Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1019 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION tow - TUESDAY - OCTOBER 19, 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 Lopez led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sabby Jonathan, Chairperson Dave Tschopp, Vice Chairperson Jim Lopez Members Absent: Sonia Campbell Cindy Finerty Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Assistant Planner Ryan Stendell, Planning Tech. Phil Joy, Associate Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Request for consideration of the October 5, 2004 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the October 5, 2004 meeting minutes as submitted. Motion carried 3-0. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2004 Mai V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent October 14, 2004 City Council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 99-02 - SURESH AND VISHAKHA SHAH, PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, STEVEN AND MICHAELENE VALPY, DANNY AND DEANNA VUKOSAV, KARL RIMER, JAMES PARVIZI AND FARZAN PARVIZI, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow lot line adjustments to add 10 feet from Lots 12, 14, 16, 18 and 20 to Parcel 1 of PMW 97-30 for properties known as 73-733 Fred Waring Drive and 73-740, 73-722, 73-696, 73-692 and 73-688 Santa Rosa Way. B. Case No. PMW 04-10 -STONEBRIDGE DEVELOPMENT, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment on Romanza Lane. C. Case No. PMW 04-11 - STONEBRIDGE DEVELOPMENT, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment on Francesca Court. D. Case No. PMW 04-16 - STONEBRIDGE DEVELOPMENT, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment between Lots 33 and 34 on Romanza Lane. 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2004 E. Case No. PMW 04-17 - RICHARD AND MOLLY McKENZIE, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to delete the lot line between Lots 19 and 20 (combined previously) and Lot 18 located on Vale Crest, also known as APN 652-330-014 and 015 and APN 652-330-013. F. Case No. PMW 04-19 - MONTEREY 170, LLC, AND COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to adjust parcel lines of Parcels 28 and 30 to create a larger parcel for CVWD well site, also known as APNs 653-250-006 and 016 (Gateway Drive). G. Case No. PMW 04-20 -MONTEREY 170, LLC, AND CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to adjust parcel lines of Parcels 32, 33 and "H" for development purposes, for property known as APNs 653-250-016, 107 and 019 (Dinah Shore Drive). H. Case No. PMW 04-21 - M & B SUGARMAN FAMILY TRUST, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge Parcels 771-320-026 and 027 at 197 Metate Place. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 3-0. Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing � 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2004 described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. ZOA 04-03 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of a zoning ordinance amendment, Chapter 25.34.030 (Conditional Uses) to add a provision to allow outdoor sales of art, crafts, clothing, goods, wares and other merchandise. Mr. Stendell reviewed the salient points of the staff report and recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the zoning ordinance amendment to the City Council. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Jonathan asked for commission comments. Commissioner Tschopp noted that the initiation of this zoning ordinance amendment was discussed at length at the last Planning Commission meeting and he moved for approval. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-0. It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp,seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2298, recommending to City Council approval of Case No. ZOA 04-03. Motion carried 3-0. B. Case No. CUP 04-17 - THE ART PLACE, TED RUTHERFORD, Applicants Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow the permanent display of artwork for sale outside of existing suites located at 41-801 Corporate Way. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2004 rr Chairperson Jonathan asked if this item should be a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Drell said that this was pursuant to the action of the Commission at the last meeting in making a determination of a use not listed. Mr. Stendell outlined the major points of the staff report and recommended approval. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the potential impacts on parking and circulation were reviewed and if it was determined that there wouldn't be any negative impacts associated with this CUP. Mr. Stendell said there shouldn't be any problems. He confirmed that there was enough room in the drive aisles and enough width for adequate circulation. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. TED RUTHERFORD stated that for the display of outdoor art, specifically in this circumstance, they are talking only about �•• sculptures, which would stand taller than himself, as well as easels. They were talking about expensive art, not something that was $1,000. It was really good quality art that will be out there. They would be inside the alcove. The art would be set back inside that so it was actually out of the traffic line completely; more for practicality purposes than anything. They didn't want a car running into the artwork. He noted that there was an inset where they chose to put planters, but the other places didn't have planters and they have art on easels. They have been doing that for eight years and never knew they were in violation until they got a notice from the City two months ago. It wasn't anything that interferes with traffic. It was very tasteful, good quality art. Commissioner Campbell asked at the last meeting if there would be any clothing and he said no, no one in the place sells clothing. So it would be tasteful no matter who looked at it. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Lopez said the only place he saw for a potential conflict was where the brick was in front, so two feet in front of that was already in a traffic lane and then the driveway, so that wasn't very wide. But if they were saying they would keep the art in the inside area, it shouldn't be a problem. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2004 x He didn't recall seeing anything outside of Soho before in the past, but overall he thought it was a great idea. Mr. Rutherford said that Soho couldn't put anything out because of that. Referring to the picture on display, he explained that the parking is to the right, so that was strictly driveway and it was substantially wide. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. He asked for any commission comments. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Commissioner Tschopp added that whether it was by the building owner's design or the tenants' initiative, it was a nice development there. It might be a little tight for the walkway, but he thought it might add to it. Chairperson Jonathan called for the vote. Motion carried 3-0. It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2299, approving Case No. CUP 04-17, subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-0. C. Case No. PP 04-16 -DAVID C. CARDEN, NEDRAC INC., Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design to allow the construction of a 6,935 square foot industrial warehouse building located at 77-621 Enfield Lane. Mr. Bagato informed commission that the Fire Marshal had some issues with the project and was requesting a continuance to review the project because of some access and safety issues that didn't come up until today. He noted that he didn't see the architect in the audience. Chairperson Jonathan said there was a possibility that the matter might be continued, but it had been publicly noticed and he asked for a brief staff 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2004 tow report, then input from the Fire Marshal, he would open the public hearing and then see what happened. Mr. Bagato reviewed the main points of the staff report. He explained that based on his design opinion in reviewing the plan, he thought landscaping would be more effective to break up the building design and recommended approval with the removal of the pop outs. Chairperson Jonathan asked if they wanted to make the Fire Marshal comments part of the staff report. Mr. Bagato stated that Fire Marshal David Avila contacted him before the meeting with some issues regarding the second access or wanting a turnaround because of the length of the driveway and requested a continuance of the matter to review it further. FIRE MARSHAL DAVID AVILA addressed the commission. He apologized for the late notice in requesting a continuance. He said he normally didn't get to see these plans until a day or two before the meetings. He has staff that reviews them and they were very busy and things got by them, but in this case he did have some concerns +.. and there were some proposed mitigations in which to address that. The Fire Code requires that any Fire Department access over 150 feet requires some sort of approved turnaround or a second access. In this case the second access was not feasible. However, if they looked at the map detail, there is a dead-end road in excess of 150 feet, it is more close to 175 feet which would require by code an approved turnaround. Based on this design, it didn't meet the Fire Department's requirement. He could propose some mitigations. He also had some concerns with an access to an office space on the bottom of the map and a parking space actually impeding any emergency exiting or Fire Department or emergency personnel access, ingress or egress. That needed to be addressed and finalized with the architect. His suggestion was to maybe relocate this building up where the five parking spaces were located, encroach upon that, and give them some turnaround space on the bottom end. He was willing to compromise on the Fire Department requirements in terms of design, road widths, etc., but he would like to meet with the architect and maybe come to some sort of solution and have him r.. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19. 2004 articulate why that might be impossible to achieve. Right off the top he understood that the architect proposes to add another story or floor to the building in the future and he had some concerns about that based on the current design criteria. There might be some secondary access issues with respect to the second floor itself. He wanted to see a bigger picture with respect to that. He suggested having a sidebar with Mr. Ricciardi and do something right then, but he didn't see Mr. Ricciardi in the audience, so he was requesting a continuance so he could have the opportunity to talk with him. Commissioner Tschopp noted that in the Commission's packet they have Fire Marshal conditions of approval and it appeared that someone looked at the plans prior to this meeting. Mr. Avila said that was correct. Commissioner Tschopp asked if this point was missed. Mr. Avila said no, it was item No. 16 or 17 and it was a discussion about widths and height requirements. Included in one of the m000 sentences it said anything in excess of 150 feet requires an approved access. Chairperson Jonathan noted that it was Condition No. 9 of the Draft Resolution. Commissioner Tschopp clarified that it was No. 17 in the memorandum from the Fire Department. It was stamped June 14, so apparently the architect had sufficient time before this meeting to address those issues and didn't do so. He asked if that was a correct assumption. Mr. Avila didn't know when the architect received the conditions so he couldn't confirm that. If this was the first time, he had seen them, obviously he needed time to respond and he wouldn't second guess that. Chairperson Jonathan indicated that they didn't know if the applicant saw the memo, but he certainly at some point should have been provided with the proposed conditions of approval. He asked for any additional questions. 2 8 ..I MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19 2004 Commissioner Lopez noted that the application before the commission didn't meet the necessary conditions of approval. He asked if they should deny the application or go with a continuance. Mr. Drell suggested a continuance. Chairperson Jonathan said he would like to get public input and then have a little discussion because he had some thoughts about that as well. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant was present. There was no response. