Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-02-17 PC Regular Meeting Minutes CITY OF PALM DESERT (9, \ ? PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES �73 TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2015 — 6:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CA 92260 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Ken Stendell called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioner Sonia Campbell Commissioner Nancy DeLuna Commissioner Joseph Pradetto Vice Chair John Greenwood Chair Ken Stendell Staff Present: Jill Tremblay, City Attorney Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Eric Ceja, Associate Planner Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Christina Canales, Assistant Engineer Monica O'Reilly, Administrative Secretary III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice Chair John Greenwood led the Pledge of Allegiance. IV. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Ms. Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development, reported that at the meeting of February 12, 2015, the City Council approved the resolution for a large family day care center on Fairway Drive. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17, 2015 V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Planning Commission meeting of February 3, 2015. Rec: By Minute Motion, approve as presented. Upon a motion by Commissioner Campbell, second by Commissioner DeLuna, and a 4-0-0-1 vote (AYES: Campbell, DeLuna, Greenwood, and Stendell; NOES: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: Pradetto), minutes were approved as presented. B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a two-year extension for the Term Development Agreement 98-5 entered between the City of Palm Desert and Marriott Ownership Resorts, Inc. for Marriott Shadow Ridge at 36-750 Monterey Avenue. Case No. TT 28818 (Marriott Ownership Resorts, Inc., 6649 Westwood Boulevard, Orlando, Florida 32821 , Applicant). Rec: By Minute Motion, approve the extension (until December 10, 2020), Case No. TT 28818. Upon a motion by Commissioner Campbell, second by Commissioner DeLuna, and a 5-0 vote of the Planning Commission (AYES: Campbell, DeLuna, Greenwood, -- Pradetto, and Stendell; NOES: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None), the remainder of the Consent Calendar was approved as presented. VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None VIII. NEW BUSINESS None IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a recommendation to the City Council for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, a Development Agreement, a Specific Plan, a General Plan Amendment and a Change of Zone to establish land use designations, a Tentative Parcel Map to establish nine parcels within the Specific Plan Area, and a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 38+ acres into 166 single-family home lots, located on 152 acres north of Gerald Ford Drive and west of Technology Drive. Case Nos. DA/GPA/CZ/EA 14-332; TPM 36792; TTM 36793 (PD 80 T & S, LLC, 38 Clancy Lane South, Rancho Mirage, California 92270; and Palm Desert 2 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2015\Minutes\2-17-15 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17, 2015 University Gateway, LLC, 38 Clancy Lane South, Rancho Mirage, California 92270, Applicants). Commissioner Nancy DeLuna stated that she represents an affordable multi- family housing developer that has had conversations with some of the owners regarding possible development on this site and recused herself. Vice Chair Greenwood also stated that he is employed by Prest Vuksic Architects. The firm has worked with GHA companies within the last year; therefore, he also recused himself. Mr. Eric Ceja, Associate Planner, reported that The Millennium Palm Desert Specific Plan ("Specific Plan") encompasses 152 acres of undeveloped land in the northern portion of Palm Desert. The site is bounded by Union Pacific Railroad to the north, Gerald Ford Drive to the south, Portola Avenue to the west, and Technology Drive to the east. City staff has been working with the applicant to establish a specific plan for this area, and displayed an image indicating the existing zoning designations that are within the proposed project area. He said that the applicant is proposing nine specific planning areas that will comprise a multi-use development. The proposed development will include single-family homes, multi-family apartments, a regional park, commercial and hotel development, and an industrial business park. He noted that the Specific Plan emphasizes non-motorized connections throughout the project area, and coordinated development of the nine Planning Areas. As part of the Specific Plan, a Development Agreement is included for the build out of the project, street and drainage improvements, and it requires the developer to provide 66 affordable housing units within one of the project areas. Mr. Ceja stated that there is a proposed land exchange with the City for 37 acres for a regional park, an affordable housing site, and 3.5 acres for the Portola Avenue interchange. Due to the regional park, the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the proposal and recommended approval of the land exchange for the park site. He stated that the proposed Tentative Parcel Map 36792 will subdivide the 152 acres into nine