Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-12-02 PC Regular Meeting Minutes CITY OF PALM DESERT PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • TUESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2014— 6:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CA 92260 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Roger Dash called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioner John Greenwood Commissioner Sonia Campbell Commissioner Nancy DeLuna Vice Chair Ken Stendell Chair Roger Dash Staff Present: Jill Tremblay, City Attorney Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development Eric Ceja, Associate Planner Monica O'Reilly, Administrative Secretary III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Nancy DeLuna led the Pledge of Allegiance. IV. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Ms. Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development, reported that at the meeting of November 13, 2014, the City Council discussed the request for rejecting a drainage easement at The Summit. The item was continued to the first meeting of January. The Council approved the first reading for changes to Title 5 and Title 25 (massage establishments) in the Palm Desert Municipal Code. This item will go to a second reading on December 11. Lastly, she reported that the City Council also approved the first reading for a change of zone for the undeveloped parcel at Entrada del Paseo that is planned for future public use. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2014 V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chair Dash welcomed and thanked the College of the Desert students for attending the Planning Commission meeting. He noted that the students attend an Urban Planning class. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Planning Commission meeting of November 4, 2014. Rec: By Minute Motion, approve as presented. B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a lot line adjustment at Marriott Shadow Ridge (APNs 694-350-043 through 047). Case No. PMW 14-360 (Marriott Ownership Resorts, Inc., 6649 Westwood Boulevard, Orlando, Florida 32821, Applicant). Rec: By Minute Motion, approve a lot line adjustment, Case No. PMW 14- 360. Upon a motion by Commissioner Campbell, second by Commissioner Greenwood, and a 5-0 vote of the Planning Commission (AYES: Campbell, Dash, DeLuna, Greenwood, and Stendell; NOES: None; ABSENT: None), the Consent Calendar was approved as presented. VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None VIII. NEW BUSINESS None IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, a Precise Plan, and a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 30+ acres into 111 single-family home lots and one 8+ acre lot for a future multi-family development located on the southwest corner of Dinah Shore Drive and Dick Kelly Drive. Case Nos. PP 14-170 & TT 36351 (Ponderosa Homes II, Inc., 6130 Stoneridge Mall Road, Pleasanton, California 94588, Applicant). Mr. Eric Ce1a Associa te Planner, stated that Ponderosa Homes is to proposing subdivide 30 acres at the southwest corner of Dinah Shore Drive and Dick Kelly Drive. He noted that the project is bounded by the Gallery housing tract to the south. He also noted that the Palm Springs Unified School District (PSUSD) owns a parcel across Cortesia Way for a future elementary school. He provided a 2 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2014\Minutes\12-2-14 min.dou MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2014 Power Point presentation that included pictures of the site, precise plan, tentative tract map, wall plan, and the conceptual home and landscape designs. Mr. Ceja reported that the subdivision will consist of 111 lots with single-family homes, with perimeter landscape and wall improvements. He noted that if someone proposes to develop the multi-family housing site, a precise plan would be submitted for the Planning Commission's review. During the presentation, he pointed out grading, the circulation for the site, street widths, emergency and pedestrian access. He listed the proposed lot sizes, development standards, and addressed grading issues. Mr. Ceja stated that the proposed subdivision is in conformance with the City's General Plan. He said that the developer proposed that the single-family homes site remain at eight units per acre, and the multi- family site remain at 22 units per acre. For the potential multi-family site, he stated that staff is recommending that development not be higher than 40 feet to help accommodate the greater density that the City is hoping to achieve under the University Park area. In addition to the multi-family site, the developer has agreed to provide 10% affordable units that are income restricted on the apartment site only. He stated that the developer proposed for the single-family home subdivision to be an age-restricted community (55+), of which staff is not in favor. Staff added a condition that the community not be age-restricted. Staff believes the project is poorly suited to be age-restricted for the following