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION regarding this matter. There was no one. Chairperson Jonathan closed the public hearing. He noted that it could be reopened if they continued the matter. Chairperson Jonathan said that instead of simply continuing it, he would like to see this go back to ARC. There was a design he thought ARC struggled with, the architect made some proposed changes that enabled ARC to live with it, and then staff is reversing that and wanted to change it. He thought they have a design that most people aren't comfortable with and he didn't find it acceptable. It didn't meet the standards and to say that it is out of the �.. way and not many people will see it was a poor excuse for putting up a design that is not acceptable. To add to that the Fire Marshal was saying that there is a design issue and the access wasn't adequate. So with all that put together, he thought they should go back to ARC, let the architect address all the issues including the design issues, and let them work that all out and then come back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Tschopp agreed. He looked at the plans and the six palm trees, which he didn't think would break up the building that much or add any real architectural or artistic element to it. Given the concerns of the Fire Marshal and the inability of the applicant to meet those conditions, he would send them back to ARC and hope they would get a better plan, one that addressed some of the other issues as well. Commissioner Lopez concurred. He has driven by that area several times looking at the buildings around there and he didn't think the definition of being off the road and off a major arterial acts as an excuse to put up something that would not enhance or improve what currently exists in a relatively nice corporate park. There was also confusion regarding the pop outs and the suggestion to eliminate those. He thought it needed to perhaps 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2004 i r start over again. As much as he thought a continuance might be okay, he would concur that it didn't seem to be the right building in the right place, plus he concurred with the Fire Marshal that there needed to be additional adjustments made to it. The whole building probably needed to be moved and it probably needed to be redesigned. So he concurred. Chairperson Jonathan asked if that was still a continuance. Mr. Drell said it could still be a continuance, to either a date uncertain or to a date sufficiently in the future. Chairperson Jonathan indicated that it needed enough time to go back to ARC. Mr. Drell suggested a full month. Chairperson Jonathan said he was comfortable with a date uncertain as long as it is included in there that the matter should go back to ARC. Mr. Drell said that would just require staff to renotice it. Chairperson Jonathan stated that if the applicant was present, he could tell them if he would be ready in a month or not. Since he wasn't, they couldn't make that decision. Chairperson Jonathan reopened the public hearing, asked if anyone wished to address the commission regarding this matter. There was no one. He asked for a motion for continuance to a date uncertain with the direction for the matter to go back to ARC. ..i1 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, continuing Case No. PP 04-16 to a date uncertain and referring it back to the Architectural Review Commission. Motion carried 3-0. Chairperson Jonathan announced that he would be abstaining from Public Hearing Items D and F. As he understood it from the City Attorney, because there are only three members present, once he abstained on a matter they don't have a quorum and it would automatically be continued to the next meeting, which wasn't until November 16, 2004 because of the election being on November 2. He moved those items up so those present wishing to address those matters wouldn't need to sit and wait unnecessarily. He left the room. D. Case No. TPM 33068 - FRED WARING PROFESSIONAL PLAZA, Applicant Request for approval of a tentative parcel map to consolidate six lots into two lots. Said property is located on the south side 10 • MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19. 2004 of Fred Waring Drive 260 feet east of San Anselmo Avenue, 73-371 Fred Waring Drive. Due to a lack of a quorum, this matter was continued to the next meeting, November 16, 2004. Action: Continued to November 16, 2004. F. Case No. PP 04-19 - GLASS BLOCK PRODUCTS, INC., Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan to construct one 11,474 square foot industrial building on a .6-acre parcel. The project site is located at the southeast corner of Dinah Shore Drive and Spyder Circle. Due to a lack of a quorum, this matter was continued to the next meeting, November 16, 2004. Action: Continued to November 16, 2004. E. Case Nos. TPM 32930 and PP 04-17 - STORAGE DEPOT 3/MALCOLM RILEY, Applicants Request for approval of a tentative parcel map to subdivide a 4.15-acre site into two parcels, a precise plan to allow the construction of a 116,750 square foot self-storage facility on the 3.19 acres and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates thereto for property located at 73-150 Dinah Shore Drive. Mr. Bagato outlined the salient points of the staff report and recommended approval of Case Nos. PP 04-17, TPM 32930 and the associated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, subject to conditions. bw 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2004 Commissioner Tschopp asked for clarification on what looked like fence material. It was difficult to tell on the elevation. Mr. Bagato said it would be required to be decorative and the applicant could address that. Chairperson Jonathan asked if he talking about the gate. Commissioner Tschopp explained that on the east-west elevation, it looked like some kind of fencing and he couldn't tell if it was a block wall. Mr. Bagato explained that it was actually the back side of the one-story buildings. Those were the buildings that incorporate the decorative block scoring. He showed a better picture. He said some of the block was scored for different color patterns and it used some of the natural colors on display. It was the actual block back of a building. Chairperson Jonathan asked about the emergency access. He was curious because the second lot was dirt. He asked if the Fire Department could go through dirt or if they needed to require some kind of temporary paving for the emergency access out to Dinah Shore until that second parcel developed. Mr. Joy stated that it was covered under Public Works Condition No. 16 which required that the entire driveway be constructed. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. MALCOLM RILEY, 11640 San Vicente Boulevard in Los Angeles, CA, addressed the commission. He said he was present to answer questions. They concurred with the findings of the staff and Architectural Review Committee. Commissioner Lopez asked if he had any idea what would happen with the vacant land next to the proposed project site. Mr. Riley said they would let the self-storage get started and let the subdivision start to be developed, then they themselves would develop it into light industrial or perhaps showroom type development as the opportunity came along. That would be within six months to a year. That was the plan. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. He asked for commission comments. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2004 Ir Commissioner Tschopp made a motion of approval. Commissioner Lopez seconded the motion. Chairperson Jonathan complimented the applicant. He thought it was a wonderful design that enhances the area and sets the standards as he envisioned it for that area, the flow, and everything was good about it. He couldn't see a single problem and that was refreshing and nice to see. He thanked them for doing their homework. He called for the vote. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-0. It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2300, approving TPM 32930 and PP 04-17, subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-0. G. Case No. TT 31071 - RILINGTON COMMUNITIES, Applicant tow Request for a recommendation to City Council of approval of a tentative tract map to subdivide 38.05 acres into 159 lots for single family residential homes, 11 lots for common area and landscape purposes, two lots for school district purposes and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates thereto. The project is located on the north side of Gerald Ford Drive east of Gateway Avenue. Mr. Bagato explained the salient points of the staff report and recommended approval. Chairperson Jonathan asked about the side yard setback. The staff report indicated that it would be five and five, meaning five feet. That is from the main structure. What he noticed in many cases is they have five feet per side, but 10 feet combined, and what happens is that the roof extends past the structure. The roofs of adjoining residences seem to be almost touching. If they have five feet combined, and he asked if that was going to be the case, because in some of the designs the roof extends beyond. Mr. Drell clarified that it would be five and five, so there would be 10 feet of building separation. �" 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2004 Mr. Bagato explained that from exterior wall to exterior wall there would be 10 feet, but there was typically an 18-inch to two-foot overhang for some of the eaves. What this project did which wasn't done on the project at Parkview and Fairhaven, is they have (except for one model) the other models step back. The second-story elements would step back from each other an additional 10 to 20 feet. So from the second story elements it would be wider than what is typically seen right now. Chairperson Jonathan said he misunderstood the staff report because where it said 5 feet/5 feet, he thought Mr. Bagato was saying five feet and then five feet combined. So he was saying five feet minimum on each side, so 10 feet. Mr. Drell concurred. Chairperson Jonathan said if they subtracted two feet from each side, if there are two adjoining (and it looked like many would not be) there would still be six feet worst case scenario typically from the eaves, but from the structures themselves they would have 10 feet. Mr. Bagato concurred and said that was the worst case. Most of them, because of the design of the other three models, would not be in that situation. Commissioner Lopez asked how many of the homes would be 25 feet 9 inches high and where they were going to be located; staff didn't know, so he said he would ask the applicant. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. PAUL DEPALATIS, a local planning consultant with an office at 73-360 El Paseo, Suite 15, stated that he was the project manager for Rilington Communities on this project. He said that also present were David Hacker of Hacker Engineering; Nancy Keenan and Jim Jackson from the Dalil Group, the architects; and Andy Sable from Randy Pernell Landscape Architects, who did the landscape design. They were present to answer any questions. He informed commission that they are excited about this project. They thought it was a needed product in the area, a sort of higher single family detached product that maybe wasn't available everywhere. They also thought it was a good location for it as it would be a transitional density between the Sares Regis apartment complex on their west side and the Ponderosa project, a more typical larger lot 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19 2004 single family product, on their east side. They thought this was a good location and they talked to those different developers and they were all in accord with what was happening in that area. He said they thought this was a good product with some interesting architecture and a good, strong landscape program with a central parkway, walkways and a street tree program. They believed it would be a very attractive product for buyers. They were in agreement with the staff conditions and appreciated the input from Mr. Drell and Mr. Bagato to their design, as well as from the Architectural Commission. They had some comments that were incorporated and he thought it was a better product because of those changes. He asked if there were any questions. Commissioner Lopez asked if these homes would have enough room for a pool. Mr. Depalatis said that was one of the intentions in bringing the ..� buildings forward. The thought was to make something that looks nice in the front and since people don't use their front yards that much and they wanted to maximize the space in the backyards, all of these units, except one, would have a full 20-foot rear yard and that was big enough for a pool. There was one unit that put one component of the building back to 15 feet, but it also left part of the building open to 20 feet, so there would be room for a pool on these lots. Mr. Drell explained that right now if they looked at the tract map, they would see some lots that are very deep and some that are shorter. The reason is in some cases 20 feet of the lot is taken up by slope. The last condition added by staff was given the premium of space, that by simply adding three- foot retaining walls they could add six feet, which meant a difference between 20 and 26 and that determined the difference on whether or not they had room for a pool, and in some cases it was between 26 and 30. He thought they were proposing a rewording of that condition to give them a little more flexibility. They would be working with the applicant to maximize those rear yards and not waste it in long slopes that need to be maintained and stabilized and don't provide any usefulness. Mr. Bagato said he forgot to mention that there was a revised condition handed to the commission. He .. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2004 noted that it was distributed to the commission right before the meeting and was Condition No. 10. Mr. Depalatis said they were in agreement with that whole concept. They really wanted to make these lots and homes as liveable as possible. There was also some opportunity kind of late in the game. They were given some right-of-way along Gateway Drive, but given the time to the hearing they didn't have time to work on a revised map. They also thought in the final engineering phase they could probably redistribute some of the land to increase the yards in the appropriate places. Commissioner Lopez said that when they have a centralized pool area for 159 lots, that pool would be very crowded if other folks don't have sufficient room to have their own pools and that leads to parking problems, etc. Mr. Depalatis said that those of us who live out here know the value of pools in the backyards. s Commissioner Lopez asked about the 25-foot 9-inch height. He was concerned about the height being taller than the other homes there. He asked if there were a lot of homes of that particular model. Mr. Depalatis said they hadn't determined the mix yet. They would probably want a certain evenness in providing the different ones. They looked at that height issue and the main reason to do the building heights is to try and get a little higher plate height in the interior rooms. But he didn't know if he could spot the difference between a 24-foot home and a 25-foot 9-inch home. They were very similar and he didn't think the eye would be able to tell. Mr. Drell concurred. He said that staff had the same problem when reviewing the elevations given the complexity of the roof structures. It was difficult to determine which one was the higher one. Commissioner Lopez said that he was thinking more from the backyard to backyard. If it was the ones along the land that has the center walkway, it wasn't a problem, 141 and 146 back to back. Mr. Drell said the eave lines 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2004 were all the same height because the plate heights were the same. The eave lines were all identical. Mr. Depalatis said there is actually quite a bit of movement on the sides and rears in terms of the second floors. There is a certain amount of movement and separation between adjacent lots. Commissioner Lopez said they were done well. Mr. Drell indicated that another consideration is that as seen from Gateway or Gerald Ford, the property is sloping away and down the hill. Mr. Depalatis said they were a little lower from those roads. Chairperson Jonathan noted that the home sizes average 2,330 square feet and on lot sizes they average 5,212 square feet. So they were jamming a lot of home on pretty small lots, which is part of what they expected in this area. But he was curious about the market as Mr. Depalatis saw it. He said they were expecting to see more moderately priced homes in that area. That is generally what the expectation was for medium and higher density homes. tow To him that implied maybe to some extent starter home type situations. He wanted to be careful to not prejudice his expectations with his own experience, but his starter home was maybe 1,300 square feet. They never felt they needed more space. In fact, they thought they were in heaven. It was great. So his question to Mr. Depalatis was if he was finding that the market now with starter homes, young families and so forth, was they really want these pretty good sized larger homes for starter homes. Mr. Depalatis said that Micky Riley, the President of Rilington, dealt with most of the architectural aspects of the product. He knew that Mr. Riley had a concern for affordability because he has said that on many occasions. He sees the escalating value of land and the homes prices going up. So he didn't know if this was a starter level, but it would be lower than comparable homes around it that have the larger lot sizes and, therefore, the higher cost of land associated with them. But beyond that he couldn't respond to that question. Mr. Drell thought it was a good question. Relative to implementing the goals and objectives of the general plan, he thought the commission as they see more of these projects coming in might want to make a motion or make its �` 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2004 direction that they are looking for a mixture of product and not just what is necessarily the most profitable product in the market. It was hard to tell. But two years ago people were telling him that the product that they are talking about now wasn't profitable. So what is profitable changes rather radically. His hope was that they would get five or six of these kinds of projects and he hoped some of them would include a variety, some of which were smaller. Mr. Depalatis said that looking at the affordable range, they would get more into an attached product versus detached. Mr. Drell said that instead of 2,300 square feet, these could be 1,300 square feet. Obviously the houses would be half as large and they could probably make the lots a little smaller, get more of them, and the cost per square foot would be cheaper. And including an attached product would get greater economies. Chairperson Jonathan said that in the process of the changes made to the general plan and the vision for that area was such that they as a city from a planning standpoint would be fulfilling their obligation to create opportunities for lower priced homes or reasonably priced homes. He understood from a builder's standpoint there was probably great profitability in maximizing the size of the home. So he thought part of their challenge in the future would be to find a fair balance between the owner's desire and expectation of profits versus the City's planning goals and objectives to create affordable housing options. He wasn't talking about subsidized or low income, he was talking about an affordable product. That might require creativity, subsidizing builders or creating pockets of smaller, more affordable homes within projects, but he thought they were going to have to think outside the box a little bit and get creative and get into partnerships with our future developers out here to make that happen. Otherwise, they would see this kind of thing every time. Mr. Drell informed commission that they would be seeing something from the Housing Authority, a single family product around Hovley Gardens which would be in the 1,400 to 1,600 square foot range, but he was right. He hoped to, and with the Commission's support would, be encouraging developers to provide variety throughout the economic range. 