separate parcels and displayed a picture of the map. He noted that of the nine Planning Areas, Planning Area 1 is proposed to be developed first. Planning Area 1 is a single-family home site, which includes 38 acres. He displayed a picture of Tentative Tract Map 36793, gave a brief description of the area, and listed the development standards. He stated that staff is recommending that Planning Area 1 apply for an Architectural Review application so landscape, site design, home design, and wall conditions could be evaluated. Planning Area 2 is a 3.2-acre site proposed to be zoned General Commercial. He noted that there are no special development standards proposed for Planning Area 2. Planning Area 3 is 21 acres proposed to be zoned Planned Regional Commercial, with a Freeway Commercial Overlay zone. This zone will allow for hotels, drive through restaurants, big box development, and a height limit of 35 feet. Mr. Ceja mentioned that the applicant is proposing that the hotel development be allowed at 50 feet in height, and staff is supportive of this request. He noted that other hotels along Cook Street are up to 50 feet tall. The 3 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2015\Minutes\2-17-15 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17, 2015 height increase would only be applied to hotel development. Planning Area 4 is proposed to be zoned Service Industrial. He said that staff hopes this site provides research and development to support the university. Planning Areas 5 and 6 are proposed to be zoned Planned Commercial. Mr. Ceja said that it is a smaller designation than the regional site. Areas 5 and 6 could accommodate grocery stores, convenient shopping, and personal services. In these areas, the applicant would like to utilize the Mixed Use Overlay zone, of which staff is supportive. Staff also supports hotels at a 50-foot height limit in Planning Areas 5 and 6. Planning Areas 7 and 8 are multi-family housing sites. The proposed height is three stories and a 40-foot height limitation. Planning Area 9 is 27 acres proposed for the regional park site. Mr. Ceja noted that another consideration for the Specific Plan includes a Mid-Valley Bike Path that runs approximately one mile along the project areas. The bike path connects Bob Hope Drive to Washington Street. Staff added a condition that the applicant has the option of building the bike path through their project areas, or submitting a payment in lieu to have the City develop the path. He noted that the Portola Avenue Interchange is expected to begin in the next five years, and briefly mentioned the University Park Planning Area. He referred to the General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone, and stated that each of the nine parcels is zoned specifically for its type development identified in the Specific Plan. In total, there are 63 acres for residential properties, 40 acres for commercial, 27 acres for a regional park, 10 acres for industrial business development, and 11.6 acres for streets. Mr. Ceja stated that the proposed project is compatible with the General Plan and the University Park Planning Area. It provides affordable housing units, a mix of housing types, a balance of housing and commercial uses, and the proposed project area is suitable for development. He mentioned that environmental studies were performed, with no significant findings in the project area. He listed several Conditions of Approval, and noted that there were some revisions made to the conditions. A copy of the revisions was given to the Planning Commission prior to the meeting. He said that staff is comfortable with the revisions, and the applicant is amiable to the changes. Mr. Ceja stated that staff is recommending that a Mitigated Negative Declaration be adopted. He noted that staff sent the Mitigated Negative Declaration to several agencies for review. He received comments from the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and Union Pacific Railroad. He offered to answer any questions. Commissioner Joseph Pradetto asked if the Parks and Recreation Commission voted unanimously for approval of the land exchange. Mr. Ceja responded that the Commission voted 4-1-3, with three commissioners absent and one voting no. He mentioned that a land appraisal was performed for both properties and the land values were similar. However, one Commissioner was not comfortable with any agreement. Commissioner Pradetto inquired if there was any discussion on the size of the park from a larger planned park down to 27 acres. 4 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2015\Minutes\2-17-15 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17, 2015 Mr. Ceja said that the park size is approximately the same. He stated that there was a concern with the narrowness of the park compared to the other park site. City staff was able to show the Parks and Recreation Commission some layouts with ball fields and soccer fields that were envisioned for that park, and the Commission was comfortable with the layouts. Commissioner Campbell commented that the staff report states that only the City Council can approve the land exchange. It also states that staff does not recommend that the land exchange be consummated since one of the minor parties involved has outstanding obligations to the City on another project. She inquired if it is one of