Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1219 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION X TUESDAY - DECEMBER 19, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Lopez called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Tschopp led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jim Lopez, Chair Sonia Campbell Van Tanner Dave Tschopp Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Ryan Stendell, Assistant Planner Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Request for consideration of the November 21, 2006 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the November21, 2006 meeting minutes. Motion carried 4-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent December 14, 2006 City Council actions. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19 2006 VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR None. Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. PP 06-11 - STUDIO E ARCHITECTS, Applicant (Continued from November 21, 2006) Request for approval of a precise plan of design for a 2,770 square foot World Savings Bank at 73-051 Highway 111, APN 627-192-043. Mr. Drell explained that the applicant wasn't at the meeting, but did visit his office earlier in the day and showed him some preliminary sketches of a new design. He thought they were more interesting and they would go back to the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) for review. Commissioner Tanner asked for and received confirmation that this item would be continued to January 16, 2007. He hoped they would be able to get on the January 9 ARC agenda. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, by minute motion continuing Case No. PP 06-11 to January 16, 2007. Mr. Smith advised that the public hearing should be opened to allow public testimony. 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19 2006 Chairperson Lopez stated that the public hearing was open and would remain open and asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this item. There was no one. Chairperson Lopez indicated there was a motion on the floor and a second and called for the vote. Motion carried 4-0. B. Case Nos. TPM 35264 and CUP 06-14 - SRW INVESTMENTS, Applicant Request for approval of a tentative parcel map/conditional use permit to subdivide a 12,196 square foot lot into 1 parcel for condominium purposes for property located at 73-692 Santa Rosa Way. Mr. Stendell reviewed the staff report and recommended approval. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. DALE KELLEHER, the land surveyor for the project, said that he was present representing the applicant. He didn't have anything to add and concurred with the conditions of approval. Chairperson Lopez asked for any testimony in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project. There was none and the public hearing was closed. He requested Commission comments or action. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2428, approving Case Nos. TPM 35264 and CUP 06-14, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19 2006 C. Case No. PP/HPD 05-17 - BARRACUDA, LLC, Applicant Request for recommendation of approval to the City Council of Phase 1 of a hillside development plan to allow the construction of a property access roadway and turn-around for percolation and soils investigation. Mr. Stendell reviewed the staff report and recommended that Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of Case No. PP/HPD 05- 17. He said both he and the applicant were available to answer any questions. Commissioner Tanner asked how much land they were talking about. Mr. Stendell replied that the total lot is five acres. Commissioner Tanner asked about the total flat area. Mr. Stendell said that typical of the hillside zone is there would be no flat. They weren't giving any more flat than what was allowed in the ordinance. The fact that this was already graded didn't allow them an exception already. They would see plans for landscape re- naturalization in phase two and it would still be subject to all provisions of the Hillside Residential zone, which would include landscape renaturalization and how this house would not be visible to the city. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the turn-around that would allow for the drilling rig to be there would be part of the future pad site. Mr. Stendell stated that the applicant indicated that most of it would end up being for the motor court where the initial entry would be for the cars and garages. He said the applicant could elaborate on what he plans to do with the house plans, but simply before he spends the amount of money for an entire set of construction drawings and engineering package done, he was requesting that we allow him this access to his property and determine if it can meet the perc and soil tests. Commissioner Tschopp asked about the alternatives if it doesn't meet the tests. Mr. Stendell replied that there were a couple of alternatives. He thought there were other ways other than septic and if money was no object. Second, Stone Eagle brought sewer up Calle De Los Campesinos. He didn't know the costs involved, but technically it could come down to that given the renaturalization plan. It was an alternative. So there are a couple of things he could try and do. Given the 70-foot diameter, he could drill in several 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19 2006 different locations and try to find an adequate spot. He thought the applicant was comfortable that he would find an adequate location. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the applicant intended for the temporary access road to be the permanent road when the house was built. Mr. Stendell said it would be the driveway and that wouldn't change. Commissioner Tschopp understood that the old road was in bad condition and asked about the plans for it. Mr. Stendell said there were a couple of things that would be addressed with house plans. He noted there was a spot that had visible scarring and that work had been done a long time ago, but that was all going to be included in the Phase 2 renaturalization. They did not want to encourage any undo fixing or doing anything until he gets the entire package approved. When Phase 2 comes back, it will be conditioned and they would see how those slopes will be fixed and how everything would go away and they wouldn't see anything. Commissioner Campbell noted that the first road was not constructed by the applicant and asked who did construct it. Mr. Stendell said it was prior to city annexation and was a long time ago. If they looked real hard, they could still see it, but it wasn't really noticeable. Mr. Drell thought it was 30 or 40 years old. Commissioner Campbell asked if the applicant would be penalized for renaturalizing that road. She asked if it was on his property. Mr. Stendell confirmed that it was on his property and said they have the ability to require him to renaturalize that road. He didn't think the applicant would have a problem doing that. Chairperson Lopez asked Mr. Stendell to point out the location of the road. Mr. Stendell did so. He said it was all coming down to the eventual house line not being higher than the ridge looking out to the valley. Mr. Drell said they had that discussion with Council. Every house would be visible on that ridge unless in unusual cases like the Carvers' house which basically was built in a canyon, the discussion with Council relative to ridge development was that the ordinance gives them the ability to look at the entire property and given all the factors, determine the best location for a house. It showed that virtually all the land in that area involves ridges, cliffs and canyon bottoms. The ordinance does provide that they will allow every parcel to have one house. The task is to determine the best place given our objectives and the constraints. Mr. Drell said that south side of the ridge, there was a little bit of a hollow there, which appeared to be the best location and was where 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19 2006 the applicant was building his turnaround. But he didn't think there should be any illusion that when the house is built it is going to be invisible. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. BRUCE KUYKENDALL stated that he lives in the Cahuilla Hills area and has been a grading contractor in the Palm Desert area for 25 years specializing in hillside development. He purchased this property approximately 4-5 years ago and numerous other properties in Cahuilla Hills and in the County area. They have done quite a bit of hillside development based on the hillside requirements. For this piece of property, he would take the driveway in on the back side of a prominent knoll and tucked the motorcourt down and in so that cars won't be visible; however, back to the right he shares a boundary with Stone Eagle. Once he got the driveway built in there, he planned to do percolation tests. The second strategy would be talking with Mr. Lennon in reference to tying into sewer, if needed. It would be quite costly to do that. He was 100% positive he could perc that area based on his experience. The disturbed area that was pushed over in the 1960's, that would be an ideal place to cut that down 14 feet matching the motorcourt area, leaving up the sides and then just notching out peek-a-boo views of the city with the proper house setbacks, but he didn't want to spend $100,000 to design the house until he knew where he was going to perc and he would use that same driveway, that same motorcourt, cut that house in there, which he was proposing to be 5,000 square feet or less. It would have non-reflective glass, earth tones, and he would try to blend in with Stone Eagle's architecture. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Tanner asked if this was a home that Mr. Kuykendall would occupy or if it was a spec home. Mr. Kuykendall said it would be a spec home. Commissioner Campbell asked if Mr. Kuykendall was comfortable with all the conditions. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19 2006 Mr. Kuykendall said yes. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this project. MRS. ANTOINETTE CARVER, 72275 Upper Way West in Cahuilla Hills. She stated that she had several concerns. If Mr. Kuykendall elects to sell the pad and doesn't develop it himself, they would like some assurance that the people who were going to develop it further would follow the plans that Mr. Kuykendall has, because there is a portion that they look at from their home on the hill where the driveway is concerned. Mr. Kuykendall has some very good plans for it including doing it in pavers that match the rocks and so forth to minimize its visibility, but they would want to know that it was going to take place. Another concern, and it hadn't been mentioned here, is that if they do this work, there was some talk about widening Upper Way West. Upper Way West is used by property owners as a driveway and people cross through everyone else's property, sometimes right through the middle of peoples property to get to their homes. Their citizenry often doesn't recognize that this is a driveway and she was run down on that road and was