Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0415 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY - APRIL 15, 2008 6:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Tschopp called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Members Present: Dave Tschopp, Chair Van Tanner, Vice Chair Sonia Campbell Connor Limont Mari Schmidt Members Absent: None Staff Present: Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, Deputy City Attorney Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Ryan Stendell, Associate Planner Renee Schrader, Associate Planner Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Schmidt led in the pledge of allegiance. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Request for consideration of the April 1, 2008 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Limont, approving the April 1, 2008 meeting minutes. Motion carried 5-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Ms. Aylaian summarized pertinent April 10, 2008 City Council actions. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 15, 2008 VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 08-106 - STONE EAGLE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Applicant Request for approval of Parcel Map Waiver 08-106 merging Lots A F @ and A L @ of Tract No. 30438-2 to accommodate the clubhouse design at 72-425 Stone Eagle Drive (APN 652-020-011 and 017). Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Limont, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. 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 else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case Nos. PP 90-9, VAR 90-3 and GPA 90-1 Amendment #1 - CONSOLIDATED BUILDING PARTNERSHIP, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to the conditions of approval for a previously approved project (Precise Plan 90-9, Variance 90-3 and General Plan Amendment 90-1) to delete Condition No. 8 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 1450 requiring a 42-inch wide opening in the eastern wall to allow for pedestrian access from Catalina Way. Mr. Stendell reviewed the request, noting that he received two letters from the adjacent property owners stating that they were in favor of closing off the access because of loitering in the evening hours, property damage and other reasons. Early that afternoon he also received a letter with 20 signatures from people in the neighborhood in favor of closing off the access for the same reasons and that letter was distributed to the Commission. He also 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 15, 2008 noted that there were people who use the access and want it to remain. In this case, based on the response from the area residents, Mr. Stendell recommended that the Planning Commission remove the condition allowing the owner to block off that access permanently. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Tanner clarified that staff was asking that the requirement for the cut-thru be removed. Mr. Stendell concurred. Commissioner Limont noted that the south side gate would remain for emergency vehicle access. Mr. Stendell concurred. Commissioner Limont asked if the gate in question was locked right now. Mr. Stendell said yes and explained that there were a couple of complaints that it had been closed and that was how it came before them. It had been discussed with staff, it was shut, and now the applicant wanted to proceed formally to remove the condition. Commissioner Limont asked for confirmation that when the gate was open versus having it locked, there was an escalation in tagging and other problems. Mr. Stendell deferred the question to the property owner. Commissioner Limont asked if historically there were more police reports when it was open. Mr. Stendell said yes. There was a memo in the file of all the calls from 2001 to 2002 with approximately ten calls for service and eight additional calls for silent alarms registered through the security company and police department. There was a history, while this was open, of it being an issue for the property owner. Commissioner Tanner reiterated that the answer to the question and the answer to the problem would be to lock it down or remove it and add fencing. Mr. Stendell said yes, lock it down in this case. Staff made the finding that it was creating a negative impact, both on the property owner and the residents in the neighborhood. They usually encourage people to get out and walk to services, but in this case there was sufficient evidence to show that it was in the best interest of the people living on Catalina and in the best interest of the owner to shut it permanently. Commissioner Tanner asked if there had always been a pass-through there or if it was added. Mr. Stendell explained it was a condition of approval on the project when it was approved in 1990. It was there from the beginning. It was vacant land before that and when the building was built, it was included as one of the conditions. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 15, 2008 Commissioner Schmidt asked approximately how many residences there were on the street and in the area. Mr. Stendell said on San Anselmo there were approximately 40. The legal notice was sent to more than 90 total residents. Commissioner Schmidt noted Mr. Stendell heard primarily from those on the petition. Mr. Stendell said from the immediate vicinity and directly on Catalina for the most part. Chairperson Tschopp opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. MIKE HOMME, 46-300 Desert Lily Drive, the owner of the property, said that through the years, they=ve had a lot of problems. In the very beginning, they had all the ground lighting broken and had to take that out and put the lights up high. The biggest problem had been that kids can step through the gate and if there was a policeman there to get them to move along, all they had to do was walk through the gate and the police couldn=t pursue them. It was the same with the parking lot. What happened was that kids, and some pretty rough characters, gathered and then when people came out at night, especially in the winter time when it=s dark, they were really intimidated at times by the people there by the gate. There was trash thrown down there and over the fence. They=d tried just locking it at night and actually had someone drive up with a car or truck, put a chain through the gate, and just rip it out of the opening. So they=d tried several methods of trying to provide an access and make it safe in the evening. Before they put this gate that was up there now, they had the building tagged six times in one month. It was kind of never ending. They tried fencing off between the buildings and their own walls to stop people from doing that and that didn=t work. Since the gate had been up, they=ve had no trouble whatsoever. There had been no tagging, no trash and it seemed to be working pretty well. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Campbell asked if Mr. Homme would be interested in walling in the area to make it all look even instead of just locking a gate. Mr. Homme said what they did was get a metal panel and filled it in and painted it to match the gate just in case at any time there would need to be an access for some reason. It had just been such a problem over the years that, as much as he didn=t mind people 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 15, 2008 walking through the property, it was just that it had really been abused, probably just by a few people. Commissioner Tanner asked for clarification that Mr. Homme wasn=t going to take the gate out, he was going to leave the panel on it. Mr. Homme said that was the plan. Commissioner Tanner asked if that didn=t work, it would be filled in with fencing. Mr. Homme was afraid if he put a little piece of masonry wall in there someone would just pull it down. This worked pretty good. Someone couldn=t put a chain through it or a hook over the top. Chairperson Tschopp asked for any testimony in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was none and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Tschopp asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Campbell stated that with the staff findings and signatures presented to the Commission, she would make a motion to delete Condition No. 8. Commissioner Tanner seconded the motion with a little note that they owe it to the constituents of Palm Desert, not only the ones who reside, but the ones who own buildings, to make sure they were doing everything they could to help them. Seeing that there was no opposition and there was a financial burden on the building owner, that was why he was seconding the motion to remove the condition. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2473 approving the request eliminating Condition No. 8 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 1450 removing the requirement for pedestrian access. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case Nos. CUP 07-17 and PP 07-15 - THE ROBERT L. MAYER TRUST OF 1982, Applicant 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 15, 2008 Request for a recommendation to the City Council of Palm Desert to approve a request by Oakmont Senior Living, LLC, which consists of a Conditional Use Permit and a proposed Precise Plan to construct 121 senior community care and health care units with decorative architectural elements up to 34 feet 11 inches tall on 8.63 acres located on the northeast corner of Country Club Drive and Monterey Avenue at 73-050 Country Club Drive. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact resulting from an Environmental Assessment pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has been prepared for the proposed project. Ms. Schrader noted a correction on page 2. She indicated that the existing General Plan designation was mixed use. The correction to be changed was CC Commercial. She explained that mixed use was high density 10-22 dwelling units per acre and commercial designation. She described the request in detail and informed Commission that a number of phone calls were received. Many people questioned the commercial compatibility with the medical use across the street. Others were concerned about traffic cutting into Monterey, which she said it wouldn=t. Staff also received a letter from the Homeowner=s Association which was circulated to the Commission. Lastly, she received a phone call that afternoon from someone living outside the 300-foot radius, but he wanted it stated in the record that he was sorry he could not be present and requested that the meeting be continued to allow him to be present. Ms. Schrader stated that it could be concluded that based on staff=s findings, the approval of Conditional Use Permit 07-17 and Precise Plan 07-15 could be granted. Commissioner Tanner noted that the project clearly showed two-stories and asked about the extension to the north shown on the plan. Ms. Schrader indicated that the lower portion was the single-story apartments. Commissioner Tanner asked if the single-story units would follow around the north and east. Ms. Schrader displayed a picture of the single-story portion. On the Monterey elevation, she said there was a little bit of a combination with the single story portion only at the corner. The rest was two-story. Continuing east, Commissioner Tanner asked if it was all single-story. Ms. Schrader concurred that the tan-colored section was single-story as well as the four casitas. Commissioner Limont asked to see the Monterey elevation. Ms. Schrader displayed it and pointed out the single-story portion and west elevation. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 15, 2008 Commissioner Tanner asked about the number of units. Ms. Schrader clarified that there would be a total of 117 units in the main buildings and four casitas for a total of 121 units, some with one and some with two bedrooms. Chairperson Tschopp indicated that the parking analysis in the staff report showed that for a convalescent home there were supposed to be 45.25 spaces. Ms. Schrader said that was kind of a guess of what it would be like if half of the apartments were double occupancy, so they added an additional 60 onto it and then beds, then did the calculation based on that. Chairperson Tschopp pointed out that the proposed project showed 163. Ms. Schrader agreed it was really over-parked. Chairperson Tschopp asked why. Ms. Schrader said she would prefer for the applicant to give her the design intent, but guessed they wanted to provide sufficient underground parking for those who did want to retain their cars. And there would be guest parking and employee parking, because there would be medical services, dining facilities, recreational services, concierge services and that parking requirement. During staff=s conversation with the applicant, Chairperson Tschopp asked