Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0515 /"�T""'� M W UTES �� � PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION , :- , , TUESDAY - MAY 15, 2407 � � � � � , � � � � . � � � � ,t � � � � � � , � � « . . � � � . � � « . � � � � � , � ,e � � � . � . � � � � � � � � , I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Campbell called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. II. P�EDGE OF A�LEGIANCE Commissioner Tanner led in the pledge of ailegiance. III. RO�L CA�L Members Present: Sonia Campbell, Chair Dave Tschopp, Vice Chair Connor Limont Mari Schmidt Van Tanner Members Absent: None Staff Present: �auri Aylaian, Director of Community Deveiopment Bob Hargreaves, Cify Attorney Tony Bagato, Acting Principal Planner Ryan Stendell, Associate Planner Phil Joy, Associate Transportation Planner Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVA� OF MINUTES Request for consideration of the May 1, 2007 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Limont, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the May 1, 2007 meeting minutes. Motion carried 5-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Ms. Aylaian summarized pertinent May 10, 2007 City Council actions. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSIOId MAY 15 2007 VL ORA� COMMUNICATIONS MS. SARAH DRAKE, a resident of south Palm Desert on Shadow Mauntain, said she wanted to say a few words and ask a few questions on an item she was informed by a member of the City of Palm Desert staff tnat would be on tonighYs agenda, but apparentiy there was some non-clarity on this item. It had to do with the Augusta Bar and Nightclub. She lives three blocks southwest of this nightclub. She said she didn't understand why the City of Paim Desert would issue conditionai use permits over a period of time to a business owner who has never once foliowed the ruies listed in the conditional use permits. It was her understanding from Ms. Aylaian, as well as other staff members, that the City of Palm Desert hired at taxpayers' expense outside engineering consultants to inform Ms. Roberge how she might comply with the law; instructions and information which she has chosen to ignore. This is a continuing problem for anyone who Iives southwest of the Augusta Bar and Nightclub. Compiaints have been levied as far south as Marrakesh Country Club. The sheriffs are called on a reguiar basis, taking their time away from what`s probabiy more important duties. She felt the quality of life in this immediate neighborhood, which is a residentiai area, is greatiy reduced, every Friday and Saturday night and sometimes Tuesday nights or any other nights when they can sell a lot of Iiquor and play a lot of really Ioud outdoor amplified bar music. It goes on well past midnight. She didn't understand the thinking when there have been ongoing discussions with this woman and not one single thing has changed from her point of view. Ms. Drake remembered Palm Springs as it was in the 1950's and 60's. Palm Springs changed in the 1970's and became a haven for spring breakers and it has never recovered. She said she would really hate to see that same thing happen to the city of Palm Desert's south part. EI Paseo is a shopping area with fine restaurants, coffee shops and art galleries. The southern part of Paim Desert is a lavely residential neighborhood, but it just takes this one type of thing, which will then mushroom because everyone else can nave their outdoor amplified music, and Paim Desert will become Palm Desert 1975. She thanked them. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone else wished to speak. There was no one. She also asked if anyone wished to speak on any other non-agenda items. There was no one. 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT P�ANNING GQMMISSION MAY 15 2007 VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 06-18, 8-16 DEVELOPMENT, INC. AND BIGHORN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. , Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge Lots 12 and 13 and a portion of Lots C and K of Tract 25296-6 and a portion of Parcei 1 of PMW 05-12 on Andreas Canyon Drive and Canyon Crest within Bighorn. B. Case No. PMW 06-28 - CAMERON MERAGE, Applicant Request for approval of a parcei map waiver to merge Lots 29 and 30 of Tract 25296-� on Cahuilia Fails within Bighorn. C. Case No. PMW 07-10 - SANDERSON J. RAY DESERT SPRINGS PARTNERS, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to facilitate the formation of a Iarger parcel for property at the northeast corner of Desert Willow Drive and Country Club Drive, more particularly known as APN's 620-370-015, 016 and 019. D. Case No. PMW 07-11 - SANDERSON J. RAY DESERT SPRINGS PARTNERS, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to faciiitate the formation of a larger parcel for property at the northeast corner of Desert Willow Drive and Country Club Drive, more particulariy known as APN's 620-370-001, 004, 005 and 007. E. Case No. PMW 07-12 - SINATRA & COOK PROJECT, L�C, AND DON McCOY, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to aliow a lot Iine adjustment between Parcel 16 and Parcel 17 of PM 31730, also known as 37-755 Cook Street. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tscnopp, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, approving the Consent Caiendar by minute motion. Commissioner 3 MINUTES PA�M DESERT P�ANNING COMMISSION MAY 15 2007 �imont asked for the purpose of the merger on Item A. Mr. Bagato said the merger wouid result in a Iarger Iot to probably have a larger home. It was not located in a hiilside area. Motion carried 5-0. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone eise raised at the pubiic hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case Nos. TT 35271 and TT 35272, PALM DESERT GREENS ASSOCIATION, Applicant (Continued from March 6, 2007} Request for approval of two tentative tract maps to subdivide 7.58-acres into 331 lots for property at 73-750 Country Club Drive, aiso more particularly described as APN's 620-272-014, 620-261-050, 620-251-039, 620-241-027, 620-094-026, 620- 082-035, 620-131-031, 620-141-001 and 620-151-034. Ms. Aylaian explained that another continuance had been requested to June 19, 2007. Mr. Stendell was pretty confident that staff would be coming back with a staff report on June 19. Chairperson Campbell noted that the public hearing was open and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one. The pubiic hearing was left open. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner �imont, continuing Case Nos. TT 35271 and TT 35272 to June 19, 2007. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case No. TT 34057 Amendment 1 - PALM DESERT FUNDING COMPANY, LP, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to adjust pad heights by more than 6 inches for a 141-residential Iot tentative tract map located on the south side of Geraid Ford Drive east on future Pacific Avenue, 36-200 Pacific Avenue. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING CQMMISSION MAY 15 2007 Mr. Bagato displayed the University Village Master Plan. It showed the previously approved planning areas. He recalled that in January the Commission approved the deveiopment agreement that entitled the tract maps for ten years. He indicated that another project calied The Vineyards for 260 units was recently approved by City Council. After some engineering design, The Vineyards needed to move approximately 80,000 cubic yards of dirt, so they were Iooking at a coupie of options, inciuding removing the dirt to a remote Iocation offsite. As indicated in the report, Mr. Bagato said it would take about 4,000 truck trips on city streets. For the other alternative, they approached Hover Development and discussed moving it to Planning Area E of the University Village where 141 Iots were approved in Aprii of 2006. The lots are surrounded by a residential park. Mr. Bagato expiained that relocating the dirt to Planning Area E would result in increases and decreases to different pad heights of more than six inches. According to the municipal code, Planning Commission approval was required. He displayed a diagram of the lots coior-coded to better depict where increases and decreases in elevation would occur. He identified Lot 27 as being the highest above Gerald Ford at 12 feet above curb. With the amendment, it wouid be lowered 2.2 feet, which resulted in 10 feet from curb. There was another lot behind it which would be lowered a Iittie more than 2.2 feet and that was 13 feet above curb currently, but iYs farther back from the street. He said along Gerald Ford the increase was two to three feet; the most occurred at Lot 1 by 3.8 feet. It was currently above the street three feet, so it wouid be a total of six feet above the street. Within the project there are some increases that vary between half an inch up to eight feet with the majority of the increases occurring at six or seven feet. He pointed out the Iocations of the lots that would increase eight feet and indicated that the distance from Gerald Ford to those lots would be more than 600 feet, which would have less of an impact on public views because of the distance. Basically they were trying to create a more level, consistent grade by bringing in the dirt from the other location and saving the truck trips for the other deveioper. The engineering design right now had a 2:1 siope along Gerald Ford. The Public Works Director indicated that in the wind prone areas these have a tendency to fail and are problematic from a drainage standpoint. A 3:1 siope would be the result of the change and would resuit in a better design. The interior streets were around a 7% slope and those wouid 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING CQMMISSION MAY 15 2007 decrease to 4.8°lo or Iess. Some were currently at 6% and those wouid remain the same. Mr. Bagato said they would basically be decreasing the Iarger lots and increasing some of the lower lots to get a more Ievel grade. From staff's perspective this was a win-win situation for the city and the devefoper. Staff felt it was a benefit to keep the dirt onsite and not taken to a remote location, as well as providing a better engineering design. Staff recommended approval. Commissioner Limont asked for ciarification that going back, the lots increase in height 8.2 feet. Mr. Bagato said that was correct, the largest ones. But most of them were around six and seven and some were five and four. But the Iargest increase was 8.2. Commissioner Limont said it was 8.2 feet above the original height approved. Mr. Bagato said that was correct. Commissioner Limont complimented Mr. Bagato on the coiored exhibit identifying the Iots at the different heights. She asked if there was any sort of rendering to see what the view wouid be from Gerald Ford looking up on this development with the new heights. Mr. Bagato had a diagram showing the cross section to show the increase, but not the elevation. The preliminary drawings had some preliminary architecture in the University plan already approved, but not a street elevation. He said the