in a cast for almost six weeks by someone coming around crazily. Her concern was if they widen this road in any way that it might be something people would access more frequently and they would rather not have that happen. She thanked them. MR. BILL CARVER noted that there was going to be a significant amount of grading done here. He didn't know how many cubic yards were going to be moved. He hated to see this done piecemeal, but understood Mr. Kuykendall's problem and wished there was some other way he could get in and do his testing without the great amount of grading he was going to have to do to get access to his property. It was too bad this couldn't come to the Planning Commission all at one time so that they could all see what was going to be done here. The way it is they were getting part of the picture, but not the whole picture. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1.9 2006 MS. JANICE WOOD, 72-375 Upper Way West, stated that her property lies just west of where Bruce Kuykendall would be entering his access in order for his tests. The subject she would mostly like to address, because her own property is in escrow so she was kind of a neutral person at this point, but she wanted to say that in widening the road on Upper Way West, they had quite an accident on that road not long ago. They have very sharp turns, blind turns, and at one point they have a mirror and it's the only way to see traffic coming either direction. There was a very young man coming down the road on his motorcycle and a young man living in her home was going up the road. It was almost a fatality to both parties. It was very bad and they were lucky that no one got hurt. The young man that lives in her home, his car almost went off the cliff trying to avoid the young man coming down the hill because it was a situation where they just collided right at the blind curve. She believed the security factor wouldn't be quite as good if the road is widened; the security factor would be greater if it wasn't widened. But to widen the road would be a safety factor for all of them that live there. The more homes and people in that area, they need the road widened and they need to have the safety living there. It was an important thing for them. Ms. Wood said they recently received a new resident on Upper Way West and the Carvers are new. She thought they had 11 homes in the area in all, but using their road, thought there were four homes. If they have an additional home, there would be more. So they really needed to consider widening the road and thought it was an important factor. MR. MARK GREENWOOD, 72-240 Upper Way West, came forward to address the widening of the road. He stated he would not like to see the road widened. It would just have people going faster as Mr. Drell has argued many times. Widening the road would not solve the problems. The curve where the mirror is isn't the sharpest curve or the most blind curve on that road. He said that was really the only objection he had, the widening of the road. Mr. Drell didn't believe the application before them today included widening the road. Mr. Stendell explained that it added an ingress point where the applicant can turn into the property. It did not include the full widening that they talked about for Phase 2. 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19 2006 Commissioner Campbell noted that the staff report didn't address widening the road. Mr. Stendell explained that it isn't intended to be a portion of Phase 1. Chairperson Lopez invited Mr. Kuykendall to give rebuttal comments. Mr. Kuykendall clarified that there is no widening of the main road, Upper Way West, going through there other than where his driveway would turn in. He would like to be able to get off the road in a safe manner and be able to have UPS and delivery trucks pull up to the gate and be out of the road and also to be able to see uphill traffic coming down. Chairperson Lopez closed the public hearing and asked for Commission comments or action. Commissioner Tschopp heard someone say that this is not a road, but a private driveway. He asked for clarification as to whether this is a public access road or a private driveway. Mr. Stendell said that most of these properties have the road going through their properties; however, he believed each property had a 20-foot easement. Mr. Drell said yes, each one of the five-acre parcels were granted with government patents and as part of them there is a public easement in favor of the "public" around each one of the parcels to guarantee that there is access from one parcel to another. In most of them it also acknowledged that the location of them is not absolute and they could be modified where it was required because of topography. So technically, the public is everybody. Unfortunately, these government patents weren't that rigorously written so there is some dispute over what they mean. But they can be read as "the public" so they aren't private roads. One of the things he urged property owners to initiate with the City was some sort of definition of what they are and who is going to maintain them. But technically the easements are to the public, which means all of us. We're using those easements to put in trails. Commissioner Tschopp knew the widening of the road was not germane to the project tonight, but it seemed to be the concern of the neighbors and there were different opinions. He asked who would instigate any changes to the road. Mr. Drell said that was a good question. In this particular case, Mr. Kuykendall is proposing improvements on his own property. He guessed the City could take