Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1216 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY — DECEMBER 16, 2008 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Tanner called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Members Present: Van Tanner, Chair Sonia Campbell, Vice Chair Russ 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 Renee Schrader, Associate Planner Missy Grisa, Assistant Planner Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairperson Tanner led in the pledge of allegiance. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Ms. Aylaian summarized pertinent December 11, 2008 meeting minutes. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16 2008 None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 08-353 — FOUNTAINHEAD INDIO, LP, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment for a new Firestone Tire building at 78-018 Country Club Drive. B. Case No. PMW 08-378 — JAMES J. AND CAROL FILLER AND BIGHORN DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment to accommodate a swimming pool at 1015 Mountain Springs Road. Action: It was moved by Commissioner S. Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Limont, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. CUP 08-433— LAWRENCE M. ANDREWS, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow the use of "AC Massage Therapy" in an existing Office Professional zone at 72-855 Fred Waring Drive, Suite C-16. Ms. Grisa reviewed the staff report and recommended approval of CUP 08-433 by adoption of the findings and the draft resolution, subject to the conditions. Chairperson Tanner opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16.2008 MR. LAWRENCE ANDREWS, 13107 Equestrian Lane in Whittier, California, said he was present to answer any questions. He didn't have anything to add. Chairperson Tanner asked if Mr. Andrews could tell them a little bit about his massage therapy business experience; he noticed that Mr. Andrews had received many accommodations. Mr. Andrews stated that he's fairly active in the community. Regarding his personal experience, he has a partner who has been working in this business for about 20 years and he has been doing it himself for about four years. They decided to open up their own business. He confirmed that he himself is a therapist. Chairperson Tanner noticed that in his expanded statement of use, Mr. Andrews said that records at the Riverside County Assessor's Office indicate that this unit has been used for a massage business in the past. Mr. Andrews said that was what he found when he was going through the Assessor's records. Chairperson Tanner asked if there was a conditional use permit granted for this. Mr. Andrews was under the impression there was. When he asked at the City Planning Department, he was told that a CUP expires if it isn't used after a certain period of time. Commissioner S. Campbell asked for confirmation that Mr. Andrews did not make any changes to the floor plan. Mr. Andrews confirmed that it was just like it was previously. Chairperson Tanner asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to the public hearing. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Action: It was moved by Commissioner S. Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Limont, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner S. Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Limont, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2493, approving Case No. CUP 08-433, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16. 2008 B. Case No. CUP 08-444— ULF STRANDJORD, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow the use of the "Desert Valley All-Star Mavericks Cheer" business in an existing service industrial building at 73-605 Dinah Shore Drive, Suite 500E. Ms. Grisa reviewed the staff report and recommended approval of CUP 08-444 by adoption of the findings and the resolution, subject to the conditions. Commissioner Schmidt noted that the Falling Waters condominium complex exists south of this project and asked how far away it was. Mr. Bagato replied that the whole project was adjacent just to the south of this project. But the vacant portion of Falling Waters had gone under financially and the bank owns it. They were under construction, but currently it was unoccupied and not moving forward. The project covered 30 acres behind this site for 277 condominiums, and there was a 20-foot setback from the residential building to this property line. Chairperson Tanner asked how many of the Falling Waters condominiums had been built to date. Mr. Bagato thought 25 of the buildings. None of them had sold. Commissioner Limont asked if this building was insulated and asked if Commissioner Schmidt was concerned about noise impacts to the residents from the cheering. Commissioner Schmidt believed there was a section in the plans that showed there was a lot of baffling going on. That was her concern and it was answered. Ms. Grisa explained that the applicant has plans in for tenant improvements. They have to make changes to the building for this proposed use. Chairperson Tanner asked Ms. Grisa to show how many entries and exits were proposed on the plans for the occupied space by the applicant. Ms. Grisa did so. She pointed out the front entrance, said there was a garage door with an adjacent door, and another door on the west side of the building. There were no other questions for staff. Chairperson Tanner opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16. 