cross section only showed a certain point of the project where there is an increase. There were other parts of the project where the height was decreased. Commissioner Limont said they are trying to stay within the ordinances as far as height and asked how difFicult it would be to put up story poles. Mr. Bagato didn't think it was too difficult, but indicated that the applicant has an approved map and they could move forward with that map which would Ieave them with the situation they are currently looking at. He didn't know how much of a delay the applicant could take because they were ready to move forward when The Vineyards guys found out they needed to move land. Commissioner limont said she was all for heiping and cutting down on driving around on our streets, but 4,000 truck loads of dirt wouid be worth the effort if the result was going to be something unacceptable. It was much more prudent to take two weeks and see the impact of the elevation changes to make sure it is the right decision as opposed to not. She knew they just went through this with Desert Willow and apologized about having to go out there again. Mr. Bagato said from staffs perspective, the previously approved design from an engineering standpoint is a tougher design that can 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING C4MMISSION MAY 15 2007 be buiit. Aithough some of the grades would be raised, he felt this was a better solution; some of the grades would be raised, but the highest ones would come down. He didn't request any eievations because of what they could already build and start building tomorrow; he felt this was a better soiution. Commissioner Limont said it might be a better soiutian engineering wise, but not necessarily aesthetically. Mr. Bagato noted that right now there is a 12-foot lot that goes down to ten feet from Gerald Ford. The one behind it wouid also be lowered two feet. Commissioner Limont pointed out that with the 8.2, overail they were higher than the original. Mr. Bagato said in the middle of tne project she was correct. ThaYs where he was trying to show by the cross section that at that point it was over 600 feet away. He didn't think from a visuai standpoint it would be much of a difference. The other benefit of raising it up eight feet was that some retaining walis would be eliminated which would make the backyards more usable, give them better backyards, and at over 60d feet away he didn't feel it wouid be a visual impact. Commissioner Tanner noted that with the story poies used at Desert Wiilow recently, a determination was made that the proposed height on that particular project had no impact. He thought it had about the same relationship from a street standpoint as what they are probably Iooking at in the middle of this University Park proposal. What Mr. Bagato was saying is that they should not expect to see any dramatic differences even though they are increasing the height in the middle of the development. Mr. Bagato said that was correct. It would have a better Iandscaped area and wouid make the site more level. He thought it would be a better line-of-sight because the homes in front would now be more consistent with Gerald Ford compared to the previous undulation. It wouid not be stair-stepped as much. Commissioner Limont indicated that from the originally approved height to the final request for 8.2 higher at the highest point, taking into consideration the distance, it would still be 8.2 feet higher. Mr. Bagato said that was correct. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. MARK SMITH, representing the applicant, from Laguna Nigel, California, complimented Mr. Bagato on the good job with the presentation. He added that one of the things they found out through this whole development and as buiiding the infrastructure for the CFD 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNINC� COMMISSION MAY 15 2007 (community facilities district), is that 2:1 slopes are very difficult to make work. They have a number of 2:1 slopes that were approved and they had gone back in and added an enormous number af retaining waiis to change the slopes to 3:1. In one area there just wasn't room to do a retaining wali and he didn't think anyone wanted retaining walls out on Gerald Ford. The way tne plan is approved now, it started out very high at the one corner and then dips down to almost street grade and tnen goes back up. One of the things they would be able to do with raising this one is keeping that slope consistent, more pleasing aesthetically, and lower the two ends so that they were at a 3:1 slope alI the way across except for that one Iot that Mr. Bagato pointed out. They just couldn't get it down any further. They have done everything they can. Mr. Smith said that also by raising it even just a few feet and with the perimeter wall it would help for the sound continuation for the people living in that home and getting their visual to be able to look over the cars on Gerald Ford. He thought that was very important for the home buyers. As far as any views being changed, part of the center of the site has been raised and part of it has been Iowered, but if they were to draw a line through, the topography on the site falis aimost 100 feet from one side to the other. So there were a lot of slopes. Tne back slope for the houses to the left going up to Pacific probabiy had a 20-foot slope. So even if they were at Gerald Ford Iooking up, with that house they could imagine another steep siope going up to the road. He said it was not going to negatively impact any views