reasons: it is adjacent to a school site, there are no age-restricted communities in the vicinity, it is close to commercial and job opportunities, and it is not close to health care facilities. For CEQA purposes, Mr. Ceja stated that an initial study was done for the site. It was determined that there are no significant impacts for the proposed project so a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is also being proposed for adoption. He offered to answer any questions. Chair Dash referred to the single entry on Dick Kelly Drive. He asked if there was any discussion concerning emergency access. Mr. Ceja responded that the Fire Department approved the single entry on Dick Kelly Drive; however, they requested for emergency access on Dinah Shore Drive and at another entry located at the Gallery. Chair Dash asked if the emergency vehicles would have keys to the gates. Mr. Ceja replied that the Fire Department has access to the Knox box. Chair Dash commented that he recalls a similar situation pertaining to emergency access at another community. Ms. Aylaian responded that she believes it was Highpoint Communities. The community did have a secondary access. She noted that a Knox box is standard around the City and in other communities. Chair Dash inquired where the affordable housing will be located. Will it be in one location or dispersed throughout the community? 3 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2014\Minutes\12-2-14 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2014 Mr. Ceja responded that the affordable housing will be located at the multi-family site. Chair Dash noted that the report states 10 percent is dedicated to affordable housing, and will come back to the Planning Commission for review. Ms. Aylaian clarified that the multi-family project is not proposed as part of the single-family homes this evening. She noted that it only creates a parcel and the development standards for the multi-family project. She reaffirmed that the multi- family project will come back to the Planning Commission. Chair Dash stated that he supports staff's position regarding the age-restriction. Commissioner DeLuna referred to the step down and the retaining walls in between the different lots with the different grades. She asked if it is correct that the two retaining walls will be backfilled, landscaped, and maintained by the individual owners. Mr. Ceja replied that is correct. He explained that it will be located on private property so it will be the responsibility of the home owner to maintain the landscaped area. The common area along the southern border will eventually be maintained by the homeowners' association that will be formed. Commissioner John Greenwood referred to the perimeter wall on the northeast corner of Dinah Shore Drive and Dick Kelly Drive. He asked if the wall landscaping is part of the development at its initial construction. He commented that he did not see a condition that a wall will be built along the multi-family portion. Mr. Ceja responded that staff did not include a specific condition for a wall along the multi-family portion. He displayed the wall plan, which indicates there is a perimeter wall around the multi-family site. He stated that the Planning Commission could add a condition for the timing to build a wall in conjunction with the single-family site. Vice Chair Ken Stendell mentioned that there is no parking on the 29-foot street section along the southern property line. He asked how the no parking will be enforced. Mr. Ceja commented that he has a correction from what was in the staff report. He noted that on the 29-foot streets, on-street parking is allowed on one side of the street. He said that typically in a private community; Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) will be brought back for the City to review. Staff will review the CC&Rs, and ensure that the on-street parking is discussed. It is also a concern of the Planning Department and Fire Department since it is a narrow street. 4 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2014\Minutes\12-2-14 min.dou MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2014 Vice Chair Stendell mentioned that he has a concern with only one entrance and exit for a community with 111 homes, which eventually will be shared with a multi-family project. Commissioner Sonia Campbell commented that she also is concerned with only one entry for 111 homes. She clarified that Condition No. 14 under Department of Community Development states that the community shall not be age- restricted. Mr. Ceja replied that is correct. Commissioner Greenwood said that it appears that within the setbacks there is an opportunity to enhance the wall design from what is shown as a single six-foot high slump stone with a pilaster on 30 feet centers to articulate and come up with a more interesting wall design without affecting the lot sizes. He asked if that is correct. Mr. Ceja replied that is correct. He said that when it was reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC), the code requirement is that there is a break in the wall