Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-12-20 PC Regular Meeting Minutes CITY OF PALM DESERT PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2016 — 6:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CA 92260 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair John Greenwood called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioner Ron Gregory Commissioner Joseph Pradetto Vice Chair Nancy Del-una Chair John Greenwood Staff Present: Jill Tremblay, City Attorney Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development Eric Ceja, Principal Planner Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner Monica O'Reilly, Administrative Secretary III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Greenwood led the Pledge of Allegiance. IV. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development, summarized pertinent December 8, 2016, City Council actions. He also read a letter from Kathleen Kelly resigning from the Planning Commission due to her recent election to the Palm Desert City Council. V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 2016 VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Planning Commission meeting of October 19, 2016. .. Rec: By Minute Motion, approve as presented. An amendment to the minutes was proposed by Vice Chair DeLuna to have the second sentence in paragraph four of page 15 rewritten to be clearer. Mr. Stendell replied that staff would listen to the recording and have the paragraph rewritten. Upon a motion by Commissioner Pradetto, second by Chair Greenwood, and a 4-0 vote of the Planning Commission, the Consent Calendar was approved as amended. (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, and Pradetto; NOES: None). VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None VIII. NEW BUSINESS None sow IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a variance request to reduce the front yard setback from twenty (20) feet to eight (8) feet to accommodate an existing casita structure at 72-700 Somera Road. Case No. VAR 16-305 (John and Debra Trudeau, Palm Desert, California, Applicants). Mr. Eric Ceja, Principal Planner, presented the staff report (staff report is available at www.cityofpalmdesert.org). He explained that the City's variance provisions provide the Planning Commission the authority to approve a variance subject to four separate findings, which staff is unable to make those findings. Therefore, staff recommended denial of the variance request. He offered to answer any questions. Vice Chair DeLuna asked if the current owner was aware that the casita was a non-permitted building when he purchased the property. Mr. Ceja replied that he believed so. He noted that staff sent a letter to the lender to inform them that the casita was non-permitted. Vice Chair DeLuna clarified that the casita structure does not contain any special circumstances that would warrant a variance. 2 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2016\Minutes\12-20-16.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 2016 Mr. Ceja replied that is correct. Chair Greenwood pointed to the aerial image, and asked if the eight feet is measured from the property line. Is the black line shown on the aerial image the property line? Mr. Ceja pointed to the property line. He stated that when staff took the measurements, the casita is eight feet from the property line. Commissioner Joseph Pradetto directed his question to legal counsel. He asked if a variance request must meet all four findings or can it meet one, two, or three of the findings. He also asked if the Planning Commission could adopt a variance without meeting all of the four findings. Ms. Jill Tremblay, City Attorney, said that according to the municipal code that is found in Chapter 25, Section 72.070 Variances, the Planning Commission makes findings of fact that establish that the circumstances prescribed in all four paragraphs do apply. Commissioner Pradetto stated that staff has determined that the variance request does not meet any of the criteria. He is interested to hear the applicant's interpretation of how the variance meets the criteria. Chair Greenwood declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony loom Chair or OPPOSING this matter. MR. JOHN TRUDEAU, Palm Desert, California, noted that his wife is at home, but his attorney was present and would also address the Planning Commission. Mr. Trudeau stated that he has wanted to do the right thing for his property, family, and Palm Desert during the entire process. When he purchased the property in 2010, he was aware that the casita was non-permitted and it is in all the paperwork. However, at that time, his family and the lenders were not aware that the casita was built in a location that was not in compliance. He stated that he was not directed by the city to bring the casita into compliance when the property closed escrow or any time after the closing. He also stated that he was not given a stipulation by his mortgage company to bring the casita into compliance. Mr. Trudeau was told that if he planned to finish the structure, he would have to go through the necessary steps because it was not permitted, which was what he intended to do. In February 2015, he received a notice from the Code Department that there was a complaint for a non-permitted structure. He noted that he received the notice five years after he bought the property, and said he has done everything the city has asked him to do. He met with the previous City Manager, John Wohlmuth, and City staff to request that the city permit the structure. He was advised to seek legal counsel. Subsequently, he applied for a variance to modify the setbacks. He said his other options are to 1) tear the structure down, move the slab, and rebuild the structure; or 2) adding 3 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Comm ission\2016\Minutes\12-20-16.