the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Ceja replied no. He explained that staff is making two recommendations to the Planning Commission: 1) approve The Millennium Specific Plan and supporting documents, and recommend approval to the City Council; and 2) recommend that the City Council not approve the land swap until all parties involved with the applicant are in good standing for other properties in the City. He stated that does not need to be a condition, but part of the Planning Commission's recommendation. Chair Stendell clarified that the red line in the photo indicates the Mid-Valley Bike Path. Mr. Ceja replied yes. Chair Stendell referred to the single-story height limitation of 20 feet. He asked if that is the ridgeline at 20 feet or all parts of the construction at 20 feet. Mr. Ceja responded that it would be the ridgeline. Commissioner Campbell asked if the two-story homes at the height of 27 feet will be integrated with the one-story homes. Mr. Ceja replied that he will let the applicant answer that question. He said that staffs discussion with the applicant; the development is not only a two-story product. The development will have a mix of one- and two-story homes. Chair Stendell declared the public hearing open and asked for any public testimony IN FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MR. MARIO GONZALES, GHA Companies/PD 80/Palm Desert University Gateway, Cathedral City, California 92234, stated that he is pleased to be joined by his investor, Mr. Ted Seldin. They are before the Planning Commission to assure them that they are committed; they have the passion, the time, the team, and the resources to reasonably see the proposed project through its fruition and to complete all requirements of the process. He said that the property is the gateway to Palm Desert. Once the Portola Drive interchange is complete and 5 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2015\Minutes\2-17-15 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17, 2015 with the Cook Street interchange, there will be two corridor feeders to the inter city limits. He stated that the proposed project is consistent with the goals of the City of Palm Desert. It will provide an opportunity to create an integrated commercial/residential mixed use center, within a regional park setting through strict guidelines of the specific plan process. On April 24, 2014, they met with City leaders and staff. This meeting set the tone and direction of their proposed development, which gave them the confidence to purchase the remaining 37 acres to allow the final design and concept of their project. On November 25, the CVWD approved the project Water Supply Assessment (WSA) report supporting their development plan. He noted that the Parks and Recreation Commission approved the land exchange and new park site. He is hopeful that the Planning Commission finds the information insightful and allows them to experience the vision and understanding of this development. Mr. Gonzales stated that all their efforts would not be possible if it were not for the time and commitment of City staff. City staff has treated them in a fair and transparent manner throughout the process. He believes this is why Palm Desert is so successful; great management, a great team, and great attention to details. Mr. Gonzales thanked City Manager John Wohlmuth, Director of Community Development Lauri Aylaian, Director of Public Works Mark Greenwood, and their team. More importantly, he gave a special thanks to Associate Planner Eric Ceja. He said that Mr. Ceja demonstrated a great deal of pride in his work, he has been very professional and responsive, and he understands the importance and magnitude of this development. He mentioned that he has his development team and consultants in the audience. He noted that he has been honored to work with Ms. Nicole Criste, Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc., and stated that she is here —" to answer any questions the Commission may have. Mr. Chris Bergh, MDS Consulting, is also available to answer any questions pertaining to engineering. Mr. Gonzales referred to Tentative Tract Map 36793, and stated that they are excited to introduce a cutting edge of housing stock with fresh style and design for all age groups. His team is very confident with this development. They have reviewed the all required documents, conditions, and materials for this project and agree with them. He humbly requested that the Planning Commission support staff's recommendation for approval of this development. He offered to address any questions and the opportunity to rebut. Commissioner Pradetto asked when construction would begin for Phase 1 , if maps are approved. MR. GONZALES responded that they would like to start the grading process, install Dinah Shore Drive, and start the project immediately. They are also exploring some opportunities with apartments on the east side of the project, and community commercial at the corner of Portola Avenue and Gerald Ford Drive. Commissioner Campbell asked Mr. Gonzales about the one- and two-story homes. 