Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1017 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY - OCTOBER 17, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Lopez called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Tanner led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jim Lopez, Chair Cindy Finerty, Vice Chair Sonia Campbell Van Tanner ftm Dave Tschopp Members Absent: None Staff Present: Steve Smith, Planning Manager Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Ryan Stendell, Assistant Planner Phil Joy, Associate Transportation Planner Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary Janine Judy, Sr. Office Assistant IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Request for consideration of the October 3, 2006 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, approving the October 3, 2006 meeting minutes. Motion carried 4-0- 1 (Commissioner Tschopp abstained). WM MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17. 2006 V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Smith summarized pertinent October 12, 2006 City Council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 06-22 - GERALD AND BETTY KNUDSON/ IRONWOOD OWNERS ASSOCIATION II, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment to accommodate a house addition at 73-420 Dalea Lane. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. .r 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/HPD 06-13 -KRISTI HANSON/ARCHITECT,Applicant Request for a recommendation to City Council of approval of a precise plan of design to allow a 9,642 square foot single family home within the Hillside Planned Residential zone at 869 Rock River Drive within Canyons at Bighorn. Mr. Stendell reviewed the staff report and recommended that Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval, subject to the conditions contained in the draft resolution. Chairperson Lopez oo0ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2006 MS. KRISTI HANSON, the project architect, 72-185 Painters Path in Palm Desert, stated that she 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 Tanner, approving the findings as presented by staff. Commissioner Finerty said that while it is a lovely home, she was troubled by the fact that the maximum dwelling size is supposed to be 4,000 square feet and the proposal with the garage is about two and a half times that. She really felt that when they approve such standards and exceptions, the idea was to be the exception, not the rule. But it seemed everything that had come before them had been the exception. She knew this was going to Council and suggested that they retook at the Hillside Planned Residential Ordinance to really determine what dwelling size and how much of a pad and vow building they would like up there. Chairperson Lopez noted that there was a motion on the floor and a second and called for the vote. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2422, recommending to City Council approval of Case No. PP/HPD 06-13, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). Chairperson Lopez agreed with Commissioner Finerty that they needed to review the hillside policy in the future. B. Case No. CUP 06-13 -Al LIN YU, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to operate a massage therapy center in an existing 1,885 square foot medical office suite located at 72-405 Parkview Drive. Mr. Urbina reviewed the staff report and recommended approval, subject to the conditions contained in the draft resolution. %am 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17 2006 Commissioner Campbell noted that the staff report indicated that the dental office would be open Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., but when he took the survey said the office was open until 5:00 p.m. She asked for clarification. Mr. Urbina replied that it is open until 6:00 p.m., but after 5:00 p.m. there were typically very few patients there. That was an error on his part and he accepted responsibility. Commissioner Campbell asked for confirmation that the entrance for the development is off of Parkview Drive. There was a gate on Cholla that would not be used. Mr. Urbina said that was correct. The gate at the end of the cul- de-sac on Cholla Drive was an emergency access gate. The main entrance is off of Parkview at the easterly end of the site. Commissioner Campbell noted that way people would not bother the neighborhood through Cholla Drive. Mr. Urbina said that was correct. Commissioner Finerty indicated on page 3 of the staff report there is a table and above the table a sentence says, "The following table provides the results of the parking surveys and includes adjustments for peak season increase in parking demand." She asked about the adjustment. Mr. Urbina said that was in error and was a carryover from a previous report. The manager of the dental office claimed that they experience a 10% to 15% increase in the number of patients during the winter season; however, he was not able to verify through the Coachella Valley Association of Governments Regional Traffic Studies as far as an increase in medical related type of office uses. He noted that they did have an internet cafe application earlier this year at the Von's center and in that case the Coachella Valley Association of Governments said that for commercial/retail along Highway 111 there was up to a 40% increase during the winter season, but for medical offices there was no such data. But even with a 10% increase in the winter season, staff didn't foresee a parking issue at this location. There were no other questions and Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. RONALD NIELSEN, 45-653 Portola in Palm Desert, the representative for the applicant, stated that he was present to answer any questions. Chairperson Lopez wanted to make sure that the applicant was fully aware of the conditions on the application, especially as they pertain to the number of employees and any increase would require amendment to this conditional 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2006 use permit. Also, any future signage has to go through the Community Development Department. Mr. Nielsen said they worked with staff on increasing potential employees and would come back. Chairperson Lopez read Condition No. 3 that states, "The applicant is limited to six massage therapists and one receptionist at this location. Any additional employees will require an amendment to this Conditional Use Permit." Mr. Smith explained that it was his understanding that at the present time they were looking at only employing four. The condition left room for growth in the future. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed application. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Lopez asked for Commission comments or action. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner .. Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2423, approving Case No. CUP 06-13, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. C. Case No. TPM 35155 - PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, Applicant Request for approval of a tentative parcel map to subdivide 4.66 acres into three parcels located at 72-557 Highway 111. Mr. Stendell reviewed the staff report and recommended approval, subject to the conditions contained in the draft resolution. Commissioner Campbell asked what other restaurants came before the City wanting that particular space. Mr. Stendell referred the question to the applicant's representative. MS. MISSY WIGHTMAN from the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency came forward. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION O TOBER 17, 2006 Commissioner Campbell reasked her question. She asked what other restaurants asked to be in that particular spot where La Spiga was locating. Ms. Wightman said she was unaware of any other restaurants and would get back to the Commission with that information. There were no other questions and Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked for any further comments from the applicant and asked for her name and address for the record. MS. MISSY WIGHTMAN, 8346 Sungold Drive in Indio, said they were looking for approval of a tentative parcel map. She indicated that the Henderson Community Building is currently under construction, Parcel 2 is vacant and Parcel 3 is waiting for construction of civil improvements for La Spiga. There were no other questions for the applicant. 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 Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2424, approving Case No. TPM 35155, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. D. Case Nos. TT 33935 and TT 34391 Amendment - TOLL BROTHERS, INC., Applicant Request for approval to amend Community Development Condition No. 7 of Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 2356 and 2379 to increase the maximum height for homes from 18 feet to 21 feet 8 inches for two tentative tract maps with a combined total of 64 single-family lots located on the east and west sides of Shepherd Lane 2,100 feet north of Frank Sinatra Drive. a 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17. 2006 Now Mr. Urbina displayed a copy of the grading plan showing the 64 lots under discussion. He noted that several letters of opposition were received from adjacent neighbors opposing any increase in height above 18 feet because all other existing single family homes in the Shepherd Lane neighborhood are 18 feet or less in height. He reviewed the salient points of the staff report and recommended that Planning Commission approve an amended Condition No. 7 as stated in the draft resolution. He heard from one of the concerned homeowners on Academy Lane East. Mr. Urbina wanted to know if they had an opportunity to read his staff report and their views on staffs proposal to allow models above 18 feet on the 32 interior lots and the message left for him was that the neighbors are opposed to any homes above a total height of 18 feet 0 inches because all other existing homes in the neighborhood are at 18 feet in height or less. He thought they were also concerned about the possible precedent that would set if heights above 18 feet were to be approved. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Finerty asked if the City was really serious about the Energy Efficiency Program, if adding an extra 3.5 feet in height would create more hot air. Mr. Urbina indicated that was correct and said Mr. Drell pointed that out to Toll Brothers at the first Architectural Review Commission meeting, but Now Toll Brothers wanted to proceed with the proposed ceiling heights. One alternative would be for them to lower that 12-foot interior ceiling height to something less that would create less of a view impact on neighbors and it would also be more energy efficient. It appeared to be a business decision on the part of Toll Brothers. Chairperson Lopez noted that in the report that Mr. Urbina just went through, although it wasn't as a recommendation, it sounded to him like Mr. Urbina was indicating that perhaps the Arroyo would work along the border line because of the location of the tower. Mr. Urbina said that was correct, toward the front of the home. Chairperson Lopez said the Savino model would be okay because it's at 17.5 feet. Mr. Urbina said that was correct. Chairperson Lopez requested confirmation that Mr. Urbina then asked for two additional plans or layouts that would be under 18 feet for this option for that area. Mr. Urbina said that was correct. It would create an architecturally diverse mix and a more interesting streetscape. Chairperson Lopez indicated that would allow them to have four models and floor plans that could be spread out amongst the 32 homes. Mr. Urbina said yes, it would be for the 16 lots on the north and the 16 lots on the south, but in addition, if Toll Brothers had customers that wanted that lower model in the interior, they could do that as well. Chairperson Lopez asked if staff was recommending 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2006 w that particular direction as the alternative to include the Arroyo and Savino, as well as two others. Mr. Urbina said yes. Commissioner Tanner asked about the placement of the models themselves in the event a height variance on that particular model, and the placement on the interior from the standpoint of being viewed from the north or south sides. He asked where the models would be located. Mr. Urbina said that wasn't discussed, but Mr. Stone James was present and he might have an idea. There were no other questions and Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission. MR. STONE JAMES, present on behalf of Toll Brothers, 73-121 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 100, in Palm Desert, said that also present was Mr. Joe Lisiewski out of Arizona, the Regional Architect Director and pretty much their in-house expert. Mr. James informed Commission that Toll Brothers is a home builder based locally with operations in 21 states across the United States and their target market is luxury homes. They get the high end luxury, the move up style of homes. Currently they have two projects going . r on in the desert. They have a new country club in La Quinta and were just finishing up a project in PGA West. Those homes typically range from the mid $800,000 at Mountain View Country Club to probably $1.5 to $1.6 million depending on the level of upgrades someone selects. He stated that the purpose of their presence this evening is to request the ability to build seven plans that are slightly above the City's recommendation of 18 feet. When they take a look at that, he thought it was important to take a step back. He referred to the book and the Cantabria plan, which was the worst case scenario, and