if it had ever been mentioned by the applicant to possibility of turning these into apartments if the convalescent home idea didn=t work. Ms. Schrader said that had not been discussed; all she knew was that it was intended to be an institutional state-licensed facility. As that, it would never become condominium or apartments, but was probably a better question for the applicant. Chairperson Tschopp asked if City codes prohibited this from being turned into apartments if approved as a convalescent health care project. Mr. Bagato noted that the project being presented was for the institute. Anyone wanting to amend the plan would have to amend the plan for apartments and there was a condo conversion ordinance. There was an initial discussion about making sure this remained as an institution and not multi-family and the applicant told staff that their intent was to always be an institution. Technically, an amendment would come through the Planning Commission for approval and for any type of conversion if that was requested. Chairperson Tschopp asked if any units would be held aside for low and moderate income housing or if they qualified for the City=s low to moderate income housing. Ms. Aylaian indicated the concept was discussed briefly. Staff didn=t believe this was a suitable project for putting an affordable 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 15, 2008 component in it. It would take too deep of a subsidy on behalf of the Redevelopment Agency to get these units down to an affordable level and the money would be better spent elsewhere. Regarding the housing project previously approved on this property in 2006, Chairperson Tschopp noted that the houses were limited to 22 feet in height. The proposed project was mainly 24 feet or two feet higher, and the tower elements ran about ten feet above that. Ms. Schrader said that was correct. Chairperson Tschopp asked if Ms. Schrader had any idea how much space the tower elements percentage-wise took up compared to the rest of the building. Ms. Schrader replied that by code, they were only supposed to take up 10% of the whole project and she was pretty sure the architect worked very hard to make that accurate, but as far as giving a square footage of what they were in comparison to the entire project, she didn=t have that. There were no other questions for staff. Chairperson Tschopp opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. KOMRON SHAHHOSSEINI, with Oakmont Senior Living, 220 Concourse Drive in Santa Rosa, California, 95403, stated that as owner-operator-builder, they were very excited at the possibility of coming into this community and bringing their business here. He thanked them. He stated that staff had been exceptionally helpful. They=ve done a number of projects in a number of municipalities and this had been a wonderful experience. He thanked staff as well. He stated that they agreed with all of the conditions of approval and asked for any questions. Regarding the portion that exceeded the height limit to 34 feet, Commissioner Schmidt asked what was in the second story. Mr. Shahhosseini replied that there would not be anything in the second story. It was their entrance essentially and just in terms of scale. Commissioner Schmidt asked if it was basically an architectural element. Mr. Shahhosseini said that was correct. Commissioner Schmidt noted that it displaced about 35,000 cubic feet of nothing. 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 15, 2008 Mr. Shahhosseini wasn=t sure about the actual number, but could get back to her on that. Commissioner Schmidt explained she took that number off the plans. What was troublesome to her was they were really trying very hard to conserve energy in the city, yet this was 35,000 cubic feet to heat/cool. Mr. Shahhosseini said they were going to put in a ceiling, so it wouldn=t go all the way up. He wasn=t sure how far it would go up, but they didn=t need the entire height the architectural element would go to, so they would actually put in a false ceiling there that would definitely cut down on the heating and cooling cost. Commissioner Schmidt agreed that would help, but thought there must be another architectural way to make that lovely without exceeding the height limit. She asked if he had considered it or if staff had talked to him about it at all. Mr. Shahhosseini said they had considered it and discussed it. Design Review essentially approved it and they appreciated the modulation and how it breaks up the length of the building. Commissioner Schmidt stated that it was a great project and she liked it on that corner, but did not like the height of the tall elements. Chairperson Tschopp asked if there was a reason for the project being over- parked. Mr. Shahhosseini replied that they=ve done over 30 other projects and it had been their experience that residents have one or two cars. They have sufficient parking to accommodate those extra cars. He reiterated that it was based on past experience. Commissioner Tanner noted that Chair Tschopp brought up early on, and it could be appreciated by the Planning Commission, that they hear from the applicant that there was no intent to convert these from an assisted or senior partially-assisted living to apartments. First, he hoped they heard the answer he wanted to hear. Second, with Mr. Shahhosseini=s experience with this firm, he asked if they had ever converted an assisted living into an apartment or condo complex. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 15, 2008 Mr. Shahhosseini said they had been very lucky and their projects had been very successful. A lot had to do with where they chose to go, but to the best of his knowledge, he did not know of a project that had been converted. As a fully licensed facility by the state, it was exceedingly difficult to do. Chairperson Tschopp asked for any testimony in FAVOR of this project. MR. MICHAEL CARLY, President of the Merano Homeowners Association, stated that they have been working with Komron, the site developer with Oakmont Properties, who had been more than fair and courteous to the homeowners and the homeowners association to hammer out an agreement between Merano HOA and Oakmont Senior Living project. They were still negotiating between the maintenance agreement. He spoke with Ms. Aylaian briefly before the Planning Commission meeting started and she asked him to clarify what they meant by maintenance agreement. The