Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0606 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY - JUNE 6, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Lopez called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. I1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Tschopp led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jim Lopez, Chair Cindy Finerty, Vice Chair Sonia Campbell (arrived at 6:02 p.m.) Van Tanner two Dave Tschopp Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Phil Joy, Associate Transportation Planner Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Request for consideration of the May 16, 2006 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the May 16, 2006 meeting minutes. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Campbell absent). Commissioner Campbell arrived at this time. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6. 2006 V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent May 25, 2006 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 Nos. C/Z 06-02, PP 06-01 and TT 34304 - SINATRA& COOK NNW LLC, Applicant (Continued from April 4, 18, May 2 and May 16, 2006) Request for recommendation to the City Council of approval of a change of zone, precise plan of design, tentative tract map and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for 268 condominium units and a 38,000 square foot neighborhood commercial center on 19.6 +/- acres north of Frank Sinatra between Cook Street and College Drive, 37-755 Cook Street. Mr. Smith noted for the record that the agenda description should reflect the changes made to the project, which is that it no longer included the tentative map for condominium purposes and the project was now for 260 apartment units. He displayed the landscape and site plan. He noted that the plan was previously presented to Planning Commission on May 2. The Commission offered some comments to the applicant and those minutes were included in the Commission's packets. 2 r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION J_UNE 6, 2006 Mr. Smith stated that the applicant responded to those comments. Access remained unchanged from Sinatra, College Drive and Cook Street. Onsite circulation improved and was more efficient due to the combination of changing from condominiums to apartments which reduced the amount of parking required. That area went into common open space. The applicant also reduced the number of motorcourt type units which were not land deficient in the layout. The revised site plan now provided for a central large recreation area in excess of 60,000 square feet opposite the College Drive entry and two other smaller recreation areas: one at the north and one at the south end. Building setbacks were now in compliance with code at 32 feet from Sinatra, 20 feet from College, and the interior east side yard complied with the required setback. Studio units had been increased in size to a minimum of 450 square feet consistent with code. He said the project complies with parking with the exception of the 18 studio units to be allowed to have a parking provision of 1.25 spaces per unit as opposed to two spaces. The project also required a height exception to allow for up to 30 feet, 24 feet per code. The report went into some depth relative to common open space on the site plan. Previously it was approximately 166 square feet per unit and now it was in excess of 290 square feet per unit. The project included three pool areas plus a separate kiddie pool at the main recreation area, plus two tot lots. Staff made an argument for the parking adjustment for the studio units on the bottom of page two of the staff report. Mr. Smith felt that given that this would be apartments and that there would be a parking total in excess of 511 spaces that the reduction of some 14 spaces out of the total would be insignificant. If that was what it took to get smaller apartment units in this area where they need them, staff felt it was a good idea. It was also noted that building height varied from 24 to 28 feet and one unit with tower elements to 30 feet. The project was approved by Architectural Review. Mr. Smith said they didn't have an issue with the height of the buildings. Staff noted some problem areas where they've used flat roof structures such as One Quail Place with long-term maintenance being an issue. Similar to four or five previous projects such as Portofino, Hovley Gardens, Santa Rosa and Falling Waters, staff felt this project warranted similar consideration relative to the heights of the buildings. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6 2006 .r The project would provide a certain number of affordable units, specifically 20% of the units to be reserved for moderate income households at 110% median. That was a change from the report which indicated 100%. And 20% of the units would be price controlled at a market rate per regional market survey. Relative to the commercial development, it basically remained unchanged. However, staff did have revised elevations showing elimination of the former tower element, which was at 40 feet. The west setback continued to require an adjustment from 20 feet to 10 feet. Staff felt it was warranted in that it was staffs suggestion to increase the landscape depth from 14 feet to 24 feet. Building architecture along College Drive was attractive and didn't need dense landscaping, but there was still 24 feet there if they wanted. Regarding parking, Mr. Smith said the commercial center came up three spaces short. The typical situation was to allow up to 15% reduction. They would have a better idea of that when they received the working drawings and staff would do the calculations at that point. If necessary, the applicant might need to amend the plan at that point and there was a condition to that effect. Staff circulated to Commission just prior to the meeting, and staff apologized for the lateness of it, a response to the required high density overlay criteria. Mr. Smith said staff felt it warranted the 17-unit per acre density and that all the required criteria had been met. Mr. Smith also proposed adding two additional conditions. Community Development Condition No. 14 requiring the applicant to enter into a housing agreement; and No. 15 requiring energy conservation measures consistent with the memo from the Office of Energy Management dated November 28, 2005. Additionally, the clubhouse should have minimum two kilowatt photovoltaic panels installed. With that, staff recommended approval of the project, subject to conditions as modified. Chairperson Lopez indicated that the public hearing was still open and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. RYAN OGULNICK, 828 North Ogden, Los Angeles, California 90046, stated that he was present to answer any questions. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6. 2006 There were no questions. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Lopez asked for Commission comments or action. Commissioner Finerty stated that she was very pleased to see that Mr. Ogulnick took all of the Commission's comments to heart. She thought with their inclusion it was a much better project which the City and he could be proud. She appreciated his cooperation and the timely manner with which he addressed this and moved for approval. Commissioner Campbell concurred. She liked the changes made and he took the Commission's comments to heart; not everyone did. She thought it was a great project and seconded the motion. Commissioner Tschopp concurred. Commissioner Tanner gave the project the thumbs up. He said it was nicely done and thanked Mr. Ogulnick for removing the sign. It was a job well done. Chairperson Lopez also congratulated Mr. Ogulnick on a great job working with staff and Commission, taking their comments and making some outstanding changes to the plan. He knew it would be a very successful project and thought it looked great. He noted that there was a motion and a second on the floor, which included the two additional Community Development conditions. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2398, recommending to City Council approval of Case Nos. C/Z 06-02, PP 06-01 and TT 34304, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. wow 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6 2006 Wo B. Case Nos. PP 06-05 and TT 34626 -WL HOMES LLC, Applicant (Continued from May 16, 2006) Request for recommendation to the City Council of approval of a precise plan of design and tentative tract map to allow construction of 198 residential condominium units, private recreational facilities and public park site on 26.83 acres south of Gerald Ford Drive west of Cook Street, more particularly described as Lots 10 and 14 of Parcel Map 31730, 74-825 College Drive. Mr. Smith displayed the University Master Plan map, then reviewed the staff report. He clarified that the height ranged from 24 to 25.5 feet high, hence a recommendation to the City Council in that the height exception would require City Council approval. He said that the Architectural Review Commission had no issue with the height. The units were all nine-foot plates with 3.5/12 pitched roof for the 25.5 foot height. He noted that staff distributed two additional conditions relative to energy conservation measures. He said both were brought to the attention of the applicant earlier in the day. Staff recommended to City Council approval of PP 05-06 and TT 34626, subject to conditions as amended and including the height exception. Commissioner Tschopp noted that the park would be public and asked where the public would park to access the park. Mr. Drell replied that there would be angle parking off of University. The whole park was ungated and outside the project. It would be open to the street all along its frontage. The objective for these neighborhood parks is while people are going to the parks to get some recreation, they walk. But the plan showed 10 or 15 parking spaces. He indicated that this neighborhood has four, so hopefully they were all within walking distance of each one of the neighborhoods. Ideally, there would be a minimum of cars having to park. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the residents would have some type of access into the park. Mr. Drell said there would be a pedestrian access from the project directly to the park; if not, they would design one. Commissioner Tschopp indicated there was another large green area. Mr. Drell said it was retention. Commissioner Tanner asked if there would be a greenbelt. Mr. Drell said no. Commissioner Tschopp noted that there was University Park Hotel going in and some office spaces. He asked if there 6 r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6. 2006 would be any impact from this development or any impact on those developments from this project. Mr. Smith pointed out the Evans hotel site and the park site and indicated that the park site was right across from the hotel site. He also confirmed that the offices were at a lower elevation. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MS. LINDA VALIA with John Laing Homes located at 255 E. Rincon Street, Suite 100 in Corona, California 92879, stated that they were pleased to be in the city of Palm Desert. This was the first project for their company in the Coachella Valley, so they were excited about it. She said they concurred with all of the conditions, including the additional ones they were given. She asked for any questions and noted that members of the design team were also present. Commissioner Finerty asked for additional information about the recreation area being provided. Now Ms. Valia said they have a pool, spa and restroom building, as well as boccie ball. There were also three other areas on the site with outdoor kitchens and barbecues. They also had some garden areas and passive recreation areas. Commissioner Finerty asked if it would be correct to say that the project was relying on the public park for the recreational amenities. Ms. Valia said they have their own recreation facility and the cluster units have large backyards where they could have their own pools and recreational facilities. Commissioner Finerty asked for confirmation that they weren't providing any recreational facility in the cluster. Ms. Valia confirmed there was not a recreation center, just the swimming pool and restroom building. Sixty-six (66) of the cluster units would have private open spaces and most of them were big enough to accommodate pools and they would offer pools as an option to buyers. 