every 30 feet. The ARC recommended the break in the wall with a pilaster every 30 feet, 7 feet in height, with a cap. He stated that if Commissioner Greenwood is looking for undulation in the wall, it could be accommodated in the landscape parkways so it does not affect the single-family lots. Commissioner Greenwood inquired if the entry off of Dinah Shore Drive is a fire entrance. Mr. Ceja said yes. Commissioner DeLuna asked if the Dinah Shore Drive entry will be a second entrance for the multi-family community when it is built, and there will actually be two entrances. Mr. Ceja replied that is correct. However, the Dinah Shore Drive entrance will only be used by the multi-family site and for emergency vehicle access. Commissioner DeLuna noted that it may relieve some of the congestion that was a concern for a couple of the Commissioners. She also noted that she lives in a community with 1,200 homes, which is serviced by two gates. She said that they rarely have issues, with that many homes. Commissioner Campbell clarified that the entrance on Dinah Shore Drive can also be used by both the single-family and the multi-family communities. Mr. Ceja replied no. On Dinah Shore Drive, only emergency vehicles will have access for the single-family homes, and it is another entrance for the multi-family site. 5 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2014\Minutes\12-2-14 min.dou MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2014 Chair Dash declared the public hearing open and asked for any public testimony IN FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MR. JEFF SCHROEDER, 6130 Stoneridge Mall Road, Suite 185, Pleasanton, California 94588, thanked the Planning Commission for the opportunity to present the project. He gave a brief history of the 120-acre parcel that included the Gallery project. He stated that they worked with the City to establish the density and zoning for the sites, which was previously zoned Commercial in the General Plan. With other property owners in the area, they formed a $23 million assessment district that helped fund most of the public works improvements (roads/drainage). He pointed out that there are no drainage basins anywhere on the property because they enhanced the drainage basin by Interstate 10. Mr. Schroeder introduced Mr. Paul DePalatis of MSA Consulting, the civil engineer for this project. He briefly gave a description of the proposed project and design. He referred to affordable housing, and stated that Palm Desert does not have an inclusionary zoning ordinance. There is no legal requirement that the City can require him to build affordable housing. However, he was able to reach a consensus with staff, and they have agreed to dedicate 10 percent of the entire site (23'/2 units) at a minimum zoning. He said that they are still willing to do that, if it is the City's desire. He noted that the condition called for 10 percent of the apartment site only, which might be 16 units. In addition, Ponderosa Homes felt there was a market for an age-restricted product in the proposed project during the recession. He said that he understands the City's goals in the area, and the reason the City does not want to have an age-restricted community. He stated that they are willing to accept the age-restricted condition, but would like to make a few statements to preserve any rights that they might have. He communicated that Ponderosa Homes is the only project that has been subject to this type of condition, he is not aware of any provisions in the City's subdivision ordinance that will allow this type of condition to be placed on this project, there is nothing in the General Plan that sets the ages of people that can or cannot live in any particular housing project, and they are not aware of any provisions that has been upheld in California or authorized by the State Subdivision Act or other provisions of State code. They believe that it is an unconstitutional restriction on the proposed project. He would prefer that the condition be removed. He made clear that they are not necessarily going to propose age-restricted housing, but they would like to preserve that possibility. He offered to answer any questions. Vice Chair Stendell asked Mr. Schroeder what is the target demographics for the project at this time. MR. SCHROEDER responded that architecture for the project fits the demographics of an age-restricted community. It is three bedrooms, a small house with a small yard. He noted that when they opened the Gallery, they did not get many families buying in the area. He also noted that families prefer Desert Sands Unified School District (DSUSD). He stated that the age-restricted condition is not necessary, and he does not know if they will build the project. He said that the market will decide what the project is going to be; however, he does not think it is going to be a lot of families with school age kids buying the homes. 