Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1004 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY - OCTOBER 4, 2005 I. CALL TO ORDER Vice Chairperson Lopez called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Campbell led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jim Lopez, Vice Chairperson Sonia Campbell Cindy Finerty Now Sabby Jonathan Members Absent: Dave Tschopp, Chairperson Staff Present: Steve Smith, Planning Manager Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Assistant Planner Ryan Stendell, Assistant Planner Phil Joy, Associate Transportation Planner Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Request for consideration of the September 20, 2005 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the September 20, 2005 meeting minutes. Motion carried 4-0. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4. 2005 ..n V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Smith summarized pertinent September 22, 2005 City Council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR None. 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 described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. TT 30706 Amendment#1 - PALM DESERT PARTNERS, °1r L.P., Applicant Request for a recommendation to the City Council to approve an amendment to Condition No. 9 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2207 to allow a height exception for 16 model homes with roof elements at a maximum height of 20 feet for property located on the west side of Shepherd Lane west of Portola Pointe Drive. Mr. Stendell reviewed the staff report and recommended that Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of Case No. TT 30706 Amendment #1. Vice Chairperson opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. JIM THOMPSON, 2 Crooked Stick Drive in Newport Beach, California, addressed the Commission. He stated that he was present 2 r► MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4. 2005 to answer questions. What they were trying to do was create ten-foot flat interior ceilings and have as much roof showing as they could. They liked houses that have lots of roof/roof tile. They've gone from a 4/12 pitch down to a 3.5/12 to modify and bring the roof down a little bit. He also clarified that in the zoning there is an 18-foot maximum height. If the roof was flat, the blue area shown on the plans theoretically could be built. If bringing it before the Architectural Review Committee, if they said they didn't want a box like that or wouldn't let them built it, that was another matter. But he just wanted to point out that under the rules of 18 feet, that is what could be built. They sloped the roof to create a situation where only 3% of the roof exceeded 18 feet. That was the purpose of what they were doing. The architects felt that dropping the roof any further created two things. One, the look changed and to them it wasn't as attractive as the current proposal. Two, it created a situation where the heating elements in the attic would become complicated and they'd run out of room to put them in with the proper space needed to work around. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that the staff report noted that the reason `r for the exception request was to accommodate a 10-foot ceiling height and Mr. Thompson indicated that as well. He said he was a little confused, because he believed it was possible to achieve a ten-foot ceiling height and even higher cathedral ceilings without exceeding the 18-foot roof heights. He asked why it couldn't be done in this case while it could be done in others. Mr. Thompson said first of all, they didn't want cathedral ceilings. Commissioner Jonathan said he understood that they were looking to have ten-foot ceilings. Mr. Thompson said ten-foot flats. They felt that was what the market liked today in terms of style. Some very high elements, but very little other than flats today. That's where the architecture has gone; they built houses that way and they are well received. He wasn't an architect or engineer, but he could say that they told him that if they drop the height lower than this, they run into a problem with the heating elements and space becomes difficult. ... 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2005 Vice Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MS. ROBIN MOONEY, 74-131 Scholar Lane East in Palm Desert, addressed the Commission. She said when she heard about this, she had some concerns. When they moved here three years ago and relocated from Seattle, one of the things they really liked were the relatively low households so they were able to see the view of the mountains and all the other people are, too. She was concerned they would be losing that. Secondly, she said she has 12-foot ceilings in their little houses, so they have plenty of height and plenty of room for the equipment. Thirdly, and probably more importantly, is that every time they have an exception to the rule,they have a new threshold. And then another person has the opportunity to raise it for just another number of feet. It wasn't that she had any objection to the home, it looked like a lovely home and would be a lovely asset to their neighborhood. The concern was the height, especially with all the new building. She would like to see some consistency so they enjoy that kind of beautiful desert landscape they see behind them. MR. JIMMY