from Gerald Ford for people driving. He understood the concerns as far as putting up story poles and it was something they have done for other projects. If that was the direction of Pianning Commission, they would withdraw their application. Not on their own behalf, because they have plenty of time, but because the developer of the other parcel. If that deveioper wasn't allowed to move the dirt onto their property, he was going to start trucking the dirt offsite probably by Thursday. The 80,000 cubic yards in the staff report and about 4,000 trucks were probably more like 7,000 truck trips. These trucks hold about 13 yards. They get billed for 15, but they only hold 13 and would result in quite a bit more & MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15 2007 traffic on the street. He agreed with Mr. Bagato that this was a situation that wouid be a win-win for everybody. He thanked them. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the block wail that would be contiguous to the street, if that elevation would aiso change with the pad. Mr. Smith said yes, if they raise that pad up three feet, the wail goes up three feet and then there was the house behind that. Commissioner Tschopp asked if it wouid continue down Gerald Ford. Mr. Smith said yes and would be more consistent. Commissioner Schmidt asked if this would all be done at one time in one fell swoop and wouldn't be done over a period of time like a year. It wouid be done at one time. Mr. Smith said it would be completed before the Commission's next meeting and the roads cleaned up and resealed for the dust. There were no other questions. Chairperson Campbell asked for testimony in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was none. Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Tschopp indicated this is a difficult piece of property because of the slope. He remembered when it first came before Planning Commission back in April of 2006. He recalled at that time they expressed some concerns with the different grade changes and he thought this plan overali would be a better benefit for everyone involved. He thought it would be an improvement to what had been planned before for the homeowners. He was in favor of the plan. Chairperson Campbell agreed. When this came before them, they approved it. Now Mr. Greenwood was teiling them this would be a lot better for that area. She, too, agreed with staff and asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner �imont voted no). 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15 2007 It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2444 approving Case No. TT 34057 Amendment 1, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Limont voted no}. C. Case No. ZOA 06-02 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for recommendation to City Council for approval of an amendment to Title 25 (Zoning) of the Palm Desert Municipal Code adding Chapter 25.112 Residential Condominium Conversions relating to approvals of the conversion of existing multi-famiiy residential developments to condominium ownership. Ms. Aylaian reviewed the history of the proposed amendment and aIl the work that had been done since the Iast Planning Commission meeting. She noted that there had been some questions raised as to the number of apartment units and multi-famiiy rental residential units within the city and how many of them are in smailer compiexes, in duplexes, tripiexes and fourplexes versus how many are in Iarge compiexes. She reported tnat there is a totai of 71,092 rental muiti-famiiy units in the city right now. Of those,just under 2,500 are in units of two, three and four. The remaining five or more units total approximately 2,700. Tfie current vacancy rate has increased over the last three years. From the first quarter of 2005, the occupancy rate was at 95.3%. A year ago, first quarter of 2006, it had dropped to 93%. Presently it was at 89.8%. So they could see that the market has changed within the �ast 18 months or two years ago when they were seeing a fair number of applications. She also noted that there were a couple of minor technical revisions that recently surfaced requiring City Attorney review. She requested discussion and comments from the Commission, but if they were generally in favor of the concept and ordinance, she wouid ask that it be recommended to City Council substantially as to form, subject to some minor technical revisions. Those revisions involve the exact location for the CPI and indexes corrected to and the treatment of potential condo hotel projects in residential zones, so some very specific issues. She asked for any questions. Commissioner Schmidt asked about the mechanism that tracks the vacancy rate. Ms. Aylaian explained that there is a firm out of Oregon that track vacancies in communities across the United States. A membership 1� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15 2Qd7 subscription was required in order to get the numbers. The numbers she reported were produced as of today and represent five different rentai communities; the Iarger ones within the city of Paim Desert. They track approximately 1,606 units and draw their percentages from that specific to Palm Desert. It was her understanding they would have a simiiar type of representation for communities across the country. Commissioner Schmidt noted that it wasn't an exact number, but extrapolated from a sampling. Ms. Aylaian concurred. She explained that it is a tough number to come up with. She checked with CVAG and different kinds of economic development