maintenance agreement set forth between the Merano HOA and Oakmont would be the maintenance of the retention basin, the medians, the streets, water, electricity, and changing out of any foliage/flowers that go up to Merano and into their development. Komron assured him that Oakmont agreed to that and that would run consecutively with the land so that if there ever was a change of ownership on the property, that agreement would roll with the land. That agreement went to Merano=s attorney. The attorney looked at the agreement and he wanted to meet with the homeowners board. A letter was sent to the Planning Commission indicating what they had been talking about in the maintenance agreement. Mr. Carly said they were confident they would get the agreement worked out between Oakmont Senior Living and Merano. At this present time they didn=t have the agreement in writing from Oakmont or by Merano Homeowner=s Association. They were hoping it would come in due time so they could put their support behind the project. At this point, without having anything in writing, the Board couldn=t put their support behind it. As an individual homeowner in Merano, from his own standpoint, he thought it was a suitable project to go on the corner. His house backed up to this piece of property and his main concern, as well as the other 12 home owners that back up against it, had to do with the foliage. 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 15, 2008 The main concern was the fact that during the high wind season, they would be inundated with foliage coming off those trees. Whatever kind of trees were planted, they were going to have dead foliage coming off into their backyards and they didn=t want to have to constantly be out there cleaning out their swimming pools and backyards. That was the main concern of the 12 home owners that buffer up against that piece of property. Mr. Carly said he spoke to Komron on several occasions with regard to this and emailed a brief letter stating where their concerns were and he forwarded that onto Renee, and the Commission was made aware of it tonight. They saw a picture that Renee displayed showing that they reduced the number of trees from 34 to 12. Merano was asking from the Planning Commission permission to not put the trees in there. He said they would be more than happy to have drought- tolerant shrubbery along that block wall on the north side and on the west side of their Merano properties. The home owners were aware of that and their concerns were the dead foliage coming off those trees. If it was drought-tolerant shrubbery to decorate that wall on Oakmont=s side, once the project was up that was something the Merano home owners that buffer up against that piece of property could live with. They were not concerned about screening their view from Oakmont=s building. Right now the view for those homeowners was of the Bristol Farms market. There was no difference from their point of view whether they looked at Oakmont=s building or if they looked at Bristol Farms market. He personally preferred to look at Oakmont=s property and thought it was more architecturally appealing than the supermarket. That was one concern he was hoping the Planning Commission would set forth and that was to allow Oakmont to not plant those trees. That would significantly help Merano residents make their decision, especially the 12 homeowners that buffer up against the property. Mr. Carly also wanted to make sure, as a couple of Commissioners brought up this evening, in regard to Oakmont ever selling off this project and it being converted to apartments and condos. There had to be some sort of assurance that that would not play into the equation down the road if this project was not successful or they 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 15, 2008 decided to pull out of Palm Desert and take their business elsewhere. He hoped there could be something in writing that said they would not be able to convert these to apartments or condos. That was one main concern. Komron had assured Merano Homeowners Association that they were bringing their business here to stay and it was an upscale facility. He understood this was for more upscale clientele inside the facility. He thought the proposal was a good project and he couldn=t see any other alternatives that would be sufficient to go there at this point. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 15, 2008 He noted that the Chair mentioned in 2006 that the Mayer Corporation was approved to build 49 two-story homes on that property and they got approval through Planning and City Council. Yet Robert Mayer Corporation never acted on that, whether that was due to the down turn in the housing market, he had no idea. They were faced here today with Oakmont Senior Living, which was a beautiful facility, and hoped they could work out their maintenance agreement with them and some other issues they were concerned about, and were confident they could work it out with Oakmont attorneys, as well as Merano=s attorneys. That was where the Merano Homeowners Association stood at the present time. As seen right now, if they could get that maintenance agreement and things hammered out as to who was responsible for what, when, where, how long, and if it would run with the land, then they felt they gained something and Oakmont gained something and they would be able to put their support behind it. As an individual home owner that backed up against the property, he gave his support to this project. Chairperson Tschopp asked if anyone else wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the project. MR. ABE LEDER, a resident of Indian Ridge, stated that he had been waiting for a project of this type for almost six years. He has lived here for 29 years and approximately seven years ago a 12-acre piece on Eisenhower property was getting approved for a life care community when 9/11 came along and the developer got weak and walked away. Three or four years ago a developer, one of the largest in the country that operates over 40 life care communities, was going to build one in La Quinta and when he spoke to them about what they were going to use for some of their materials, they were going to use shower curtains and linoleum kitchens. That was their consideration and was very modest. The largest property here, which could have been the flagstaff in the country, was a 75-acre piece at Country Club and Portola, Villa