the lead in instigating this and say that as far as we are 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19 2006 concerned, it is a public road and then take responsibility for it. He thought they had been reticent to do that and now that the number of people using the road has increased, the values of these properties has become significant enough to justify investing in that road. He urged the property owners to organize themselves and create an assessment district to agree on an improvement strategy if there is in fact a demonstrated safety hazard and more importantly, figure out some way it is going to be maintained in the future. But it is a gray area. Commissioner Tanner asked if the government patent left any room to make that kind of decision. Mr. Hargreaves said they had to consider the context. In those easements, the public is the public, the public generally. Mr. Drell said that this wasn't a dedication to the City. Usually we get a specific dedication to the City of Palm Desert, not to the federal government. It is probably something that will have to be dealt with sooner or later. Typically the City in these sorts of cases hopes for the initiative of the property owners as opposed to the City trying to impose something and looking like the heavy hand of the government forcing people to knuckle under the law of the west. His feeling was that sooner or later to avoid these sorts of disputes that the property owners should get together and agree on what they want and then maybe come to the City and see how the City can participate. Chairperson Lopez said that obviously it was a very good question and one although not germane to this particular application this evening, he would also request that if a Phase 2 should come before them, when it does they should have a clarification as to what direction the owners have as it pertains to the widening of the road (i.e., could one owner decide to widen one section and the others not do anything, or if the City steps in). That needed clarified as they move forward. Relative to properties sold, Mr. Stendell said that the way they have written the one-year time limit window, that would be passed onto any future land owner. They have given the property owner one year to come back with Phase 2 or return the property to a natural state. Commissioner Tschopp said he had one more question for the applicant. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to come forward. 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19 2006 Given the value of the land and the ability to someday mitigate any problems he runs into whether it was a septic tank or not, Commissioner Tschopp assumed Mr. Kuykendall would proceed in some fashion to build a home. Since they weren't getting the whole picture, he asked how important it was to proceed on this part. Couldn't he come forward with a set of plans knowing he would overcome the sewer problems at some point? Mr. Kuykendall said it was a gamble. Once he started into some drawings, and the quotes he was getting were as high as $160,000 to design a house up there. Based on the hillside, the only area available to him to really make this a smooth hillside project and get it approved, he would really need to know where he was going to be percing before he designed anything. He might have to leach field, which would take up 2,500-3,000 square feet with an infiltrator system. He was hoping by getting a drill rig in there now that he can bore down 26 feet and then he would be able to just tank and fit it, which would only take up 800 square feet. It would be minimal. He pointed out the flatter area out front and said his plans were to cut that down 14 feet and nestle it down in there, but again, he might have to go out to the tip of that to perc, he wasn't sure. He couldn't access this property. It was a hike to just walk on this property. They made a hiking trail and took all his neighbors in there and worked with Mr. Drell over a year trying to come up with something. He and his partner, Dave Baron, didn't want to gamble and would like to know what they have and then pursue it. He said Mr. Lennon is aware of what they're doing and might have a buyer for them. If they follow that same architecture, he thought they could build a really nice home out there. Commissioner Tschopp indicated that his answer was that it could have a significant impact on how he architecturally designs the house. Mr. Kuykendall said yes. Chairperson Lopez closed the public hearing and asked for comments or action. Commissioner Campbell thought the applicant was very conscientious of what he is doing on the property and to the surrounding neighbors. It seemed like he has enough experience to know what needs to be done and how it 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19 2006 needs to be done. She had no problem with having only Phase 1 in front of them. If he goes though Phase 2, he has to spend so much money for something he may not be able to build and if he can't build anything, he has to return the property to its natural state. She moved for approval of the project. Commissioner Tschopp concurred and thought the applicant has done his best to try to mitigate any problems to other areas of the hillside. He wished the applicant good luck. Commissioner Tanner and Chairperson Lopez concurred. Chairperson Lopez asked for a second to the motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2429, recommending to City Council approval of Case No. PPIHPD 05-17, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0. D. Case No. ZOA 06-02 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for