6 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2014\Minutes\12-2-14 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2014 Vice Chair Stendell commented that if the project was built and if it was started as an open market, how do you turn around and make it an age-restricted community. MR. SCHROEDER replied that they cannot. It would have to be age-restricted from the beginning. Vice Chair Stendell expressed that he does not see many opportunities-for young new families buying homes in south Palm Desert or in the northeast end of Palm Desert on Country Club Drive due to high prices of homes. He said that the density for this project could give young families an opportunity to buy a home they can afford. MR. SCHROEDER indicated that plans could be modified to provide more square footage. He said that he wants time to think about the project a little longer, and preserve the right to potentially question the age-restriction issue. Vice Chair Stendell asked staff if there is a possibility that the school property could become a tradable commodity with DSUSD. Ms. Aylaian responded that PSUSD owns the property, and her conversations with the district are that their next priority is for a kindergarten to 8th grade school in Rancho Mirage near the new high school campus. After that is built, PSUSD wants to use that school as a prototype for the site by Ponderosa Homes. However, it will be at least five years before they do that. She stated that she does not know that there is any likelihood that the school district boundaries would change. Commissioner DeLuna asked what the price range for the homes is, if built today. MR. SCHROEDER responded that they would be priced in the low to high $200,000 as the plans exist today. Commissioner DeLuna commented that it would be an entry level home, which would attract first-time home buyers with young children. MR. SCHROEDER said potentially yes. Commissioner DeLuna communicated that nothing would preclude the community from filling up, if Mr. Schroeder is correct about his assessment. She said all homes could fill up with 55 and older residents so it doesn't exclude that possibility, it does not limit the market to sell, and it does not exclude any particular group but includes larger groups. She asked the applicant if that is correct. MR. SCHROEDER replied that is true. 7 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2014Winutes\12-2-14 min.dou MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2014 Commissioner DeLuna inquired if there are two small parcels that are dedicated for a community center, possibly one for the single-family site and one for the multi-family site. If included in the project, it would encourage family type participation. MR. SCHROEDER responded that there is one parcel intended for a recreation center, if they choose to build one. He said that the multi-family site has sufficient room for a recreational facility, and would still meet the density requirements. Commissioner Campbell commented that if it is an age-restricted community and eventually a school would be built, the City will receive complaints from the older people living in the community that there is too much noise and traffic coming from the school. She said that she does not think the applicant will have a problem selling the homes, if the prices for homes are in the low to high $200,000. Commissioner DeLuna mentioned that the applicant has done a great deal of work with the fencing, walls, being sensitive to the existing communities, preserving the integrity of the neighborhoods, and addressing the needs due the grade change. She complimented the applicant for the work they have done. MR. NEIL VICTOR, Palm Desert, California 92211, stated that he lives in the Gallery that backs up to the proposed project. He stated that he is in favor of the project; however, the residents from the Gallery requested that the applicant finish a section of the wall now before they have permission to start the project. He provided the Planning Commission two p g pictures showing the unfinished wall along Rembrandt Parkway and Rafael Drive. Ms. Aylaian said that it seems that the resident is asking that a condition be added to the project, such as to have a portion of the wall constructed prior to the close of escrow on the first house. She stated that she is not sure if a wall needs to be done or can be done simultaneously with the project. She suggested that the applicant address the issue. Commissioner DeLuna asked if the condition could be predicated upon construction beginning of the new phase of homes. Ms. Aylaian responded that the Planning Commission can tie a condition into any milestone. For example, the wall be completed before the close of escrow on the tenth house, or before a property is sold. She stated that the Planning Commission could choose the time period. She suggested that the Planning Commission check with the applicant. Commissioner DeLuna asked Mr. Victor if he is asking for something related to another project. Ms. Aylaian replied that she is not clear where the section of wall the resident referred to is located. She deferred the question to Mr. Ceja. 8 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2014\Minutes\12-2-14 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2014 