40M 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6 2006 .rt Commissioner Finerty said from her point of view there weren't enough recreational amenities, and certainly not enough pools for a project of this density and size. Ms. Valia noted that a third of the units could have their own private pools. Commissioner Finerty said if they chose not to and relied on the project amenities, she believed the recreational amenities were inadequate. The project just before this one (Case Nos. C/Z 06-02 and PP 06-01) came in with one pool. Those applicants went back and returned with two other pools and largely enhanced their recreational area and amenities. While it was fine to rely somewhat on the public park, she thought this particular project should be able to stand on its own merits with respect to its recreational amenities. She just didn't see that happening. Ms. Valia pointed out that the park next door had a basketball court, two tot lots and pavilions with tables and benches. It was 2.5 acres. There were three other parks in the University Park area that could be used. .w Mr. Drell explained that this project through the assessment district would be dedicating to build the public park. Commissioner Tanner asked how many acres would be in the public park. Mr. Drell said 2.5 acres. The total of all the parks was approximately 12 acres. Ms. Valia said that right on the other side of the university was another 2.5-acre park. Commissioner Finerty asked if any of the parks in these 12+ acres would have pools. Mr. Drell said no. To somewhat differentiate between this project and the one before (Case Nos. C/Z 06-02 and PP 06-01), as an apartment project it did not contribute since park fees were paid through a subdivision map. That's why in apartment projects there was a higher level of onsite amenities since they weren't directly contributing. The issue with pools was a valid one. How that related to private pools should be considered. But typically, the ratios were one pool to 100-125 units. That was kind of what projects have historically provided. Based on that, apart from private pools, this project would typically have two pools. The exception was the Falling 8 aw MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION __ JUNE 6. 2006 Waters project that had one huge recreation area and pool because they had extreme grade problems. Commissioner Tanner asked about anticipated demographics for the project. Ms. Valia said their target market would be second home, seasonal and then full time. Probably 40% would be seasonal and second homes. Chairperson Lopez asked if Ms. Valia could address access to the park. Ms. Valia pointed out two walk-thru areas on the map. Commissioner Campbell asked if there was an anticipated range of price. Ms. Valia said if they were to open up today, the price would be in the mid $400,000's to mid $600,000's, but they wouldn't be ready to sell for another two years. Commissioner Tanner asked for clarification regarding the project being mow.. within the Palm Springs Unified School District. Mr. Drell explained that all of Palm Desert north of Frank Sinatra was within the Palm Springs Unified School District. He said a valiant attempt was made a few years ago to get a transfer which was unsuccessful. Commissioner Campbell noted that she had a similar question regarding two pools. The other project came back with a ratio of 87 homes to one pool. If they were stating that these other clusters of homes could have their own private pool, she asked if Ms. Valia would be willing to add some extra pools behind there so that other people could access them. They would be open to the public, unless they were in their own backyards. Ms. Valia confirmed that the pools would be in private backyards. Commissioner Tschopp asked if there were any dimensions for the pool or information on how many people could safely use the pool at any one time. He asked if it was based on other developments of this size. Ms. Valia said they were relying somewhat on the 2.5-acre park next door for recreation. mow 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6 2006 ..rr Commissioner Tschopp asked if they used any other developments of a similar size to design this pool. Ms. Valia said yes, other ones they had done. Commissioner Tschopp asked if there were any problems at those other projects. Ms. Valia said the proposed pool could accommodate 55 people at any one time. Commissioner Tschopp asked if in her experience a pool of this size for a housing development would be sufficient. Ms. Valia said yes. Commissioner Finerty pointed out that Ms. Valia also indicated that this was their first project in the Coachella Valley. The pool requirement in the Coachella Valley was vastly different from other areas. Ms. Valia asked if there was a city requirement. Commissioner Finerty said not a requirement per se, but here with the extreme heat pools were necessary. Commissioner Campbell pointed out that Mr. Drell said earlier that usually there were more. Mr. Drell noted that this has come up three or four times and developers were somewhat reluctant, but almost without exception they thanked them afterwards. The good news for the developer was that once the project is sold out, it was the obligation of the homeowner's association. They would probably lose 2-4 units. Ms. Valia said they have triplexes, so at least three. Commissioner Tanner noted that with a demographic target of 40% for the retirement community or second homes, adding amenities to the project would encourage them. But if they didn't, they could build it but buyers would find alternatives that do have those recreation amenities available to them onsite without having to share them with a 2.5-acre park. They potentially have nice things going on. He noted that Randy Guyer from the Park's & Recreation Commission was present and didn't know if this project went to 10 W MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6. 