asked them to take a look at the roof line. Chairperson Lopez requested that the picture be put on display. Mr. James did so. He reiterated that their purpose at the meeting was to request permission to build some of their floor plans that exceed the City's recommendation of 18 feet. When he talked about exceeding 18 feet, he wasn't talking about the majority of the roof line consistently over 18 feet. When they looked at all seven of the plans, they would realize that only 6.6% of the roof on average exceeded the ..rr 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17 2006 Now 18-foot height limit. He had pictures to show the visual impacts on that design because that's what they were about and what was really 18 feet. The 18 feet was the City's recommendation in order to preserve the character and the appeal of the homes. He thought what it had become was a rallying cry. Above 18 feet their homes would be obliterated. As a homeowner he could understand and respect that. But is that really the case here? He believed the answer was no. If they took a look at the Cantabria, they would realize that the roof of this total covered area, roughly an almost 3,800 square foot house, only 408 feet was above that 18-foot limit. So it really wasn't a material amount. Their goal this evening was to share with the Commission their plans, the time, the energy and the expense they have gone to to not only meet, but exceed, the Architectural Review Commission's standards and guidelines. So not only did they meet them, they exceeded them in so far as they have received unanimous support for all eight plans. The first goal was to deliver a product that the market receives well. Right now they could read in the newspapers that real estate wise, Now this was a very tough market and he could kill them with details on what's going on with the market from here to La Quinta as far as projects that are doing well and the people buying homes, and builders who have not delivered products and plans and are being horribly received by the market. So the three goals include something that will sell well, that will fit in and compliment the existing community, and to meet and exceed the guidelines of the City of Palm Desert. He hoped by the end of the evening they would have the Commission's support for these plans. Referring to a chart and graph, Mr. James showed the percentage of the roofs that would exceed 18 feet. MR. JOE LISIEWSKI, the Regional Manager of Architecture for Toll Brothers, 14350 N. 87th Street in Scottsdale, addressed the Commission. He said they made a presentation to the Architectural Review Commission several weeks ago and wanted to walk the Planning Commission through it to show them the effort they've made to accommodate the requirements in the ordinance. He showed four of the build products they were offering and said they were all top sellers in the Arizona and California markets: Sevilla, Quintana, Piedra and Savino. The four other houses that they've chosen to 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2006 Wa compliment these homes are similar designs and similar character, but were all new product. They had all been developed within the last nine months and were in framing stages in various communities, so they didn't have finished pictures to show them. Mr. Lisiewski said part of the architectural view concern was with part of the basic elements of the Toll Brothers house, so they provided some pictures and illustrations of their typical garage doors, their wrought iron detailing, their recess windows and those were all standard products on their homes. They are a luxury home builder. He liked to think they surpassed the expectations of Palm Desert in what they were presenting. He was hoping they all visited the surrounding community. If they hadn't, they had been given illustrations of existing homes and tried to draw some conclusions on their homes by calling out various window elements and how they detail their product versus existing vernacular in the surrounding communities, types of shutters they deal with, the stone, wainscoting system, wrought iron detailing, their garage doors and how they exceed what's existing in the community. This was a standard for Toll Brothers and what they offer. Their color pallet was a concern with the bright sun in Palm Desert. The representation wasn't exact with regards to colors and he had originals if they wanted to see them. He showed pictures of the corner architecture, the hip roofs and how they relate to existing condition and their felt it was superior to the existing product. There was also concern about the rear of their homes. This is a very desirable place on earth to live and everybody wants to live outdoors. The rear of their homes are very open, have courtyards and engaging architecture. The inside becomes outside. They felt that they were ahead of the industry in that regard. Mr. Lisiewski said when it comes to the height issue, their concern in picking their product is someone chose a number of 18 feet and said that 18 feet is a height limitation. If they are above 18 feet, it affects the community and affects their views and quality of life out here in Palm Desert. He agreed with that sentiment; however, the rationalization of how that comes through, 18 is an arbitrary number. Someone came up with 18 feet and said that's good to go. If they take a 55-foot lot, they could only have an eight-foot ceiling. If they go above an eight-foot ceiling, do the math at a 4:12 slope, which is a typical roof slope, then in the southwest they were above 18 feet. If ..r 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER_17. 2006 they are at 4:12 and at an eight-foot plate, they are at 17 feet. He said by code he was permitted to build a house to within the property line, would probably have to have a big courtyard front and rear to get it not to exceed the ground coverage, but he could build a house to 18 feet high. In the lot diagram, if he was standing in the front on the sidewalk or in the rear yard looking at that 18-foot box that he theoretically could create, they would see a line of sight from Tract 30801 of 42 feet 3 inches to the peak. What that was showing them was that anything below that 42 feet at the center of their Toll Brothers lot they could not see past. However, with the Piedra model, one of their tallest per the chart, that demonstrated that the Piedra located on the front property back line gave them a larger rear yard. It wasn't encroaching on the 15-foot rear yard setback because the house is not that deep. The roof line didn't come anywhere near the 42 feet 3 inches they could build per the ordinance. What they were trying to demonstrate with the line of sight of approximately 24 feet 5 inches is they are significantly lower in impact of visual obstruction than what the ordinance permits. So they thought about this very long and hard in picking their