Mr. Ceja said that he understands that when the Gallery was built, Raphael Drive was a stub street and it was intended to connect to the Ponderosa Homes tract. He stated that the current layout of the Ponderosa Homes is only to provide emergency vehicle access. He also stated that a wall was never intended to be constructed; only an emergency vehicle access gate. He believes that Mr. Victor is requesting a gate be built with the entitlement of Ponderosa Homes. Commissioner DeLuna asked if it is unusual to require something be completed on a prior project before the Planning Commission is asked to condition and approve a future project. Ms. Aylaian responded that it is not unheard of. She noted that this is something that has changed by virtue of this project. Commissioner DeLuna asked if a gate was intended at Rembrandt Parkway and Rafael Drive. Mr. Ceja replied that is correct. Ms. Aylaian made clear that based on the original project there would be no need for the gate. However with the new project being proposed, a gate will now be needed to keep the communities separated. Commissioner DeLuna asked what a gate will do to the emergency access route. Mr. Ceja answered that the gate will be designed to accommodate emergency access. Vice Chair Stendell asked if Picasso Drive is in the Gallery. Is it a gated community? Who was the developer? Ms. Aylaian replied that Picasso Drive is in the Gallery and it is a gated community. The developer was Ponderosa Homes. Vice Chair Stendell inquired if there was a condition to fence that project when it was originally approved. Ms. Aylaian deferred the question to the applicant. MR. SCHROEDER explained that the entry on Rembrandt Parkway and the lot to the right, the wall stops before it gets to the corner and there is no wall across at the end of the stub street. He stated that the project was originally intended to be one project but plans changed. It is now going to be a permanent emergency access only that will be gated and locked. He said that during the site improvements they would construct the walls, and typically that is when they would construct the wall and install the gate. He said he is willing to go back to Ponderosa Homes and look at what could be a good solution. Mr. Schroeder 9 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2014\Minutes\12-2-14 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2014 stated that he is willing to accept a condition that they install gates/walls prior to receiving a building permit for the first production house. The Planning Commission agreed that it is a reasonable condition. MR. SCHROEDER said that he would go back to see if there is a temporary solution. He noted that the property is vacant, and the person that bought the house knew it was vacant across the street. Mr. Ceja interjected that Condition No. 8 addresses the gate on Raphael Drive. He stated that the language could be modified to include the improvement prior to issuance of the first home permit. MR. JERRY FORMAN, Palm Desert, California 92211, stated that he lives on Picasso Drive adjacent to the proposed project. After seeing the plans for landscape, he voiced his concern that the trees will block his view of the mountains. Mr. Ceja explained that on the southern boundary there is a landscape strip, on which most of the plants will be fan palms. MR. FORMAN asked why would something be planted that will block views. He indicated that he bought in the area because of the nice view. He said that the area is a wind tunnel. The trees will require maintenance and water, and palm fronds dropping. Why create that kind of problem? Commissioner DeLuna replied that she is not sure if someone can control what is done on a property that is owned by someone else. Unless you buy the property behind you, you do not have in perpetuity control over what that subsequent home owner would do. MR. FORMAN responded that he understands. He stated that he believes that the purpose of the Planning Commission meeting is to hear people's concerns, and he is only giving his feedback. He voiced that he bought his house for the views, and not because he knew someone was going to plant a large tree behind his house. Chair Dash interjected that the Planning Commission will consider his concern. MR. SCHROEDER stated that plans are only conceptual, and mentioned that his landscape architect is not present since the plans were approved by the ARC. He indicated that they are willing to add a condition that states they consider the plantings along that strip and the views. He cautioned that he cannot guarantee where a tree is going to grow and how it is going to grow. However, they will look at the strip of landscaping, and see what they can plant that is less view obstructive. Chair Dash asked Mr. Forman if he was satisfied with the applicant's response. 