recommendation to City Council for approval of an amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance, Title 26, and a zoning ordinance amendment relating to residential condominium conversion approvals. Mr. Smith recalled that on September 26 the Commission initiated the zoning ordinance amendment before them which is the residential condominium conversion ordinance. As staff got into the document it became considerably more complex than they first anticipated, so staff circulated to Commission a draft of the ordinance and the recommendation was to take any comments from the Commission and the public and come back at an appropriate date with said revisions. Basically, the amendments to the subdivision ordinance itself are to keep the two areas of the code consistent and it specifies the mapping process for 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DEC EMBER 19 2006 approval of condominiums and it basically clarified existing language relative to the conversion of residential condominiums. The ordinance will require that they all be consistent with the zoning district in which they are located, provides for tenant and neighboring property owner notification of the public hearings, requires tenants be given the exclusive right to purchase their own unit, requires the applicants to provide a detailed relocation plan containing information related to relocation and moving assistance, relocation fees, and special consideration to special category tenants. Those would be persons who meet the definition of special category, which is generally handicap. Mr. Smith said that a condition on all approvals will require a building inspection on each and every unit in the project by a certified bonded insured inspection service basically providing a statement of the condition of the unit being sold. These are used units and some may be quite old. So they have a statement of what the condition is. There had been some consideration of front loading that, but if they aren't going to approve the project, why have them go though that expense? So the idea is to have this back loaded and have that as a condition on the tentative map approval. They will be required to maintain affordability provisions for all units currently in housing agreements with the City or Redevelopment Agency. In Item 7, he said there is a provision requiring an affordable housing implementation plan showing how the project will meet the affordability housing needs of the City. At this point staff wasn't definitive on how that would be accomplished or in what instances, so staff was interested in Commission's input on that in as much as the City gets housing agreements in certain circumstances and typically with higher density developments. The thinking here is if they have some higher density project that somehow did not participate in such an agreement in the past for whatever reason, this might be an opportunity to avail themselves of that, but that was something they were open for discussion on. As drafted, the document would limit the conversion of projects to which a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued in the previous six months. The idea is that they don't want them moving people into a unit and then say they decided to convert to condos and they either have to buy the unit or move out. They said six months, but were open to numbers. He asked if 12 months was a better number. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19 2006 On the bottom of page 3, Item 9 contained a provision which would prohibit conversions when the average rental vacancy rate in the city during the 12 previous months is below 5% or that the conversion itself will result in the vacancy rate being below 5%. Currently the vacancy rate in the city is at 3.7%. According to RealFacts who provide this type on information based on studies in the city, one year ago at this time the rate was at 7.3%, so there had been a considerable down turn in the number of vacant units in the rental pool. Mr. Smith said Item 10 would exempt projects containing four or fewer units from the previous item. He reiterated that they were dealing with a lot of complex information and staff wanted some comments from the public and Commission. He asked if there were any questions. Commissioner Tschopp asked how many rental units they were covering and how many separate projects. Mr. Smith said there were approximately 7,200 rental units in the city of which the City, Redevelopment Agency, and/or Housing Authority had 1,000 units. Mr. Drell clarified that there are about 6,200 privately owned units. There were three large ones: Sevilla (which used to be San Tropez), Canterra and Oasis which accounted for 1,200 units. So 1,200 of the 6,000. The Department of Finance differentiated between less than four and more than four so it didn't give much guidance. Commissioner Tschopp asked why they were exempting units four or less. Mr. Smith said the thought was they had minimal impact on the 5% rate. Mr. Drell concurred. Mr. Smith said they had to comply with all the other provisions, it was just if it was at 4.8% they could apply. Mr. Drell commented that if the four or less constituted 4,000 units, then exempting them could be a problem if they all wanted to do it. Mr. Smith said there are 2,500 of those units. Mr. Drell asked if they should exempt them. If there were 100 of them on an agenda, they might get a little alarmed. So almost half of the private units were four or less. The issue on the affordability question, while they have a general policy in the general plan talking about trying to get projects