2006 them for review, but he thought the project would need more to offer and not to just the 40%, but 100%. There were no other questions. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project or add any additional comments. There was no one wishing to speak and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Lopez asked for Commission comments or action. While she thought it was an architecturally attractive project, Commissioner Finerty stated that she would hold firm on the need for another pool and hoped that the developer would acknowledge the need for a continuance to see how the second pool could fit into the project. Mr. Drell said that the alternative was to simply condition it. To apply conditions, they didn't have to obtain agreement from the applicant. They could simply require another pool. He thought there was a likely location at the western edge of the project. It would probably mean eliminating a cluster and that's where the pool could go. tow Having heard that and since she liked the architecture and other things about the project, Commissioner Finerty moved for approval adding a condition that a second pool be placed at staff's discretion within the project. Commissioner Campbell liked the project and also felt that a second pool was needed. She said even though the heat wasn't as bad as yesterday, people would enjoy the pool. If they put 50 people in a pool like that, they would just be standing there wetting their feet, not being able to move. She seconded the motion including the condition for a second pool. Commissioner Tanner wasn't sure if he totally agreed with the condition and motion. He encouraged the applicant to not just put in any pool, and he hoped the City would monitor it. That it would be used to accommodate the entire development. Not a small pool, but large enough to take care of more than 55 people at one time. The current pool was simply not large enough to take care of half the occupants of this project. And although they were saying that this cluster has the opportunity, that was limited to only those homes and others wouldn't have access to it. So he would certainly want two pools large enough to accommodate more than 110 people. They have far more units than that available. Hopefully there would be children in the area and that would increase the pool usage. He asked if that should be included WM 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6 2006 in the motion. Mr. Drell said that if the Commission wished, staff could bring the pool design back as a Miscellaneous Item after it went through Architectural Review Commission. Commissioners Finerty and Campbell agreed. Commissioner Tschopp thought it was a very nice development. He wasn't as concerned about the pools and thought there were a lot of pools in the desert that don't get used once the novelty wears off. In gated communities a lot of the time pools were empty. But having said that and after doing some quick math on the number of condos that could have their own individual pools versus the number of units, it still seemed that the ratio was really high for the number of people using one pool. It was also quite a ways for people to walk. He wouldn't have a big problem and thought the applicant would find it a big benefit to have another pool in the project if for no other reason then it would look nice even if they found not many people use it. He was in favor of the motion. Chairperson Lopez agreed. He loved the way this whole area was laying out now. The unique topography of this particular property made the height and architect unique and he thought it was great. He also thought the developers owed it to themselves and the folks who would be buying to have a second pool in this area and make sure that both pools were such that the folks who live there would indeed have the ability to enjoy them. It was an amendment he thought in years to come that they would thank them for requiring. Overall he thought the project was a great addition to the community. He loved the park and the open space on it. He thought it would add a lot, but they needed to consider adding a second recreational facility. Both facilities needed to be of a size and open space to give individuals the opportunity to utilize it. He thought they owed it to their future owners to get a second pool. He noted that there was a motion on the floor and a second, with three additional conditions. He asked for any additional comments. There were none. He called for the vote. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2399, 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 2006 ohm recommending approval to the City Council of Case Nos. PP 06-05 and TT 34626, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner Campbell reviewed the committee's actions. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty reported that the meeting was informational. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty stated that the meeting was canceled. D. PARKS & RECREATION Commissioner Tanner said they opened Freedom Park and indicated that the next Parks & Recreation meeting would be June 7, 2006. XI. COMMENTS None. ... 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6 2006 XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m. 3 PHILIP DRELq Secretary ATTEST: JAM L EZ, a person Pal se rt Plannin mmission Am NOW 14 woo