BERRYHILL, 74-098 East Academy Lane, addressed the Commission. He explained that his house is directly across the street from this property. He said this property and the five-acre property to the north of it have been terrible neighbors. He moved in over two years ago and they have continuously created dust, havoc and noise in their neighborhood to no avail. He thought the property was probably overpriced when they bought it and they were trying to make their money back at the rest of the residents' expense. He had more dirt in his pool than they have in their public lot on the other side. If they wanted it back, they could come and buy it and they could buy him out. But that house would be a beautiful house for their neighborhood and he was in opposition to this. Not because of the house, but because someone, this Commission or Council or someone, approved this particular parcel of five acres to layer their pads and stair step them. In his residential community, the 16 homes on the other side of the street had to have flat ones. They are all the 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2005 same basic height. Across the street he is already looking at a stair step up his view to the mountains. He had a solution. If they wanted to be good neighbors, they could bring the pads down and build their house up and still have the height, the 19 feet. But he was opposed to anything over the 18 feet. As a matter of fact, he was opposed to building 18 feet on stair stepped pads across the street from him. He had a petition that he said was also put into them, probably in for the record, of all the neighbors in the neighborhood that have signed it and they said, "the following property owners adjacent to the subject property located at the intersection of Portola Pointe and the west side of Shepherd Lane, the APN 653-370-008, object to the maximum height increase from 18 feet to 21 feet. This project already has an elevated grading that puts these homes much higher than any of the surrounding homes. The additional height increase will further obstruct the views of the San Jacinto Mountain range." He said that's why they moved there. They didn't move there for the dust, dirt and sand. They wanted good neighbors. They can't have good neighbors that take their views so they can sell bigger and more expensive a.. houses. He said it would improve his property values, there was no question about it, but it was just objectionable to him because he moved there for a retirement home. He lived in Palm Springs for 18 years and chose this location on purpose. Now he has a new property owner and there was no telling how many more before it got built. He asked the Commission, as well as his neighbors, to not only restrict the height or lower the homes down to their pad level, or at least some semblance of it, and ask these owners to please put some dust control on their property. He said he had many pictures he could share with them. It wasn't the time to do it right now, but he needed to portray his position. He asked them to please use some dust control on their property. He had many pictures he could share of the dust clouds coming off of the piles of dirt on their property and it came right over onto them to the west. He asked for the Commission's consideration. He had nothing against the applicant and hoped the property was built on soon so it would hold some of the dust down. With that in mind, he objected to the proposal, but there were ,., 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2005 modifications he believed were within the Commission's power to make to be able to accommodate the property builder as well as the residents in the community. He thanked them. MR. DAVID MUTH, 74-125 Academy Lane East, said he was a neighbor of Mr. Berryhill. He vouched for the fact that the developer had been a very poor neighbor in regard to dust control and that the site has been managed very poorly. Regarding the architecture of the house, to many of them it might look like a beautiful house, but actually the massing of the house is very poor. The roof truss is designed to go from the very left side of the house to the right, which created the need for the height. Regarding the applicant's concern about running mechanical equipment, he said he is in the building industry and knew for a fact that it could be done if they lowered the roof to a 3/12. It is possible. And simply, there is an ordinance for the height and it would be very easy for him to go back to the drawing board and simply redesign the roof of the house to where he could comply with the ordinance. In addition to that,the building pads were raised approximately eight feet from their pads which also increased the height of the building and the restriction on seeing the mountains. He felt that it was relatively simple for him to at this point go back to the drawing board and simply redesign. He thanked them. MS. KATHERINE KEMPSTER, 74-107 Academy Lane, agreed with everything that Mr. Berryhill said in the beginning. They concurred with that. That's why they moved there. They are retirees and moved for the view. They didn't want it obstructed. They had no objection to houses there. They looked forward to having them. But one of her main questions tonight was to ask why only two people, two households, on Academy Lane received this notification. They checked around and her