product. .. Then they found out there is also a 15-foot requirement in the ordinance that says if they build 15 feet on the perimeter, they avoid this whole process. Again, if he was to build a 15-foot house at the property lines, they could see that height was up around almost 34 feet. Again, their worst product, the Piedra, the "highest" most view obstructive, is approximately 9 feet lower than the 15-foot height restriction that they don't need to come and discuss at a commission hearing and it was quite a bit more than what the spirit of the ordinance was protecting, which is significantly higher. Mr. Lisiewski said they erected story boards and took photos and superimposed a rear elevation of the Piedra in it and what they see is if they were to do a house to the property line at an 18-foot ridge, the impact is significantly worse than what the Piedra presents. So what they were trying to present to them was they are exceeding it, by a minimal amount of 6% of all the total roof area. Some houses as great as 10%, some as low as 1% and some zero. But because of the massing of their roofs, and as they saw on some of the roof plans, anywhere they exceed the 18 feet is toward the center of the house and the center of the lot. So on their sight view, the angle when looking out your eye, the impact is far less severe than what the ordinance permits and that's the basis of their request and why they VXW 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2006 don't feel they should go back and try to select different product, or reduce their impact spaces from 12 to 8 feet. They don't have impact at 8 feet, they have it at 12. That is what their buyers expect at their homes. He said they have done some ceiling height analysis. When they talk about energy consumption that's a good question. He said Palm Desert has the strictest energy code in the country here, it was thick and great reading. But the energy code, Title 24, is based on average roof height, ceiling height, and that's where all their information comes from on the calculation sheets. What this graph told them is that when they go into the average ceiling height, they are only 2% over an average ceiling height of 10 feet. So the energy cost to heat and cool the houses they are presenting with some areas that are 12 feet, some of their areas are 8 feet so their average is really a 10-foot house. The cost to air condition a 10-foot house versus an 8 based with Title 24 because of efficiency of units is minimal. The kilowatt usage an hour, they had done some studies on it, and it was almost insignificant. Mr. Lisiewski said they also presented at the Architectural Review .. Committee meeting and they were requested to provide quality architecture and one of the comments was that they weren't showing their light fixtures, standard garages and their side architecture. So they had addressed all of that and it was in their booklets. He didn't think they needed to page through every floor plan and every roof plan. What he did want to stress is that the majority of their house, if they look at the Arroyo, the tower element exceeded the height by a few square feet. Cantabria is one of the largest exceeding percentage roofs and it was in the center of the house. The majority, if not all of their roofs that exceed heights, are in the center of the house. They have all hip roofs with maybe one exception. Again, the sight line follows the 4:12 slope and the impact is minimal and he said that was demonstrated in the sections they showed. He asked if there were any specific house questions he could address or anything in general. Chairperson Lopez asked what they anticipated, based on the way they laid out the project, for the average setback from the property line to the back of the house. ..r 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17. 2006 Mr. Lisiewski said the average depth of their house is about 88 or 90 feet; 88 total permitable would be 110. So they were looking at close to 28 feet. Mr. James stated that generally speaking, on the Cantabria plan they plotted out about 18. They had a 37-foot backyard before the wall of the homes. From the rear wall to the rear wall of the house was 37 feet. Mr. Lisiewski said the Cantabria is an 84-foot deep house which is one of the shortest. The deepest is the Nolina at 94.9. So there was a difference of maybe 10 feet, so maybe 27-37 feet for the rear yard best and worst case. Commissioner Campbell asked about lowering the height of the pad a few feet that the Architectural Review asked about. Mr. James said that question was also asked by the surrounding home owners. The issue there was: 1)they don't own the land yet; 2) when Trans West Housing was seeking approval from the City and submitting plans,the Public Works Department were actually the ones who recommended the grading and height throughout that development. It was not just a matter of moving a bunch of dirt, they have to contain all storm water on site and that site had to be pitched certain ways to facilitate the drainage along Shepherd. If they were to lower the pads of certain homes, that would disrupt that flow and either have flooding on their lots or flooding at surrounding homes. At this point it was not possible. Commissioner Tschopp noted that staff's recommendation was that the interior lots be built with the higher ceilings and the exterior lots abutting the neighborhoods be built at the lower elevation and asked the applicants for their opinion. Mr. James said that the concern is that with what has gone on in the market in the last 10-12 months, the home builders who are not delivering specifically what the market is looking for will be penalized heavily. For example, there is a community in south La Quinta built by a national home builder. They had done a good job, but because they haven't delivered what the market is looking for at the price the market is willing to pay, they've had no sales in five months. There was a project immediately surrounding the proposed project and it 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2006 ■r took them 16 months to sell 16 homes. So that was one home a month. He promised them that they could not run a home building company on one home a month. If it was the high end custom home, $2 million a shot, no problem, but production homes, even if they are luxury scale, they have to have a sales pace of three or four a month in order to be economically viable. To address the concern, based on his market research and on the experience of Toll Brothers in the southwest United States, having those impact areas of 12 feet and having those plate heights throughout the rest of the house at 10 feet was critical. That's what people are looking for and ultimately they are in the business of delivering homes. That's one of the reasons their production cycles are so long. Their homes are so highly customizable and that's one of the things