Portofino. The general rule of these life care communities was when you buy it, after you live in it and you want to sell it or you pass or move on, the builder gives you back 90% to 95% of the original price. The developer at Villa Portofino got greedy. He started at 90% and kept going down every year and curved back and it would take 17 years to get back to 90%. The percentage of people 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 15, 2008 who go there that live 17 years was maybe 2%. That=s unfortunate because it was a good location and he was giving up a lot. There wasn=t anything here except Brighton Gardens and Marriott=s Mirage Inn and they are very small, individual places. He wished this project was twice as large, but it was better than what they had now. He was very interested for his own personal self. MR. DESMOND MCCARTHY, 263 Strada Fortuna, said that his home is located in the middle of the Merano development. He was also the Vice President of the Homeowners Association. He said there were members of the Commission who had the same thoughts in their minds that he did. Back in 2006 this particular tract was approved at a height of 22 feet and now they were being offered an architecturally sound project, but nevertheless, it was 50% higher in places than originally conceived back in 2006, not necessarily by this project, but projects approved in the past. There were some concerns amongst the homeowners. That particular tract had been vacant for a number of years and they felt very secure in their view. While he didn=t want to make a massive issue of it, he thought it would be a good idea if the applicant was to reconsider the height of 34 feet and 11 inches at the highest point since it was just a pure architectural part of the structure rather than a necessary part of the whole project. As Mr. Carly alluded too, Mr. McCarthy said they were working diligently with Oakmont Senior Living, LLC, to thrash out a maintenance agreement for Via Scena, in particular for the retention basin and the L. They would be in a better position when the attorneys had talked and came back to Commission to express their views on that, but he was concerned about the height. He thanked them for their consideration. There was no one else wishing to speak. Chairperson Tschopp asked if the applicant wished to make any rebuttal comments or give additional comments. Mr. Shahhosseini displayed a photo and pointed out the second-story portion. He said what they had done was put in a hallway facing the Merano residents. They were fairly concerned about the privacy issues, so they put in a hallway facing them and the windows start at 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 15, 2008 six feet high. He wasn=t sure that was clear. He also noted that Tom Jones, their civil engineer, and Allen Cohen, their consulting architect, were both present and Mr. Cohen would speak to the height, as well as to Commissioner Schmidt=s concerns. MR. ALLEN COHEN, 205 Center Street in Hillsburgh, California, stated that the two areas where they have the taller towers weren=t really in close proximity to the property line in terms of blocking views. In terms of the overall amount of area over that 24-feet, he would guess it was under 5% and was really quite a small amount. Many of them were very small elements that would just house flues and vents and they got feedback from Planning staff and Design Review that the initial elevations were really very horizontal, very wide, and very flat being only two-stories with that element. So they actually prepared a couple of different elevations for Design Review that had some modulated elements. They took the front porch balcony elements and changed them from hips to gables to break the plain of the tile and add some stucco in there. They added a few of the small vents, a couple of bell tower elements and they came back and from staff understood they preferred the one with the tower elements. In terms of the heating and cooling, that was a very good point made by Commissioner Schmidt, and as Komron mentioned, they could look at some false ceilings in those spaces. They were principally intended as architectural elements to break up the facade so that they could control the volume of space that got heated and cooled. He was available for questions. Regarding the maintenance agreement, Commissioner Schmidt indicated that the landscaping and maintaining the landscaping was of concern to her. She asked about the area to be maintained in an agreement and asked if it was the entire entry off of Country Club. Mr. Shahhosseini said they had granted an easement along this edge with the curb being the property line. So it=s an agreement that they maintain that. And the retention basin, as well as the center median, and a portion along the sidewalk on the east side of Via Scena. Commissioner Schmidt pointed out that there was an existing curb cut into that property just before the gates to Merano and asked if they would be keeping that west side curb cut on Via Scena. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 15, 2008 Mr. Shahhosseini said they planned on keeping that curb cut and planned to maintain the trees there and would incorporate them into their project. Commissioner Schmidt asked if anything on the other side of the divided street was their responsibility. Mr. Shahhosseini said it was and they were actually working on the maintenance agreement to split the cost. They proposed equally in terms of the entire retention basin, as well as both sides of Via Scena and the east center median. On a scale from one to ten, Commissioner Schmidt asked how close they were to that agreement. Mr. Shahhosseini thought very close. He actually got a list of concerns/changes they wanted to make. They actually discussed getting a landscape contract; Merano was currently using a landscaper to maintain all of it. Of the approximately ten changes, they only had an issue with one and that was their feeling that there should be a shared responsibility for maintenance of the retention basin. Commissioner Schmidt asked if he had any concern with the trees being there or not being there along the north perimeter. Mr. Shahhosseini said they would like to be good neighbors and it seemed like it really meant a lot to them, so they supported their decision. Commissioner Limont asked if Mr. Shahhosseini had worked with the City=s Landscape Department with regard to the approval of the landscape designs. Mr. Shahhosseini said yes and believed in the staff report it said there was conceptual approval. Mr. Bagato informed Commission that Mr. Spencer Knight was present and thought he=d like to speak at some point. 