data gatherers who would have this kind of information, but it wasn't easy to come by. Commissioner Schmidt could foresee problems with smaller units because 5% of a four-unit building was difficuit. Ms. Aylaian said that was a very good point and believed the four or fewer units were exempted from the percentage of vacancy for exactly that reason. Commissioner Tschopp indicated that the staff report said that vacancy rates must exceed 5% for 24 months rather than 12, but the resolution stili had the 12 months. Ms. Aylaian said that would be corrected. That was one of the comments the Commission had previously. Staff had recommended 12 months and Commission suggested a longer period and it would be changed to 24. Commissioner Tschopp noted that it was located on page 13, item C. Commissioner Tschopp asked how they arrived at 24 months on that one, and then also the prohibition on conversion after initial construction of an apartment complex from six to 12 months. He asked for the thinking behind that; in his opinion that one could be a little bit longer and perhaps the other one could be done a little bit differently. Ms. Aylaian explained that it was kind of a balancing act. The prohibition on conversion was originally recommended at six months, but most people sign a one-year lease. Therefore, they didn't want the instantaneous conversion, but they were trying to allow developers and owners to respond to a market that does fluctuate, but they didn't want them to over react or be able to respond too quickly. So originally 12 months was selected and that was actualiy modeied after Iooking at a coupie of different cities in Southern California and this is what they had done. The Commission suggested a Ionger time and staff Iooked at it and reaiized that was absolutely an appropriate comment because many leases start out being 12 months and they upped it to 12 months. 11 MINUTES PA�M dESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15 2047 As far as the reflection of vacancy over previous years, the Commission, when staff suggested ioaking at the previous 12 months, suggested a longer time of two or three years. She was uncomfortable pressing it as long as three years because to her that was too slow or cumbersome to respond to a market that does change and goes through cycles a Iittle more quickiy than that. She felt that two years was a good compromise between the two. Commissioner Tschopp asked if there was any thought given to a forward Iooking vacancy rate. Ms. Aylaian said that was looked at, but as difficult as it was to find somebody who accurateiy tracks existing and previous vacancy rates, they couid not find any source they could quantify and alI parties could agree was a credible prognosticator of what was going to come. Commissioner Limont noted that it states that if someone builds a new apartment building they are not eligible for 12 months to convert. She asked if it was eligibie and then there was a two-year period. W hat if they were right in the midst of the two-year vacancy, because it was a 24-month period? Ms. Aylaian said if a new apartment complex is built, they were able to convert after 12 months provided that the citywide vacancy for the previous 24 months has been greater than 5%. Commissioner Tanner indicated that The Vineyards project came to them originally as a condominium complex. They suggested that the project be brought back to them in the form of an apartment project. The reasoning was that particular area needed apartments. He thought one of the stipuiations they made was that it could not be converted to condos. He thought they couldn't convert them and committed to owning and operating them. If they had issues that come before them, a condition could be required not allowing conversion to condos. Mr. Hargreaves remembered the issue, but couldn't remember how it was resolved. His vague recollection was that at some point they would be permitted, but couldn't recaii if there was a condition that restricted the conversion. Sometimes people like to build them as apartments and hoid them for ten years untii the statue of limitations on construction defects runs because that had been a problem with condominiums. At that point they could condo-ize them. Commissioner Schmidt noticed condominium hotel and condotel, but no reference to timeshare units. Ms. Aylaian explained tnat timeshare units are different animals all together and they would not be covered by this. Timeshare units are already typicaliy sold depending on whether they are seiling units of time or real estate property. They are set up differentiy so 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15 200? they were not considered multi-family residential and wouid not be subject to conversion to condominium properties or ownership. Mr. Hargreaves indicated that one of the issues that has come up is that tl�e ordinance is drafted to allow conversion from apartments to a condo hotel, which would be a commercial use in a residential zone. If people thought that was appropriate, they would probably have to tweak the residential zones to allow that under a conditional use, which he didn't think was allowed at this time. But the broader issue was whether the Planning Commission thought it was appropriate to take an apartment building and convert it into a condo hotei which would facilitate the transient occupancy basically. They would have peopie in there less than 30 days, a significantly different kind of use normally from an apartment building. Depending on the kind of direction received, they