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 2016 more slab, physically lifting the structure, and then moving it over. He expressed that he bought the property knowing that it had the casita and the casita made the property very valuable to him. He voiced if the structure cannot stay in its + current location, it would cost him $40,000 to $70,000 to move or to reconstruct the casita. If he has to move it, he would need to request more to time to find a financial solution. He offered to answer any questions. Vice Chair DeLuna asked the applicant if he investigated what it would cost to relocate the building. She noted it might be less expensive than demolishing the structure. MR. TRUDEAU responded that the estimate to move the structure and add new footings would cost $20,000 to $30,000. The estimate does not include building plans, a site survey, and permit fees. To keep the structure in its current location, and bring the structure up to code would cost approximately $12,000. The estimate to demolish and reconstruct the structure would cost over $50,000. Vice Chair DeLuna commented that it would cost $12,000 to bring the structure up to code. She said that the applicant added $12,000 to the cost of relocating the structure. She asked if it all could be part of the same expense. She noted that the applicant would have to spend $12,000 anyway, so whatever he would spend to relocate the structure should not have to be duplicated by entirely rebuilding the casita. rr MR. TRUDEAU replied that the $12,000 would include the cost for new architectural drawings, a site survey, and the cost to bring electrical and plumbing up to code. He would still have to spend $12,000 whether the casita is kept in the same location or not. Vice Chair DeLuna asked staff if the structure is given a variance, does that set a precedent. Mr. Ceja communicated that Mr. Trudeau has been very cooperative and professional working with City staff. He stated that staff felt if the variance is approved, it would set a precedent. There are two situations that could occur: 1) it would make it easier for other people to build something without permits and come back to the City for forgiveness instead of permission; and 2) staff occasionally sees work that is not permitted, approving the variance would make it more difficult to get properties into compliance. Commissioner Ron Gregory voiced his concern with one of the elements that seemed to mitigate the setback violation, which is the ficus hedge. He looked at the property and commented that the neighborhood has a quality, a quality based very much on the setbacks. He said the applicant's property does not have a front yard; it is all a ficus hedge. The ficus hedge screens the applicant's casita and the house; however, it is in a neighborhood where it is the only house with a + 4 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2016\Minutes\12-20-16.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 2016 ficus hedge along the setback. He felt that the ficus hedge mitigates the casita, but it is not a viable solution with respect to the neighborhood quality that he is looking for. MS. MONICA AMBOSS, applicant's legal counsel, Palm Desert, California, said it was her understanding that a variance requirement did not have to meet all four of the various criteria when the configuration of the lot dictates that the zoning regulations can simply be relaxed a little to accommodate requests for a variance, such as setbacks. She expressed that to comply with the zoning laws would create an undue hardship for the applicant. She noted that in March 2015 everyone learned that the casita was not in compliance, and in 2005, the previous owner had a front yard setback reduction approved from 20 feet to 15 feet. Ms. Amboss also noted that she is not sure if a survey has been done on where else the casita could be relocated. Commissioner Gregory interjected that the property appears to have a lot of room to relocate the casita on the property, if it has to be moved. Vice Chair DeLuna inquired if the lot is half of an acre. MS. AMBOSS replied that is correct. However, the property has a substantial pool and a large house. She stated that the casita with the ficus trees does not change the character of the neighborhood because you can't see the casita. Now Commissioner Gregory commented it is not the casita, but the hedge that changes the neighborhood. He remarked that there are feelings the City has tried to create in neighborhoods, with one of the feelings in this particular neighborhood is an open setback for the home. MS. AMBOSS referred to the City Council meeting minutes of March 2015. She said it seemed Mr. Tony Bagato's (previous Principal Planner), position was the applicant could apply for a variance; however, the City would probably require the applicant to demolish the casita. She hoped she misread the minutes. She asked the Planning Commission if they understood that staff does have to check off all the boxes, and if it doesn't comply make the recommendation to not grant the variance. However, the Planning Commission does have a little bit of leeway. She requested if the variance is not approved as applied for, could it be modified so that it would not create a financial hardship to the homeowner or have to demolish the structure. Vice Chair DeLuna asked Ms. Amboss what she would recommend. MS. AMBOSS responded to give the homeowner additional time to alternatives there are available, but said she did not have an exact answer. She stated that the homeowner was told to apply for a variance. 