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 15, 2008 Commissioner Limont asked if Mr. Knight had any issue with fewer trees on the north side. Mr. Knight said it was of concern to the landscape staff aesthetically. He thought it would create an imbalance in the design; however, as a pool owner, he understood their concerns and the pools were there first. Going along with the good neighbor policy, the designers of the site needed to consider site planning to allow enough space for small trees and staff would be willing to accept small stature trees. So they had room to grow without overhanging the property line. There was the issue of blowing foliage and leaves; in our windstorms leaves land 30 blocks down the road. It was in a sense, not a deal breaker, but he thought it needed to be considered and just because the site planning had been done and now the neighboring property owners had a concern, these were still just lines on paper. But it was up to the Commission as to how far they wanted to take it, but he thought it was a substandard landscape plan along that property line without some vertical element along it. Chairperson Tschopp asked if given the location of the people who would be able to view these trees, which would only be the Merano owners and the applicant, he asked if it was really that necessary if they were in agreement that the City impose this code on them. No one else on Monterey was going to see it, no one on Monterey would see it, and it would pretty much be only the owners and homeowners. Mr. Knight said that certainly figured into the decision-making process. He wasn=t sure he would put a high priority on it. Chairperson Tschopp asked if there were alternative type trees that would facilitate both. Mr. Knight said yes, there is a grouping of trees that max out at about 15 feet and it was kind of a draw between whether they were shrubs or trees and would provide at least some vertical relief, but they would extend above the wall some. But they weren=t talking 25-foot trees with a 20-foot canopy spread. He thought that would be irresponsible with this particular site plan to allow any kind of canopy to extend over the wall. Chairperson Tschopp thanked him. Regarding the landscaping along the north wall next to the homes, Commissioner Tanner noted drought tolerant landscaping was mentioned and asked if there was drought tolerant hedging or trees. A 15-foot tree was mentioned and he asked if it was drought tolerant and if they would lose their leaves on an annual basis. Mr. Knight replied that if it is a tree, it loses its leaves, whether it does it in 12 months or 30 days. Most trees drop leaves; some trees tend to be dirtier than others in terms of the fruit drop or flower drop. Some of the plant materials were the smaller stature trees that they 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 15, 2008 use in the desert palette and weren=t as dirty as others. But he thought the dynamic here was not to have a tall canopy that was totally extending above the wall that starts at wall height and goes up and overextends the property. That would be inappropriate. These were smaller stature trees. Commissioner Tanner asked if these types of trees in his experience would be accepted by the home owners. He asked if that type of tree been presented to them. Mr. Knight couldn=t answer that, but noted they were pretty definitive on what they wanted. Commissioner Campbell noted that they were only talking about the north end; everything else would remain the same luscious green trees and landscaping. Just that area. The applicant wanted to make the homeowners happy, so whatever they wanted Oakmont was going to give them because the applicant had redesigned the landscaping as stated in the staff report. So the residents were going to get what they wanted on the north side and everything else would be luscious. She asked if that was correct. Mr. Shahhosseini concurred. Chairperson Tschopp thanked Mr. Shahhosseini, closed the public hearing and asked for Commission comments or action. Commissioner Limont thought this had been a very good discussion. The corner was seen by quite a few people coming and going, whether coming into Palm Desert or whether living in Palm Desert, this was an active corner. As a result of that, she thought the discussion and some of the issues that had been brought up were excellent. She shared a lot of the same concerns as her fellow commissioners as far as the height and the guarantee on a conversion. They couldn=t do it. They were in economic times where they were seeing things they didn=t anticipate and other cities were as well. Once buildings were up there, if someone ran into financial hardship, they had to work as far as they could so that it wasn=t a blight on the city and that they were made whole, people weren=t left homeless, and things like that. So she didn=t know if they could ever guarantee. There were ordinances and it was difficult to change, but when push came to shove, they all had to do the best they could. She said landscaping got thumbs up as long as the homeowners were all working together and Merano wasn=t upset, the project looked good, that 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 15, 2008 type of thing. She was fine. She personally, when she looked at this project, although she knew they needed senior housing and was definitely in favor of that, and from an architectural standpoint she thought it was a well-designed building, she thought it was too tall and needed to come down. Her concern was that it looked like too much for that corner. She knew that sounded like a kid with a box of crayons who didn=t know how to draw, but she tried to visualize it there and was at the site twice and it felt like an awful lot for those 8.68 acres. She didn=t know with the redesign if bringing down some of that height if it would help. She hadn=t made a firm decision, but certainly had some concerns. Commissioner Schmidt had a question for Mr. Hargreaves. She said this was a conditional use granting and asked if they were changing zoning. Mr. Hargreaves agreed that part of this project was the granting of a conditional use. He understood it was an