MIKE MARIX, 128 Vista Monte in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He thought it would probably change between single family and the ten unit per acre density. Mr. Drell explained that right now they were only talking about the low density. Mr. Marix said it hadn't been determined. Mr. Drell noted that they instituted special two-story standards in the R-2 and , if their goal was to discourage two-story homes, it had been very effective. He didn't think they have had a single project proposed while he knew there � had been two story homes being built all over the valley, none of them have built in our town and one might surmise that the penalty in terms of side yards that our current standards require might have played a pa�t in discouraging them. So the question is if they are going to allow for two-story homes, then maybe they should have standards that make it possible. Chairperson Jonathan asked for clarification on the garage setback. Even in the low density what staff was proposing as a standard was that we allow essentially a shared-wall garage. Mr. Drell said it was discretionary; it was with discretionary approval. It's a signal to a developer that this is an idea we are open to, so that is footnoted as a discretionary idea if the design justifies it. Going back to minimum lot width, Chairperson Jonathan asked if it was staff's suggestion to have 70 feet and the applicant is requesting 60? If so, did staff stand by the 70? Mr. Drell said he had no problem with 60 feet. Mr. Ross said he wanted to show what was in the book the commission reviewed. It has been an ongoing process and there has been a lot of studies for 80-foot wide lots, 75, 70, and 60 seemed to 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18 2004 �.. work with the terrain. They have much deeper lots. As Phil mentioned, they are a minimum of about 120 feet of depth which gives them a flaf pad of 7,200 square feet. Plus the slopes on the down hill, the total lot sizes are much greater than 7,200 square feet. He said the 60 seemed to work better with how the terrain is situated on that site. Interior side yards. Mr. Drell said for single story they are identical. The difference is the way the two-story side yards work in the PR-4 and the theory was to discourage monolithic block architecture that the single story side yards would be the same, the single story elements would be subject to the single story side yards of five and nine. The two-story elements would have to be set back further. So it kind of required the second story element to be significantly smaller than the first story element. Then they could debate the merits of that and how they wanted to deal with it. Corners were identical. Garages were identical. Staff always requires as a minimum 20- feet where there is a straight-in garage. Building height they are proposing the possibility of two-stories. In the footnote they are proposing that they be ailowed 24 feet and 26 feet instead '� of 22 and 24, differentiating between flat roofed buildings and pitched roofs. The reason for that is that in today's market, buyers are demanding a higher plate height or greater interior volume and that has been driving that extra foot for first floor and second floor. The difference was 22-24 and 24-26. Chairperson Jonathan said he assumed that would only apply in a finro-story structure. Mr. Drell said that is an interesting point. Chairperson Jonathan said he couldn't imagine a single story requiring 26 feet. Mr. Drell said they have seen some pitched roofs where the peaks of the roof, depending on how steep the pitch is and obviously in a very small portion of the house has gotten some 20's. No higher than that. Again, those issues might be the difference between the 22 and 24 and the 24 and 26. It would be a design driven, discretionary approval that they would have to show us what was the objective and whether the objective warranted the extra height. The last two 2-story apartment buildings the City approved were for ourselves on Santa Rosa and Hovley Gardens and they were at 26 feet. Mr. Ross said he didn't think they were opposed to adding a one story category as well on what is typically approved in the city. � Mr. Drell said that is 18 feet. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18. 2004 i Mr. Ross said they could do that as a proposed modification as well to distinguish between one story and two story. Mr. Drell thought 18 feet was plenty of height for single story. Commissioner Lopez asked about the housing projects on Country Club Drive toward Washington that have finro-story homes on the left hand side. Mr. Drell asked if he meant Whitehawk. Commissioner Campbell said the corner of Oasis. Commissioner Lopez said Regency Estates. Mr. Drell explained that those were built in the County. Interesting enough, prope►ties in the county based on their standards, they were building finro-story houses and suddenly they were annexed to the city and they have never had a single family project proposed under these standards. He lives in the county and he knows the setback standards don't change when going from one- story to two-story. They talked about building heights. On the accessory structure, he wasn't sure what the ten feet was. Mr. Ross said that was a typo and needed to be 18 feet. The idea was � a casita or guest house type of thing and it should be 18 feet. Commissioner Lopez said a one-story structure. Mr. Ross concurred. A little granny flat or something. Mr. Drell said that the presumption was that it would be within the building envelope, not in the setback. Commissioner Campbell said they only allow those in the front yards, not the back yards. Mr. Drell said no, they only allow them if they are within the building envelope. If it is located within the setbacks of where someone could built their main house, whether it was attached or detached, staff didn't care. It only became an issue when they were being built in actual yards and under 12,000 square feet, they basically don't allow them to encroach into yards in our current code. In this code they couldn't encroach into yards at all. He reminded the commission that the controversy came up because we used to allow accessory structures within five feet of the back wall, meaning we were allowing them to encroach into the rear yard. The way the code is written on lots under 12,000 square feet , can't encroach into the rear yard at all. Commissioner Campbell said that was why they changed the ordinance. The structure had to be away as many 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2004 � feet from the wall to give the height of the structure. Mr. Drell said that is on lots over 12,000 square feet. On these lots they basically have to be within the normal setbacks of the dwelling. They are governed by the same rules both in terms of setback and height as the primary dwelling. So if it is in a location where someone could have their main house, then they can have an accessory structure. But they can't encroach into a yard at all. Projections and architectural features. He said this should probably be footnoted as a discretionary item. Our code actually allows towers to exceed 25 feet, the standard in the zone. No one has ever gotten that, of course. But the footnote would be that there is discretionary approval that architectural tower elements could go up five feet, which was not inconsistent with our current code. That's the R-1 Table. Chairperson Jonathan asked Mr. Drell to keep going through the medium and high density and then they would have discussion. Medium Density. Mr. Drell said that right now the biggest issue is our current code didn't contemplate medium density detached housing. In those days as '`► soon as they thought they went over four units per acre they were talking about attached condos. That is what both the R-2 and the PR zone standards kind of orient themselves in these higher densities. The average lot size of 3,500 square feet in the R-2 Zone or medium density zone allows up to ten units per acre and that's the average they need to achieve, ten units per acre. The same went with the minimum. They would have some larger and some smaller and they would be allowed to adapt to the geometry of how they have to put the tract together. But actually by requiring people to have larger and smaller lots, it creates a diversity of housing because they have larger and smaller houses which he thought was a good thing to encourage in terms of having some diversity of product within a tract. Lot coverage. They are saying 55%. Mr. Drel! said they were proposing that to go back to 50% as under the current code. Regarding lot size, Chairperson Jonathan noted that Mr. Drell indicated that those minimum lot sizes are required in order to achieve ten units per acre. Mr. Drell said that was correct. Chairperson Jonathan asked what the magic � was in ten. Mr. Drell said that is the top end of the designation, of the range. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2004 � ; ..� It didn't force them to zone anyone for ten, but if we zone someone for ten we should have a standard that allows them to achieve ten. Chairperson Jonathan asked what the minimum number of units was in the medium density. Mr. Dre11 said it would be five to ten. Our condominium projects probably have lot sizes of 2,500 square feet in the country clubs. So it was creating a standard that allows them to get to potentially what the zoning or what the designations might allow. Coverage would be reconciled back to 50%. Setbacks again were basically . a refinement. The 15-foot front would be the same. It would create an incentive for front porches. It would actually force garages to be back further because we want, especially on small lots, we want the living architecture of the house forward and the garage back so the garage is less prominent and creating an incentive for side-in garages which de-emphasizes the garage door and the front elevations. He said the rear setback was footnoted. He would like to see it revised to 20 feet to be consistent with our current standards. There are some designs he could see in medium density where in essence the yard is in the middle in : 's some detached rear designs where they have house/yard/ garage. He said ,� when someone has a rear yard or a yard, they want a minimum 20-foot dimension, which is when yards start becoming usable for outdoor living. Side yards. Instead of being five and 14, in our current standard it would be the perimeter setback of a duplex unit. Typically with a duplex unit there is a zero yard between the two units, then the five and 14 on the sides on the perimeter. Since they were contemplating not duplex units, but detached units, they are proposing that the side yards be five feet or creating a minimum of ten feet of building separation and potentially zero feet for garages based upon the previous note about detached garages. Chairperson Jonathan asked for clarification that the unlabeled column is what staff is proposing. Mr. Drell said that is what the developer is proposing and he is noting what he was suggesting be changed. He said that some of the changes were generated by the applicant, and some as a result of discussions with him. Chairperson Jonathan asked if these standards, once they were ultimately approved, become part of the zoning standards. Mr. Drell said yes,for this project only. Chairperson Jonathan asked if they would serve as a precedent fo� other projects. Mr. Drell said they very well could. � 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2004 i.. Chairperson Jonathan said this is just part of the development agreement for this property. Mr. Drell concurred. On the side yard, instead of completely eliminating 14 feet combined, Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mr. Drell had considered reducing the 14 feet combined. Mr. Drell said no. Basically they were saying it should be five and five. The reason is his preference and emphasis is on rear yards, maximizing usable yard space. As these lots get smaller, they are struggling for every square foot of usable yard space. What they were really saying is that the wider the side yards are, the narrower the house becomes, the deeper it becomes and that space comes out of the rear yard. Chairperson Jonathan said the price to pay for the deeper rear yard is ten feet separation minimum instead of 14. Mr. Drell said that was his preference. Commissioner Campbell said if it was so narrower, someone could flush the toilet and a person in the other house would hear it. Mr. Drell said no, ten feet was probably the most common side yard in the United States. Whether it was 10 or 14, with modern insulation and windows he didn't think would make a difference between 10 or 14 in terms of whether you are offended by hearing someone flush a toilet. � In terms of process, Chairperson Jonathan said they aren't accepting these or rejecting them, they are just listening to what was being proposed and they would give the applicant a chance to talk, give everyone else a chance to talk and then they would have their discussion and weigh the pros and cons. Mr. Drell concurred. He said it was a matter of e�ciently using the ground and making the open space usable. He said it is a trade off, but that is what life's all about. Building height. Staff was proposing the same standard, the 22-foot flat 24- foot pitched roof. He noted that the applicant was proposing the 24 feet and 26 feet based on the same rationale proposed in the R-1. He pointed out that in our last two multifamily projects for ourselves we approved 26. That would be on the discretionary side. R-3. To reiterate, he said that under our new emerging R-3 standard in this area everything is discretionary. Just the mere existence of going over 10 units per acre is discretionary, meaning that every project is going to have to be design justified to get the density over 10. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the density for medium is 5 to 10 and high density is 11 to 22. Mr. Drell said +�. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18. 2004 ; � ..