10 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2014\Minutes\12-2-14 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2014 Mr. Forman replied yes. With no further testimony offered, Chair Dash declared the public hearing closed. Vice Chair Stendell commented that the project is good for north Palm Desert, however, the lots are small. He said it is a viable product for the area, and will fill a need for single-family homes in Palm Desert. He wished the applicant the best of luck, if the proposed project gets approved. Commissioner Campbell concurred with Vice Chair Stendell. She mentioned that she was initially reluctant with only having one entrance, but after Commissioner DeLuna's comment she believes the one entrance will be ample for the proposed community. She also mentioned that she likes the homes, the colors, and it is a great location. She believes that the applicant will not have a problem filling up the community. Vice Chair Stendell asked if the Planning Commission has to make amendment for parking on the 29-foot street. Mr. Ceja responded that there is not a specific condition for on-street parking. He said that he only referred to the parking in the staff report. He did mention that Condition No. 13 does need to be amended, which the applicant was amicable to the change. The condition should be changed from 10% of the affordable units of the apartment site to 10% to the total units required by the General Plan for the whole site to be accommodated on the apartment site. Commissioner DeLuna commented that in her opinion, Palm Desert is the educational hub in the Coachella Valley. As part of the General Plan update, they are looking for ways to attract and retain a younger group of families. She stated that the project is located in an area that is close to the universities, and meets the zoning requirements. She said that she rather see a project that younger people could afford than restrict the age. It would encourage them to move to Palm Desert, stay, and raise their families. With that said, she moved for approval subject to the amendment of Condition No. 8. Mr. Ceja clarified that Condition No. 8 refers to the gate being installed on Raphael Drive prior to the issuance of a permit for the first production housing unit. Commissioner DeLuna asked that the amendment be included in the motion. Commissioner Campbell stated that she would second the motion. Commissioner Greenwood interjected to add a condition to the motion. He stated that he is concerned with the aesthetic of the perimeter walls. He suggested a condition to have the exterior walls have some undulation, and change of material so that the standard slump wall and 30-foot on center pilaster is deviated from. He said that to look at a design and enhancement along that perimeter, and 11 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2014\Minutes\12-2-14 min.dou MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2014 that the perimeter wall on the northeast corner (multi-family site) is erected at the time of the tract development. He also suggested that the wall design go back to the ARC for approval. Commissioner DeLuna commented that she is concerned with the conditions Commissioner Greenwood has suggested without knowing specifics, such as the costs and type of materials to be used. Commissioner Greenwood stated that a wall has been proposed and looked at by ARC. If an amendment were to be made, he asked what the process is. Ms. Aylaian responded that a condition could be added such as undulation and change of materials are satisfactory, and approval by the ARC is required. However, she is concerned with the construction of a wall around the multi-family site at the time the single-family homes are completed. She said that the timing of the two projects could be quite different, and that it is a large expense that the single-family home developer could be burdened with, if they are not going to be the developer of the multi-family site. Commissioner DeLuna asked Ms. Aylaian if a condition should be vacated. Ms. Aylaian replied that it is not a phased project so there is no discussion of when walls would be completed. She suggested that the Planning Commission do not require that the wall around the multi-family site be constructed with the single-family homes. Commissioner Greenwood interjected that on the northern property wall (Lots 86- 100) there is a 9-foot grade difference from that portion to the northeast corner, and there is a three to one slope dropping down towards the multi-family site. He stated that he would like to potentially see landscaping on the other side of that wall. He said from a view and aesthetic standpoint, the enhancement would be nice and should not have an impact towards the multi-family site. Ms. Aylaian replied that is an excellent suggestion. MR. SCHROEDER interjected that he understands the position concerning the walls. He expressed that they are matching the wall they constructed at the Gallery. He said it does not make sense to change the wall since it is all one project. He briefly described the approved wall design, and feels it is not fair that a requirement is being added when every other project in the area is built the same way. He referred to the landscape for the slope along the multi-family site and asked who is going to maintain it, where