they see. That's the expectation. In order to drop the roof height, it's not feasible from an interior plate height perspective, it's not feasible from a cost perspective, it's not feasible from an architectural view point from standing outside of the home. It really becomes an eyesore if they took that 4:12 roof and dropped it to 3:12. And actually at that point when they start going below 3-3.5:12 the tile manufacturer warrantees no longer apply because the water isn't running off fast enough. He asked if that answered his question. Commissioner Tschopp said yes, the answer was basically that it is an economic reason. Mr. James said yes, it's market driven. Commissioner Campbell asked what was being proposed for the price range of the homes. Mr. James replied that right now they were trying to figure that out. The price is really driven by what they pay for the land. He promised them that was not cheap. It was also a function of what they put into it. They were looking to deliver a base home price, and it was an estimation, for the mid $700,000's and with Toll Brothers company- wide, the majority of their home owners upgrade their homes more than what he paid for his first home, so typically $75,000 on top of that base home price. So for a delivered home, he would guess around $850,000. That was just their estimation at this point. ..r 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17. 2006 low Commissioner Campbell asked if he had any idea what the homes in the area sell for now and if it was comparable. Mr. James said yes. He was out there this weekend driving around and he saw homes for$630,000, $650,000, $689,000 and those were homes with full landscaping, mature landscaping, backyards, pools, spas and things like that. Their base homes, they created them so they are completely customizable. At$740,000, that didn't include the pool, spa or landscaping; a lot of upgrades found in the existing homes already. So the price difference and what they were proposing was significant. There were no other questions. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR. There was no response. He asked if anyone wished to speak in OPPOSITION. MR. HAROLD WITTEN, 74-131 Academy Lane East, thanked the Commission for letting them talk this evening on this subject. He said staff had described their position fairly well and maybe he could make it a little shorter. He thought he spoke for most of them on the south wow side of Academy Lane, that they're strongly opposed to this project. He explained that they don't consider themselves a bunch of unreasonable people. They did expect homes to be built all around them. Right now they are out in the middle of no where and the view is great. They knew that wasn't going to last forever. But what they didn't expect was that the grading was going to start out two feet higher and that then they were going to come in and build houses 3.5 feet taller than the code allows, which puts it five to five and a half feet above. It knocked out their view to some degree and way more than what they expected. It wasn't going to look good in the neighborhood with all of a sudden having these houses sticking up. There were three things they really didn't expect. One was the grade being higher. Two was that the builder was going to build 3.5 feet higher than code. The other was that they were going to build a block wall, which the first developers had already done, and that wall was built five inches from his block wall and it was two feet higher, which was for their privacy. But it was with a completely different kind of block and different design. He said they could probably picture what that looked like to them already with just a block wall. Completely different. And here they are going to add these houses. They tried to dazzle the Commission with statistics with an average of 6.6% of the 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2006 roof height that is above the limit. They never look at 6.6%; they are looking at what that house is and some are 10% and 11% above 18 feet. And in this case 18 feet is up 2 feet. That was basically their position on this. They still didn't believe it would look aesthetically good in the neighborhood. It would block more of their view than is reasonable and it was relatively unappealing for the entire neighborhood was their opinion. They really would like to request the Commission and Council to consider enforcing the 18-foot height. He thanked them. MR. GENE MARCIONE, 74-130 Petuna Place East, stated that in addition to the comments just made about the walls being higher, approximately six inches, and the pads being higher. Part of the beauty of what they have there is their view of mountains. He thought at this point they were losing a portion of that mountain. With the houses going in, the pads are higher already and to add two or three more feet, he didn't think they would have a view at all. He thought it would totally disappear. Secondly, he thought it effected the value of the property. If they read any of the real estate ads, they always point out the southern view or northern view. So it was very important to try and keep this level that has been established and the portion that is left so the total view doesn't disappear. The landscape was disappearing the way it is, but to add to it would effect the price of property that exists there now. MR. ROBERT PAUL, 74-100 Petuna Place, stated that he is on the corner of Shepherd and Petuna Place. He said Toll Brothers does build nice houses. His block wall is two feet under the footage of theirs because their street is two feet higher. The next street up is probably going to be another two feet higher. So that was going to be four feet higher and then they want to add the additional exemption for height and that was going to be quite a bit more than what they were talking about. What is the city going to get for going beyond the limitations they already have? Are they going to get park space or something else? We have the limitation and he thought they should just exempt these people. They haven't exempted other people. He thanked them. MR. JULIUS VARGA, 74-136 E. Petuna Place, said he wouldn't repeat what the previous speakers said before him about the increased wall and loss of view. One of the questions he did have, aw 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17 200 especially of the architect, is there was a slide that caught his eye and he asked that it please be put back on display. It was the picture of the superimposed building behind their existing homes. (It was done.) He apologized if everyone else was getting it, but he wasn't. When they talked about the 18-foot home versus the existing, he asked if the applicant could please describe what they were looking at. Mr. James pointed out the different poles. He described it and said the first red pole was kind of close to them. That was the pole