Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0905 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY - SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Lopez called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Tschopp led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jim Lopez, Chair Cindy Finerty, Vice Chair Sonia Campbell Van Tanner two Dave Tschopp Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Dave Erwin, City Attorney Tony Bagato, Associate Planner Ryan Stendell, Assistant Planner Phil Joy, Associate Transportation Planner Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Request for consideration of the August 1, 2006 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the August 1, 2006 meeting minutes. Motion carried 5-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent August 24, 2006 City Council actions. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5. 2006 VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VI1. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 05-12 -BIGHORN DEVELOPMENT, LLC,Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to expand parcel boundary on Canyon Crest within the Bighorn development. B. Case No. PMW 06-01 - DESERT WELLS 237, LLC, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow expansion of Parcel 8 to accommodate commercial development College Drive and Gerald Ford Drive. C. Case No. PMW 06-15 - GENE AND LINDA BIGGI, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to adjust a common lot line to allow construction of a garage on Lot 22 at a 73-179 and 73-251 Joshua Tree Street. D. Case No. PMW 06-16 - MARVIN MAY, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment for Lot Nos. 71 and 72 in Tract 25296-1 also known as 200 and 202 Palm Ridge. E. Case No. PMW 06-17 - RICHARD BOURESTON, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow elimination of parcel lines on Village Court. F. Case No. TT 31390 - PONDEROSA HOMES 11/ MSA CONSULTING INC., Applicant Request for approval of a first one-year time extension for a tentative tract map subdividing an 84.32-acre site into 241 single family lots, modified setbacks for the 241 lots, and a negative declaration for property located at the northwest o 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5. 2006 low corner of Gerald Ford Drive and Portola Avenue, 74-000 Gerald Ford Drive. Mr. Drell informed Commission that Item A, Case No. PMW 05-12 for Bighorn Development, unfortunately involved a lot line adjustment into an open space area which would potentially impact surrounding properties not within Bighorn. It's an area which has had significant controversy on the use of that open space over the years. Therefore, staff was requesting that the item be taken off the Consent Calendar and recommended that the item be set for public hearing. When these things happen within a country club, they let the country club deal with it. When these changes occur and potentially impact perimeter properties not represented by the association, then staff felt it was appropriate to have a hearing especially when they have knowledge of past controversies. Chairperson Lopez asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving Consent Calendar Items B through F by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, to notice Case No. PMW 05-12 for public hearing on September 19, 2006. Motion carried 5-0. 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 described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. PP 05-29 - PREST VUKSIC ARCHITECTS, Applicant Request for a recommendation to City Council of approval of a precise plan of design to allow the construction of a 15,267 square foot industrial building including a tower element up to 34 feet in height located at 73-665 Dinah Shore Drive. Mr. Stendell reviewed the staff report. He recommended that Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the project, including aw 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5 2006 r the height exception up to 34 feet. He noted that a letter was received regarding reciprocal access and parking. In this case the applicant to the south provided a 15-foot drive aisle and this applicant to the north provided 14. In his opinion, 29 feet was adequate for a drive aisle since they would allow a 24-foot drive aisle in that area. The project to the west, the Prest development, had 28-foot drive aisles which again were adequate. The parking stalls meet the code at 17 feet with 2 feet of overhang which should accommodate most cars. A few large trucks might extend a little out. If there were any questions, he or the applicant were available. Commissioner Tschopp noted that Mr: Stendell mentioned that there was a similar situation down the street with 28-foot driveways. Mr. Stendell confirmed that it was just to the west. If they go through the drive aisle, they would be in the Prest Development project, a 14 or 15 building development. It had 28-foot drive aisles. Commissioner Tschopp asked if code was 24 feet. Mr. Stendell said yes. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the other development has 28-feet perpendicular parking there. Mr. Stendell said the 28 feet was actually up to a zero lot line of the building, so they had 28 feet to a 30-foot tilt up building, which in this case they have 30 feet into a 17-foot parking lot which wasn't a 30-foot tilt up building. If there were no cars there, then it was 17 feet greater. Commissioner Finerty asked for Mr. Stendell's opinion regarding the statement in Mr. Berkley's letter about the trash containers. Mr. Stendell stated that it was his opinion that the trash containers were in the appropriate location and they had to be served. Doors seldom open and close. It was at a secondary access point. It wasn't the main point of entry and he believed it was the correct location in this Service Industrial zone. There were no other questions for staff. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. JOHN VUKSIC with Prest Vuksic Architects at 44-530 San Pablo Avenue in Palm Desert stated that they were able to meet with Mr. Berkley today to discuss the issues raised in his letter and were able to resolve the issues. The only change to the project as shown is that they would angle the parking slightly toward Spyder Circle. The main concern Mr. Berkley had was the turning radius for fire trucks to come off Spyder Circle into his parking lot which is along Spyder Circle. What they were able to do because they have a large landscape area near the entry of the building is angle the parking out so that they created a much wider throat and improved that condition where that 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5. 2006 turning radius was so critical. Their utilities were down further on the site and they had the open space to help Mr. Berkley with that and they would angle it as much as they reasonably could. He thanked them. 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 the public hearing and asked for Commission comments or action. Commissioner Finerty thought it was a really nice looking building for service industrial and was glad Mr. Vuksic took the initiative to meet with Mr. Berkley and resolve the differences. She moved for approval. Commissioner Campbell concurred and said that even though this required City Council approval because of the height, she didn't think they would have any problem approving this building. She seconded the motion. Commissioner Tschopp, Commissioner Tanner and Chairperson Lopez concurred. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving 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. 2413, approving Case No. PP 05-29, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case No. TPM 34807 - PACIFIC POINTE PARTNERS, INC., Applicant Request for approval of a tentative parcel map to subdivide a 9.60-acre parcel into nine parcels for condominium and building address purposes located at 73-555 Leilani Way. Mr. Bagato noted that there was a previously approved project on this site in May of 2006 for the industrial buildings. Tonight the Commission was reviewing a parcel map to subdivide this property for condominium address purposes. The findings for approval were outlined in the staff report. For CEQA purposes, it is a Class 15 Categorical Exemption and no further 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5 2006 review was necessary. Mr. Bagato recommended approval of the map. He noted that Mr. Tom Noble was present on behalf of the applicant who couldn't attend. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to step forward. MR. TOM NOBLE, 74-075 El Paseo Suite A-3 in Palm Desert stated that he was present to answer any questions. 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. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2414, approving NNW Case No. TPM 34807, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. C. Case No. CUP 06-08 - WILLIAM AND BRIGITTE HOWARD, Applicants Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a freestanding detached accessory structure/motor-home garage in a rear yard setback 25 feet from property line at 77-682 Robin Road. Mr. Stendell reviewed the staff report and recommended approval. He noted that the applicant was present to answer questions and also submitted signatures from surrounding neighbors in support of his application. Staff recommended approval, subject to conditions. Chairperson Lopez ol2ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5 2006 MR. BILL HOWARD, 77-682 Robin Road in Palm Desert, thought that staff pretty much summed it up. He was present to answer any questions. Commissioner Tanner asked if the east side neighbor signed the petition in support. Mr. Howard said yes, he was 100% in favor. In fact, he was also going to submit plans. He also stated that he went to the neighbors within 300 feet, which is what the mailing labels require, and they went around and got signatures, 100%, within 300 feet. 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 said the project was nicely done and moved for approval. Commissioner Campbell seconded the motion. tow Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving 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. 2415, approving Case No. CUP 06-08, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. D. Case No. GPA 06-02 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Recommendation to the City Council of a general plan amendment to update the Energy and Mineral Resources Element to include a goal, policies and programs related to reduction of energy use in the city. Mr. Drell explained that the City Council is processing an ordinance relative to the City's conservation initiative. Ordinances should be consistent with general plans, therefore, they were adding in a general sense some policies and programs into the General Plan so that the new Energy Ordinance will be consistent with the General Plan. He noted that Mr. Pat Conlon was present to answer any questions. Now MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5 2006 Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. PAT CONLON said the intent of the exercise is to synchronize the General Plan with the upcoming Energy Ordinance. The Energy Ordinance would be heard by the California Energy Commission later this month and then he would be bringing it back to City Council for adoption. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Finerty asked where it talked about the SEER rating for air conditioners. Mr. Conlon explained that what they did was put together a performance standard for new construction. Homes larger than 4,000 square feet would be 15% better than Title 24; homes smaller than 4,000 square 10%. They did not put in specific prescriptive standards. He noticed that the Ordinance attached to the staff report was an earlier edition of the Ordinance. Some changes were made and the Ordinance was now a performance standard ordinance and they left the issue of how high of an efficient piece of equipment should be installed was left up to designers so they could have give and take. Commissioner Finerty noted that as long as they meet the 10% or 15%, it didn't matter how they did it. Mr. Conlon said that was exactly right. He noted that the State does have a minimum 13 SEER for all new equipment, but as they knew, there were 14, 15 and 16 SEER, but that option was left up to the designers. Commissioner Tschopp indicated there was a cost estimate in there for a residential home that ranged from $2,200 to $4,200. Mr. Conlon explained those were conservative numbers. What they were doing for the Energy Commission exercise was putting together a cost effective study, which is required. They were in the process of doing that and they were modeling two different homes for cost effectiveness and modeling two different types of commercial buildings for cost effectiveness. He thought the numbers in the staff report were a little high, but they would know more once they got through the California Energy Commission process. r■r 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5. 2006 Commissioner Tschopp asked if he had an estimate on how much it would cost a commercial building. Mr. Conlon said it depended on how much they needed to do. Some commercial buildings don't have as much glass area as some of these custom homes, so it was easier to bring them into compliance. Again, commercial buildings were only 10% above Title 24. So there were a lot of factors that determine it, both in terms of commercial buildings and residential homes. He couldn't give a set answer. Commissioner Tschopp asked if in his estimate the cost would not be prohibitive or out of line. Mr. Conlon said they did some preliminary studies on cost effectiveness before choosing to go down this road and he was very confident they could meet the criteria for the State of California. Commissioner Tschopp noted that in another area it talked about the ordinance applying to remodels, additions, alterations, and so forth. Mr. Conlon said for over 500 feet in size. Commissioner Tschopp asked for confirmation that someone doing alterations inside their home would not be caught in this program. Mr. Conlon said that was correct. It applies to additions over 500 square feet in area. If someone does a remodel, the ordinance requires that they conform to the minimum California standards. If they put in a new air-conditioning unit, it had to be a minimum 13 SEER. Commissioner Tschopp asked if remodeling applied to home and kitchen remodels and if they would be energy recalculating that new area. Mr. Conlon said that language is compatible with the state law language that says the only area of the alteration needs to be complied with, such as air-conditioners. Mr. Drell said it was new square footage. IANW MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5 2006 Mr. Conlon concurred. Additions over 500 square feet in area. So if it was under 500 square feet in area, they were good to go with the state code minimum is what they were saying. Commissioner Tschopp asked where that was located in the documents. Mr. Conlon said it was clarified in the future edition. Mr. Drell suggested getting the Planning Commission a new draft at their next meeting. He explained that what was before the Planning Commission tonight was the General Plan which lists these general goals and objectives. He thought they should get the new revised ordinance for the next meeting. Mr. Conlon agreed. He also said that the answer was on page 3 of the Ordinance, Section 22.30.040 General Compliance Requirements. "The following general compliance requirements shall apply to all new construction and additions greater than 500 square feet." Mr. Conlon clarified that was the intent. Commissioner Campbell noted that it was on the second to the last page. Chairperson Lopez indicated that Mr. Conlon wrote a memo on the ...� suggested wording for the general plan amendment and asked if Mr. Conlon was comfortable with the wording on the Exhibit A they had before them. Mr. Conlon said yes. Commissioner Finerty noted a correction on Program 2C of page 2, the last line should say"homes" not "holes"for sale. The change was noted by staff. There were no other questions. 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. Chairperson Lopez asked for Commission comments or action. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2416, W 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5. 2006 recommending to City Council approval of Case No. GPA 06-02. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING FOR VACATING PUBLIC STREETS WITHIN RILINGTON COMMUNITIES/DOLCE PROJECT (TRACT 31071) LOCATED AT GERALD FORD AND GATEWAY DRIVES. Mr. Drell explained that the project was currently under construction with public streets. It was his understanding that the developer would like to gate the community and they couldn't gate public streets. So they wanted to be given back the streets and then they would be maintained by the homeowners association. Referring to the map, Chairperson Lopez asked if the entrances being referred to were off of Gateway where it referred to Lot C and at the back, Ortiza Way. Mr. Drell said yes and indicated that they had to be modified so „ . they could have gateable entrances. There were no other questions and Chairperson Lopez asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, determining that the vacation of the public streets within the Rilington Comm unities/Dolce Project is consistent with the General Plan. Motion carried 5-0. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner Campbell reported that there was no meeting. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty informed Commission that the meeting was informational. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5 2006 C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty indicated that the meeting was cancelled. D. PARKS & RECREATION Commissioner Tanner noted that there wasn't a Parks & Recreation Commission meeting. XI. COMMENTS None. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 6:37 p.m. PHILIP DRELL, Secretary ATTEST: CINDY FINERTY, Vice Chairpe on Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm .rr 12