couid go back and tweak it. Commissioner Limont asked if there was any way so that there wasn't a rush to convert from apartments to condos. She thought that San Francisco had a lottery system so they didn't have a Iot of people converting alI at once. She asked if they were looking at anything simiiar. Ms. Aylaian said no, they weren't anticipating that big of a demand and frankly thought that the restraints placed on the deveioperlowner for conversion were such that they wouid not see a stampede. Staff tried to discourage to some extent the conversion because they want to maintain rentai properties in the community, so it is a relatively tall order they would have to work their way through to be abie to convert. She didn't anticipate that they would ever see a large rush. Commissioner Limont said her concern goes back to what Commissioner Tanner brought up a number of ineetings ago, and that is they don't want to create a situation where peopie who need to rent who can't afford or don't want to own aren't forced to buy in order to stay where they are. The 5% had always bothered her; she feit it was a low number, but she wasn't versed enough in that. She said Ms. Aylaian and Mr. Hargreaves had done an excellent job in putting this together and thanked them. She asked if they would try to provide for the people who want to rent so they can afford to stay. Ms. Ayiaian thanked her and indicated that was their intent. in the newspaper a month or two ago while tney've been working on this, one of the other valley cities has taken a look at an ordinance and proposed their own. Their threshold is actualiy 3% because they felt that was a high enough vacancy they should be allowing conversion at that point. After looking at that, staff feit more comfortable with a 5% threshold. 13 MINUTES PA�M DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15 2007 Commissioner Schmidt asked Mr. Nargreaves if a rental agreement was a lease. In other words, was every one of the rented units on a lease or if it mattered. It says "eligibie tenanY' means a tenant who has had a valid iease in a unit. She thought that was leaving it pretty vague. Mr. Hargreaves agreed. Ms. Aylaian also agreed and suggested perhaps adding valid Iease or rental agreement. Commissioner Schmidt said there were some that were granted for six months on the contingency that they would renew. She thought if they were doing alI this they should tie down some of this. Mr. Hargreaves noted that they sometimes have hold-over tenants, people that just get in there informally; there was a whoie series of arrangements. Commissioner Schmidt thought that if the word "Iease" is meant to restrict a property owner from converting, then leave it. But if this is intended to be a guideline for someone who wants to change their ownership status, then they need to be more explicit. Mr. Hargreaves thought it was a good comment. Commissioner Schmidt said it was on page 5 in the middle of the page. She also felt that in the smailer units there could be an ownership that could convert a rentai building into five or six timeshares and get under this ordinance, as well as tenants in common timeshares. She has done it in other cities. Ms. Aylaian said she originaily thought Commissioner Schmidt meant the other way from a timeshare converting into a condominium ownership. Commissioner Schmidt said just the intent of this; if they want to convert rentai units into condominiums and make it a timeshare condominium setup, they have multiple owners for a Iimited number of units. That wasn't addressed and asked if it should be. Mr. Hargreaves said the Palm Desert ordinance addresses timeshares and has very stringent restrictions on that. Ms. Aylaian aiso explained that part of the definition of timeshare is the requirement to have an 18-noie golf course associated with it and up to a 500-room hotel. So it was very difficult to be a timeshare in Palm Desert. Commissioner Schmidt thought it wouldn't hurt to add somewhere in the ordinance that timeshares are not inciuded in this ordinance and refer to where they are. Ms. Aylaian said that could be done. Commissioner Tanner asked if Commissioner Schmidt was concerned that someone might take an apartment, Iike a 10-unit apartment, and change it from an apartment to a condo and then into timeshare. Commissioner Schmidt said yes. Commissioner Tanner said if it came to that, they would not be able to get the City approval anyway because there are some very strict requirements. He asked if it needed to be addressed in this ordinance. Commissioner Schmidt said she wanted to clear it up number one, and 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15 2007 number two in the sense that timeshares are not included in this ordinance but somewhere else. Chairperson Campbell asked Mr. Hargreaves if that shouid be added to the ordinance specifically to address it. Mr. Hargreaves repiied that given how timeshares are treated eisewhere, he personally wouidn't clutter it up. Chairperson Campbeii asked if he was comfortabie just Ieaving it as it is without timeshare. Mr. Hargreaves concurred. Commissioner Tanner asked about the verbiage on the Iease. He asked if that needed to be addressed in the ordinance before they vote. Mr. Hargreaves explained that there were going to be some tweaks here and there and it has to go to the City Councii, so if tney were generally happy with it subject to those comments, tney would work on it between now and the time it gets to tne City Council. He didn't think it needed to come back on those