they erected at 18 feet, which the code allows, and it was 15 feet from the back wall. If they looked carefully, in the middle of the picture they would see some green poles. They were kind of occluded partially by a black pole. The green poles were the worst case scenario that they plotted on Lot 18 and that was called the Cantabria model. The green poles represented the percentage of the roof above 18 feet. It was just a little tuft of roof over the 18 feet. The black angled lines were the Cantabria model placed in that picture. The very top of the green pole (21' 8") he said is probably in excess of 40 feet from that back wall. UAW To answer Mr. Varga's question, he said one of the design themes that is popular is to have the gable ends on either side of the house. So it showed the gables and was actually to scale. One of the things they decided to do with their roof lines to be sensitive to the views was to use hip roofs. So with the superimposed image he was hoping to communicate if they were to build to code, to 18 feet using the plans in the community already with gable ends on either side, that was the view that would be lost as opposed to the proposed homes and the views that would still remain intact. So while it was over 18 feet, it actually had less of a visual impact than what's in the community already. Mr. Varga thanked him. He stated that he was concerned with breaking the code and as an existing property owner, what these homes would do to their property values. He thanked the Commission. MR. DAVID MUTH, 74-125 Academy Lane East, said his home is directly north of this project. With respect to the grading, he realized the grade is higher and had no problem with that and it was a function of the natural contours of the land. About a year ago, the owner of Portola Pointe came before the Commission with basically the same %W. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17. 2006 No argument that their houses were designed with hip roofs and only 6% or 8% of the homes would exceed that 18-foot height limit, which is a code, not a recommendation, and the Commission voted against approval of that. There was also another project nearby that the Commission voted to not approve the 18-foot variance that another applicant requested. In regards to the idea of possibly approving the interior lots to exceed that height limit, Mr. Muth thought it would be a disservice to buyers of those homes who will eventually be Palm Desert residents as well because their views will also be obstructed. He understood the point that this is what the market is calling for, but he thought there were other creative ways in architecture to create higher wall plate heights without exceeding that height limit. Toll's architects could easily go back to the drawing board and decrease the span of the roof trusses. They didn't have to span from the extreme sides of the home. They could design the roof in a way that will allow them to still keep tall plate lines, still keep their 4:12 pitch, and they would just have to be a little more creative in their architecture. He urged the Commission to vote consistently with the way they have in the past. He thanked them. "N There was no one else requesting to speak. Chairperson Lopez offered the applicant the opportunity to give rebuttal comments. Mr. James said he could understand Mr. Muth's concerns, and he stated that the 18-foot height is not a recommendation, but rather a code, it's a requirement, and if they would allow him, he would like to briefly quote Commissioner Vuksic from the Architectural Review Commission, which is a panel of experienced citizens who have a vested interest in insuring that the architectural quality and prestige of the community is increased and not diluted. Mr. Vuksic stated, "That height limits need to follow guidelines, but if it can be shown that the architecture is being sensitive to the height, then there needs to be an allowance for some play in that height." He said Mr. Muth pointed out that Portola Pointe had been disallowed from going above the 18 feet and they don't want to set a precedent. Mr. James pointed out that on November 19, 2002 the Planning Commission reviewed a tentative map for GHA Paloma Group for 94 luxury single-family homes on Portola Avenue with roofs at the 20-foot height limit. He thought if they went back to that community now, they �r 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17. 2006 would see that that community is a wonderful addition to the city of Palm Desert and that it didn't have a deleterious effect on the property values or views of the surrounding homeowners. So ultimately, Mr. James thought the biggest statement can be made that with the sensitivity and efforts they have taken, they are producing homes that are sensitive to the understandable concerns of the citizens insofar as their views. In the state of California we have no right to our views. If we want to protect our views, we have to buy the lot in back of us, so we have no legal basis really on which to stand, but nonetheless, views are important. So not only are they complying well within the spirit of the code that the City has established, but they've gone a step further and tried to employ architectural features that when compared to what is existing in the community, which is according to the code, has a less of a visual impact than what there is now. Mr. Lisiewski said he understood the concern about the two-foot raising of the building pads. And he thought they all understood about drainage and irrigation and flow and how that works and why a site has to be two-feet higher than not. In this line, he thought Mr. James explained that very well. Whether it is an existing house as shown in the diagram as a rectangle that's horizontal, or their proposed house that is two feet higher or two feet lower, the mountain views that is the predominant concern is far more impacted by the existing houses that are under 18 feet than their proposed house that is above 18 feet. He thought that picture demonstrated that pretty clearly and that has been their contention all along. The design of the roof with the design of the house, their impact of what they are proposing is far less and when they look at their slides they presented earlier, they are looking at nearly 20 feet vertically of view between what is permitted in the ordinance and what they are proposing. They chose this product on purpose. They don't offer any kind of flat roof product that could sell in this market purposely because they want to preserve the view and their concerns are the same as that of the homeowners that spoke. To address one other concern that was brought up regarding the additional height, 3 feet or 2 feet 2 inches, Mr. James asked how big m 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2006 rir of a number was that. When they take a look at two feet or three feet and they are standing