to meet the City's affordable housing goals, when they translate that into an ordinance, they had better be specific. They couldn't have an ordinance that leaves things capriciously up to staff to extract from a developer. In general, all of the large projects with the exception of Oasis, they were developed under our affordable high density and have inclusionary affordable units included in 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19 2006 their development agreements. The other issue is that some of these development agreements have a life span. So even the ones that we have controls on, such as San Tropez, it only has nine years left. So they had to deal with that. When they do an ordinance they had to lay out some ground rules for achieving that goal. That was one they were going to have to think about a little more carefully and actually specify what that the requirements might be. Then the question from an equity point of view is without building anything and just changing the ownership structure, why would that trigger it? The answer is they will be making money and we want a piece of it. That's the dilemma which he thought had to be refined a little more carefully. Commissioner Tanner asked if they were defeating the purpose when they take the affordable housing out and put it into condominium conversions. It just seemed to him that they were adding to the non-affordable housing issue as opposed to creating more, which is the intent. Mr. Drell said they were reacting to developers' intent. All those development agreement projects have provisions to ask for condo conversions. The zone permits condominiums, so if they had proposed condominiums in the first place, they would have proposed condominiums. They would have had the same affordability requirement, which in the high density they are requiring 20% low income. Commissioner Tanner understood that; his point is they are looking at 7,200 units that potentially if there is a larger than 5% occupancy deficiency, they can apply to convert to condominiums. That would increase the cost, as opposed to providing that affordable housing that is currently there. He didn't understand why they were even looking at this. He said they shouldn't let the people who are trying to convert apartments to condos press the issue here. Mr. Drell clarified that right now the city has no regulation whatsoever. Condominiums are a permitted use in the PR zone, so right now we have no regulations if they convert, no requirement that they in any way substantially take care of or make provision for the misplacement of the existing residents. Right now we don't regulate anything at all. If they had 20% vacancy of apartments, for example, that tells them they have plenty of apartments and people would probably be going out of business trying to rent out apartments. They were trying to work with the market to say if there is a demonstrated surplus and at the same time there is a demand for ownership units, then it makes sense to allow people to convert. They were saying if there is a shortage of apartments and the shortage will be significantly made worse, then Commissioner Tanner was right. Not only were they converting 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19 2006 rental units to ownership units, which were probably going to be more expensive, but they were probably going to be jacking up the price of rental units with the shortage as the vacancy goes to zero. Those were the issues they are trying to address in the ordinance to be able to respond to the market rationally if there is a shortage or surplus. Right now the only mechanism they have to stop conversion is there is a different parking standard for apartments and condos. Commissioner Tanner said they have to increase the parking by half a car. Mr. Drell agreed and said that then disappears. Staff felt they needed something better than that to both address shortages and to deal, if it turns out that vacancy allows conversion, that converters deal fairly with existing tenants. Commissioner Tanner asked where the 5% came from. Mr. Drell said that 5% is kind of the industry standard for almost full occupancy. People in apartments are always moving in and out. Just the pattern of people either moving in and out to another apartment, there are some vacant that are available. If they move out and there's no place to move to until you move out, then the perception is zero vacancy. It is what is considered a healthy minimum vacancy rate for a stable housing market. Commissioner Campbell thought it would be quite expensive to do a conversion for some of these projects if they're being required to underground utilities. Mr. Drell asked Mr. Smith if that was a requirement. Commissioner Campbell read the appropriate section. She questioned that being quite expensive. Mr. Drell said that was why staff wasn't recommending approval of the ordinance at this time. He asked if they wanted to essentially make it impossible. There were two theories here. Whenever someone comes here to ask us for something, that's our opportunity to sometimes get some upgrades. Traditionally they have taken that opportunity. There are others in the city who have said that with the cost of new typical single-family homes, the condo conversion might be the most economical form of entry level housing ownership. There are instances in certain circumstances where it is a positive thing. If they are too vague, then someone wouldn't know what he is in for, or too draconian, to the extent that it represents a prohibition, but that is the balance we're still looking for. Commissioner