2008 MR. CURTIS SHUPE, the architect, with offices at 72-880 Fred Waring Drive, stated that the building owner and the Director of the Mavericks were both present to answer any specific questions. He said they reviewed the staff report and agreed to the conditions of approval. He didn't see any issues that were a problem here. Condition No. 2 called for review by the Palm Desert Architectural Commission and also by the Public Works Department, but they really weren't proposing any improvements that are exterior to the building that would require Architectural Review or grading and drainage from Public Works. He thought it was probably broiler plate that it was in there to cover that possibility. One other concern they might have there was Condition No. 5 calling for a maximum of 18 team members and there might be the occasional 24-25 that would be present at one time there at the site. They thought the building and parking could accommodate that. Regarding the issue with the adjacent condominium project, there are tall retaining walls to the west and to the south of this particular building and he didn't think there would be any interaction between the two sites. As far as the exiting, the building meets Building Department requirements and building code requirements. If they had any specific questions for the building owner or operator of the building, they were present. He thanked them. Commissioner S. Campbell asked if they would be having dancing and tryouts and cheering. MS. AMY GRAY, Director and CEO of the Desert Valley Mavericks, said they are in their 12th year. Between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. they had ages 3 thru 18. They've got four cheer teams, a dance team, and then on Tuesdays they have classes. So what they were doing was with their teams, and they are a nonprofit organization and they were not exclusive and no kids were cut from their program. Whoever wanted to do the program, it was open to them. So what they were doing was training their teams and they compete throughout Southern California. Last year one of their teams went to Florida and competed in the Worlds, which was like the Olympics of cheerleading. So they represent the Coachella Valley throughout the state of California, Nevada and Florida. They train them and they also do the tumbling training as well. Commissioner S. Campbell asked if they were doing any cheering with a lot of noise or loud music. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2008 Ms. Gray said that because of the walls and the way the building is constructed, only when they have that rollup door open during the hotter months could they hear something, but most of their business is done after the businesses around them are gone. She thought probably about 88% of the clientele are dropped off. The parents drop them off and go to the businesses and restaurants around the area and then come back and pick them up. It was only for the youngest members where the parents actually stay and watch. Most of what they do is music based, all of it was actually, but it was not blaring whatsoever. Commissioner Schmidt asked where they were currently located. Ms. Gray said for the first ten years they were nomadic: they were renting space from Palm Springs Unified, working at Big League Dreams, etc. For the last seven years they were in Thousand Palms across the freeway over on Plantation renting from a man named Brian Orr. They wanted to move to Palm Desert. There were no other questions. Chairperson Tanner asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to the proposed project. There was no response and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Tanner asked for Commission comments. Commissioner R. Campbell said he drove down there and he was kidding earlier with some of the Commissioners that he would have liked to have had some of the maps because it took him probably ten minutes to find the location. But he did find it and they were right, it is back in the corner and he saw the walls and couldn't see where there would be any problems with any neighbors. He certainly would not want to try to scale that wall and then jump down. But that being said, back in there was so well lighted he thought was a great area for parents to bring their children and drop them off because they are off the main highways, not near Monterey and not that close to Dinah Shore. He thought that was a great area, very well lighted, and there was more parking than they were ever going to need, unless all those buildings fill up. He was in favor of the project. Commissioner Limont said her only concern, which was addressed by her two colleagues, was noise and the bass, where you could be inside a building but the reverberation could be a little rough on the outside. As long as they watched that and it didn't become an issue or interfere with 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16 2008 other folks, she would agree that it was a great project and great for the kids. Commissioner S. Campbell concurred with the other Commissioners. With the hours of operation from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., no one would be there to oppose the noise and she was also in favor of the project. She made a motion to approve. Action: It was moved by Commissioner S. Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Limont, approving the findings as presented by staff. Chairperson Tanner wanted to address the conditions of approval and the requirement for review by the Architectural Review Commission. He asked if this was something they could eliminate from the conditions. Mr. Bagato said yes, it was just kind of a general condition for all projects and this project didn't need to go there, so it could be eliminated. Chairperson Tanner said the second issue was the maximum of 18 team members at the approved site at any one time. They heard that there might be a maximum of 24 and he asked if that was something they could amend. Commissioner S. Campbell amended her motion to allow up to 30 and eliminated Condition of Approval No. 2. Ms. Aylaian asked the case planner if there was sufficient parking for the increased number since the project was analyzed using 18. Ms. Grisa said yes; she counted 30 plus spaces just immediately adjacent to the building, in addition to many stalls located farther away. Commissioner Limont seconded the amended motion. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner S. Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Limont, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2494, approving Case No. CUP 08-444, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. C. Case Nos. CZJTPM/PP 08-191 - URBAN HOUSING COMMUNITIES, LLC, Applicant (Continued from December 2, 2008) Request for a recommendation to the City Council for approval of a change of zone from Planned Community 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16 2008 Development (PCD) to Planned Residential 14 dwelling units per acre (PR-14), a tentative parcel map to subdivide an 11.8-acre parcel into two lots to accommodate a future childcare facility not a part of the project, a precise plan of design to allow the construction of 144 affordable housing units with amenities, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates to the proposed project. The proposed project is located at 73-500 35th Avenue on the south side of 351h Avenue between Gateway Drive and Cortesia Way (C Street), also known as APN 694-130-005. Ms. Schrader reviewed the staff report. She corrected a couple of typographical errors on the draft resolution, correcting the spelling of the word Council, changing The Living Desert to Urban Housing, LLC, and noted that Public Works Condition of Approval No. 10 should say Chapter 27, not Chapter 26. She also added Community Development Condition No. 12, "Prior to final approval of the change of zone, the applicant shall enter into a housing agreement with the City of Palm Desert establishing the percentage of housing units in the project that shall be maintained as affordable to households with incomes between 25% and 60% of the area median income. The affordability percentage shall be 100% as proposed by the applicant, unless a lesser percentage is deemed acceptable by the City Council. However, in no event shall the affordability percentage be less than 20%. The agreement shall also establish the terms of affordability, and include provisions requiring recordation of the affordability restrictions against the subject property." Staff recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the findings and the Resolution as amended recommending to the City Council approval of Case Nos. CZ / TPM / PP 08-191, subject to the conditions. Commissioner R. Campbell asked if they were to deny this change, what effect that would have on the applicant as far as how many units the applicant could build. Ms. Aylaian explained that they were recommending a change of zone to get to a certain density of residential units per acre. Mr. Bagato further explained that the current zoning is PCD, which requires a master planned project, which could be anything under the General Plan. The General Plan allows anywhere from four to 22 units per acre, but under the General Plan, four to nine units per acres is allowed without having to meet the eight criteria of the high density overlay. Anything above ten units requires the eight criteria for high density, so either way the change of zone would be required under the PCD zone no matter what type of project. Ms. Aylaian said that would get them roughly 99 units at nine units per acre using 11 acres. 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16. 2008 Commissioner R. Campbell indicated that the problem he was faced with, and the other members might not agree with him, but the City basically at this point in time has about a 10% differential between owned and rental and he felt they should be closer to 5% and 7%. If they looked at the one statement under B, it says in the University Park area 80% to 90% of the residential units would be for purchase. That made it between 20% and 10%. The problem he was looking at is they are slowly increasing more and more and more so he felt the rental units were getting too high versus how many are purchased, and that's where his concern is and was his question. Commissioner Limont said it is to get us up to our requirement for affordable housing. Ms. Schrader said yes, these are rental units. Commissioner Limont said it was to help meet our affordable housing requirement as opposed to simply being rentals; Ms. Schrader concurred. Commissioner Limont noted that the City is mandated to have a certain amount of affordable housing and this was going