institutional use and that was why it required a conditional use permit. Commissioner Schmidt asked if a conditional use permit was not utilized, what happened to the underlying zoning. Mr. Hargreaves said if it wasn=t utilized in the sense that the project wasn=t built, then it expired in a year or two years and evaporated. Commissioner Schmidt reiterated that if there was no building on the project in a year and there were no extensions granted, then the underlying zoning remained, which was the six units to the acre. Ms. Schrader said the zoning was PR-7. If the buildings were built and the project was abandoned, Commissioner Schmidt asked what happened. Mr. Hargreaves said someone else could occupy it as an institutional use, but if they couldn=t do that, they would have to come back through the process and get it entitled for something else. Commissioner Schmidt noted that they had to come back if there was a change of use. Mr. Hargreaves concurred and indicated it would have to conform to the conditional use permit and the conditions of the conditional use permit or come back and go through a process. Commissioner Schmidt thanked him. Commissioner Campbell said while she had been on the Planning Commission they have talked about having a Wal-Mart, market, homes and professional buildings, and nothing ever happened. Now they have this project in front of them and was something badly needed for the city of Palm Desert. Architecturally, she thought it was very well done and would be the creme de la creme of Palm Desert. That used to be Portofino a long time ago, but that was gone and was still a nice project. As the architect showed on the map in front of them, the two 34-feet 11-inch towers would break up 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 15, 2008 the 24-foot building height. There were other towers that wouldn=t be as high and those would give balance to the project instead of just having two- stories straight across. She already spoke about the landscaping the applicant agreed to. It did go through Architectural Review and actually were in favor of the tower elements to break up the evenness and it would be an excellent project. She was in favor. Commissioner Tanner said he had been here since 1980 and lived across the street in Sagewood when he first moved here and the kids used to play in the flowers there. It seemed like every four or five years something different was presented to the City of Palm Desert. He thought this was a great project. He had concerns about the height of the tower, but understanding that it wasn=t the height of the entire project, he, too, was in favor of the project and he appreciated them addressing the Merano landscaping and wanted to make sure this was a win-win situation for both. He didn=t want anyone to have hard feelings about what was going on with that north wall. It was between the two of them now and he supported the project and if a motion was needed, he would move to accept the project as is. Chairperson Tschopp stated that like Commissioner Campbell, he had seen this property proposed for commercial and approved for residential. He had always maintained that it was more of a commercial piece of property than residential. He was surprised when someone wanted to develop residential on this property. So he thought this was a great transition and kind of met both of those things on this intersection. He didn=t think it would be suitable for single family homes, yet would provide some kind of a buffer for the Merano residents and give them a little more peace and quiet from the Country Club Drive noise. He thought the towers were much needed. It was a very big, massive building and they provided an architectural modulation of that building and without them. he thought they=d be looking at a huge, nicely designed, barracks. He believed that the reason they had technical exceptions in the code was to allow these types of exceptions to be granted. Also, the towers were set very far back from the home owners as shown by the architect and he appreciated that and the home owners seemed to appreciate that, too. It was high density, but even with the additional units, he thought it would be less traffic and more compatible to the surrounding area. He was in favor and wanted to see some type of condition on the trees in the background. He truly supported the homeowners on not having trees there. He loves trees, 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 15, 2008 but the truth was it was never the height of buildings that block the view most of the time, it was the trees. Not only that, they would create problems in the pool. So he thought it would give them a little bit better view and thought that needed to be addressed. He also thought they needed to address, although they seemed to be close to a maintenance agreement, he thought the homeowners opened it up for approval and he thought it needed to be pending the approval of the maintenance agreement and would eliminate the need for trees in the resolution. Ms. Aylaian asked for clarification that there would be a condition that the trees on the northern boundary between Merano and the subject property be approved as to size, location, and type of tree; just those trees on that boundary by the adjacent property prior to issuance of permit. Chairperson Tschopp said that in agreement with both the homeowners and the builder and also wanted the input of the City=s Landscape Architect. Ms. Aylaian said he would absolutely provide input, but was wondering if they wanted approval of the permit or issuance of the permit to be contingent upon the approval by the neighbors. Chairperson Tschopp thought something like that needed to be done because otherwise if a new owner came in or someone wanted to change landscaping in the future, they could plant trees back there. So to protect the homeowners, he thought that agreement needed to be set up beforehand. Ms. Aylaian explained that the entire agreement and landscape plan was required to be approved and that approved plan would have a maintenance agreement associated with it and the City would require that maintenance agreement to be enforced. If someone were to change the species of trees in the future, we would be able to enforce or return to the original approved landscape plan. Mr. Knight thought that because of the pool issue and property line issue and it=s importance to the neighbors, he would defer and