Campbell asked if that was why staff was recommending a continuance. Mr. Drell said yes and indicated it was similar to what happened to the energy ordinance. To get it approved, they had consultation with BIA. He thought they should have consultation with some of the major players 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19 2006 who will be impacted by this. Unless they look through the public notices in the Desert Sun, they wouldn't have known to show up tonight. He thought the Commission should hear their comments before proceeding. Chairperson Lopez noted that in the staff report it was stated that there would be a series of meetings in the near future with major rental property owners to gain their input toward the final draft ordinance and he assumed that because staff wanted to continue this to a date uncertain, there would be several additional meetings that perhaps the public could participate other than just at the Planning Commission. Mr. Drell said staff was going to try to get in touch with people who are potentially impacted. Chairperson Lopez commented that what was before them was a lot of information. There were a couple of items that came up tonight and he said staff wanted Commission input. Mr. Drell said that as an alternative this item could be continued to the next meeting to give staff that input. It was up to them. Commissioner Campbell thought it would be better to have input from affected parties first and then come back to the Commission. Commissioner Tschopp agreed. He noted that she had some concerns about undergrounding of utilities and he thought that should be taken under consideration. A couple of other comments he had, Item 3 and also back in the appendix is that tenants must be given the exclusive right to purchase their units. He thought the wording should be changed to "right of first refusal". He thought the question Mr. Smith had regarding conversions, the time frame, he thought it needed to be longer. As they saw, rental rates could change significantly depending on the real estate market and what is happening in the community. He wanted to look at two different things in there: maybe a moving average of the prior three years rental rates to an X% or something of that nature to have a more consistent real estate market going on and then in a bullet, the prior 12 months so they can get a handle on what is happening. That way they wouldn't allow something to happen just because of a bad market and a lot of units available. He said they might even want to take a forward approach in that look, too. While they are having a significant study done on some of these units, have the experts tell them what they think is going to happen down the road (it might be 8% now, but they might expect 4% because of the way the market is going). He thought that would be good and that's what experts were for and they could roll the dice just like the rest of them. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19 2006 Commissioner Tschopp thought the intent is very good and was pleased to see this. Available rental in a city the size of Palm Desert is a real necessity. So he would like to see them come up with a very good plan that puts the converter's feet to the fire and gives the City some options and discretion. It might be a case where we might want them to convert. He thought it was a great step in the right direction. Commissioner Tanner agreed. The only thing he wanted to make sure was considered for all of Palm Desert is keeping the housing here affordable. That's what makes our city grow. They are seeing more and more opportunities for apartments coming in and one of the ones they recently passed was brought to them not as an apartment complex initially, but a condominium complex and they said they wanted to see it as apartments with no conversion privileges. That opened the door also. It comes before the Planning Commission and he thought they should have right to say yes, it is going to be converted from an apartment to a condominium or it's not. They have more and more apartments coming in and he thought they would see more and more apartments coming before the Planning Commission over the next 24 months. So, he thought the most important part of this process was to make sure we keep the people coming into Palm Desert as opposed to forcing them out. With that said, he thought they were heading in the right direction. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked for any testimony in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed amendment. MR. ALEX MEYERHOFF, 74-682 Yucca Tree,thought this was a very fascinating issue. He thought they could retain affordability by converting rental to owner-occupied housing. His sister purchased one of the conversions across from the high school and it was a great opportunity for her. She is a school teacher in Palm Springs and she wouldn't have been able to afford a home. That's part of the American dream and he thought it was pretty exciting. He thought they had to think about the threshold, the 5%. The Community Development Director pointed out that it is the healthy market number, but if they have the provision for the four and under to convert, he thought they might want to bump it up a little bit to maybe 10%. But it looked like they were working through the issues. He noted that Commissioner Campbell had a question about undergrounding and the reason there is money to be made in condominium conversions is because there 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19 2006 is a disconnect between the cost of rental housing versus owner- occupied housing. There is a difference between a rent and a mortgage payment and that gap is where the buyer can make a profit. So he thought they should be required to comply with our current standards, underground utilities and make them provide the amenities the City wants to see. It is their bite at the apple. There were no other speakers. Chairperson Lopez explained that the public hearing would remain open and asked if there were any additional comments. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, to continue this matter to a date uncertain. As additional comments, Chairperson Lopez said he was concerned about the amount of under four being 2,500 units. When they have any type of arbitrary number, whether it be four or something else, they are going to get their fair share of requests for exceptions. At this point in looking through it, he thought it should apply to all groups of units. He didn't think there should be any number for four or less. With that many, that was a large number of units in that particular category. It was kind of like putting miscellaneous or additional items and miscellaneous was the biggest number of all. He thought it was food for thought. He also wanted to talk about the time frame for occupancy. They were talking about six months and he thought that needed to be carefully looked at. Most rental agreements are one year. He thought maybe 12 months was the proper number. He thought the document and direction they were starting out with is very interesting and one that he thought should be brought before the public as well as the developers to get their input into on a lot of these items. He had a lot marked that he thought would take a long time to go through this evening, but thought they were moving in the right direction. He thought continuing this to a date uncertain might leave this on the floor for an awfully long time. He asked if that was the intention of the motion at this point. Mr. Drell said they could kind of point to a date. They were going to renotice it anyway. They could say no longer than two months. Commissioner Campbell pointed out that right now two months was quite short because they wouldn't be doing anything for the last two or three weeks at city hall and suggested four or six months. 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19 2006 Commissioner Tanner said he could amend his motion. Chairperson Lopez thought the motion was fine. What he would like to see, perhaps under Miscellaneous Items, was getting an update on the status to allow opportunity for additional comments and recommendations. He wanted the opportunity to go through this again and perhaps have that as an opportunity. As they move closer and staff has additional public meetings, as well as some developer meetings, then they zero in on a date unless Commissioner Tanner wanted to specify a date. Commissioner Tanner heard Mr. Drell directing them to a date, but they could continue to get updates under Miscellaneous Items and continue to discuss it. He recommended a continuance to the second Planning Commission meeting in April (April 17). That would give everyone an opportunity. He rephrased the motion to extend it to a certain time, to the second meeting in April. Commissioner Tschopp asked if he would restate that to either before or by that date. Mr. Drell said it could still be a time uncertain, but with the direction that the time should not extend longer than three months. Commissioner Tanner so moved. Commissioner Campbell seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0. Chairperson Lopez clarified that would be April 17 or earlier with a renoticing when the public hearing came back. He said he would still like to request updates with each meeting. Mr. Smith and Chairperson Lopez asked the City Attorney if it was possible to place this as a Miscellaneous Item for an update on the upcoming meetings before the next public hearing. Mr. Hargreaves said yes. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner Campbell reported that the meeting would be December 19, 2006, 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19 2006 B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE NIA C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE N/A D. PARKS & RECREATION Commissioner Tanner reported that there was a meeting today, but he was not in attendance. XI. COMMENTS A. Chairperson Lopez asked when they would know about a fifth Planning Commissioner being assigned. Staff said that interviews were scheduled early January. B. Commissioner Tanner said it was an honor working with Phil Drell, who retires at the end of this month. He wished Mr. Drell the best of luck in his days of retirement. Commissioner Campbell agreed and asked what he would be doing. Mr. Drell said he would keep his hand in the business he was sure. And maybe in a couple of years he would be coming before them representing developers. Commissioner Campbell said it was a pleasure working with him all these years and they'd miss him. Mr. Drell said that they would all be invited to his retirement party on February 2 at Desert Willow. Chairperson Lopez also wished him luck. C. Commissioner Campbell noted that the next meeting was cancelled. Mr. Smith said the next meeting would be January 16, 2007. 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT-PLANNING COMMISSION x1l. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, by minute motion adjourning the meeting. Motion carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:22 p.m. STEPHEN R. SMITH,Actinging ATTEST: i)4 aCie - SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm 22