� the minimum project size, he wasn't sure it meant anything, but the size here is being used similar to the R-3. Minimum size detached. If they try to do any detached product, it could be 2,500 square feet. He didn't anticipate any detached product. Mr. Ross said that one of the suggestions they were making was to get rid of the detached standards because they were never going to get there, high density detached. Mr. Drell agreed that once it gets above ten it becomes almost impossible. Mr. Ross said it has probably been done in other places; he didn't think it was appropriate out here. He said they should take all references to detached out of the manual. Chairperson Jonathan said it was noted in the proposed changes. , Mr. Ross said that was correct. ` � Lot width. Mr. Drell said that lot width was the same, lot depth was the same, coverage was the same, front setbacks - again relating to front porches, otherwise, it was the same; rear setbacks they were saying were the same; side yards - they were envisioning the potential for zero side yards he thought. It was blank and he asked the applicant if thaYs what that meant. Mr. Ross said on the attached part it would be zero and they had a footnote to change the setback on the exterior of the buildings to the nearest curb and/or property line of 20 feet. Mr. Drell said that basically the side yard there would really relate to the perimeter of the project. The general standard in the PR zone is 20 feet for the project perimeter, so basically they were proposing to change it to have the same project perimeter setback. Corner/street at 10 was the same. Building separation. He said they didn't really have that standard. It was proposed as 25 feet, 15 feet and 15 feet. Building height. The suggested bump up from 24 to 26 for two stories. They � were also suggesting that under certain circumstances that we are willing to � 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18. 2004 `�.� look at a three-story product if it is shown to be the best way to provide the housing we want in this particular case in fhe terrain. Basically, when they have sloping height they want to make the footprints as small as they can since they're having to create flat pads on a hill. Mr. Ross thought they'd better show that, take it out of the standards section on the booklet, and put it into the footnote section as really an exception to the rule, not what was approved. The three story component. The way it is shown now it is a two or three kind of a thing, so their proposal is to put it down into the footnotes as really a discretionary if a person can prove that it is a benefit to the overall project through more open space, or better architecture, or various other things. But it was not approved today. Chairperson Jonathan said that if the three-story issue is not addressed at all, either in the standard or as a footnote exception, he asked if an applicant still had the ability to come in and request that under the actual zoning standard. Mr. Drell said not really, it would become a variance. He apologized saying he didn't get from the applicant the exceptions language �► to hand out to the commission that they proposed at the last rneeting. Assuming the fact that the exception language, a(though flowery, was simply stating that if something was proposed that the City likes, they have the ability to approve it, which was really the language in the current PR zone. It basica�ly says that all these standards shall apply unless Planning Commission decides otherwise. He thought if it is mentioned, the benefit of mentioning it would be in connection with some sort of discussion which kind of described those sorts of circumstances by which it would be considered. Chairperson Jonathan said he understood that, but his question was if the development agreement was silent as to a three-story element, if an applicant still had a legal mechanism or procedure available to request it. Mr. Drel! said yes. A good example was we approved a certain eight-story hotel based on an exception section in the zone that allows two story. Commissioner Finerty also indicated a three-story hotel. Mr. Drell concurred that we've allowed three-story hotels as well. Commissioner Finerty said the mechanism is there today without any specific language. Mr. Drell said yes. The issue was whether the commission wanted as a matter of this document to provide some guidance to a perspective applicant under what circumstances it might be considered. He said that covered the residential � sections. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2004 � � � Regarding the high density, Chairperson Jonathan asked if staff or the applicant considered the possibility of a limit on the number of units per structure. In other words, the vision of creating pods of 10 or 16 units or something versus in one structure getting all 22. Mr. Dreff said no. Typically they've had eight of 16 at the most. Chairperson Jonathan said if they are going to have 22 on a acre, maybe a structure of 10 and one of 12 was preferable to one of 22 and maybe not. Mr. Drell agreed with that. The more a dwelling unit gets its own unique individuality, the better. On the other hand, there are people who would say that a desert island is the wonderful thing because it was all massed together and there was more open space. He wasn't necessary an advocate of that, but there were some schools of planning that say there are positives to that design. It was just a matter of the tradeoffs of individuality of residential product as opposed to open space. Just to put it into perspective, Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mr. Drell happened to know the density at Indian Creek Villas where each structure has four units. Mr. Drell thought Indian Creek Villas was eight to ten units per acre. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there were any other questions for staff on ,,� the residential side. There were none. Ch�irperson Jonathan asked if the applicant wanted to address the residential side at this time, although he would have more opportunity later. Mr. Ross said he didn't have anything else, although he would be happy to answer any questions. Commissioner Campbell asked Mr. Drell if Council approved low density and medium and not high density. The general plan the commission approved had high density and the Council took away all the high density and made it low density and medium density and if they were going to go ahead and look at any projects later on in case they needed high density. That was the way she understood it. Mr. Drell said that wasn't it exactly. Commissioner Finerty noted that all medium density had a high density overlay. Mr. Drell concurred saying what the Council did in essence was create a mega zone with four units per acre to 22 units per acre with all approvals over ten units being discretionary. And there is an overall goal in the university park area north of Sinatra of achieving at least 4,037 units and they acknowledged that without the high density, the best they could do even if maxed to 10, they would only get about 3,300 units. So they acknowfedged there would have 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2004 r... to be high density. It's just they wanted in essence high density projects to justify themselves based on those seven criteria, most of which are really the same sort of design driven justifications we've always used for high density. But they wanted to keep a hook and motivate anyone who wanted high density to have to really raise the bar relative to design. Other than the proposed changes on each of these categories, Commissioner Lopez said there was some conversation that they should probably indicate that one story is 18 feet. Mr. Drell said that was correct. Commissioner Lopez indicated that the other proposed changes were the suggestions to each of these densities. Mr. Drell said that was correct. Regarding the height, he was suggesting that anything over the 22-24 height is on the discretionary side. Mr. DreN said that the commission also requested a matrix of the commercial standards and staff prepared one the best they could of the existing standards. The existing development agreement merely refers to our existing standards pretty much. Unfortunately, the land use designations don't match our existing designations so it was a little unclear. The good news is that in �•• the proposed land use plan, there are only really three separate areas. They had already dealt with one area for the Evans project. He said the standards float all over the place for no apparent rhyme or reason, but basically they have the university village at the corner and that was an already approved project. He said they basically used the PC-3 standards as a guide on the Evans site. He thought it would probably be appropriate if the applicant just wanted to refer to standards, to refer to the PC-3. Chairperson Jonathan noted that the Evans site was mixed use. Mr. Drell said that everything in the PC they've allowed creativity, but in the existing development agreement he thought it referred in general to the PC-3 standards as kind of a starting point in terms of evaluating consistency. Chairperson Jonathan pointed out that there were also some O.P. sections. Mr. Drell concurred. He said that PC-3 allows offices to be within it, but they didn't apply separate O.P. standards to the office portion of the project. They applied the PC-3 standards the best they could to the whole project. With regard to parking and the request for medical use, Chairperson Jonathan said they referred to the O.P. standards. Mr. Drell said that was correct. Since the office was such a large complex, it wasn't an incidental use. �.. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18. 2004 � � Mr. Drell said that staff's suggestion was if it was going to refer to a zone, it should probably refer to the PC-3 zone for that northwestern 11 acres, which once developed will functionally be pa�t of the university project. The piece south ended up getting designated office and mixed use or really mixed use with an office component. Mixed use was really going to be a custom design again based on a unique encroach to integrating residential and commercial use. That was the analysis and comparison relative to the commercial. He said that completed the staff report and asked for any other questions. Chairperson Jonathan said this was good work. It was exactly what he had in mind and thanked Mr. Drell for putting it together. It shed light and enabled him to get his arms around it. Procedurally, he said he would continue the public hearing and give the applicant an opportunity to make any comments. Mr. Ross also thought Mr. Drell did a great job with the comparison and this table really cleared up some of the unanswered questions. They were hopeful that this cleared up any misconceptions as to what they were trying to do so they could move down the field and have a nice, mixed use type project. He asked for any questions and was hopeful of moving forward tonight. Chairperson Jonathan said that they emphasized the importance of the exceptions language so that it made it very clear that the exceptions were not a given and in fact there is a higher bar to get over before the exceptions would even be considered. He asked if Mr. Ross would be developing language to that effect or if he had that already that they could look at. Mr. Ross said they had and he thought it was e-mailed to Phil. He thought so, but it was probably more wordy than it needed to be, but it was basically talking about the intent of the project and an exception wou{d be granted if there is an overriding improvement of the overall project. So it was really kind of wordy that they really needed to show why they wanted this exception. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the exceptions language was in process. Mr. Drell said that basically, all it has to say is that exceptions will be considered based on superior design. Mr. Ross concurred that's what it said in about two paragraph's worth of words. 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2004 � Mr. Marix said that if the commission had not already done so, he thought it would be instructive and very informative to perhaps go out to the site today. There has been a fairly substantial amount of grading that has been done for the commercial project right on the corner. While they were looking at in terms of slopes was not going to be the finished product, in other words, there are 500,000 cubic yards of dirt that have been moved there, they will subsequently be moving another 2,500,000 yards of dirt so the extent of the slope they see will not be quite what they see right now. The point was that there are some differences as it relates to things such as two-story, setbacks, or whatever, that are greatly impacted by those slopes. In the one sense mitigated, because they aren't blocking views when there are just stepped down elevations befinreen pads that are maybe 15 or 20 feet each going from one tier of lots down to another. He thought it would be helpful, it certainly was for him, to go out there and really test the magnitude of the slope they are talking about. He reminded them that there is 100 feet of fall from the highest point of their piece down to the corner of Gerald Ford and � Cook Street. So a lot of this evolves from that. While they talked about 120 feet of lot, it was pointed out, and accurately so, that the lots in many cases will be substantially deeper than that. But he thought of it in a practical sense. What is the usable depth of lot and the explanation would be 120 feet. Nevertheless, the lot depth in many cases exceeds that greatly. Again,to accommodate a fairly steep step down in the elevations. He thanked the commission and asked if they had any questions. His interest here was strictly in the residential portion. Commissioner Tschopp asked if it would negatively impact the proposed project if design standards as defined in the current code were kept with just a footnote stating they would go to these other standards if the design component demanded such. Mr. Marix said he didn't know if he could answer the question. They had spent a substantial amount of time on it. Mr. Drell said he would like to answer the question. Commissioner Tschopp said he wanted to ask someone who is in the business. Mr. Drell said he � could tell the commission his experience and his experience with a very 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2004 recent project. He was able to discourage that person because of the moratorium. He believed the standards here are better and in most cases they are really more detailed and provide guidance where our