5 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2016\Minutes\12-20-16.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 2016 Vice Chair DeLuna questioned if the homeowner was aware that it might be an uphill battle. r..r MS. AMBOSS replied absolutely. MR. TRUDEAU stated that he appreciated Commissioner Gregory's comments about the ficus trees. He mentioned that he grew up near the woods so he was attracted to this house because of the ficus trees. When he first bought the house, the ficus trees were in bad condition and paid a lot of money to get them in the condition they are today. His intention now is to start trimming them down. On a different note, Mr. Trudeau said title insurance is now difficult to deal with, and the escrow company that processed the sale of the house destroyed his files. So going back to find any documents that can support any type of claim would be difficult since it is no longer a resource to him. Commissioner Pradetto asked the applicant what is his level of confidence that a new grand solution would surface and solve the problem. MR. TRUDEAU responded that his confidence is very high because he's an optimist. He is ultimately going to find a solution that would allow him to move the structure. He was told that the footings were done exceptionally solid. Therefore, an additional seven to 10 feet of footing towards the pool seems to be a viable option. However, it is time and tolerance he needs to raise the money to move the structure. He stated that he wants to bring the structure into compliance, but he has a 17-year old kid going to college soon to think about. Vice Chair DeLuna clarified that the applicant is leaning in the direction of relocating the existing structure. MR. TRUDEAU replied that is what he would try to do if the City did not allow the structure to be in its current location. He noted that in December 2005 when the previous owner received approval of the five-foot setback, the structure was fully built and 15 feet from the road. At that point, the previous owner was bankrupt. With no further testimony offered, Chair Greenwood declared the public hearing closed. Vice Chair DeLuna mentioned she drove by the property. She said you can see just the crest of the roofline above the living hedge. If there is a circumstance that the hedge becomes blighted or dies, is it correct there would be a structure sitting functionally right on the street. Commissioner Gregory replied that is correct. Vice Chair DeLuna commented that there is no guarantee the ficus trees would last in perpetuity; however, the structure would. She voiced her concern on relying upon the permanence of a living fence (ficus trees) to screen the setback. wo 6 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2016\Minutes\12-20-16.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 2016 She is encouraged that the applicant is moving in the direction of relocating the structure. She stated that the City has policies that are in place for the greater sum good of the greater number, and they have to keep that in perspective when they have to deal with these individual cases. Commissioner Gregory commented that he has been practicing landscape architecture in the Coachella Valley for approximately 40 years. Throughout the years he has come upon situations like Mr. Trudeau's and they have moved buildings. He stated it could be done; it is just a matter of cost. If a schedule could be worked out that is very restrictive and the applicant does not meet the terms of the schedule, the building must go. Vice Chair DeLuna asked Commissioner Gregory if he is saying to relocate the building. Commissioner Gregory replied that the building has to be relocated to set a precedent. If not, other people would try to get away with having a structure in the front yard setback. Chair Greenwood asked the City Attorney to make clear that the issue in front of the Planning Commission is to review a variance in terms of a setback. Are they able to add a condition to set a time frame, or are they strictly looking at the variance? Ms. Tremblay responded that the Planning Commission needs to look strictly at the variance. Commissioner Pradetto asked if a variance could be approved with an expiration date. Mr. Stendell answered no. He said there was already an adjustment issued in 2005 for a five-foot reduction. Staff is unable to make the findings to approve the variance. He stated that the Planning Commission needs to look in terms of the variance only. If the direction of the Commission is to set a time frame, staff could set the time frame administratively. Vice Chair DeLuna moved to deny the variance; however, she would like to condition the denial based on a time frame. She asked staff if the motion is appropriate. Mr. Stendell replied yes. He made clear that staff presented a Planning Commission resolution, and asked how much time the Commission is willing to entertain. He also made clear that it is not a condition of the resolution. 7 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2016\Minutes\12-20-16.