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2004 NOW Chairperson Jonathan said he was just suggesting, and it might take creativity on staffs part as well to work with them where there is a tradeoff. If we create pockets of smaller sized homes, there might be a tradeoff of giving them the exception they are after and find a way to work together. That was a planning issue he thought they would be dealing with. Mr. Depalatis mentioned that Rilington has been historically a San Diego based homebuilder, but they were moving their operation out here to the desert, so they would be a long-term fixture in cities out here. He knew that Mr. Riley had a concern about affordability, so if there were appropriate places they were looking at something like that, he might consider being partners with the City for something that would work for everybody. Chairperson Jonathan asked if every street in the proposed project had a sidewalk. Mr. Depalatis said yes. +� In addition, Chairperson Jonathan said they had palm paseos or walkways. He liked that design feature very much and thought it was very desirable. Regarding the parking, he asked if the pool areas and pocket parks had parking areas. Mr. Depalatis said they didn't. Part of the thought was they didn't want to encourage driving in the neighborhood. They wanted to encourage people to walk to places in the neighborhood. Mr. Drell pointed out that there is a lot of street parking around the park, but no separate off-street parking. Chairperson Jonathan asked if it was the same for the pool area. Mr. Drell said yes; there were probably 15 or 20 parallel spaces adjacent to the park, which was similar to what the City was doing with the park on De Anza. The goal of these parks was to get people to walk to them, not drive to them. Chairperson Jonathan said he understood that, but he had a concern. In his experience, and he used to live in a project like this with 100 homes, but it had a pool like that and it got used for gatherings like family celebrations, birthday parties, board meetings, HOA meetings, etc., and people, not only that live in the project, but visitors tended to congregate there and he was a little concerned that when they %W 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2004 have those kinds of functions, not so much the pocket parks, but in the central amenity pool area, that they would be creating a problem. Mr. Drell said the streets were designed for parking on both sides. He said there is a lot of parking that typically goes unused in these sorts of subdivisions. He was driving around Merano recently and he was amazed at the massive amount of asphalt. When they provide two-car garages and driveways, there are very few cars parked on the street. So given the City's effort to maximize the utility of space, he didn't want to see them devote any more significant space to asphalt in this project. Chairperson Jonathan said he wouldn't have a problem with a grass parking lot. But from the applicant's planning and design standpoint, he asked if they thought that was a desirable feature to have additional parking beyond the street parking in the pool area. Mr. Depalatis said they didn't consider it and he thought it was as Mr. Drell said, he thought the reason was because there was a lot of street parking and he knew from being a father, when going to a location just being able to park on the edge was good and provided more convenient parking for people. They looked at one point for a drop off area, but they decided not to do that given the idea of not encouraging people to drive. He thought it was similar to a shopping .�rl center where they don't usually design for the maximum peak day, but something less than that because they end up with so much asphalt and it goes unused most of the year. So he thought there was adequate parking given the size of the community and the level of street parking around it. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this matter. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Jonathan asked for commission comments. Commissioner Lopez stated that he liked the project. He thought it was tastefully done. They talked about the concerns, and he would echo them as they move forward on the project itself. Being in the desert, people would use the pools when it is the hottest time of the year. When it's 110 degrees out and wasn't a pleasant walk from any where to get to the homes, they might want to consider some access area where people could either drop off or pick up, or some parking in that area at the least. He thought they would find that need. Street parking is fine. If something does happen in the evening, it might be something that surrounding homes might not care for. 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19 2004 Nevertheless, overall he thought the project was very well done and he was excited to see it come on board. Commissioner Tschopp agreed. Taken as a whole, he thought it was a very good project. He too would like to see Commission and staff look at in the future how they can integrate some of the thoughts behind the general plan to make affordable housing. How they would do that he didn't know, but they should take a look at that. He had a concern whether these would be truly affordable once they are built, but it was a nice plan. He didn't share the same concerns regarding parking for the swimming area or the common area. He always found it funny that people had to get in their cars to drive two blocks so they could exercise. There are some nice paseo areas to walk to it and he thought people could do that and he liked the idea of having people walk the neighborhood instead of driving. Chairperson Jonathan said he shared the feelings of his fellow commissioners. As they get into the implementation of the general plan out there, particularly the residential element, the challenge would be to maintain the quality to the level they are accustomed and envision for the future. And r• by quality he didn't just mean the appearance of the homes, but for example, different models and different versions of each model so there is variety, architectural interest, there are sidewalks, and it is well planned. He thought all of that militated in favor of approval. The challenge would be to do all of that, to maintain quality, and at the same time recognize the vision for the north sphere to incorporate students and manual laborers and a cross section of the socio-economic and demographic background that makes up our city who need a place to live. So he was looking forward to the City staff working together with property owners recognizing those objectives and at the same time meeting the financial objectives which the land owners have a right to expect. He didn't mean to pontificate, but he was really concerned about that issue. They have a vision for the north sphere and he could see a situation here where it could take a left and he thought they needed to keep it going. The project itself accomplished what he envisioned for a residential development. It was vastly different from anything they have done before in terms of lot sizes and the coverage, but he thought it was in the right place and being done in the right way. So he concurred. 