current code doesn't offer any guidance at all. Developers have learned over the years to take the path of least resistance and if they are told they can follow these standards or take a chance and try to do something interesting and follow these other ones, there's a whole group of developers out there that will say "forget it, I'm not taking a chance, I'm going to go with whaYs secured." One of his discussions with a certain developer and when he was trying to encourage them to be more creative and come up with a better project, the response was, "wait a minute, I meet your standards. There's no requirernent that I go beyond them." So he thought having a document that clearly says this is what good design is and it goes far beyond pure numbers. In the book, it was not the numbers, but just the text. A lot of standards being provided here our current zoning is silent on entirely, especially the medium density. When it comes to the low and they see there's not a lot of difference to what they are proposing in our current standards. But in the medium, our medium standards just don't contemplate detached units. � Chairperson Jonathan heard what he was saying, but thought there was a „� slightly different nuance to Commissioner Tschopp's question. He asked if Commissioner Tschopp wanted to restate it and actually hear from the applicant from a developer's stand point. Commissioner Tschopp asked Mr. Marix if he had to operate under the cuRent codes, but was given latitude in the verbiage in those codes to take additional steps if certain design criteria were met, if that would have a negative impact on his development of the property. Mr. Marix said it seemed to him that to the extent they can provide specificity, they're better served. So if they develop some standards that are not quite as vague as perhaps the existing code may be, as Mr. Drell suggested, they would get a better effort toward what might be considered good design. Was he answering his question? He quite frankly was more comfortable with the book that is presented to them, in large part because they spent an enormous amount of time working on it and trying to envision different product types and talking to the builders who will subsequently be building them, not him. So he guessed the answer to the question was he would prefer to see it as ; requested. 18 MtNUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2004 � Following up on Mr. Drell's comments, but giving them a twist, Commissioner Tschopp noted that developers usually take the path of least resistance, so if the code allows something, they will typically push that envelope and/or try to get a few more inches or feet out of it. He asked if the commission was going to see that in his projects as they come forth. Mr. Marix said he was unable to answer that in that he wasn't the guy that would be standing before them with some architecture and floor plans, or some site plans, requesting approval. The folks he was talking to he considered responsible people. That assured them of absolutely nothing, but in the marketplace today, being this competitive in many respects notwithstanding the article in the Desert Sun on Sunday, folks are interested in limiting their down side in terms of product definition. They want good stuff. They all of them in their minds with the frenzy going on today are thinking ihis is going to change sometime in the not too distant future. Therefore, they need to having something that is going to survive increased interest rates or the like. � He said the commission was going to get another shot at it as each of these developments come forth to them, as is the City Council, so it wasn't as though someone could walk into Mr. Drell's office and plunk something down and say here it is, I'll be back in 20 minutes to get a building permit. No, there would be a huge amount of work with site planning, architecture, and floor plans that they will have before them to consider before something is approved. If the issue they raised is a fear of perhaps someone coming in in a minimal sense demanding something, he didn't think that was possible with the way this has been approved. He thought they had vast discretion and they would spend many many hours on the 2,000 units shown here, or 4, and that was his opinion. Commissioner Finerty asked if he had a vision when looking at the low density. She noticed that the standards call for a minimum of 7,200 square foot lots. Going back to the good old days, they had R-1 9,000 square foot lots that were single story. She asked if he envisioned anything like that in his project. �.. 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18. 2004 � � � Mr. Marix said that some of the lots are that big just the way it lays out. He confirmed that those were the exceptions without any question. Commissioner Fine�ty stated that she app�eciated his honesty. Mr. Marix said he wasn't sure how to answer something like that and wasn't trying to throw it back at her. If someone wanted to spend more money, they would have lots of other alternatives, perhaps not in Palm Desert, but in La Quinta and now interestingly enough Indio and other places. He thought what they would find with the 60-foot lot and side yard setbacks that have been recommended some very nice product. His guess was that under current circumstances, probably $400,000 houses. These were not tar paper shanties that are going to go up there. Commissioner Finerty asked if that was in part because of the major increase in property values right now. If they were to have talked about this , product two years ago, she didn't think they would be looking at anywhere near $400,000. ,� Mr. Marix agreed. What he was suggesting was that the housing would be the same. Whatever someone chose to market would be what they project the demand in Palm Desert to be and the lot sizes are an adjustment speaking in part to the question of subsequent price. They could have acre lots out there. Anything like that was possible, but in the series of compromises they make is a function of all the information that they input including engineering, topo, view lots, etc., it synthesizes itself into something that seems to make sense. That was his opinion. The good news from the commission's point of view is they have competent staff to guide them in that process knowing full well that when the time comes, they would be standing back up there sheepishly asking for the commission's approval. And that is a good thing. He didn't know that increasing it to 8,000 square feet would necessarily provide them a better project or development community. Commissioner Finerty said she was talking about R-1 9,000 because it � seemed to her they were trying to do is take what they currently know as � medium density and rework it into a new low density. Because they are � � 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18 2004 i.r chipping away at the coverage, chipping away at the setbacks, chipping away at the lof width, fhe lot size and they are making it so that the low density they know was actually being turned into medium density. The low density she is used to as far as the R-1 9,000 is as he put it an exception rather than the rule. Mr. Marix said he didn't know if she asked him a question, but his answer to the non question would be that the dynamics of the marketplace are changing substantially, so how does somebody, a merchant in this business in one form or another, make the accommodations to the changes that are made. He didn't know people who are out proposing half acre lots or two acre lots or five acre ranchettes which are things that were not too uncommon 15 or 20 years ago. Commissioner Finerty said she was talking about the quarter acre lots, the R-1 9,000. That was something in the late 1990's they used to strive for and were really encouraged when they saw a project come forward with that. But it seemed to her, with all due respect, that they are trying to take these �+ standards and get every nickel and dime out of them when in reality they still have with our current standards the ability to come in with a project of exceptional design quality. Mr. Marix said they were entitled to their opinion. Commissioner Campbell asked how Mr. Marix envisioned the low density standards they have now for 8,000 square feet and then they have the medium density around there and she asked how he would envision having low density and then a cluster of high density as described in the booklet. Mr. Marix said he harkened back to the comments about topographical features of the site. The low density is at the greatest elevation of the prope�ty, so as they come down the slope, it gets to be higher density and subsequently commercial. The point being that the low density is still going to have fairly magnificent views in a large part to the north part looking over those buildings that are even higher density. So it was not like they are side by side and if the view is impacted in some form or fashion. He thought not. As they evolved through the planning process over what seemed like the last eight or � 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2004 , i � � ten years, but really two or three, it evolved that way, largely driven by topographic features. Mr. Drell added that regardless of the fact that Council as a matter of right eliminated the distinction in terms of spatially on the ground between the high and the medium, they envision the high density to be where this commission approved it, toward the commercial and along Gerald Ford and the medium density in between. So they didn't envision a high density cluster against the low density. Commissioner Campbell concurred, but what she envisioned when coming to Palm Desert on the freeway on Cook and what did they see first? The cluster would be of the multi-family. Mr. Drell said they would see the commercial on the corner, behind that was a park, and then there was medium density. The high density was shown down Gerald Ford. He said there was nothing to be ashamed of. There is high density on Fred Waring, high density on Country Club and there's nothing to be ashamed of to have high density. It's all a matter of design and quality of a project. Mr. Marix said that the commission would have the ability and their � own judgement to approve or disapprove what is brought before � them. He has seen one of the elevations being proposed for one of the high density sites right now. It presides momentarily here in the City because the City will be involved in it. In his view it is a very very good looking development. That was his subjective opinion, but it was not as though he thought they were giving up any of those abilities to take a iook at it and take a look at colors. They have the committees to do that, to review the architecture, so they were just dealing here with broad terms and the specifics would come before them any number of times. Commissioner Campbell said that she would be comfortable with the two- stories, but not a three-story building. Mr. Marix pointed out that the site is surrounded by three-story buildings. Commissioner Campbell concurred. Commissioner Finerty said they weren't apartment buildings. Commissioner Campbell agreed. They are commercial buildings. . Mr. Marix said there are two hotels and one college. 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2004 i.. Commissioner Campbell said that was different. Chairperson Jonathan indicated they would have an opportunity for discussion in a second and asked if there were any other questions for the applicant. After no other questions, Chairperson Jonathan toid Mr. Marix that his candor was refreshing and appreciated and thanked him. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Jonathan asked for commission comments. Chairperson Jonathan said that if they wanted, they could just go down and discuss items they want to comment on and ones they might have disagreement on. Starting with the low density standards, he asked if anyone had an opinion or exceptions to what was being proposed. Commissioner Tschopp said that the average lot size is currently 8,000 and this was maintaining an average lot size of 8,OOQ, taking the minimum down to 7,200, giving some latitude there. He believed the 60-foot lot width if designed properiy could work. The lot coverage stays fai�ly consistent. They �••• have a 10% increase in that. When he looked at the low density standards, he didn't have a big problem with those. Commissioner Lopez echoed that. He thought they needed to make a change with the accessory structure from ten to 18 feet, but generally speaking, low density was fine. Commissioner Finerty disagreed. She thought the current standards in the rest of the city worked fine and she didn't see a need to lessen the standards as proposed here. Should there be a quality-designed project that a developer would like to bring to them, they still had the ability to do so, but to just chip away at the lot size, lot width and coverage, the rear yard setbacks, the building heights, she didn't see that it was necessary. Chairperson Jonathan asked if her issues were specifically the minimum lot size and the minimum lot width. Commissioner Finerty said that and coverage. There was a 10% increase in coverage and not having everything covered with a building is nice and she tended more toward the 35%. The rear yard setback would be lessened by five feet. They are increasing the height from 18 feet to 24 feet up to 26 feet. She wasn't seeing a need to do �.. that at this time. She believed that when a project comes before them they 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2004 , have the aption to make any changes, but she agreed with what other commissioners have said and developers are going to push the envelope. They push it now and if these lower standards are adopted, they would continue to push it. It was human nature and she didn't blame them for doing that, it was their business to maximize, but she didn't think that was in the best interest of Palm Desert. Commissioner Campbell agreed with Commissioner Finerty on that. They are looking at 8,000 square foot lot sizes right now, but if something like this is approved, others would come to the commission and say they should be able to do the same thing. She thought the minimum coverage they can do is best for all of them. The 18-foot one story is fine. They don't have two- story homes here in Palm Desert yet