kinds of issues. Ms. Ayiaian asked that the motion be to approve the ordinance substantially as to form. Commissioner Tschopp noted that the housing inspection report requires that it be performed by a licensed architect or structural engineer. Having seen a number of the home inspection reports, he asked for the reason for going to the Iicensed architect and if the report would be as detailed as the report someone gets when buying a single family home. Ms. Aylaian said this change was the result of some input received from the Department of Building & Safety. They are more famiiiar with the licensing requirements for home inspection services and their concern was that although someone could get very qualified, very good home inspectors, the fact that they are Iicensed does not mean good and qualified and that potentially these reports can be by individuals who really don't have the credentials or experience that we wish licensure would insure; therefore, tne recommendation was to use a licensed architect or structurai engineer. Her experience has been typicaliy with those on larger types of buiidings that they are very thorough and detaiied. They have their professional licensure on the Iine and errors and omissiorrs insurance behind it that a home inspection service typically would not. Commissioner Tschopp said that on a larger building that was a good idea he thought that was a really good change. His second comment was on the detaii. Naving seen a Iot of the home inspection reports that deal with things from locks to appliance condition and asked if she expected those to be in those reports also. Ms. Aylaian said they indicate pretty specifically what needs to be inspected and she didn't think they got into the Ievei of detail that would be seen in some home inspection reports, they were looking for structurai integrity, waterproofing and things Iike that. Those were the types of issues they believed a potentiai 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15 2007 buyer really needs to be advised an in order to make a sound purchase. They weren't iooking for routine maintenance types of issues. It was probabiy valid to say there wauldn't be the same level of detail they would get in a home inspection report, but there would be better quaiified eyes Iooking at the more substantive issues. There were no other questions. Chairperson Campbeil noted that the public hearing was oaen and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Campbeli asked for Commission comments or action. Action: Commissioner Schmidt moved to approve the draft ordinance pending comments and possible changes as necessary. It was seconded by Commissioner Tanner. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Schmidt, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2445, recommending to City Council approval of Case No. ZOA 06-02 substantially as to form. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCE�LANEOUS A. Case No. VAR 06-02 -WI�LIAM R. HANOUSEK, SR., Applicant Request for approval of a first one-year time extension of a variance to aliow a reduction of the R-1 20,000 zone side yard setbacks from 15 feet to 8 feet on both side yards to ailow the expansion and remodeiing of a single family home on a 75-foot wide lot Iocated at 45-644 Verba Santa Drive. Mr. Stendell expiained that this case was originaily handled in 2006 by a pianner no longer with the City. Mr. Stendeli stepped in and reviewed the material and approvals. He said the original staff report was distributed, as weli as the plans and exhibits. He was availabie to give a detailed staff report if requested and was avaiiable to answer questions. He noted that the applicant was also present to answer any questions or address concerns. Commissioner Limont asked if they would be adding onto the existing pad. Mr. Stendell said no, the existing pad would remain. They would tie into the existing pad. He talked to the architect a few different times. They are attempting to save parts of the house if they can and utilize tnat. They found 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15 2007 some termites and other issues they are working on. They weren't sure how much of the existing house was salvageabie, but the existing pad remains. Commissioner Limont asked for and received ciarification tnat they didn't have to come up at all on the pad height. Mr. Stendell also confirmed that the maximum height at the highest part would be 15 feet 7 inches which occurred in the middle wnere there was a clerestory window on the back of the home. There was a nine-foot top piate at the corners abutting both side neighbors stepping up to 13 feet in the middie of those ridges and another section which would be 13 feet 4 inches. Commissioner �imont asked about the height of the existing structure. Mr. Stendeli said it is 14 feet above finished grade. Commissioner Tanner asked if there were any issues with the neighbors. Mr. Stendell said there were some in the original staff report, but when reading the minutes, it didn't seem to be an issue and the neighbor wrote a letter, but did not appear at Planning Commission and the original planner did a good job of photo documentation. View concerns really weren't an issue. Commissioner Tanner asked if any compiaints had been received recently. Mr. Stendeil said no. Chairperson Campbeil pointed out that this application was approved on May 16, 2006 on a 5-0 vote. She said normally things come before the Commission for a one-year time extension. Sometimes peopie ask for two years. She didn't feel they had