home and one other home received this. It was only from them going around and checking with all of their neighbors that they have them there at the meeting. She thanked them. 6 ad MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2005 Vice Chairperson Lopez asked if the applicant would like to readdress the Commission. Mr. Johnson came forward and stated that he didn't like to be accused of being a bad developer. He acquired this property approximately three months ago, so anything that had happened with dust and so forth was someone else's problem that should have been addressed by the City, not with him. He had the site glued down and it shouldn't be blowing dust and hoped to be under construction within the next couple of months. They would take the proper PM10 requirements and so forth and hopefully that would solve their problems. He stated that there are definitely some terrain elements out in that vicinity that cause these various subdivisions to be at different heights. The lady that said she was down by Gerald Ford, he couldn't tell them how many feet, but guessed she was 30 or 40 feet lower in elevation there then this subdivision. He noted that he didn't design this subdivision. It was designed by Hacker Engineering using the best practices. They couldn't possibly have changed that site dramatically from what it was. If that site rises to the west, certainly they wouldn't have been able to cut it down at the back side, the west side, it's just the way things develop. If they live on the low side, they live on the low side. If he was to complain, he would ask about the Shadow Ridge three- and four-story timeshare elements on the Marriott to the west of him. How could that possibly be in that area? He also noted that the zoning is a PR zoning which allows two-story houses. He knew it was conditioned to one-story, but that's what the zoning allows. Anyone who complained about that little minuscule piece of roof he thought was off base. He said he would like to do it the way it was presented. (Someone in the audience made a comment about the roof line.) Mr. Johnson asked staff if there was a side view of the roof. They showed an example of the front of the house and the roof element and reiterated that it would only be 3% of the roof that would exceed 18 feet. He thought that was a very minor percentage of the entire roof. To him, for those houses, this amount of roof height where they sit on a lower terrain elevation was pretty low 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2005 meaningless unless they looked right up the cul-de-sac street which would be open to the mountains. He didn't see that this would hurt anyone's view. Vice Chairperson Lopez thanked the applicant, closed the public hearing and asked for Commission comments or action. Commissioner Jonathan stated that there have been times when he has looked at exceptions, noted it was within the 10% and in fact this one was 3%, and he has said it wasn't a big deal, let's go for it. He didn't feel that way here, however. He thought that Ms. Mooney pretty much nailed it on the head and made a cogent point in his mind when she said that exceptions tend to become the new standard. In fact, today in the staff report they heard that it's okay because it was allowed in another project. So it is just the way things go. They allow an exception and before they knew it, it was used as a precedent and before they knew it, it does become the new standard. He liked Palm Desert's 18-foot height limitation. He thought it was there for a reason and was happy it was there because it allows them to retain the charm of the desert that makes it so popular to begin with. So he was very careful about allowing exceptions to the height limitations. He thought, unfortunately, that the pad heights were set. We do slope to the west, it's the nature of the desert, we aren't flat, and when you come into a new home and something goes up next to you, the view is partially eliminated. That's the nature of the desert and part of buying a new home in an area that has new homes that are about to be built. He didn't think there was much that could be done there. Finally, he was not convinced that the exception was needed to accommodate the 10-foot ceiling height. They heard testimony from Mr. Muth that indicated otherwise, but he has had experience that would indicate otherwise as well. So if the prime motivation was to accommodate a 10-foot ceiling height, he didn't think a roof height exception was needed in order to accomplish that. So for all those reasons he was opposed to the application. Commissioner Finerty concurred. She was also a stickler for having rules, having ordinances and having certain heights and setbacks. There was good reason we have that. She was usually opposed to excessive height because she too dearly loves the desert and wanted to protect it and didn't want high 8 +� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2005 buildings. She didn't see the need here for it. Basically, the design of the roof could be achieved by lowering it to the 18 feet. She certainly sympathized with the owners out there that come here and they have their dreams and people come in and try to take their view away. Where they could, she thought they needed to stay within the parameters the City has set forth and this was an area where they could. Also, sometimes they make exceptions if