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2004 Commissioner Lopez moved for approval and Commissioner Tschopp seconded. Chairperson Jonathan asked for confirmation that the motion and second incorporated the added condition of approval, Condition No. 10. Commissioners Lopez and Tschopp concurred. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-0. It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2301, recommending to City Council approval of TT 31071, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 3-0. H. Case No. ZOA 04-02 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for a recommendation to City Council to approve a zoning ordinance amendment to Municipal Code Section 25.58.310.D, Off Street Parking Schedule for Manufacturing Plants and Kindred Uses. Mr. Smith reviewed the salient points of the staff report and recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the zoning ordinance amendment to the City Council. Looking at the verbiage to make sure it was very clear what the intent was, Commissioner Tschopp noted that the office space above the 20% threshold would be parked at the office parking standards, which is just the amount that is above the 20%, period. Mr. Smith agreed. They get the 20% and after that they would provide parking at 4/1,000. Commissioner Tschopp asked if he was the only one who thought it could still be confusing in the future. Mr. Drell thought they could say anything in excess of the 20% threshold could be parked at office standard. Chairperson Jonathan summarized that office space in excess of the 20% threshold shall be parked at the office standard. Mr. Smith pointed out that they were just changing the word above to in excess of. Chairperson 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19 2004 Jonathan asked if it clarified it in Commissioner Tschopp's mind. He concurred. Given what they have done in the past, Commissioner Tschopp asked if the 20% parking and the way they have been doing it, if staff could see many instances where this new code would not work. Mr. Smith said no, this has been staffs observation and they noted it with respect to mini warehouses. They brought in that code amendment about three years ago and they have been observing the recent mini storage facilities and with just the six or eight spaces, depending on if they have a manager's unit, it is more than adequate. They had a similar experience with warehouses and the offices as an ancillary use. it seemed to be working well. Mr. Drell stated that every industrial operation has an office component. Every warehouse has a place with someone physically there at a desk, answering the phone. That is really why they have steered everyone toward the 2/1,000 standard which presumed some office use, as opposed to the other standards at 1/1,000. Mr. Smith said up to 20,000. Mr. Drell said that the problems that occurred in the County were because people built to the �..► 1/1,000 and then put in the offices. That is why they have convinced people, and most put in above the 2/1,000 in anticipation of more offices. The 2/1,000 assumed some office and they just never quantified it. Now they were quantifying it. Chairperson Jonathan noted that in the past once office use exceeded 20% they applied the 4/1,000 to the entire office use. Mr. Smith said that is the way they started out. Chairperson Jonathan said that was their other option. The reason he had kind of been pushing this is because he thought there would be a proliferation of the office/warehouse in the north sphere such as they were seeing now along Dinah Shore, Gateway Industrial Park and all those other projects. So he thought they would be seeing a lot of those applications like in parts of Cook Street where the office is maybe 20%, sometimes 30%, and then a warehouse in the back. If they were looking at a 10,000 square foot building that has a 2,000 square foot office, they would end up with 20 parking spaces, maybe less the 15%, so maybe 17 parking spaces. Under normal circumstances, that would probably be enough. His concern was if they have kind of a hybrid situation and they end up with 40% office or 60% office, then to give them 20% of that at 2/1,000 because there are those hybrids where half is office and half is storage or display, so he 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2004 { didn't have an answer. His objective was to at least get this straight so they know what they're doing and what they are telling applicants. Commissioner Tschopp said that was kind of where he was heading. He was wondering if there was a cap. Once they hit a certain percentage of office space, they are no longer a warehouse. Because he understood that the standard warehouse has to have some office, but they are talking about a very small portion of the zoning. Once it exceeds that portion, it becomes more of an office. He was thinking there should be a cap and if they exceed X percentage of the building in offices, the 20% goes away and they need to park for an office complex. Mr. Drell asked if they had a multi-tenant building and they have four spaces and three of them are pure offices and one of them is a warehouse with a small office, the way it is worded, the 20% has to be associated with the warehouse. Mr. Smith concurred. Mr. Drell said that in the situation he just described, regardless of what is left those pure offices are going to be parked as offices. So they would look at them space by space of how the project is designed, but offices that aren't associated with a warehouse, whether they are 20% or not, they would require the 4/1,000. Chairperson Jonathan didn't think that addressed the potential problem that he thought Mr. Drell was describing. If they have a building design that is 50% office, the front is office and the back is warehouse, then he thought the possibility would be that at that point essentially they would view the entire 50% of office at 4/1,000 and the warehouse would be at 2/1,000. Mr. Drell asked why we would do that. Chairperson Jonathan said what happens is there are a lot of cars in that situation and it becomes more of an office situation. The 20% didn't get a free ride at the 2/1,000 at that point, because it is more of an office use. Mr. Drell noted that the 2/1,000 was really based on 1/1,000 for the warehouse and 4/1,000 for a little bit of office, so they amalgamated