is the irrigation and water going to come from. He voiced that it is a vacant property; it doesn't get landscaped until it gets developed. After much discussion pertaining to the aesthetics and landscaping of walls, Ms. Aylaian communicated that Commissioner DeLuna may amend the motion to .. recommend approval of the project subject to an addition of a condition that the 12 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2014\Minutes\12-2-14 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2014 exterior walls around the single-family homes be undulated, and have changes of material approved by ARC. She stated that it would be up to Commissioner Campbell (seconded the original motion) to whether she would like to second that motion, as it was amended. Commissioner Campbell stated that she would not want the developer to have additional expenses if it is not necessary. Commissioner DeLuna also stated that she has the same concern. Commissioner Campbell feels it is more important to have the homes built. Ms. Aylaian clarified and understands that Commissioners DeLuna and Campbell do not want to require the landscaping on the north side of the single-family homes. However, she is not clear if they want to add some variation to the perimeter walls of the single-family development. Commissioner Campbell clarified that the Gallery has one type of wall, which would be the same being proposed for the Ponderosa Homes. MR. SCHROEDER replied that is correct. Ms. Aylaian made clear that the only amendment to the staff recommendation is the change to 10% of affordable housing for the total number of units required by the General Plan. Commissioner DeLuna agreed and motioned that they are approving it as recommended by staff, with the affordable housing modification. Commissioner Campbell seconded the motion. Therefore, Commissioner DeLuna moved, by Minute Motion, to approve a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, a Precise Plan, and a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 30+ acres into 111 single-family home lots and one 8+ acre lot for a future multi-family development located on the southwest corner of Dinah Shore Drive and Dick Kelly Drive, with an amendment to Condition No. 13 to include 10% of affordable housing required on the whole site by the General Plan. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Campbell and carried by a 4-1 vote (AYES: Campbell, Dash, DeLuna, and Stendell; NOES: Greenwood; ABSENT: None). Commissioner DeLuna moved, by Minute Motion, to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 2639, approving the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, Precise Plan 14-170, and Tentative Tract Map 36351, subject to conditions. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Campbell and carried by a 4-1 vote (AYES: Campbell, Dash, DeLuna, and Stendell; NOES: Greenwood; ABSENT: None). Commissioner DeLuna thanked Ponderosa Homes for coming to Palm Desert, and providing a product that is a little unique. She said that the project 13 G1Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2014\Minutes\12-2-14 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2014 compliments the area, and fits into the General Plan and future plans that they have for the City. Chair Dash concurred with Commissioner DeLuna MR. SCHROEDER thanked the Planning Commission for their time. X. MISCELLANEOUS A. INFORMATIONAL REPORT on the zoning ordinance technical revisions. Ms. Aylaian reported that the zoning ordinance was rewritten approximately two years ago. Since then staff identified some items that were overlooked, and errors made in translating Title 25 from the old form to the new form. Revisions are being made so the new ordinance is consistent in policy with the old ordinance. She said that the revisions will be going to the City Council for approval in January. Vice Chair Stendell mentioned that he was appointed to the Fence Ordinance Committee. He gave a brief overview of the changes, which will be brought to the Planning Commission for review at a future meeting. XI. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES None B. PARKS & RECREATION None C. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Commissioner Greenwood reported that the General Plan Update Technical Working Group met and reviewed the Highway 111 corridor. He mentioned that there are some exhibits which will be presented on Thursday, December 4 at Desert Willow at 3:30 p.m. XI1. COMMENTS None 14 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2014\Minutes\12-2-14 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2014 XIII. ADJOURNMENT Upon a motion by Vice Chair Stendell, second by Commissioner Greenwood, and a 5-0 vote of the Planning Commission (AYES: Campbell, Dash, DeLuna, Greenwood, and Stendell; NOES: None; ABSENT: None), Chair Dash adjourned the meeting at 7:30 p.m. ROGEFk PAS6H, CHAIR ATTEST: LAURI AYLAIAN, SECRETAR __ PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MONICA O'REILLY, RECO NG SECRETARY 15 G:\Planning\Monica Meilly\Planning Commiss1on\2014\Minutes\12-2-14 min.docx