next to it, it's not small. He thought when they stand 100 feet back and take a look, what is the visual impact of that two or three feet on such a small percentage? Visually it was blue sky and it was inches, so it was not a matter of mountains one day and mountains gone the next. He thanked them for their time. Chairperson Lopez closed the public hearing and asked for Commission comments or action. Commissioner Tschopp noted that Toll Brothers has an excellent reputation and the architectural designs submitted looked very good. Having said that, Shepherd Lane has been conditioned to comply with the 18-foot height limit. Future homes within the tentative tract maps that have they are proposing to buy were conditioned with a maximum height limit of 18 feet and as they have heard, to him there hasn't been a demonstrated need to modify or amend that condition, except for economic benefit to the builder. As they all know, the economy changes and it will change again. The people around Shepherd Lane have complied with the 18-foot high limit and it was his belief that they should continue that same building code throughout this development also. Commissioner Finerty concurred. She added that 18 feet is not an arbitrary number. Much thought went into each and every ordinance that the City adopts, including the heights. Palm Desert's standards are well thought out and there is a good reason why we have standards and that is part of the success that the city has enjoyed because of those standards. With regard to the energy, she was somewhat amused at the conversation about how thick our energy ordinance is, being the toughest in the nation and being great reading. Our goal is to exceed Title 24. Palm Desert isn't just trying to do Title 24, we want to exceed it and we are going before the California Energy Commission and the Public Utilities Commission in order to do that because our desire is to decrease energy by 30%. The proposed product would not allow the City to move in that very responsible direction. Additionally, that very thick reading material we hope will be a model for the state because it is the responsible thing to do. She was always taken back when one of the applicants uses as a reason why we should compromise our standards and why we should compromise the residential integrity of neighbors by saying it's only 6.6% that it's going to go up. If that's all it is, why can't the developer/the builder adhere to our city standards? .r 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2006 Commissioner Campbell also concurred. She thought Toll Brothers made a very good presentation and understood their point, but with all the other developers in the area, they did not come before Planning Commission for any type of an amendment to condition number 7, they all followed code and when they look at the existing homes, each one is very different, each section is very different. She also agreed with the residents that it could impact the resale value of area homes if something else just stands out like a sore thumb. She liked their model homes, but still thought they should comply with the code and the height ordinance. Commissioner Tanner also concurred and suggested that if this project site is not economically feasible for them, there are people in the future that will look at this same site and will go to work with the neighbors to make their project work. Maybe it wouldn't be Toll Brothers, but it would be someone who would come to them with a plan that adheres to what they are suggesting they do and it would also fit into the existing neighborhoods that it is going to be a part of. So his recommendation was to stay with the code and that's how he would vote. Chairperson Lopez said he concurred on a couple of items. Toll Brothers do build a fine product and have a fine reputation, one that he would love to see in the city of Palm Desert. They talked a little about the views tonight and they all knew when homes are built with backyards facing vacant lots, we know something is going to be built back there sooner or later and it will probably take away our views. He has been in the same situation himself, not so much as the view but how it impacts the open space that might be around his house and how close the house is, and so forth. That is a concern and he thought what they presented, at least visually, they had taken that into consideration when looking at the layout of their homes. But he was concerned about the fact that this project has already been conditioned at 18 feet. One of the Commissioners made a good point. If it is only 6.6%on the average,then why can't they come back or at least produce a project that is as nice in the Toll Brothers quality which is in many cases is visually appealing but also their strengths are their upgrades and quality work within the house. He thought it was something they should take into consideration. The staff recommendation to limit the size of the house around the perimeter he thought was a commendable recommendation, but he would concur with the other Commissioners that they should maintain the 18 feet and ask the developers in the future to adhere to that particular item. Knowing that, he No 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2006 aw thought everyone in the audience needed to understand that when someone does come before them again with a project that perhaps has 18 feet, they will still have that two-feet increase and in some cases someone said higher than that. There is still that opportunity that they will have a house that is a little bit higher because of the grade of the property. The owner may decide to lower that grade or may not, but they still had that to look forward to. He asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, directing staff to prepare a resolution of denial for adoption at the next meeting (November 21, 2006). Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. REQUEST BY COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT FOR DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE PALM DESERT GENERAL PLAN FOR FUTURE CVWD PROJECTS IN PALM DESERT. r. Mr. Smith stated that the Commission had a list of projects before them that the Water District anticipates doing in the city within the next year. He recommended that the Planning Commission determine that they are consistent with the General Plan. Commissioner Tschopp asked if staff was stating and recommending that the list of projects is consistent with the General Plan. Mr. Smith said yes, that the projects themselves are consistent. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, by minute motion determining consistency with the Palm Desert General Plan future CVWD projects as described in the September 15, 2006 CVWD report. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case No. PMW 06-19 -TEMPLE SINAI OF THE DESERT,Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment to put all Temple Sinai buildings on a single parcel .rr 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2006 mum and leave a vacant parcel for single family residential development. Mr. Smith explained that staff received a request late this afternoon to table this matter. Staff recommended that they do so. He wasn't sure if anyone was present to speak on the item or not. If so, he could give them a brief report that staff does not feel it is consistent with the ordinance at this time. The applicant, or at least the representative of a future purchaser, indicated that they would like to come back with the necessary precise plan application and present that to Commission in the near future. Chairperson Lopez asked if there was anyone in the audience who would like to speak tonight. There was no response. Commissioner Finerty asked if Mr. Smith wanted to table the item to a date uncertain or a date certain. Mr. Smith said because it was to a date uncertain, staff was requesting that the matter be tabled. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, saw tabling Case No. PMW 06-19 by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner Campbell informed the Commission that the next meeting was October 18, 2006. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty reported there was no meeting. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty stated that the meeting was canceled until November. 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17. 2006 D. PARKS & RECREATION Commissioner Tanner indicated that he was unable to attend the last meeting. XL COMMENTS 1. Commissioner Tschopp asked about the next meeting. Chairperson Lopez stated that it is cancelled. Mr. Smith reiterated that the November 7 meeting was cancelled, it's election night, but also wanted to confirm that there would be a quorum on November 21, which was two days before the Thanksgiving holiday. Four of the five Commissioners confirmed they would be available. 2. Commissioner Campbell stated that she was really not happy with the staged performance that they had at their last meeting regarding the resolution for the Hagadone project. When they have a resolution in front of them, she didn't recall staff giving a presentation in front of the Commission. They have a resolution in front of them and they vote on it. There weren't any comments, any staff report, or any comments from the public in the audience since it was not a public hearing and it was not under Oral Communications. So that was kind of off the charts whatever was done that evening. She asked who they should reprimand for that. Mr. Smith? Mr. Drell? She asked how the Commission felt about that. Chairperson Lopez asked for clarification. He asked if Commissioner Campbell was talking about the recommendation for denial. Commissioner Campbell said that was correct. There was a resolution. All they had to do was vote on the resolution. Commissioner Campbell said that was her question. Usually staff doesn't make a report, they just have a resolution in front of them, yet staff made a report with comments and there were comments from the public and it was not a public hearing. Mr. Hargreaves explained that the public has a right to comment on anything, whether it's a public hearing or not. Commissioner Campbell pointed out that normally they don't have anything like that when they're just voting on a resolution. So on the resolution of denial that they're going to have staff prepare for them for adoption at the next meeting, she asked if the same thing could happen again. Mr. Smith said no, there would not be any conditions. He clarified in the case of 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2006 the Hagadone project, staff came back with conditions that needed clarification, because the direction lacked the specificity that staff needed. Commissioner Tanner said that all he saw was when they came back in there were additional things that staff had proposed and thought there was one condition that the Commission asked for and that was on the lighting, but all of a sudden they were presented with five, six or seven different conditions. Commissioner Finerty stated that was correct. She explained that she requested those conditions. Two weeks ago when they voted on that, she stated that she requested the conditions. She also stated the reason that she requested it. When they vote for something and they don't get what was represented, what recourse did they have? And the City Attorney explained at that time, and she thought he explained it to the entire Commission, that they have an option when they are amending a project that they can attach conditions. They couldn't attach conditions to a resolution of denial which had been staffs recommendation, but they could attach conditions to a resolution of UAW approval. She noted that Mr. Hagadone's attorney took exception with the City's ability to attach any conditions and they would recall that the City Attorney said they agreed to disagree on that point. She said she requested those conditions because the Hagadone property that they voted on in 2004 is not what they've gotten and she believed there needed to be certain recourse when what they voted on based on their representation. She got the verbatim minutes and went through the verbatim minutes and gave specific quotes about it being nearly invisible and that was certainly not the word to describe what they see when they look at the office now. So she asked for those conditions. She thoroughly disclosed and explained why she had. She invited the Commissioners if they were concerned to read the minutes from the last meeting because she thought Tonya did a great job on outlining exactly what she had said. Commissioner Campbell said that in the minutes of September 19, 2006, Commissioner Finerty stated that it was her duty to look at the application before her, and that's what they were voting on, the application that was before them at that time. Not to go ahead and change anything on the resolution. Commissioner Finerty said that was correct. And when they say they are going to deny something, 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2006 they would deny it, but that's not what the Commission wanted to do. They were talking about apples and oranges. Staff presented a resolution of denial, but the Planning Commission, at least the majority of the Planning Commission, did not want a resolution of denial. So that's apples and oranges on what she was comparing. Commissioner Campbell said that was her comment. Chairperson Lopez thanked them and asked if there was anything else. 3. Mr. Smith informed Commission that Associate Planner Tony Bagato and his wife had a little boy, Vincent, on Sunday. 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 7:42 p.m. 4�e�7— ST PHEN R. SMITH, Acting Secretary ATTEST: JAM LOPEZ, 'a pe son P V. Planning o ission Am .■r 26