6 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2015\Minutes\2-17-15 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17, 2015 MR. GONZALES explained that in Planning Area 1 , they have a cluster housing component with three product types for those smaller lots and smaller homes. They have one single-story and two two-story homes. He said they believe in both vertical and horizontal movement and streets. He also said they took great advantage of the dropping slope, which will give it some interest. They will position homes to provide privacy for neighbors. He pointed to another area of Planning Area 1 where they will have their 500 series. The lots are 50 feet, and will have two single-story and one two-story homes. With the two-story homes, they have a detached casita in the front and will be strategically placed within the community. He said that the lots that front Gerald Ford Drive and Portola Avenue have three floor plans. These lots are the largest and will have the largest homes, which will all be single-story homes. Commissioner Campbell commented that the map with the larger lots indicate there are two-story homes. MR. GONZALES apologized and stated that the map incorrect. Chair Stendell referred to the cluster homes, and asked if there will be additional parking along the main streets to preclude disagreements between people for parking in the alley. MR. GONZALES responded that they can preclude disagreements by having strict guidelines in the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). However, they will have 36-foot wide streets pavement to pavement. With 36- foot wide streets, there could be parking on both sides of the street available. Chair Stendell asked the applicant if they are clear with the additional Conditions of Approval placed on the project. MR. GONZALES replied that is correct and accept the conditions. Chair Stendell inquired if Mr. Gonzales is intending to build out most of the residential himself. MR. GONZALES responded that he is honored and pleased to work with his investor Mr. Seldin. They are going to develop the single-family component. They also have intentions of building out the balance of the properties. He stated that if there are opportunities to work with other folks, they would look at it. GHA will be creating the single-family component. With no further testimony offered, Chair Stendell declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Campbell moved, by Minute Motion, to approve recommending to the City Council approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, the Development Agreement and Specific Plan documents, General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone, Tentative Parcel Map 36792, Tentative Tract Map 36793, and 7 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2015\Minutes\2-17-15 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17, 2015 recommend that the City Council not approve the Land Exchange until all applicants are in compliance with the Palm Desert Municipal Code for other properties they control. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Pradetto and carried by a 3-0-2 vote (AYES: Campbell, Pradetto, and Stendell; NOES: None; ABSENT: DeLuna and Greenwood; ABSTAIN: None). Commissioner Campbell moved, by Minute Motion, to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 2645, recommending to the City Council approval of Case Nos. DA/GPA/CZ/EA 14-332; TPM 36792; and TTM 36793, subject to conditions. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Pradetto and carried by a 3-0-2 vote (AYES: Campbell, Pradetto, and Stendell; NOES: None; ABSENT: DeLuna and Greenwood; ABSTAIN: None). Chair Stendell thanked the applicant. Ms. Aylaian interjected that this project represents almost a year of collaborative work. She stated that she would like to acknowledge and thank Mr. Ceja for the wonderful job he has done. She pointed out that there was no one in the audience speaking in either for or against the project, which happens a little too frequently in Palm Desert. She said that staff is aware of that, and they redouble their efforts to make sure that we look out for the interest of all residents. She also thanked Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Seldin for all the work they have done in the past year. Commissioner Campbell commented that it would not be possible without the great staff the City has. Chair Stendell asked Ms. Aylaian if the regional park has a dog park component. Ms. Aylaian responded that not at this point. B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a recommendation to the City Council for adoption of a notice of exemption in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and approve a new 674-square-foot detached casita and façade renovation to an existing house on a hillside planned residential property located at 72-375 Upper Way West (APN 628- 130-027). Case No. PP/HDP 14-289 (Mary Connor Limont IRA Sunwest Trust, 72-720 Bel Air Road, Palm Desert, California 92260, Applicant). Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, reported that the five-acre parcel was developed and graded under the County of Riverside's jurisdiction prior to the formation of the City of Palm Desert. The property has an existing 1,847-square- foot residential home and a 490-square-foot garage. The parcel is located on the hillside north of Stone Eagle and south of Homme-Adams Park. He displayed photos of the site location and the location of the proposed casita. The applicant is proposing a 674-square-foot casita that consists of a family room, bedroom, . bathroom, kitchenette (no stove), and a porch/patio area. The applicant is also 8 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2015\Minutes\2-17-15 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17, 2015 proposing to grade 4,163 square feet to accommodate the casita and patio area. He provided a brief description of the casita design and materials to be used. It will be one-story between eight and 10 feet, with an overall height of 12 feet. Mr. Swartz provided the Planning Commission with a materials sample board to review. He continued to report that the applicant is also proposing to renovate the exterior of the existing home. The renovation includes adding 184 square feet, and will be consistent with the casita. It is a single-story home with roof lines between 10 feet, 14 feet, and an overall height of 17 feet. He presented photos of the elevations. He noted that the casita would be tucked behind a large rock outcropping. Mr. Swartz stated that the Architectural Review Commission approved the proposed project. They supported the architectural design and site location. He noted that the applicant is not requesting any exceptions to the Hillside Planned Residential Development Standards. In addition, a variety of visual studies have been prepared to evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed project. He stated that staff found the proposed casita will be screened from the viewing corridors along Highway 74. The existing home is currently visible, and will still be visible after the renovations. He commented that the renovation, new material and colors will help blend the home into the hillside. The proposed height and site location are supported by staff; it will not adversely impact any view sheds or diminish property values. He stated that staff recommends approval to the City Council and offered to answer any questions. Commissioner DeLuna commented that the staff report states that the existing landscape design is lush and green, and staff asked the applicant regarding removal of some trees. She asked why the applicant was reluctant to comply with that request. Mr. Swartz responded that staff had concerns. If it was a vacant site and an applicant proposed the lush landscaping today, it would not be approved. Staff spoke to the applicant regarding removal of some trees; however, the applicant was reluctant and referred to the question to the applicant. He showed photos of other homes on the hillside with landscaping. Vice Chair Greenwood asked if there have been any discussions regarding the redesign of the leach field that is being modified for the new casita and where it will be located. Mr. Swartz replied yes, and referred the question to the architect. Chair Stendell declared the public hearing open and asked for any public testimony IN FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MS. CONNOR LIMONT, Palm Desert, California 92260, stated that the trees have been on the property for 40+ years, and the root systems are now an integral part of the overall landing where the house is located. If they have to remove the trees, it would end the project. 9 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2015\Minutes\2-17-15 min.docx • MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17, 2015 Commissioner DeLuna asked the applicant how it would end the project. MS. LIMONT responded that the tree roots have grown into the rocks and throughout. She said that to remove the trees and roots would compromise the integrity of the platform where the house is located. She stated that the cost to remove the trees and to restructure with retaining walls would be prohibitive. Commissioner DeLuna inquired if the tree could be cut to the ground line and do not remove the roots so it would not affect the structural integrity of the hillside or the residence. MS. LIMONT replied she cannot answer that question. She stated that she did not think the trees were an issue since they have been there so long. Ms. Limont commented that when she brought in someone to discuss the overall look of the front yard, the first thing that was said is "don't touch the trees." She said that she first wanted to take some of the palm trees out; however, they said "don't touch the palms." Commissioner DeLuna asked why not touch the palms since they do not have extensive roots. MS. LIMONT responded that she cannot answer that question. She said that the Planning Commission is welcome to visit the property. She noted that the palm trees are huge on one side, and are against a wall then down the embankment. Ms. Limont stated that she does not know much about trees. She pointed to a small palm tree in the photo that could probably be removed. Commissioner DeLuna asked if there is turf surrounding the house. MS. LIMONT replied that there is turf in the front, and noted that they have already removed half of the turf. Commissioner DeLuna asked what the planting material on the hillside is. Is it ice plants? MS. LIMONT replied that she does not know. The planting material has been there since the previous owner; nothing has been done. Commissioner DeLuna said that she knows Ms. Limont is conscientious about the preservation of the hillsides; however, she has a concern with the view shed from Highway 74. When you look up, you see a green mass on the hillside and it would not be indigenous to the hillside. She said that adding a massing will increase the footprint which might not be visible from Highway 74, but it would be visible from the surrounding streets and residences. She voiced that she is concerned with the amount of lush landscaping and green trees. MS. LIMONT stated that they are not adding landscaping. 