support something formally put in place because in the future, when they review landscape plans and allow changes, he wanted to tell them that he would remember this in nine years, but he might not. It was an issue and he had certainly heard the Commission=s request and would not stand in the way. Ms. Aylaian said it could be added to the conditions of approval if the Commission so desired. Mr. Hargreaves advised that there not be neighbor approval, but that they come up with some kind of operational condition that defined the kind of trees, like along the northern perimeter, the trees would not unreasonably interfere with the neighbors use or however they wanted to word it. But they didn=t want to have approval contingent upon the neighbors 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 15, 2008 agreeing. Chairperson Tschopp agreed. Mr. Hargreaves said they needed a condition that addresses the concerns. Since the applicant was amenable to doing what the home owners would like and not put in trees, Chairperson Tschopp indicated they could just say it was approved without the requirement of the trees on the northern side of the border. Ms. Aylaian said that would be a clean way to handle it. Commissioner Campbell asked if that would be made Department of Community Development Condition No. 10; Ms. Aylaian concurred. Mr. Hargreaves asked for the condition wording. Ms. Aylaian said, A That no trees be placed on the northern boundary between the Merano development and the subject property.@ Mr. Hargreaves asked about including no trees in excess of six feet. Ms. Aylaian believed the shortest tree option was a 15- foot tree, so it would be up to the Commission to indicate if that was acceptable and would not canopy over the six-foot wall to be an inordinate nuisance on the neighbor, or stay away from the trees altogether. Mr. Knight suggested no trees. Commissioner Tanner concurred. He suggested that the condition be no trees; desert-tolerant landscape, but no trees. He thought that was what he was hearing from the home owners and also as an agreement with the developers. Mr. Knight suggested that the landscape not exceed the height of the wall, because they could put in bushes that could go up to 15 feet. Commissioner Campbell asked about palm trees since they were a cleaner tree and would be something. Commissioner Tanner said desert-tolerant plants that would not exceed the height of the wall. As an approval standpoint, and he certainly hoped that=s the way it was going to be and would become part of that condition. Ms. Aylaian suggested that they eliminate the trees. If they were to try to limit all landscaping to six feet or lower, or lower than the height of the wall, they would have an ongoing battle and could just end up with ground cover there because as the number of drought tolerant appropriate species got a little bit higher, they=d end up topping them at six feet which was counter productive and not the way staff liked to maintain landscaping. The Landscape Department was sufficiently sensitized to the Commission=s concerns and would help the applicant pick species that were going to remain as low as possible, but if it grew up to seven feet, she would hate to see them out there topping the plant material down to meet that limit. Commissioner Campbell suggested leaving it up to the Merano residents, the applicant and Mr. Knight to decide what would be best for the north side. 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 15, 2008 Commissioner Schmidt said that her feeling is that they might say there will be no trees required on the northern boundary abutting the existing Merano development and that would be sufficient, because at a later time if someone changed their mind and did want trees, then they haven=t precluded them from planting them. Ms. Aylaian thought the no trees approach was the most enforceable approach to take in the long term. And the Landscaping Department would certainly continue to work with the applicant, who by all reports would continue to work with the neighborhood, so that hopefully they would come up with a consensus, but as far as a condition to apply, she suggested they apply no trees on the northern boundary. Commissioner Campbell noted that this should apply only next to the wall on the north, not next to the building. Ms. Aylaian agreed and said they needed to be absolutely specific about that. Only on the wall side of the driveway, not the building side. Action: Commissioner Tanner amended his original motion. The motion was for approval with the condition that there be no trees on the northern boundary next to the Merano housing development wall. Commissioner Campbell seconded the motion. Motion carried 3-2 (Commissioners Limont and Schmidt voted no). It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting the findings and Planning Commission Resolution No. 2474 recommending to City Council approval of Case Nos. CUP 07-17 and PP 07-15, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 3-2 (Commissioners Limont and Schmidt voted no). IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner Campbell reported that the next meeting would be April 16, 2008. B. LANDSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 15, 2008 Commissioner Limont stated that the meeting would be April 16, 2008. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner Schmidt indicated that the meeting would be next week. D. PARKS & RECREATION Commissioner Tanner updated the Commission on the April 15, 2008 meeting discussion items. XI. COMMENTS Ms. Aylaian announced that there would be no Planning Commission meeting on May 6, 2008 and that a Joint Study Session with City Council and Planning Commission would be held on Thursday, May 8 from 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. on the Housing Element Update. The meeting would be held in the Administrative Conference Room. Ms. Aylaian also noted that this was Ryan Stendell=s last meeting. He was moving to Development Services and would be working on lighting and landscape districts, emergency preparedness and other projects. His position would be filled by Missy Grisa from the Redevelopment Agency. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. The meeting was adjourned at 7:33 p.m. __ _________________________ LAURI AYLAIAN, Secretary ATTEST: _____________________________ DAVID E. TSCHOPP, Chair Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm 24