that together to 2/1,000. In his scenario what would make sense was to have 4/1,000 for the pure office and 1/1,000 for whatever warehouse was left. Chairperson Jonathan disagreed. Mr. Drell said that the 2/1,000 presumes some office. Chairperson Jonathan recalled when they went to 6/1,000 for medical use. Mr. Drell said that was a use decision. Chairperson Jonathan agreed and pointed out that it was because our experience as a city was that 5/1,000 wasn't enough for medical use. He thought their experience collectively as a city is that in an office/warehouse situation, now that they've seen so many of them, they understood that 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2004 1/1,000 for the warehouse portion is insufficient. In general, that type of service industrial/office warehouse situation deserves 2/1,000, except where the office is beyond incidental and becomes an integral part. The suggestion there is perhaps, if he was hearing Commissioner Tschopp correctly, is that they don't give a free ride on the 20% once it exceeds a certain threshold. Commissioner Tschopp agreed, once it becomes more of an office building than a warehouse-type industrial use. If they weren't seeing a problem with that, they didn't need to address it, but he asked at what point the building became more of an office than it does a warehouse. Mr. Drell said that obviously if the whole use was office, it's an office. Chairperson Jonathan asked if it was 80% office and 20% warehouse, did the first 20% of office go in at 2/1,000. That wouldn't make sense. Mr. Drell said that when the 20% is the same size as the warehouse. In reality,for that associated use it is really 50-50 at that point. If they wanted, they could put an addition on it to say when total office use exceeds 50%, then all of it would be counted as an office. Chairperson Jonathan said he agreed with that. Mr. Smith indicated that for a 10,000 square foot building they were talking about four parking spaces. Mr. Drell asked if that was the difference taw between the 20% free ride and all of it. Mr. Smith concurred. Mr. Drell said it wasn't a big deal. Chairperson Jonathan said they should just add it then. Sometimes those four spaces make all the difference. Mr. Smith said that if they wanted to put a cap on it, they just had to give staff a number. Chairperson Jonathan noted they could leave it the way it is, or they could say up to 20% is strictly 2/1,000 for the entire building. If they go over 20%, then the excess over 20% is subject to the 4/1,000. But in the event that office use exceeds 50%, then the entire office must be parked at the office standard of 4/1,000. They could do that or just disregard it. Mr. Drell said that to a certain degree it depends on how the building is divided. Commissioner Tschopp said that the more it is divided up, the more cars they could have potentially parking there because there are more office workers per part as a whole. He thought it was a good idea and it still didn't preclude looking at them on a case by case basis. Commissioner Lopez said he could see the merit of having a cap and was trying to see it from the other side. He didn't see where it would hurt to establish a cap. He asked if it would limit the ability of someone to develop 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2004 a product or a project that would work. Once they got past 50%, they were right. It became office space with a lot of storage at that point. Chairperson Jonathan said that Mr. Smith was right; at that point all they were telling them to do was put in another four parking spaces. Mr. Smith noted that was on a typical 10,000 square foot building. Chairperson Jonathan concurred. The difference was just with the 20% base and goes from two to four. He was comfortable with that and it was a recommendation for Council to consider. But he could see Commissioner Tschopp's point. Once they exceed a certain level it is more of an office building that happens to have a warehouse. Commissioner Tschopp agreed with staff. Parking is based on use on a property, not the zoning. If it is 50% office, then it needed to be parked as office. Chairperson Jonathan asked for clarification on the 15% reduction. He asked if that was to the office portion. If they were going to have hallways, bathrooms and closets, etc., it was therefore the office portion. Mr. Drell concurred. i Chairperson Jonathan said that one of the things they want to think about is ..� what the actual reduction is to the parking spaces. Is it to the 20% portion so they are only reducing at the 2/1,000 or if it was the excess and at 4/1,000. He wasn't sure they needed to get into that with the ordinance, but that would come up in the design. Someone will say if they get a 15% reduction, how does that translate into reduction in parking. Mr. Smith thought they would do it to a ratio of how much is in each part of the building. Chairperson Jonathan concurred. He summarized that the suggestion is to add a little bit of language that says that in the event the office use exceeds 50% of the total building area, then the entire office space shall be parked at the office standard. With that addition, he asked if there was a motion. It was noted by staff that the public hearing needed to be opened and public testimony requested. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed amendment. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19 2004 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-0. It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2302, recommending to the City Council approval of Case No. ZOA 04-02 as amended. Motion carried 3-0. Chairperson Jonathan thanked staff for getting this clarified. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES r.. None. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE None. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE None. XI. COMMENTS Commissioner Lopez noted that the November 16 agenda was going to be quite full. Mr. Smith said yes, it would reflect the fact that wasn't a meeting on the 2nd. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was any interest or reason to have a first meeting in November, but not on Tuesday night. Staff noted that it would be too late to run any noticed public hearings. It had to be in the paper yesterday. And the continued items couldn't be heard because they were continued to a date specific on the 16th. 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19 2004 .ri XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 3-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. PHILIP DRELL, ecretary A T: SAB O ATH , Chairperson Palm D serf Planning Commission /tm 1 28