10 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2015\Minutes\2-17-15 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17, 2015 Commissioner DeLuna asked the applicant if she is not willing to remove any of the trees. She mentioned that trimming the trees to a level where they wouldn't be seen from the Highway 74 corridor. MS. LIMONT responded that she does not know if that could be down. She said that you are looking up so it would be difficult to take down anything you see from Highway 74, which you would have to take the trees out. She stated that if the olive tree and the palm trees to the left of the property had to come out; it would end the project. She said that she could not afford to put in retaining walls at that level. Commissioner DeLuna asked if the trees could be taken off without taking them out, and noted that she does not know the right words for that process. MS. LIMONT communicated that there is beauty to the way the house has been. The house has been there since the 1940's, and is an original homestead house. She noted that there have also been non-permitted additions that are interesting. The thought was to leave everything as-is. She mentioned that they have been pruning and lost some trees in the process because there were not taken care of. They had to leave some of the dead trees because they help hold up the hillside on the Stone Eagle side. Commissioner DeLuna asked if the trees were cut off or were they left alone. MS. LIMONT responded that they left the whole tree, and noted that Stone Eagle does not have a problem with the trees. She offered to take out one tall palm tree and prune the olive tree. Commissioner Pradetto commented that if the applicant is willing to take down the larger palm tree, he feels it is more than generous. He stated that as a homeowner, he does not feel it is reasonable for the City to tell Ms. Limont to take down trees that have been there for many years. He said that the tall palm tree is the one you see the most. He also said that he is very aware of the area and looking up going through Highway 74. He commented that palm trees do not bother him. He referred to a photo of another property at the very top that is egregious and could see for miles around the city, and Ms. Limont's property is not that way. Commissioner DeLuna remarked that she was not aware of the concern with the structure of the house. She was more concerned with the visual impact, and attempting to preserve the hillsides to their indigenous state to the greatest degree possible. She asked the applicant if she is willing to remove the turf so watering of turf is not an issue. MS. LIMONT replied that half the turf was removed, and only a small plot of Lgrass remains that cannot be seen. You would have to go up to the cross to see 11 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2015\Minutes\2-17-15 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17, 2015 the turf. She mentioned that she had some people look at the landscaping when there was a bad rainfall a couple of years ago. Commissioner DeLuna asked if there is a water course when there is heavy rainfall. MS. LIMONT replied not in that area. Vice Chair Greenwood asked Ms. Limont if she has investigated the redesign of the leach field. MS. LIMONT responded that she would let the architect address the leach field. Commissioner Campbell commented that the current landscaping is adequate. She does see why they need to see a bare home on the hillside. In time things die and she does not feel the applicant needs to cut off trees. Commissioner DeLuna clarified that the applicant is willing to take out the tall palm tree. MS. LIMONT replied absolutely. She is pretty certain the palm tree has no bearing on anything. MR. DOUG HOWARD, Cherokee Homes, Palm Desert, California 92260, stated that he helped prepare the overall design of the house. He referred to the leach 'a lines, and said that there are two existing lines and two lines will be added. He stated that the casita will have its own small septic tank and seepage pit, which will be located between the gates and the existing asphalt road of Upper Way West. Vice Chair Greenwood asked Mr. Howard if he or his civil engineer see any issues with percolation. He also asked who the approving body is for leech fields. MR. HOWARD responded that he believes the County of Riverside and Health Department make recommendations to the City of Palm Desert when it comes to septic tanks. He stated that they have talked to the County, Health Department, and Hammer Plumbing. Hammer Plumbing said that they feel that they can get an adequate size septic tank for the casita. He noted that the engineering design, location of the tank, and seepage pit should be on the grading plans that were submitted. Vice Chair Greenwood asked Public Works staff if they review or approve leech fields. Ms. Christina Canales, Assistant Engineer, responded that they do not. She said that the Department of Health reviews and approves leech fields. 