and she was sure it would be coming. The apartments on 42nd are 24-feet high, but those are apartments and two- story homes would be constructed, she would rather have them in one cluster to look into each others yards and not have single story mixed with two-stories. � Chairperson Jonathan said he agreed with all of them. The reason is he � shared the concerns of the two commissioners. They have an area designated as low density and he hadn't heard a compelling reason that our low density standards should be liberalized. On the other hand, he agreed with the other commissioners in that it is possible under the right circumstances to design an appropriate and attractive project with 7,200 square feet like they had done off of Hovley with reduced minimum lot widths. So the suggestion he had to accomplish both was to leave the standards as they are for the PR-4, but use the exception approach to allow a developer to go down to 7,200 square feet minimum lot size or a 60-foot lot width under appropriate or compelling circumstances. He could see in this situation those could arise. He would have an open mind to it should the applicant make his or her case. He would also suggest with regard to the building height that they retain the one-story/18 foot height and the two- story/24 foot height as indicated in the PR-4 standards and again, use the exception approach for the two-story going to 26 feet in the event of a pitched roof. But he thought there would be that additional bar to overcome. He asked what the commission thought. Commissioner Lopez said he was fine with that. � 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2004 +r Commissioner Finerty understood Chairperson Jonathan's suggestion, but the developer already had that ability. The developer could already bring that to them if it is a high-quality project. So she didn't see the point of giving them an open invitation, but they would look at these lower standards. She didn't understand the goal here. She didn't see how this was going to better our city. Commissioner Tschopp thought they were trying to give this area some goals and to articulate in an agreement specifically what they are looking for and acknowledging that the city has ce�tain housing requirements to meet. He thought in this area specifically both of the applicants mentioned that there is a tremendous topography and there are some opportunities out there to utilize that and he thought they were trying to give the builders some direction so that they don't spend a lot of time designing something that isn't going to work or spending a lot of time with staff. So they were trying to give some minimums there and that is where the average lot size comes into play with the maximum. He thought the topography was a huge issue out there. A couple of other comments is that everyone is worried about height (imits `i"" as it pertains to views. So far in the homes in places he has lived in Palm Desert in other areas, it isn't the house across the street that blocks his view, it is the vegetation. They need to chop down trees or put a limit that they can't grow beyond 24 feet. Thirdly, if they looked at country clubs and planned unit developments, they will see that most of the houses in there are closer than these. The setbacks from the golf course or common area are less than this and it works very well. What they were trying to do here is give some flexibility and say they will allow this if the design and specifics warrant it. Commissioner Finerty agreed they should give flexibility, but the mechanism they have used in the past has worked quite well. Developers have come to the commission, sometimes under miscellaneous, and they will say what they would like to do with the area, present some ideas and ask for commission comments to see if they are headed in the right direction or if they need to make some changes. Then they will go back and change their plans and then they bring it forward. They have done that before quite successfully. Also, Planning Department staff is more than willing as demonstrated to say they need "x" amount of units out there and if they come in with a high quality project, which she thought Mr. Drell did just ,� recently when they approved the project over on the Charlie Sweet property, 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18. 2004 they came in with great standards as far as architecture and design for medium density and they didn't have to have a differentiation in standards. They recognized that was a great project and architecture. They knew the issues with that area and the neighborhood, just like in this other area they have issues with s{ope and the topography and they approved the project and it moved forward, all without having different standards. Commissioner Lopez noted that Chairperson Jonathan had a suggestion as to what might be a compromise and asked him to go through that one more time. Chairperson Jonathan said yes, but prefaced it with saying that the reason for doing it was answered by the applicant, Mr. Marix, when he was asked by Commissioner Tschopp what deve{opers prefer. He told Commissioner Finerty that he recognized that they have granted numerous exceptions where circumstances warrant them and he trusted that they would continue to do so under the appropriate circumstances. But he thought they were doing a service to the development community and to the city in further delineating in greater detail when and how and what types of exceptions would be granted. For example, when they say the standard is � 8,000 square foot minimum lot size, but under the appropriate circumstances � they would grant an exception down to 7,200 square feet, the implicit message there is that they really weren't expecting to go below that. So he thought they were doing what the applicant has said developers prefer which is to further define for them the standards. For that reason, he was suggesting that they keep the standards in the development agreement the same for low density as they are for PR-4 so that for example the minimum lot size would be 8,000 square feet and there would be a provision for exception down to 7,200 square feet. The minimum lot width would remain at 70, but with a provision for an exception down to 60 under appropriate circumstances. He was also suggesting that in the primary structure building height, that they again mirror the PR-4 standard which is one story with 18 feet and finro-stories with 24 feet, but that they allow an exception for a pitched roof to go to 26 feet. Commissioner Finerty recalled from the last meeting that Chairperson Jonathan asked for a list of where these exceptions would apply. They didn't have a list, so a list of appropriate circumstances right now remained undefined. They didn't know where any of these standards would apply and � in what case, so if a developer comes in and thinks lots should be 7,200 � because they have a great design, which is what Mr. Drell alluded to, the � 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2004 � quality of the design, she asked if that was going to be their only appropriate circumstance? She hoped not. Chairperson Jonathan said no, and agreed with that, which is why he asked earlier about the exceptions language. He would not be opposed to agreeing to these standards, but perhaps if necessary continuing the matter to exclusively address the exceptions ianguage where they can specify the types of circumstances. Because Mr. Drell was looking puzzled, Chairperson Jonathan asked if we already had that. Mr. Drell said no, but on the one hand they didn't want to specify details, but they wanted to specify circumstances for exceptions. Right now the exceptions language in the ordinance is, and if what Ms. Finerty said is the appropriate way to go and is perfect, it simply says that the way they've granted all the exceptions they've alluded to is simply a section that says these are the standards that apply unless they decide others are appropriate. That is what they have operated on. They have complete control in that language and the simpler the language in that argument is, the more control they have. Chairperson Jonathan said he could see his point. Commissioner Finerty indicated that when a developer comes in and sees 7,200 square feet, it hasn't been made �"" clear to them as to what circumstances the commission would look favorably upon that size of a lot. She also didn't think it had been made clear that this is an exception and not a new standard. Commissioner Campbell asked why then they wouldn't be able to leave the average lot size area from 9,000 to 8,000 square feet. Mr. Drell said the current standard is 8,000 square feet. Chairperson Jonathan remembered projects in the past that had 12,000. Mr. Drell agreed that people proposed larger. Commissioner Finerty asked about the project by Regency Estates. She asked if they had to change that. Mr. Drell said it was under the County at 12,000 square feet. Commissioner Finerty agreed, but a developer came in and wanted 8,000 and in some cases 7,200 square foot lots and it looked like little postage stamps, and when it got to Council they changed it. Mr. Drell said they reduced them to 9,500 square foot lots and ended up going to 10,500. But in terms of what is now in the PR standard is 8,000 square foot lots. All of these properties currently are zoned Planned Residential. That is their current residential zone. Commissioner Finerty agreed that was PR, but she was talking about R-1. Mr. Drell said that the properties they are talking about are currently zoned and have been zoned since incorporation PR. So the standards they have been subject to for 10-12 years is the PR ` standard. The PR standard refers to the R-1 8,000 standard in the code. 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2004 Commissioner Campbell said that if someone comes in front of them with the 8,000 square feet, they can say they think they can put this size in a larger lot. She asked if they could ask that. Mr. Drell said no, they couldn't do that now under the current code. They couldn't force a developer to provide a lower density than their zoning allows, unless they could show there was sorne threat to public health and safety that would result. Again, developers have chosen all through the history of the city all so�ts of various lot sizes based on the market. Some have chosen sometimes 10,000 to 12,000 square feet and some have chosen 8,000. He thought the vast majority have chosen 8,000 to 9,000 square feet since most of our development has occurred in the PR zone over the last 10-12 years. Chairperson Jonathan suggested for the commission's consideration was essentially to adopt the same standards as the PR-4 standards for the low density and this development agreement. He wasn't suggesting that they vary from them. He was suggesting that they embrace those same standards. The only part"B"to that is that they define certain exceptions they would be willing to consider under the appropriate circumstances without any � message or encouragement that they would do so. But just as a matter of � guidance to indicate that they would be willing to consider the exceptions down to those ce�tain limits and he thought that was the bene�t. They were just defining the types of exceptions and the e�ent of those exceptions that they would be willing to consider again under appropriate circumstances and adequately persuaded that an exception at all would be allowed. And that would be their ability to say yay of nay. Commissioner Lopez asked if they wanted to move on to medium or take each one individually. Chairperson Jonathan asked if they were allowed to take kind of an indication or vote on separate sections. Mr. Drell said they could do like they did with the general plan with little minute motions for their own purposes. Chairperson Jonathan said if that was allowed, then maybe that was good because then they would know if they were in a position to move forward. Action: It was moved by Chairperson Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, by minute motion, to adopt the same standards for the development agreement with regard to Low Density standards as we have for PR-4, specifically the minimum lot size would remain at 8,000 square feet, the minimum lot width would remain at 70 feet, the rear yard setback would not 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2004 tr.. have a zero foot setback for garages, nor would the interior side yard (they would delete the reference to zero feet for garages), building height will be 18 feet for one story, 24 feet for two story and the accessory structure will be 18 feet. The exceptions language will refer to the possibility of minimum lot sizes of 7,200, minimum lot widths of 60 feet, and the five-foot projections/architectural features wauld be discretionary as well, and up to 26 feet for a pitched roof. Commissioner Campbell noted that Mr. Marix indicated that some of those lots would be larger than 8,000 square feet, so anyone who wanted a larger lot could pay more. Chairperson Jonathan said it was always possible that someone would acquire property in the low density or even a medium density and request a change, but they woutd come in and create 10,000 if that is the direction the market goes in and if that is the economics. He thought an applicant was always free, as they have been in the past, to come in and bring us larger lots. Mr. Drell informed them there is actually a difference today as was discussed with the general plan. It has now been recognized under State law that cities have an obligation to actually provide housing regardless of the market and that even developer-initiated down �"" zonings in residential required cities to find substitute units somewhere else. Where we used to give people awards for not building housing, it has been recognized that the purpose of cities is to house people and therefore those awards are not being given out any more. Given the motion and the caveat that design element will play a pa�t in granting the proposals, Commissioner Tschopp asked if Chairperson Jonathan wanted to include any allowance for keeping the lot size 8,000, but allowing for smaller lots since they are trying to define this for the benefit of developers in the city. Commissioner Finerty stated that it wasn't for the developers in the city, it is just for the developers for this project. She asked if that was correct. Chairperson Jonathan said yes. Commissioner Tschopp clarified developers oi this project within the city. Chairperson Jonathan said if he read Commissioner Tschopp right, he was suggesting that there be some language in the exceptions that indicates that one of the compelling arguments for example for the exception in the minimum lot size is if the 8,000 square foot average iot size is still preserved. So if there is unique topography so there is a mix of 9,000 square foot lots and 7,200 square foot lots, that might be an examp(e of a compelling reason to allow an exception. Commissioner Tschopp said yes. Chairperson Jonathan said that in fact has ,`, been a rationale for granting exceptions in the past. He thought that would 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18. 