down that path. Ms. Aylaian explained that this project could be anywhere from 20% affordable to 100% affordable, so what it does provide is an assemblage of rental units that would be appropriate for market rate or for subsidized affordable housing units. But yes, they do try to maintain a balance of rental units to ownership units, and in particular in the north sphere or University Park planning area, they thought it was appropriate that there be more rental units than perhaps in other parts of the city, because of the proximity of the university and because of the proximity to some of the jobs and the big box retail type jobs that would be there. So they were trying to maintain a balance and a proximity between our workforce, housing and actual jobs they would be filling. Commissioner R. Campbell said that basically what they were saying to him is that this type of project is almost a set aside project and it cannot be used in the calculations for the City as a whole which he is concerned with. Because if they are mandated, then they've said to him that he doesn't have any choice; he has to have a higher percentage than they would normally allow or want. Ms. Aylaian said they don't put a limit on the number of rental or ownership units in the city as a whole. They do look for strategic locations to locate rental versus ownership units and this particular location is one staff felt would be ideal for rental units. Commissioner R. Campbell said if he wanted to do that calculation and felt they were having too many rentals, he would have to basically set that aside and not count that in as the city of Palm Desert where the federal 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1642008 government or anyone else was involved. Ms. Aylaian said no, it was appropriate if he had a concern and felt we have too many rental units in the city; she thought it was appropriate for him to state his concern as a policy issue. Nonetheless, the State of California does mandate, and is passed down through our RHNA allocation for affordable housing units and housing units of all types, moderate income as well as affordable, a certain number of housing units that need to be made available in the city. In order to produce that, the City is obligated to produce a large number of affordable housing units and those almost by definition need to be rental units. They have found that for some people of moderate or slightly above moderate income, it is appropriate that they be homeowners and they do provide them owner units like at Desert Rose, or Falcon Crest. But in general, they've had greater success making affordable units be rental type units for rental tenancy. Because of this particular location, staff felt this was an appropriate location for rental units. If the Commission or the Council in general were concerned that they were ending up with too many rental units in town, she would propose that other locations not as fortuitously situated be considered for ownership to readjust that balance, because if they are looking for a place appropriate for rentals, staff believed this was an ideal location. Commissioner Schmidt said it was a little confusing because on the plat buildings were identified numerically, and then on the rendering it talked about 16-plex Building A. She asked how many of these buildings would exceed the 25-foot height limit. Ms. Schrader explained that there are eight 16-plex buildings and they start at 24 feet and they progress with almost five different roof pitches all the way to 29, but the portion that exceeds the 24 is only 21%. The rest of it, 79%, was under the 24-feet or at 24 feet. If they looked at the site plan at the buildings along 35th, these larger buildings were the 16-plex buildings. There are two 8-plex buildings, Building No. 4 and Building No. 8. The remainder of the buildings was the 16-plexes. They were two stories with eight units on each floor. Of the ten structures, Commissioner Schmidt said that eight of them have this roof. Ms. Schrader showed a rendering with the varying roof pitches. Commissioner S. Campbell asked if this would be a gated community. She didn't see any gates on the plan on 351h Avenue. Ms. Schrader didn't see a gate on 35th; there was, however, a gate on the west side on Gateway. She thought that might be conceptual and might be something they were still deciding. She would imagine there would be a gate, but was something they could ask the applicant. 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16. 2008 Commissioner Schmidt asked if the parcel that was set aside for future daycare use was owned by the same group that owns the rest of the property. Ms. Schrader said it is right now. There were no other questions for staff. Chairperson Tanner opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. MARK IRVING, Urban Housing Communities, 2000 E. Fourth Street, Suite 205, in Santa Ana, California, 92705, said he had a few things. One thing that wasn't mentioned in terms of noting into the record was that UHC is actually the owner of the property now. He thought the initial staff report had the previous owner. In terms of the project, just to address some of the questions they had about it, it is a gated community. Secondly, the daycare facility was designed initially on the corner of Gateway and 351h. The City asked that it be relocated to its current location. The thought of the daycare center was