to put the appiicant to this again for a second reading because they couldn't realiy vote on it, this was only Miscelianeous and they haven't had any other complaints. Mr. Stendell aiso indicated that they were very ciose to pulling permits. Chairperson Campbell asked if the appiicant wanted to make any comments. MR. WI��IAM HANOUSEK, SR, came forward. He thought Chairperson Campbell did a marveious job. He said that he and his wife and three boys have Iived in this house for 52 years. He bought the house from his father and they are Iong residents and want to hold onta as much of that house that the termites didn't get to. He thanked the Commission for their time and apologized for missing the Iast meeting. Chairperson Campbell didn't feel it wasn't necessary for him to be at the last meeting and asked for a motion to apprave a one-year time extension. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PL.ANNWG COMMISSION MAY 15 2007 Action: it was moved by Commissioner Schmidt, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, by minute motion, approving a first one-year time extension. Motion carried 5-0. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PI.ACES Chairperson Campbell reported that the next meeting would be May 16. B. �ANDSCRPE COMMITTEE Commissioner Limont stated that the next meeting would be May 16. G. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner Limont said the next meeting is in June. D. PARKS & RECREATION Commissioner Tanner didn't attend the Iast meeting. XI. COMMENTS 1. Because they had the speaker under Oral Communications, Commissioner Tschopp said he hated to bring it up since it has been such an issue, but he has heard from so many peopie that Augusta's music is still loud and that the parking lot is still closed. He has heard that from so many individuals who iive within a two to three-block radius. He was wondering if there was anything they could direct Staff to look at again, or Code to enforce the noise ordinance. Ms. Aylaian explained that staff was actively working on the issue. There was a meeting with the owner as recently as today and they were continuing to work to try to bring about compliance. 2. Ms. Aylaian indicated that the upcoming summer meeting schedule for the City Council was a little different this year. Typically they go from the first meeting in Juiy to the last meeting in August without 18 MIIdUTES PA�M DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15 2007 meeting in between. This year they were tentatively meeting July 12 and then August 9 and then canceling the last meeting in August. She said the Commission might wish to not meet two times a month thro�ghout the summer. Staff would look at the timing of the Commission's meetings and how it ties into the subsequent Council meetings at which time their recommendations wouid be heard. If the Commission was interested in Iooking at any meetings that could be blacked out this summer, she suggested that Commission bring their caiendars to the next meeting so they can discuss it and see if there are times they wouid iike a break. Chairperson Campbell noted they were pretty busy last summer. They canceled the meeting on the 4th of July and one in August. Ms. Aylaian said that staff would also be prepared with the number of appiications and tentative meeting dates. She thought this year was generally a little lighter than last year, but they would take a look at what was coming up and make recommendations. Commissioner Schmidt asked if the last scheduled Council meeting was the Iast one in June. Ms. Aylaian said they were planning to meet July 12 and then August 9, but skipping July 26 and August 23. AII through June they would be meeting. 3. Ms. Aylaian had some information from the American Planning Association, the professional organization staff belongs to and looks to for technical resources. She indicated that they have an affiiliate membership specificaliy for Planning Commissioners and for those who are relatively new to the Commission, she thought they might be interested in joining. They provide great resources, information and opportunities for training and seminars. She said if they were interested to please let Tonya know and she would get them signed up. 4. Commissioner Limont said she has met with Steve Smith, Mark Greenwood and a number of people inciuding Ms. Ayiaian with regard to a dayiight plane and when people are remodeling and doing those kinds of things in an existing neighborhood. She asked staff to continue to look at this issue. They were making progress, but with regard ta the grades, especially in south Palm Desert, and the house they saw this evening was a wonderful design, it worked well and feli into the design of the whole neighborhood, but she wanted to make sure they don't end up with mini Hagadone houses squashed into 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT P�ANNING COMMIS�ION MAY 15 2007 existing neighborhoods that destroy the integrity of the neighborhoods. She asked staff to cantinue to work toward some sort of an ordinance or some sort of a conciusion so they don't have to look at every single house that comes through to try and maintain the integrity in the neighborhoods. Ms. Aylaian said staff would do so. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, by minute motion adjourning the meeting. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:12 p.m.f/=4�����-� LAURI AYLAIAN, Secretary ATTEST: __��� _.... ONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson Palm Desert Planning Commission !tm 20