the architecture warrants it. She didn't think this architecture, although it was nice, warranted a height exception even though it was only 3% of the roof. Commissioner Campbell also concurred. If they made an exception, if it wasn't just a row of houses it would be a different story and quite a bit of footage between each home so that they really wouldn't notice the height. If they have all of these homes at the same height, she believed it could obscure the neighbors' view. Vice Chairperson Lopez said he also concurred. The very first question that was asked this evening was why the height would be necessary and the answer was to accommodate a ten-foot ceiling. He pointed out that there are a lot of homes being built with 18-foot high roofs that have ten-foot ceilings. He didn't think it was an adequate enough reason, so he concurred. He asked for a motion. Commissioner Finerty noted that they didn't have a resolution of denial. Mr. Smith advised that the appropriate action would be to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial for adoption at the next meeting. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, instructing staff to prepare a resolution of denial for adoption at the next meeting (October 18, 2005). Motion carried 4-0 (Chairperson Tschopp was absent). Commissioner Jonathan asked Mr. Smith if it was a challenge for staff to always have alternative resolutions prepared ahead of time so they didn't have to be clairvoyant and guess at the outcome of the Commission's decisions. He asked if it was just a wording matter. Mr. Smith explained that it wasn't just a wording matter. They do need to come up with findings for the ... 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4. 2005 ■r denial. In this case he made notes which would be used for the findings. They did need to outline the reasons. Commissioner Jonathan thanked him. Vice Chairperson Lopez asked if it would go on to Council after adoption of the resolution at the next meeting. Mr. Smith said it would only go onto the Council with an appeal of the decision after it is taken at the next meeting. B. Case No. TT 33935 - TRANS WEST HOUSING INC., Applicant Request for approval of a tentative tract map to subdivide 9.73 acres into 32 single-family lots (8,749 square foot minimum size) located on the east and west sides of Shepherd Lane 2,100 feet north of Frank Sinatra Drive. Mr. Urbina reviewed the staff report. He noted that Public Works Department was requesting amendment to their Condition No. 8 to add to the second sentence "increased drainage for' a 100-year storm. With that amendment, staff recommended approval of TT 33935, subject to the conditions and based on the findings contained in the draft resolution. ... Vice Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. CHRIS SHULTZ with NAI Consulting came forward. He said they enjoyed working with the City's staff. He thought this project was pretty much in line with development on Shepherd Lane, so it was pretty straight forward. He indicated that he and the applicant were available for any questions. There were no questions and Vice Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0 (Chairperson Tschopp was absent). 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2005 Now It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2356, approving Case No. TT 33935, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 4-0 (Chairperson Tschopp was absent). C. Case No. PP 05-14 - PALM DESERT ASSOCIATES, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design for a 9,886 square foot office industrial building located at 73-760 Dinah Shore Drive. Commissioner Jonathan advised Commission that even though he owned property more than 500 feet away, in an abundance of caution, for anything within the Gateway Industrial Plaza he would abstain from discussion and voting. He left the room. Mr. Bagato reviewed the staff report and recommended approval. He informed Commission that the applicant was present to answer any questions. Vice Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and noted that the applicant preferred not to address the Commission. He asked if there were any questions for the applicant. There being none, Vice Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Finerty thought the project looked very nice and moved for approval. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained, Chairperson Tschopp was absent). It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2357, approving Case No. PP 05-14, subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained, Chairperson Tschopp was absent). %NW 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4. 2005 COMMISSIONER JONATHAN REJOINED THE MEETING. aw IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner Campbell informed the Commission that they chose some artists for the registry and three different the patterns of artwork for Palm Village Park as a recommendation to Council. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty reported that the Committee would meeting the next day. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE .ni Commissioner Finerty noted that she gave a report at the last meeting. XI. COMMENTS None. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 6:43 p.m. 4 //'4���- STEPHEN R. SMITH, Acting Secretary ATTEST: JAM 'LOPEZ, Vice hai erson Pal Desert Planning Com ission ad 12