also an idea of the City's, so they included it and that's why they were asking for a subdivision of the parcels. In terms of the conditions, he mentioned that regarding Condition No. 12, they believed it should read as per code, which was essentially that somebody would go into a housing agreement and that would be based on the requirements of the housing in the area. It was their full intention to have it as 100% affordable, but their understanding was the entitlements and the economics were separate and this condition combined the two. So they believed that the section regarding the affordability, the income levels, should not be part of it. He asked for any questions. Commissioner S. Campbell noted that with the economy the way it is going, if they have approval for this project, how far down the line it would be built. Mr. Irving replied that the process of affordable projects is to utilize tax credits and bonds. Upon approval of the project, the project would then apply for the bonds and then the tax credits. They would anticipate that through that process they would be looking at a start time of approximately August-September of 2009. Chairperson Tanner asked if they anticipated because of the location that they would be renting in the future to college students aged 18-22. He asked if demographically that was what they were heading for or trying to get. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16 2008 Mr. Irving couldn't say they have ever sat down and said they were going to target it to college students. If they applied and then showed the documentation pursuant to the relative income levels, they would qualify. He wasn't a legal expert on that, but thought if someone was qualified, regardless of their age, they couldn't say no, they weren't going to rent to them. Their thoughts were that it is a multi-family project. It would be adjacent in the future, and due to the slowdown in the economy maybe a little bit further in the future, but it is adjacent to an elementary school. They find that a very important element to the affordable housing community because families make multiple trips a day to a school. Wasn't it best if kids walk to school and parents can walk with them and they could then go off to work and come home and the kids are able to come home and they don't have to worry about that as opposed to going back and forth from work and so forth. So it was actually ideal in the fact that they don't have a reduction in traffic relative to this project because it will be close to the school and close to the amenities: the Costco, Wal-Mart, Sam's Club, and that was important to them too because it makes life better for the people that live there. Commissioner R. Campbell said he had a couple of questions. He learned yesterday that the City has a project and they had a fire in a unit and they were using a new type of stops and because of that, the fire was contained to that one section, which was important. He asked if something like that was built into this project. Mr. Irving said they are all designed to the California codes and in 2007 they did increase the firewall requirements between the units. As well, the units will have sprinklers in them. Each unit will have that in the event of a fire, and they would like to think that it would be contained within that unit, preferably in that little space before it got too big. Commissioner R. Campbell noticed that because of the height changes on the plans, on some of these buildings they would take dirt out and drop them down. He asked if that was part of the reasoning to make the roofline user friendly for the city. Mr. Irving said that the user friendliness came from the Architectural Review Board. They had initially had a prairie style design and the roof was level, it fit within the height requirement, and Architectural Review said they didn't like that roof and to come back with a 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16. 2008 different roof style. And they actually came back with a completely different architectural style and with the variations in the roof, which then did break up the plane of the building. In the process, the architecture was approved and it wasn't until after the fact that it came to light that the elements of the roof were higher than the code. As far as the site itself, the site actually does slope 50 feet from one end to another. He said it didn't appear to be that way when you're on the corner of C Street and 35th. When you look there, you don't realize that you do have that kind of fall in there. There would be some excavation of dirt because there was a fair amount of fall overall on the site. Commissioner R. Campbell thanked him and said he liked the new design. Chairperson Tanner asked for any testimony in FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to the proposed project. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Tanner asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Limont had trouble that the answer to architectural questions or concerns is to go up; to go six feet up from 24 to basically 30. She just had difficulty with that. She was in favor of the project and in favor of addressing our needs for affordable housing. She thought it was in the right place in the city. She thought it also fell in line with regard to the bike lanes that Parks & Recreation are working on and a lot of different issues with regard to transportation. She thought it was a perfect spot for this type of project. But the architecture didn't do a lot for her. Commissioner S. Campbell had no objection to the height as shown. She thought the different buildings were strategically placed on the location and it gave it more movement rather than having a flat roof or looking the same. She had no objection to that and they (Architectural Review Commissioners) are architects and knew better than they did. Commissioner R. Campbell also had no problem with the height. In talking with someone in the past here he was expressing the type of concern that Commissioner Limont had and they reminded him that was part of the reason why the code was written as it is written, to give them some flexibility. As long as it slopes and they are sitting it down, that wasn't going to be a large concern for him. Commissioner Schmidt stated that she had the same concern as Commissioner Limont. They seemed to agree on this, but for this project 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16 2008 in that place, she would not object to the height. But it was curious to her that apparently the applicant came in within the restrictions of the 24-foot height limit and Architectural Review Commission said let's make it higher. She had trouble with that and thought maybe they should have a joint meeting or something and kind of talk it through, but she felt it was a good project in a good, needed place and she would not object to it. Chairperson Tanner also agreed with comments that had been made. He was not opposed to the 29.5 or 30-foot parapet. It gave a nice break to it. Again, it was in a location that was something that was going to be needed for the appearance. He moved to approve the applicant's submission. The motion was seconded by Commissioner R. Campbell. Action: It was moved by Chairperson Tanner, seconded by Commissioner R. Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Mr. Bagato noted that the applicant brought up the issue of Condition No. 12. As Mr. Irving stated, the finance approval was separate from the planning approval of the site plan, but until the financing was worked out, staff wanted to make sure it addressed a minimum of 20% low income. That was a pretty standard condition on any kind of housing/apartment project. Ms. Aylaian said it was also appropriate for the application of the criteria in the General Plan, so they were looking at a land use issue that says in order to get the high density overlay, you need to meet certain criteria, including that a percentage be made available for affordable housing. Therefore, they wanted to keep in the criteria a requirement of a minimum of 20% of affordability. Commissioner Schmidt noted that a revised resolution was given to them that evening. She asked if what they were talking about was included in that resolution. Ms. Aylaian said yes. That resolution was the same one that was in the packet with the exceptions that Ms. Schrader read into the record, which included that one new condition and the three minor typos. Commissioner Schmidt stated that she just wanted to make sure she was comparing apples to apples. Chairperson Tanner noted that there was a motion and a second as it stands. 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16. 2008 Mr. Irving wanted to ask a question about that because pursuant to the questions that went back and forth on Condition 12, they weren't saying it shouldn't note 20%, they were just saying per the code, and that would be 20%. They were just saying that the additional language in it related to affordable housing 100% should be separate from the condition. Commissioner Schmidt thought they should look at it. Ms. Aylaian asked Janet Moore, the Director of Housing, to address the issue. Ms. Moore stated that the applicant had made a comment that this issue is separate from the financing from the Planning approval. However, as part of the General Plan high density overlay, there is a requirement for affordable units within the development of any housing project. This project, although it is being proposed as 100% affordable, the applicant is seeking financing. If he is unable to obtain that financing, he may decide to reduce the number of affordability in the project. In the event he does that, he would come back to the City Council for approval of a reduced amount so that the City Council could review the financial aspects of that. However, she believed that the applicant was requesting that the 20% requirement be placed in as a condition, however, she would ask the applicant if what he is challenging or requesting is the level of affordability that was put into the words within Condition No. 12. Ms. Aylaian also added that this project would have to go to the City Council for approval and they could always make minor modifications in a particular condition subject to discussion and working out details with the applicant and legal counsel before getting to the City Council. Mr. Irving said in answer to the question, Ms. Moore was correct. They were asking in terms of the specific language regarding the affordability 25% to 60%, 100% affordable, not be part of the condition. Just have the condition standards as if.it were just any project coming before them. That was what they were saying. There would be certainly a time when they would be discussing the housing agreement and all that language would be going