12 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2015\Minutes\2-17-15 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17, 2015 Vice Chair Greenwood asked Mr. Howard if they would have the Department of Health approval prior to issuance of a building permit. MR. HOWARD replied yes. Chair Stendell inquired if there is plenty of room for expansion of the seepage pits in the future. MR. HOWARDS responded that there is. With no further testimony offered, Chair Stendell declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner DeLuna moved, by Minute Motion, to approve recommending to the City Council of a notice of exemption from the CEQA, and approval of a new 674- square-foot detached casita and exterior modifications to an existing house located on a hillside planned residential property, subject to the offer by the applicant to remove the tall palm tree assuming that it does not affect the structural integrity of the residence. Motion was seconded by Vice Chair Greenwood and carried by a 5-0 vote (AYES: Campbell, DeLuna, Greenwood, Pradetto, and Stendell; NOES: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None). Chair Stendell commented that Ms. Limont stated that the landscaping has been on the property longer than she has owned it. If you look at the hillside, you see almost every old house up there with landscaping and know that there is a house there. He stated that the landscaping was planted for shading or protecting the house from winds. He also stated that he agrees with the one tall palm tree being removed because it looks a little out of place. He commented that the rest of the landscaping serves a purpose and knows that it will be maintained well. Chair Stendell asked Commissioner DeLuna if she was adding the condition on the project for the removal of the tall palm tree. Commissioner DeLuna responded yes, based on the applicant's offer to do so. Commissioner Pradetto added that Commissioner DeLuna also mentioned that as long as it was not a structural issue. Commissioner Campbell concurred with Chair Stendell's comments. She commented that if it was up to her, she would not remove any landscaping. Since Ms. Limont agreed to cut down the palm tree; she is alright with it. Commissioner DeLuna moved, by Minute Motion, to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 2646, recommending to the City council approval of Case No. PP/HDP 14-289, subject to conditions. Motion was seconded by Vice Chair Greenwood and carried by a 5-0 vote (AYES: Campbell, DeLuna, Greenwood, Pradetto, and Stendell; NOES: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None). 13 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2015\Minutes\2-17-15 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17, 2015 X. MISCELLANEOUS None XI. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES None B. PARKS & RECREATION Chair Stendell inquired if they should nominate a replacement for the Parks and Recreation Commission liaison. Ms. Aylaian responded that it would be appropriate if the Planning Commission would like to do so. Chair Stendell announced that the Dr. Roger Dash has resigned from the Planning Commission, and thanked him for his service to the community and wished him the best. He also welcomed newly appointed Commissioner Pradetto. After a brief discussion regarding the nomination, it was decided to add this item to the next Planning Commission agenda. C. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Vice Chair Greenwood commented that there has not been a meeting. Ms. Aylaian stated that the General Plan Update Technical Working Group will be meeting on Friday, February 27. She reported that they have been reviewing exhibits and preparing for their next public workshop, which is scheduled for March 5; 3:30 to 5:30 p.m. at Desert Willow. Chair Stendell asked if the workshop is open to the public. Ms. Aylaian replied yes. She encouraged the Planning Commission to spread the word because they want people to participate. XII. COMMENTS Chair Stendell commented that he was going to a store on El Paseo. He saw a set of white cones in front of Wolfgang Puck Pizza, and he diligently parked beyond the limit of the cones. He said that as he was getting out of his car, he was immediately confronted by a valet attendant. The attendant asked for his keys or let him park the car. He told the attendant that he was not within the cone 14 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2015\Minutes\2-17-15 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17, 2015 zone, and that he was only running into a store. The valet attendant then said that they pay for the parking space. Chair Stendell noted that it is a public street and out of their zone. He requested clarification on the valet parking in front of Wolfgang Puck Pizza. Ms. Aylaian responded that staff will look at copies of the valet permits and conditions, and get the information to Chair Stendell. Chair Stendell thanked Ms. Aylaian and said he would appreciate her assistance. Commissioner DeLuna welcomed Commissioner Pradetto, and thanked him for his willingness to serve on the Planning Commission. XIII. ADJOURNMENT Upon a motion by Vice Chair Greenwood, second by Commissioner Campbell, and a 5-0 vote of the Planning Commission (AYES: Campbell, DeLuna, Greenwood, Pradetto, and Stendell; NOES: None; ABSENT: None),. Chair Stendell adjourned the meeting at 7:19 p.m. KE STE DELL, CHAIR ATTEST: • LAURI AYLAIAN, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MONICA O'REILLY, RECOO DING SECRETARY i4 15 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2015\Minutes\2-17-15 min.docx