2004 enhance what they were doing here. He asked if there was any further discussion before the vote. There was none. The vote was 4-1 with Commissioner Finerty voting no. Using the same approach for Medium Density for five to ten units, Chairperson Jonathan asked the commissioners if there are areas they have concerns on or take issue with. Commissioner Campbell asked if they were changing the rear yard setback to 20 feet. Mr. Drell said that was correct, and coverage to 50%. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the medium density minimum lot size of 3,000 square feet is the highest minimum that would be required to accommodate ten units per acre. Mr. Drell said no, the 3,500 average. So even with 3,000 they would still be at the 3,500 average. Commissioner Campbell asked for the minimum lot size if they could do the same thing suggested by Commission Tschopp before that so many lots could be 3,000 square feet, but most should be 3,500 square feet. Mr. Drell , said that was inherent in it and Chairperson Jonathan said that was already the standard that was being proposed. A project would have to have an average lot size of at least 3,500. Commissioner Campbell said she meant minimum lot size. She didn't think they wanted to have too many at 3,000. Chairperson Jonathan said that would be correct, because there would be others at 4,000 to balance out and an equal number would be at 4,000. That was exactly right. Chairperson Jonathan said he was okay with these standards and didn't have any exceptions. Commissioner Lopez asked if it would be appropriate to add one story at 18 feet. Chairperson Jonathan agreed that needed to be clarified. It would say one story/18 feet and two stories/24 feet. Commissioner Tschopp assumed those would be incorporated into the proposed changes that staff highlighted at the bottom of the table. Chairperson Jonathan concurred. Mr. Drell questioned why the accessory structure was listed as 20 feet instead of 24 because if the main house could be built at 24 feet high, he thought there would be no reason for 20 feet. It was too much for single story and not enough for two-story. If it is located where a two-story main dwelling � could be built, it should be the same. Commissioner Lopez suggested making it 18/24. Mr. Drell said it would be the same as the primary dwelling 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18. 2004 t�.. as long it was within the setbacks. Chairperson Jonathan confirmed 18 for one story and 24 for two stories. They already had the change for the 26 feet for a pitched roof. With those modifications clarifying that the building height is 18 feet for one story, 24 feet only for two stories and the same for accessory structures, Chairperson asked if there was a motion to accept the Medium Density development standards for this development agreement. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, accepting those development standards. Motion carried 4-1 with Commissioner Finerty voting no. High Density, 11 to 22 units per acre, was the next section. As a point of clarification, Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mr. Drell proposed adding language as far as side yard setback for 20-foot setbacks on the perimeter of the project. Mr. Drell agreed that project perimeter setbacks should be differentiated from interior building setbacks within a project. Referring to the �•• chart, he said they are saying 10 feet to interior property line and we would say 20 feet to interior property line. Chairperson Jonathan asked for clarification. Mr. Drell said they do have a perimeter section proposed, which is 20 feet from curb. Commissioner Campbell noted that on Medium Density under the proposed changes, the following footnote - "Cluster/Attached units may include 0-feet setbacks within the project but will provide 20-foot setbacks from all perimeter project area lines upon discretionary approval." She said that same thing would apply here. Mr. Drell concurred that it should apply. The basic perimeter setback should be 20 feet for both. Chairperson Jonathan said the side yard setback, in High Density they are now not really talking about single family detached residences. Mr. Drell said they are apartments. Chairperson Jonathan agreed and said possibly condos. Mr. Drell concurred. Chairperson Jonathan said that side yard setbacks would really refer to distance between structures. He asked if they needed a standard there. Mr. Drell said they really didn't. Structure separation ultimately was governed by fire codes. ThaYs why in the current PR zone the setback standards only refer to the perimeter of how the project relates to surrounding properties. In multi-family projects and even condos, they don't have property lines to measure setbacks from usually. i�.. Chairperson Jonathan noted that commercial properties can have zero 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSfON MAY 18. 2004 � � setbacks on the sides with the fire wall, so for example he would not want a developer to think the city was embracing zero side setbacks between structures. If he can create a fire wall between them, he still didn't want to see ten buildings all next to each other. Mr. Drell reminded the commission that everything in this zone is discretionary on design. He said he has seen horribly designed projects that meet our standards. Ten-foot building separation allows windows and doors. They could require at a minimum a 10-foot building separation within a project. He said the issue they were talking about is at the perimeter of a project as it refates to other properties and other projects they want 20 feet as identified in the R-2. So those are different and measured from property lines, but within a condo project, town houses or apartments, they don't necessarily have property lines to measure from so they are just talking about building separation and they are saying a rninimum 10-foot building separation which allows for windows and doors. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was any problem with specifying a minimum side yard setback between structures, something like 10 feet for single story and 15 for two stories. Mr. Drell said he didn't have a p�oblem with that. Chairperson Jonathan said he would be more comfortable with ' giving that kind of direction to a potential developer so they at least know that � and have that in mind. Mr. Drell said that was building separation, so building separation between two-story buildings would be 15 feet. Chairperson Jonathan said he had one other area he would want to open up for discussion. That was the three-story structures. His threshold for the desert is generally two-story. He has seen projects that go three stories that he can live with and one approach would be to make the three-story an exception rather than just built into the standard. For example, if there was a slope and it was two-stories from the street side but goes down to three stories in the rear, he would probably not have a problem with it. Or if it was really nicely designed and they were shown some pictures where it is not massive from the front and looks two-stories from the front. O� part of it is down into the ground. There were lots of possibilities. So he wasn't opposed to three stories under the right circumstances, but he was a little more comfortable making that an exception rather than the standard. Commissioner Lopez concurred. When looking from the highest point to the lowest point, three stories is going to stick up a little bit. When looking from � Gerald Ford back up, three stories looks like four, four and a half or five. Now that he was kind of retired, he didn't think anyone really perceived the mass 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2004 r.. that Shadow Ridge is at three stories until they had actually built the buildings. So he would rather see that be the exception and in knowing where the high density would probably fall, it would have to be an exception and a beautiful structure or use of topography that would make it work. Mr. Drell pointed out that everything in this zone is an exception. Chairperson Jonathan said that was understood, but in terms of offering guidance, he thought it kind of emphasized the point that three stories was really higher. Commissioner Tschopp indicated that footnote number one specifies that very distinctly shall require discretionary approval, shall demonstrate the advantages of development of three story structures, may include additional common open space, the building foot print, incorporation of slopes." He thought it was already handled in that manner. Chairperson Jonathan said it wasn't specified as an exception. Commissioner Tschopp said this whole thing is an exception so they are saying here is a little bit of parameters and if someone decides to build at three stories, we are looking at these types of things. Chairperson Jonathan said he was saying make it an exception, but build in this language. Commissioner Tschopp noted that right in the foot note it says it's an exception. `.. Commissioner Campbell asked why an accessory structure would be required in High Density. Mr. Drell agreed that it didn't make any sense in an apartment project. He thought it was a hold over from when they were thinking about a detached product, but since a detached product realiy wasn't going to exist, it was irrelevant. Commissioner Campbell noted that on the projections for architectural features, it says five feet above primary structure. She said it was already a 35-foot building. So they would have five feet on top of that? Mr. Drell said it was like our three-story hotels; we've granted architectural projections above 35 feet for hotel structures, for tower elements, for almost every single hotel we've approved. Chairperson Jonathan clarified that he was talking about tower elements, chimneys and stuff like that. Mr. Drell concurred. He said they could specify the same language that is in the current code which is not exceeding 10% of the roof area. For it to be a projection, it had to be a minority feature and our current code specifies that at 10°/a. Chairperson Jonathan thought that was a good idea. Chairperson Jonathan thought they were heading toward adopting the High �... Density standards with the following modifications. The side yard setback 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2004 � � � would be specified befinreen structures as 10 feet for single story and 15 feet between two story or more. The building height as discussed would be an exception, but with the footnote language indicated. They were going to delete the accessory structure and would modify the projections to provide the 10% or less limit. Mr. Drell said it should be applied to all the categories. Commission concurred. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was a motion to that effect. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, to approve those modifications. Motion carried 3-2 with Commissioners Campbell and Finerty voting no. Chairperson Jonathan summarized that the vote for the Low Density and Medium Density was 4-1 and for High Density 3-2. As modified as discussed, he asked if they were ready for a formal motion with regard to the matter before them. Mr. Drell said they might want to talk a little about the commercial in that they � probably want to refer to Planning Area 9 as a general reference, as modified � by the text, to PC-3 commercial zone. He wasn't sure how they would deal with the Mixed Use since they didn't have a zone, but he thought they could probably reference most of the PC-3 and PR zone. Chairperson Jonathan didn't think they needed to reference anything. It would be as it came before them. He asked if Mr. Drell was suggesting that for area 9 that the commission reference it as a PC-3 standard. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone had a problem with that. There was no response. Including that and the discussion earlier for the residential, Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone was prepared to bring forth a motion with regard to the entire application before them. Action: Commissioner Lopez said he would move that they go ahead and approve this application as amended. He would also like to incorporate what he thought was a great job. There were some minor changes here this evening, but overall for this particular very important entrance to our city, these guidelines were necessary, helpful and would only embellish the projects that come before them. He thought they did a great job and moved for approval. Commissioner Tschopp seconded the motion. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was discussion. � 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2004 �.. Commissioner Campbell said she had a problem because she voted against the High Density. Chairperson Jonathan said she was going to have a choice to make in terms of the overall package and whether her issues with the high density were of sufficient magnitude to preclude her from voting in favor of the whole project. Mr. Drell reminded them that the plan does specify the language as from the General Plan saying that every high density project is absolutely discretionary. Chairperson Jonathan thanked the applicant and staff for doing a great job. He thought this was reatly an important step in the whole process of looking at this area, arriving at a conclusion as to what is appropriate for the area, and then taking it to the next level and getting into those details. He hoped it would make it easier for a developer to understand where they are going. He also wanted to say that initially with the whole north sphere he had a major problem with medium density and high density and after listening to Mr. Drell and others, he could see that there is no need for them as a city to iower our standards. Whether it is low density, medium density or high density, he intends to maintain our very high standards and hoped the app(icants as they develop their projects understand that and join us in that '� objective because he thought it was possible economically and from a design stand point to meet everybody's needs. So he supported the motion. Commissioner Campbell stated that she would vote very reluctantly in favor of it, but when the high density standards come in front of her, she would look at them very closely. But she thought the rest of the project was very good, so she would vote in favor. Chairperson Jonathan called for the vote. Motion carried 4-1 with Commissioner Finerty voting no. It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by , adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2269, recommending to City Council approval of C/Z 03-13 and DA 04-04. Motion carried 4-1 with Commissioner Finerty voting no. C. Case No. PP 03-22 - PATEL ARCHlTECTURE, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design to allow the construction of a 12,450 square foot office building located on � 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18. 2004 _ � � � the south side of Fred Waring Drive, approximately 368 feet east of San Pablo Avenue. Mr. Bagato said there would be a presentation first. It was a very interesting building that was hard to describe on paper. There would be a brief overview with the video presentation. Mr. Patel came forward with his presentation. Chairperson Jonathan commented that it was terrific and set the standard. Mr. Bagato described the location of the proposed project and outlined the salient points of the staff report. Chairperson Jonathan indicated that Mr. Bagato mentioned the height was 27 feet, but the report indicated that had been brought down to 25. Mr. Bagato said yes, as proposed. As designed, the building didn't comply with the height standard of the zone with 27 feet to the main parapet. The applicant preferred it at 27 feet, but agreed to lower it to 25 because going through the time on this project, there are no recommendations for a variance. Basically they would need to change the zoning ordinance to allow this building at 27 feet, so with the building coming down, all the other , elements would drop down two feet as well. Those front architectural projections that are currently at 26 will go down to 24 which will make it in � cornpliance with the 1:1 from the curb. The tower elements would be down to 28 feet and based on those tower elements not exceeding 10% of the �oof area and maybe approved subject to City Council's go ahead. With the conditions and the changes, staff recommended approval. Commissioner Finerty noted that they were talking about the building height originally proposed at 27, but the applicant agreed to come down to 25. On page 7 of the staff report under setback to curb it says when the building is lowered to 24 feet high, the projections would comply with the ultimate curb and setback. She asked if the building would be 24 or 25 feet high. Mr. Drell said the parapet would be 25 and the angled projection wouid be 24. Mr. Bagato said right now it doesn't meet the 1:1 at 26, but when the main parapet goes to 25, it would go to 24. Commissioner Tschopp asked if there were other examples of emergency driveways going through a multi-family development successfully. Mr. Drell said they have that at Las Serenas. Commissioner Finerty indicated the Tucson project, it wasn't multi, but one acre lots. Mr. Drell agreed. At Las Serenas they have an emergency driveway going from Las Serenas going 36 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18. 2004 � into now City apartments. Basically it will only be utilized if there is a fire and the fire tn.�ck doesn't want to have to back out, it wiil allow the fire truck to exit the property going forward. Chairperson Jonathan indicated that the structure is moving two feet to the west, but it was also moving two feet to the south to accommodate the City's requirement resulting from the widening from Fred Waring. He asked if that was correct. Mr. Bagato said that as shown, the building had already been moved. It was already addressed. Chairperson Jonathan noted that Condition No. 16 requires an easement with the property to the east, reciprocal access for future shared parking lot access. He asked if that was correct. Mr. Bagato said that easement had to do with the fire access with the neighbor, that multi-family project. Mr. Drell indicated it didn't say reciprocal access. There is no reason for the apartment project to have access. IYs just emergency access. Chairperson Jonathan thought the City embraced a policy for the Palma Village Plan of creating reciprocal access easements between adjoining properties. Mr. Bagato said fhat was correct, but this project was not in that area and the property next `'� door is zoned R-3 in the land use in the new general plan and has it remaining possibly R-3 and never becoming office. Chairperson Jonathan said that was the property to the east. He asked about the prope�ty to the west. Mr. Bagato said that Public Works did require access to the west under Public Works Condition 14. It says that the applicant shall execute and record and offer a reciprocal access easement between the subject property to the east and to the west. Community Development Condition 16 was only for the emergency access to the east. So Public Works is requiring reciprocal access to both sides. Mr. Joy clarified that it was just an offer for a reciprocal access in case at some future date those apartments are torn down and someone wants to build offices there. They would have the tool for an access to go through. Chairperson Jonathan said that was his point. If at some point the property to the east, as well as to the west, is developed into an office with an adjoining parking lot and so fo�th, the City would have a mechanism to go in and have them tear down that part of the wall and the design facilitates that. Mr. Bagato said that was correct. Mr. Joy stated that he would also like to place another condition to add that a parcel map waiver is required to consolidate lots. Chairperson Jonathan asked if that would come back as a Consent Calendar item at some later � time. Mr. Drelf said yes; otherwise, they couldn't get a building permit. 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18. 2004 � Chairperson Jonathan indicated that the parking barely allowed office use. Mr. Bagato concurred, general office. Chairperson Jonathan said he would also address this with the applicant, but as far as staff was aware, the applicant understands that there will be ze�o medical. Mr. Bagato said that was correct. He talked with the applicant and architect about that in the very beginning that this was general office only and they understood. Chairperson Jonathan o ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. NARENDRA PATEL, 15 Jet Terrace in Rancho Mirage, thanked the commission for the opportunity to address them. He said this building would probably be one of the first ones with a design based on the principles of clean architecture that means all the angles and the openings and all the projections are specifically designed not just for decoration purposes, but designed with a solar study in mind and it will have much stronger sun control. That is just one of the features. In general it is designed to be environmentally sensitive as well as , have an interior environment that will be healthier. It is done using ' various different devices. ,� The architectural committee approved it the way it was presented. All the conditions that they discussed over the last few months with the staff in great detail and came up with al1 the adjustments, moving the building further away from the road because of the expansion of Fred Waring Drive and so forth. The only thing he would prefer is that the building be approved as presented and only because if he lowered it two feet it wasn't going to make much significant difference, but it would compromise the aesthetics and proportions of the building the way it is. Moving to the west side was not a problem and already agreed to, but this is one thing he wou4d request to reconsider. Mr. Drell clarified that the request is to keep the 27-foot high parapet. Chairperson Jonathan noted that the staff report indicated that there were at least three ways to accommodate the 25-foot height limit. He asked if none of those options were feasible. Mr. Patel stated that as a last resort, yes, it would be feasible, but i preferably no, because it would compromise other things. ? 38 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18. 2004 �. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there were questions for the applicant. There were none. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MR. CHRIS EVANKO, 73-578 Santa Rosa, addressed the commission. He said his property is to the south. He didn't know if he needed to bring it up, but back in 1999 that lot was graded off and blocked the drainage from his lot. His lot pitches toward the back, the natural drainage. He got flooded out pretty bad when they had a monsoon rain, so he didn't know when they build the structure, but he just wanted to make sure the water could flow out again. He also wondered if the utility lines would be coming down during the course of this project. Chairperson Jonathan said those were two good questions and asked Mr. Drell for a response. Relative to the drainage, Mr. Drell thought they could put a note in the Public Works condition that some how the drainage impacts on adjacent properties will be considered in the approval of their grading plan. When the lot was cleared, if they inadve�tently redirected water, that �► was something they should address. Relative to the overhead utility lines, he didn't believe they were proposed to be underground. Where they have a line which serves other existing properties overhead, they can't underground them without under grounding the other properties as well and they can't require a developer to underground lines on other people's property. It is something the City could look at in terms of working with those other properties that are served by that line, but those other properties would incur those costs since the developer wouldn't be responsible. He assumed that Mr. Evanko's property was served with an ovefiead line from that pole. Mr. Evanko said they used to have all that in the front, but it was taken out by the City a few years ago and it was really nice, but it was still in the back. Mr. Drell said that to the west are apartments and beyond that is City-owned property. He assumed there wasn't an undergrounding condition because of the existing overhead service. Chairperson Jonathan explained that in some cases Edison can accommodate those needs. What they do is pull the lines that service the residence to the next available pole that remains above ground. Mr. Drell said that it is so close to the end he thought they would � have to underground all the poles. It became kind of a domino issue when 39 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18. 2004 � they started undergrounding poles. Chairperson Jonathan said they would not have to most likely if the wires were just moved over if Edison could accommodate that. Mr. Drell said that if there were just a few poles, they have to guide those poles with angled cables that are almost as intrusive as the lines themselves. What they could do is look at the feasibility and he thought if it was feasible the developer would want to underground those poles. He doesn't want to be looking out the back of his project at power poles with such a beautiful project. But again, there are all sorts of factors beyond the developer's control. If they wrote a condition, the City can address all the offsite issues involving undergrounding, the developer shall underground his. Chairperson Jonathan thought that was good. As an answer to Mr. Evanko, the property would not drain onto his property and it was possible that the overhead lines will be under grounded, but they wouldn't know that until there was discussion with Edison and other factors, so that was an unknown at this point and was not an absolute condition on the application. Mr. Drell said they could add a kind of condition that says if the City can address the offsite undergrounding issues, then he will underground his poles. � . � Mr. Evanko said it would be nice to lose the wires at this time if they are going to do all that. He asked for and received confirmation that there was going to be a six-foot block wall in the back. He said that was all he needed to know. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was anyone else wishing to address the commission. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Jonathan asked for commission comments. Commissioner Campbell thought it was a beautiful building that would complement Fred Waring and she would be willing to leave the height of the main building at 27 feet. She didn't see the reason why a project like this with the way it was going to flow would need to be lowered two feet just because of code. As discussed before, they could make changes. Mr. Drell noted that the Council could make a change. Commissioner Campbell said she would move for approval. Chairperson Jonathan clarified that the motion was to approve it, but deleting staff's conditions of approval that relate to lowering it to 25 feet. Commissioner Campbell concurred. Chairperson Jonathan � asked for other opinions or comments. 