into the housing agreement at that time. Ms. Moore explained that staff's concern was that staff had not been able to, based on a simple 20% affordability requirement, had not had an opportunity to review a project with only 20% as far as the proforma and the financial feasibility of the project. It was reviewed with 100% affordability with respect to all of the amenities that they have seen, the 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16,2008 child care facility, etc., and they have reviewed it as a 100% affordable project, however, as a condition of approval with a requirement between 20% and 100%, there has been no evaluation of those conditions. So for staff to recommend a percentage of that 20% to be anywhere from very low to low, she would need further time to review that with the applicant in order to insure they are asking for the correct number of affordable units within the feasibility of the finances of the project. Chairperson Tanner noted that there was a motion and a second and asked if there was any further discussion. Commissioner Schmidt said she was unclear as to what they would be approving. What she heard was that the condition was sort of set to meet the criteria of low income housing as they view it in the city. What she heard the applicant just say is that he would like that restriction set aside and verbalized another way. In her view, with a change of zone they couldn't really just have that up in the air. They were either going to have it that way or not. She was in favor of what she just saw and read. She was not in favor of opening the door to it not being affordable housing and she needed some clarification on that. Mr. Hargreaves recommended that it go forward and be approved as is. This was an issue that just came up within the last day or so and this was a recommendation to the City Council and would give them time to sit down and work through it. Nothing that happened tonight was going to be binding and he didn't want to hold up the project based on this aspect of it. If they were satisfied with it from a zoning / planning kind of perspective, they could work out the affordability between now and the time it got to the City Council. Commissioner Schmidt clarified without changing the resolution as written. Mr. Hargreaves concurred, without changing the modified resolution before them. There was no further discussion; Chairperson Tanner called for the vote. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Limont voted no). It was moved by Chairperson Tanner, seconded by Commissioner R. Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2495, recommending to the City Council approval of Case Nos. CZ/TPM/PP 08- 191, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Limont voted no). 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16. 2008 IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner S. Campbell indicated that the next meeting would be December 17, 2008. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE Commissioner Limont said the next meeting would be in January. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner R. Campbell reported on the issues discussed at their last meeting. D. PARKS & RECREATION Chairperson Tanner reviewed the issues discussed at their December 16 meeting. XI. COMMENTS 1. Ms. Aylaian reminded the Commission that the Westfield Study Session with the City Council and Planning Commission would be on January 8, 2009 at 2:00 p.m. in the Administrative Conference Room (ACR). 2. Ms. Aylaian also noted that there would be another study session, but not a joint study session, and the City Council would be taking a look at bike lanes and golf cart lanes throughout the city in a study session on January 26 at 2:00 p.m. in the ACR. An illustrative project would be the Cook Street proposed widening and what to do with the bike lanes there, and it was kind of a big picture of the relative importance of motorized versus non-motorized transportation within the city. She thought that might be of interest to the Commissioners. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16. 2008 3. Ms. Aylaian proposed bringing a representative from the Architectural Review Commission to a meeting as an informational or miscellaneous item to give them a description from their perspective of the use of height and why they would make recommendations like the one they saw tonight, which was contrary to what the zoning ordinance would prescribe, but they felt it was in the best interest as far as use of height. If they wanted, she could ask someone from the Architectural Review Commission to the meeting to answer any questions they might have. The Commission thought that was a good idea. 4. Ms. Aylaian also reported that at the last meeting, there was a concern regarding one of the conditions of approval that had been applied to the Jiffy Lube project when it was approved. The condition indicated that the bay doors should be left closed. She believed it was Commissioner Limont who brought up the concern that doors had been left open. She noted that the problem resolved itself since Jiffy Lube had gone out of business. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner R. Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. The motion carried 5- 0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:13 p.m. LAURI AYLAIAN, Se ATTEST: VAN G. TANNER, Chair Palm Desert Planning Commission 18