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 2016 Commissioner Pradetto inquired if the Commission could say they do not like what was presented, and ask staff to come back with a new resolution specifying the Planning Commission's request. .rr Mr. Stendell replied that it would be difficult because the Planning Commission would be telling staff to make findings that staff believes could not be made. In addition, staff cannot condition a variance. Chair Greenwood asked if the variance is denied by the Planning Commission, can it be appealed to the City Council. Mr. Stendell replied absolutely. Vice Chair DeLuna amended her motion to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 2685, denying Case No. VAR 16-305. Motion was seconded by Chair Greenwood. Prior to the vote, Commissioner Pradetto commented that the way he looks at it, he does not see the hedges moving. There might be one that dies; however, the applicant would replace it. He said that moving the building seven feet is not going to change the world and does not affect anyone. He stated there is no reasonable gain to be made by moving the building seven feet. It was noted that the building needs to move eight feet to be in compliance not seven feet. Commissioner Pradetto continued that he does not see anyone benefitting, the applicant loses financially, and the neighbors do not notice the difference. He felt the ordinance is inflexible, as a Planning Commissioner, he is going to make that determination on his own. He would be voting no. Chair Greenwood appreciated Commissioner Pradetto's comments. In some aspects he agreed. As a Planning Commissioner, they are specifically looking at the fact and findings, and the language within the municipal code. He felt this case would be appealed to the City Council and the Council could make that distinction. Chair Greenwood called for the vote and the motion carried by a 3-1 vote. (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, and Gregory; NOES: Pradetto). Vice Chair DeLuna stated it was not an easy decision to make. low GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2016\Minutes\12-20-16.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 2016 B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to approve Conditional Use Permit 16- 310 for a new 5,100-square-foot lounge/bar located at 73-750 El Paseo, and .. approval of a Notice of Exemption in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Case No. CUP 16-310 (Barbeau, LLC., 73-750 El Paseo, Suite 101, Palm Desert, California, Applicant). Chair Greenwood stated that he is an employee of Prest Vuksic Architects, the architect for the above-mentioned project; therefore, he recused himself. Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner, outlined the salient points in the staff report (staff report is available at www.cityofpalmdesert.org). Staff recommended approval and offered to answer any questions. Vice Chair DeLuna asked how many members does the applicant anticipate to have when both phases are completed. Mr. Swartz deferred the question to the applicant. Vice Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. MR. HARRY KNAPP, Newbury Park, California, stated that there is a limited amount of upscale venues on El Paseo. They looked into an upscale venue for a year. The feedback they received was that something more high-end was needed on El Paseo. He mentioned he has been a member of Soho House for the past 20 years. They designed a model in the spirit of Soho House, and they want the venue private based on the canvassing of the potential client in the desert. He said they do not want a nightclub or a bar. They want to have a venue that is elegant, classy, and bring old Hollywood to the desert. He noted that Barbeau is named after his son who is an actor. He said they did not receive a negative comment from anyone, and people are saying this venue is very much needed. They chose this building because it could accommodate a rooftop lounge. He said they could expand into the overall vision of the building and develop the project in phases. In regard to the number of memberships, Mr. Knapp said they have 100 founding members. The venue would require an excess of 100 members, but it is something that they would monitor because the current capacity is 100 people. He does not have a definitive number, but they would scale the number of memberships as they can take care of the business. Vice Chair DeLuna asked if there would be live music. MR. KNAPP replied yes. They would have music on a nightly basis. He said they are going to bring different eclectic music throughout the week. Vice Chair DeLuna inquired if there would be music on the rooftop. 9 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2016\Minutes\12-20-16.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 2016 MR. KNAPP replied no. Vice Chair DeLuna asked if there would be dancing. ..r MR. KNAPP responded that there is not a dance floor, but believed some dancing could break out. With no more questions, the applicant thanked the Commission. With no further testimony offered, Vice Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Pradetto commented that the project is a great concept and it meshes in with the neighborhood. He said that he has heard concerns and a demand for more activities during the nighttime hours. He voiced his support-for the bar/lounge. Commissioner Gregory agreed with Commissioner Pradetto's comments. Commissioner Pradetto moved, by Minute Motion, to approve Case No. CUP 16- 310 and adopt Planning Commission No. 2686, subject to conditions. Motion was seconded by Commission Gregory and carried by a 3-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Gregory, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: Greenwood). Vice Chair DeLuna thanked the applicant for coming to Palm Desert to do business. X. MISCELLANEOUS None XI. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES None B. PARKS & RECREATION None XII. COMMENTS None ..r 10 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2016\Minutes\12-20-16.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 2016 XIII. ADJOURNMENT With the Planning Commission concurrence, Chair Greenwood adjourned the meeting at 7:04 p.m. 41 HN REE D, 6M&I SON ATTEST: --P - RYAN STENDELL, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION C� ( . MONICA O'REILLY, RECORDING SECRETARY 11 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2016\Minutes\12-20-16.docx