40 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2004 i.. Commissioner Tschopp thought it was a very interesting, modernistic building architecture. He would be in favor of the project, but he wasn't in favor of granting the height exception. The 27-foot tall parapet was a result of the interior space design, not caused by the exterior design. The exterior design could remain and look the same if the interior was diminished. He thought that once again, in this zone if they allow 27 feet, they've made it that way throughout the whole Fred Waring corridor and down the streets. Mr. Drell recalled that they proposed to Council that they grant an exceptions section and create criteria for exceptions for height and for whatever reason, Council approved the Vuksic building and denied the ordinance amendment that actually created a formal method to granting height exceptions. The position is that they should have some sort of code or should create some sort of standard way that applies to everybody and tells people what they could have and what they can't. Staff was uncomfortable with this sort of exception because it wasn't, although Mr. Patel was now making the case that it is the exterior architectural proportions that demand fhe balance, that argument is stronger since it is unique to this building. The other justifications heard previously had to do with the interior space, which was not unique to this building. The interior space arguments are virtually every office building. �••► It has that same challenge. Chairperson Jonathan asked if Commissioner Tschopp had any other issues with the project. Commissioner Tschopp said no, he was in favor of the application given staff's recommendation, meaning the 25-foot height limitation. Commissioner Lopez thought it was a marvelous building. He said it would be a very interesting addition to Fred Waring. It is beautiful and if it floats like it did in the video, it would be a marvelous structure. If they didn't incorporation Condition 12, it would also effect some other conditions. He tended to agree that it is interior space and the three solutions involve interior space. He didn't think they would effect the exterior beauty of the building. He understood that the applicant would love to keep it and help the interior space and use of it, but he agreed with keeping Condition 12. He thought it was a marvelous project. He congratuiated Mr. Patel on his creativity. Commissioner Finerty concurred with the 25-foot height limit and keeping Condition 12. � 41 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNfNG COMMISSION MAY 18. 2004 i Chairperson Jonathan also concurred. He complimented the architect. He thought it was very creative and it was beautiful. The reason he was in favor of retaining the 25-foot height was one, he was sensitive to the height limit in general, but particularly on the Fred Waring corridor because the City has worked very hard and has been successful in maintaining a nice view corridor and he didn't see a need to grant an exception here. The second reason is that staff has proposed at least three possibilities that he thought were effective solutions and there are probably others. He thought 25 feet was doable and concurred. Commissioner Campbell said she would amend her motion to leave in Condition 12. Chairperson Jonathan said they were also going to add some language. Mr. Drell said the additional language would address the undergrounding and address drainage problems as they relate to the property owner to the rear. Chairperson Jonathan said the undergrounding gives the City the ability to require it if it deems it feasible. Mr. Dre11 said the City should address the associated offsite undergrounding costs that might be triggered. Chairperson Jonathan said that the drainage language was i simply to insure that the property does not drain onto adjacent residential � properties. Mr. Drell said that if historically water drained from one property � to another, he believed they had to respect that. Chairperson Jonathan asked if Commissioner Campbell would incorporate those conditions into her motion. She said yes. Commissioner Finerty seconded the motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2270, recommending to City Council approval of PP 03-22, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. D. Cas� No. PP/CUP 04-09 - MILO MALOTTE, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a 448 square foot addition to the existing 1,890 square foot Red Barn � Bar located at 73-290 Highway 111. 42 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2004 � Mr. Urbina outlined the salient points of the staff report and recommended approval with the addition of Condition No. 10 to Community Development to add finro additional water closets to the men's restroom and one additional water closet to the lady's restroom. The Sheriff's Department also submitted a letter stating that they had received complaints from adjacent property owners claiming that customers from the Red Barn Bar sometimes urinate on adjacent properties and leave beer bottles. Related to that, staff also received a letter from an adjacent property owner to the north across the alley complaining that some Red Barn Bar customers park on the residential street and walk across a vacant lot behind Marc's Golf and that those customers are loud during early morning hours and also urinate there. With the requirement to add additional water ciosets, that problem should be diminished. The other issue had to do with noise attenuation regarding the construction materials to be used for the proposed addition. Staff was recommending a condition of approval that requires the applicant to hire an acoustical consultant to review plan check construction drawings for the addition to insure that the building materials and insulation in the addition will be `•• sufficient to mitigate noise levels so they comply with the city's noise ordinance. Staff recommended approval with the addition of Community Development Condition 10 to help mitigate the concerns raised by the residential property owner about Red Barn Bar customers crossing over the vacant parking lot to the residential street to the north. The condition would read, "Prior to the issuance of building permits for the addition, the applicant shall apply for a building permit to construct a six-foot high chain link fence along the northerly edge of the alley right-of-way adjacent to the rear of the 70-foot wide vacant lot directly north of Marc's Golf."That lot is owned by the property owner of Marc's Golf. The chain link fence is to prevent Red Barn Bar customers from walking from the alley across the vacant lot to the residential street to the north, therefore discouraging Red Barn customers also from parking on residential streets. Relative to the discussion of the bathrooms, Mr. Drell said that based on the Sheriff's letter, they would add in addition to the commode two urinals in the new men's bathroom. In talking to the Building Department, it was his understanding that since he's building a new women's bathroom that is handicap accessible, the old women's bathroom could be made into a unisex bathroom since it only contained one commode and could only handle one v�... person at a time. If that was made into a unisex bathroom, that would be 43 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18. 2004 , � adding in essence four more opportunities for men to use the facilities. That .� was the recommendation of the Sheriff based on what they have obsenied out there. So the men's bathroom would contain two urinals in addition to making the existing women's bathroom unisex. While stadiums and theaters need more women's bathrooms, typically this sort of facility needed more men's bathrooms. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there were any questions for staff. On the letter from the neighbor complaining about the loud noises, the arguments, fights and even gun shots not being rare and one of her neighbors a number of years ago being shot and killed after an argument at the Red Barn, Commissioner Campbell asked if the Sheriff had any complaints lately in regards to the operation going on there. Mr. Drell said that it was his understanding that there is an ongoing investigation relative to all these issues. While they are not necessarily doing handsprings that the Red Bam is expanding, it does give them the opportunity to add conditions addressing some of these problems. It was his understanding that the , applicant has agreed to them. He thought the history of complaints was based on 25 years, and the offsite issues the Sheriff was involved in. � Commissioner Lopez asked for clarification on the additional condition. He asked exactly where the chain link fence would actually go. Mr. Urbina pointed out the location on the displayed map. Commissioner Tschopp said he understood the need for the chain link fence. He asked if there were any alternatives for something better than a chain link fence. Mr. Drell said no. He noted that it was going to be temporary. Ultimately they would be putting up a block wall. They want a fence that people can see through. The way the alley looks today, unless they fix it up the chain link fence would be one of the nicer looking structures back there. Originally the property owner put up a chain link fence in the back and the front and they should have let them keep up the back. Unfortunately, they have a ban on chain link fences in the residential area and the front and the back were real{y a commercial area. He thought as a short-term effective solution given what is out there, the chain link fence would not degrade the environment in that alley. Commissioner Tschopp asked if they have had specific noise complaints before. Mr. Drell said yes. To a certain degree people have gotten used to 44 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2004 +.. it. The Red Barn has probably been there longer than anyone who lives there. People get resigned until they get a legal notice and they start remembering. Regarding the chain link fence, Chairperson Jonathan asked if the condition being proposed is to put it on the lot owned by Ma�c's Golf. Mr. Urbina said it would be adjacent to it. Mr. Drell said it would be in the public right-of-way. They even have a public easement on it as well. They got an easement from Marc's Golf when they approved his building. But it would be put on the edge of the existing easement of the alley. Chairperson Jonathan o ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. MILO MALOTTE, 73-290 Highway 111, addressed the commission. He stated that he is the owner of the Red Barn and he has owned it for 36 years. He has been in the bar business in the valley for 41 years and he constantly tried to improve his place. Anyone who has been in it knows it is in great shape. But things have w. gotten way out of hand. It wasn't his intention to put two more restrooms in there. And the chain link fence, he talked to the owners about it today. They said they had a chain link fence there and the City made them take it down. Now they want it back up. So he just made up his mind. He stayed at the meeting out of respect for what the commission was doing, but he was going to cancel the project. It was way out of hand. But he appreciated their thoughts on things. Chairperson Jonathan asked if he would like to withdraw the application at this time. Mr. Malotte said yes. Chairperson Jonathan stated that they appreciated his understanding and hoped the situation there would improve. Mr. Malotte added that some of the complaints were way out line, too, like the urination. He had a picture of the guy that did it and even knew his name, yet none of Mr. Malotte's bartenders knew the guy. So it was probably one of the complainer's customers. �.. 45 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2004 a Chairperson Jonathan thanked him for his comments and asked if anyone else wished to address the commission regarding this matter. There was no one and Chairperson Jonathan closed the public hearing. Mr. Drell explained that because the application was withdrawn, the commission just had to accept the withdrawal. Chairperson Jonathan asked if they needed a motion to accept a withdrawal. Mr. Erwin advised that no action was required. Action: None. Chairperson Jonathan announced that he would be abstaining from the next item, turned the meeting over to Vice Chairperson Tschopp and left the room. E. Case No. PP/CUP 04-08 - T. MICHAEL HADLEY, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design to allow the � construction of two 6,213 square foot office buildings and a � conditional use permit to allow office parking on residential property. The subject properties are located on the south side of Fred Waring Drive and north side of Santa Rosa Way approximately 265 feet east of San Anselmo Avenue. Mr. Bagato outlined the salient points of the staff report and recommended approval of the project and the two towers to the City Council. Commissioner Lopez asked why they were requiring sidewalks on a road without any sidewalks. Mr. Drell said that eventually there would be sidewalks. Eventually as this program gets implemented, in essence they would have almost a parkway, almost a mini Fred Waring thing with 24-30 feet of landscaping on the north side and it would be nice to have a sidewalk through it where people could walk from San Anselmo all the way to San Pablo without having to walk in the street through a nice landscaped parkway. Vice Chairperson Tschopp noted that this only required one access. Mr. Bagato said that was correct. Vice Chairperson Tschopp indicated that the � other property had a requirement for two or the emergency access to the 46 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2004 �.. property to the east. He asked if that was just a Fire Department requirement for the turn around. Mr. Bagato said yes, iYs a Fire requirement. With this parking lot the fire truck can do a turn around. With the other one, it had a drive aisle that was more than 150 feet long without a turn around, so he had to have access somewhere else. Vice Chairperson Tschopp asked if there was only one tower element and that was the only portion that exceeded the height. Mr. Bagato said there were two tower elements, one on each building. They were identical to each other. It was just the steel roof portion on both buildings. When looking at the buildings that are being put on Fred Waring and understanding and agreeing with the requirements on the right-in and right- out limitations, Vice Chairperson Tschopp asked if they were creating a future problem at Fred Waring when people need to do U-turns to go the other way after they come out. He asked if there were plans down the road to address that. Mr. Bagato said that what they had with all these projects like on the corner, they have the same thing with them recording an offer to enter into an easement access agreement because the hope is that they will � have connection all the way through the parking lots and the back sides of Fred Waring so people will not have to drive on Fred Waring to get into these buildings. Mr. Drell said that because of the Newman's Center at San Pablo, they would not be able to get through there and they would be accessing it with right-in and right-out movements. On the other hand, they have signals with protected left-turn U-turns. Now that they've gone to these almost freeway designed arterials, just like they can't do left-turns on freeways, they won't be able to do left turns on most of these arterials. That was just what they were stuck with. Vice Chairperson Tschopp said they were creating challenges for the future. There were no other questions and Vice Chairperson Tschopp opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. MICHAEL HADLEY, 25 Calle Bonita in Sedona, Arizona, stated that he was the architect. Vice Chairperson Tschopp asked if there were any questions for the applicant. There was no response. � 47 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2004 Mr. Hadley stated that Mr. Patel's presentation was a hard act to follow and was a wonderful project. Having said that, he indicated that what he tried to do here was to do two buildings instead of one to � keep the scale down and try to keep it somewhat residential even though it would be two-story. The second story in each building is set significantly back from the first and they had a lot of articulation laterally from the street back and that was done with the intention to keep the scale small and not have a two-story element right at the street. He was present to answer any questions. There were no questions and Vice Chairperson Tschopp asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project. There was none and the public hearing was closed. Vice Chairperson Tschopp asked for any comments. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0-0- ; 1 (Chairperson Jonathan abstained). � It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2271, recommending to City Council approval of PP/CUP 04-08, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0-0-1 (Chairperson Jonathan abstained). Chairperson Jonathan returned to the meeting. F. Case No. VAR 04-01 - SUZANNE LOPEZ, Applicant Request for approval of a variance to allow the reduction of a required minirnum front yard setback from 20 feet to 17 feet to allow construction of a carport at 45-807 Portola Avenue. Mr. Urbina outlined the salient points of the staff report, noting that the design of the carport was denied by the Architectural Review Commission and an appeal was filed. Staff was recommending that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council appraval of the setback variance based on circumstances that are unique to this property such as the property being constructed in 1957 without covered parking, the subsequent widening of Portola Avenue which reduced the lot depth 14 feet, as well as the grade 48 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2004 �... differences of the property behind the carport, which the applicant considered to be a hardship to be required to regrade the property in order to move the carport back an additional three feet. Staff felt the criteria for granting a variance could be justified with a condition that the carport design would have to go back to the Architectural Review Commission for approval. Chairperson Jonathar� o ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. DR. SUZANNE LOPEZ, 45-807 Portola in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. Dr. Lopez said that there were photographs that were taken of the surrounding neighborhood and there was one thing that was not commented on. She wanted to thank Philip and Francisco for their help. She is an older first-time property owner who has never done this before and she put in for a building permit but didn't understand the procedure. She said they were very helpful and kind in their direction and support and hand holding in going through this process so that she is where she is supposed to be. �,., But the pictures she brought them that she took that Philip said would be here and shown, she didn't know where they were, but she thought it was also important for them to know, when considering the approval of the variance, is that the house next door was built at the same time and the carport is in exact alignment with the existing house structure, so if they look at the photograph down the line they could see that it wasn't sticking out or sticking back and the house next door has a garage that was built exactly the same way, so it is completely flat. Those pictures should be in the file. As well, she went down the street in both directions to measure different properties and took photographs where it wasn't setback 20 feet in the surrounding neighborhood because of the age of the area and where the street had really been cut into the properties in the neighbofiood. She thought it was important, the photographs aren't particularly flattering that were taken and she took some more appealing photographs and of the property next door so they could see them adjacent to one another and see that it goes in a complete line down the two lots and doesn't jut out and isn't aesthetically obtrusive. That was all she wanted to say. .... 49 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISStON MAY 18, 2004 i There were no questions for the appiicant. Chairperson Jonathan asked if � anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this matter. There was none and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Jonathan asked for commission comments. Chairperson Jonathan clarified that the Planning Commission was being asked to approve the variance only with regard to the setback, instead of the normal required 20 feet, allowing 17 feet. Mr. Drell said that was correct, they were not approving the design of the structure. Which Chairperson Jonathan said was denied and under appeal to the City Council. Mr. Drell said that ARC had no problem with the setback, their problem was with the design. This is our preeminent sphere of influence discussion. Their issue is predominantly with the setback. They could comment on the design if they wanted since both Planning Commission's and Architectural Review Commission's input would end up at Council. But they were not approving the physical design. Commissioner Finerty moved for approval of the variance based on the unusual circumstances and concurred with ARC's denial. Commissioner � Tschopp seconded that. � Chairperson Jonathan commented that he also concurred and drives by this property several times a day since it is on his way to work and home and he likes the property very much. He thought, however, that the carport just didn't do the property justice and concurred with ARC's conclusion. He thought there might be some easy fixes with extending the roof out and so forth. He hoped that the matter came to a resolution, but he was in concurrence with the motion. He called for the vote. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resofution No. 2272, recommending to City Council approval of VAR 04-01, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. 50 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 98 2004 �.. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner Campbell said that the next meeting would be May 19. Chairperson Jonathan said he likes the wind art on EI Paseo. He thought it was very loveiy. Commissioner Campbeli said that soon they would have the new signs, the fountains, at the entrance on Portola and at 74. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty said she didn't attend the last meeting. Mr. Drell said that they wanted to look at the Sares Regis landscaping and how that design had progressed. They were very happy with the � direction the landscaping was going for that project. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty said the meeting was informational only having to do with Freedom Park and funding. XI. COMMENTS Commissioner Tschopp asked if there was a way to make the undergrounding of existing utility lines a standard comment for any development that comes farward. If it is feasible, the builder/owner of the property will participate in undergrounding the utilities. Mr. Drell said they usually do that; unfortunately, their experience in these infill areas is that it isn't feasible. They used to have a condition that required participation in assessment districts which it turns out they couldn't do because they couldn't get people to waive their assessment district rights to protest in advance. Usually Public Works looks at this very carefully and if it is feasible, they recommend it. But they could try again to come up with some language as a standard condition. �.. 51 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNtNG COMMISSION MAY 18. 2004 Mr. Joy confirmed that they used to have that standard condition, but it didn't carry anything with it. Mr. Drell concurred that it was hard to get people to agree. The conditions had to be specific enough that they know what they are agreeing to and they have 30 days to challenge and file appeals of decisions and they don't really know what the condition is and it makes it hard for them to appeal it. Chairperson Jonathan said that when they use the word feasible, they are challenged to have any finro people come up with the same definition of what is feasible. You never really know until you talk to Edison and it is a 90-day process or more. Some are less expensive, and then there are some on Cook Street that in his opinion often are not feasible. He'd be happiest if they undergrounded all of the utilities. Mr. Drell said that our problem is that typically when they require poles to be undergrounded offsite that is where the uncertainty came in and if they worded the condition as he described it, people would be required to pay their cost of undergrounding on their property if the city covers all the other costs, then to a certain degree they might be giving them enough certainty. Commissioner Campbell asked about the landscaping required outside of a , development that isn't a gated community, but they have a wall and the landscaping is there. She asked who is responsible for maintaining that landscaping. Mr. Drell explained that the Property Maintenance Ordinance requires adjacent property owners to maintain to the curb. Mr. Erwin said there are a number of subdivisions where there is a wall at the end, it is a cul-de-sac. Commissioner Campbell said the area around Hovley Lane West and Portola is a mess. Mr. Joy thought Mr. Erwin was referring to Shepherd Lane. Mr. Erwin said yes, but Hovley Lane was the same thing. The Council has on their agendas these landscaping and lighting districts. Each year the assessments come up for a protest hearing. The people there can protest the increase. If it was approved at one time by an election, then they are okay up to that amount. A number of these districts were formed a number of years ago. The maximum was set at that time, the properties were then sold and they have homeowners there. AI1 of a sudden the costs of maintenance have increased tremendously and they are refusing to approve those, so there is a specific level based upon the expenses and some of these are really upside down. Mr. Drell said it can't even pay for just the water meter. To a certain degree it is a little bit of a game of hardball that Council is playing, especially since 70%-80% of the districts those people vote for the increase, so they assess themselves the cost. They can't be in the position then to say that if they deny it, we'll cover the costs because ' then all the people who are paying their fair share are going to say they have 52 �,,�, MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2004 been played for chumps. He asked if it was a weed problem or plants dying problem. Commissioner Finerty said it is everything. Commissioner Campbell said there are weeds and there are plants dying. Commissioner Finerty said it is totally over grown and the grass is no longer green. Mr. Erwin said there were a number of them where they went back in and the homeowners approved taking out the grass and some of the other landscaping and put in the drought tolerant. That reduced the cost. Commissioner Finerty said it is dirt with weeds. Commissioner Campbelf also stated that the weeds are really high. Commissioner Finerty remembered Spencer saying there is a minimum level of maintenance. Commissioner Tschopp asked where this prope�ty was located. Commissioner Finerty said up and down Hovley. Commissioner Campbell said Hovley Lane West and at the corner of Portola and the entrance to Hovley across from Casablanca. Commissioner Finerty said there are around � nine areas, so Hovley between Portola and Monterey. Mr. Erwin said that the Council just went through an election the other night and of the elections, nine of the districts approved the increase, three did not. Those are going to pretty much dry up. What they were doing now with all the subdivisions is require the homeowners association refusing to form a landscaping and lighting district, the district requires the creation of the requirement of an election each year under the current State law. A homeowners association is required to maintain it and they do have some enforcement tools there. The City has the potential, though we've never done it, of stepping in, doing the work, and then piacing a lien the property. Just as the homeowners associations can do. That is a step we haven't taken so far, but the possibility is there. Commissioner Campbell thought that should be done, especially right there on Portola. Commissioner Finerty said that it looks bad, but unfortunately like Phil said, it is a game that needs to be played until these other three areas learn that they need to accept responsibility for that section and agree to pay it because if they allow one group to get away with it, everyone else will want it for free and it is just so costly, plus $700,000 is being taken away from our budget thanks to the State, so everyone had to step up to the plate. � 53 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18 2004 XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Chairperson Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:32 p.m. STEVE SMITH, cting Secretary ATT�ST: `, �, SABBY J ATHAN, Chairperson � Palm Desert P nning Commission � /tm , =� r � 54