CITY OF PALM DESERT PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION

CITY OF PALM DESERT PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, JULY 5, 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 Kathleen Kelly Commissioner Joseph Pradetto Vice Chair Nancy DeLuna Chair John Greenwood Staff Present: Douglas Phillips, City Attorney Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development Eric Ceja, Principal Planner Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk 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 June 30, 2016, City Council actions. V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS

VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. of the Planning Commission meeting of June 21, 2016. Rec: By Minute Motion, approve as presented. Action: Upon a motion by Commissioner Pradetto, second by Commissioner Kelly, and a 5-0 vote of the Planning Commission, the Consent Calendar was approved as presented (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, Kelly, and Pradetto; NOES: ). VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER VIII. NEW BUSINESS IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a Conditional Use Permit to allow Lexurious Auto Sales to display two automobiles outdoors within the parking lot for sale purposes located at 74-794 42 nd Avenue, Suite 3. Case No. CUP 16-122 (Lexurious Auto Sales, Palm Desert, California, Applicant). Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner, presented the staff report (staff report is available at www.cityofpalmdesert.org). He noted that a notice was sent out to business owners who are within 300 feet. Staff did not receive any comments in opposition, and recommended that the Planning Commission approve the resolution. He offered to answer any questions. Vice Chair Nancy DeLuna asked if it is correct that there would be no service or mechanical work of the automobiles at this location. Mr. Swartz replied that is correct. Vice Chair DeLuna asked if it is only for the sale of automobiles. Mr. Swartz replied that is correct. Vice Chair DeLuna inquired if there is another automotive business that rents, leases, or services cars in the area. Mr. Swartz responded that there are numerous automotive businesses in the area. 2

Commissioner Ron Gregory asked if the cars are brought out only for the purpose of an appointment with a potential buyer. He also asked if the cars stay out during the day, and are the cars put back in the shop at night. Mr. Swartz believed the cars stay out in the parking lot at night. He mentioned that the property owner may add a gate to the building. Chair Greenwood declared the public hearing open and asked for any public testimony IN FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MS. JULIE FLEISCHMAN, Palm Desert, California, stated that she is a business owner. Commissioner Kathleen Kelly asked the applicant to clarify if the intention is to have two cars in the parking lot continuously. MS. FLEISCHMAN replied that is correct. She said they have Display Parking Only signs in the parking lot. Commissioner Gregory commented on establishing precedence, and asked how this request would lead to other companies wanting to have parked cars for sale. He said it might not be a bad idea. Mr. Swartz responded that the City Council also felt it would be good for the City. However, it would require a Conditional Use Permit; each case would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Vice Chair DeLuna mentioned that Lexurious Auto Sales is not located on a main street so cars would not be driving by in a normal business day. She asked if it is a City street. Mr. Swartz referred to a photo of the site, and pointed to the location of the building and streets. Chair Greenwood asked the applicant if they are proposing additional signage to draw traffic to their business. MS. FLEISCHMAN replied no. Vice Chair DeLuna clarified that the business is by appointment only. MS. FLEISHMAN replied that is correct. With no further testimony offered, Chair Greenwood declared the public hearing closed. 3

Vice Chair DeLuna communicated that the request is an excellent use, it is within the designated zone in the area, and it is something the City Council is encouraging; therefore, she moved for approval. Vice Chair DeLuna moved, by Minute Motion, to waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2672, approving Case No. CUP 16-122, subject to conditions. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Gregory and carried by a 5-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Gregory, Greenwood, Kelly, and Pradetto; NOES: ). B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a 2,400-square-foot detached accessory structure in the rear yard 25 feet from the property line on a 40,000-square-foot lot located at 77-700 Delaware Place. Case No. CUP 16-99 (Alfredo Alvidrez, Palm Desert, California, Applicant). Mr. Swartz reviewed the staff report (staff report is available at www.cityofpalmdesert.org). Staff believed that the structure meets the intent of the Residential Estate (R-E) zone and recommended approval. For the Architectural Review Commission and Planning Commission meetings, a notice was sent out to the neighbors. Staff did not receive comments in favor or opposition. He offered to answer any questions. Vice Chair DeLuna asked what the height of the adjacent structure is. Mr. Swartz deferred the question to the applicant. MR. ALFREDO ALVIDREZ, applicant, Palm Desert, California, believed the adjacent structure is approximately 18 feet in height. However, the structure is 10 feet away from his property line. Vice Chair DeLuna inquired if the two structures would be approximately 25 feet apart. MR. ALVIDREZ replied that the two structures would be approximately 35 feet apart. Vice Chair DeLuna asked if Mr. Alvidrez s lot is lower. Mr. Swartz answered that the applicant s lot is not lower; lots to the north are lower. Commissioner Joseph Pradetto commented that Condition Nos. 8 and 9 relate to accessibility requirements, and asked if the residential structure has to be in compliance with ADA. Mr. Swartz communicated that the ADA conditions are added by the Department of Building and Safety, and the applicant has to meet typical building codes. 4

Commissioner Pradetto asked if the Department of Building and Safety is requiring a residential accessory structure to meet ADA requirements. Mr. Swartz responded that he is not sure since Building and Safety added the conditions. He said he would ask Department of Building and Safety if the conditions are required. Mr. Stendell interjected that the conditions are a standard stock response from the Department of Building and Safety to make sure they are covering all of their bases. Commissioner Pradetto commented he understood; however, he does not want the applicant to be stuck with the ADA conditions if it is a stock response. Chair Greenwood asked staff if the structure is going to be sprinkled. Mr. Swartz replied yes. Vice Chair DeLuna asked what the allowable height is. Mr. Swartz replied 18 feet. He stated the accessory structure would be at 18 feet. Chair Greenwood commented that he understood the applicant would not be addressing any mechanical considerations for cooling the garage at this time. If he chooses to do so in the future, he asked if it would be ground mounted units. Mr. Swartz said that was correct. Chair Greenwood declared the public hearing open and asked for any public testimony IN FAVOR or OPPOSITION. With no testimony offered, Chair Greenwood declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Pradetto suggested that Conditions of Approval Nos. 8 and 9 regarding ADA compliance be removed, if not required by the building code. Chair Greenwood asked staff if they are comfortable making that change. Mr. Swartz responded that he would discuss the matter with the Building Official. Vice Chair DeLuna inquired if any motion would be subject to checking if Conditions of Approval 8 and 9 could be removed. Mr. Stendell answered that the Planning Commission would need to be more definitive with the motion. If they want staff to remove the two conditions, please direct staff to do as such. 5

Commissioner Pradetto moved, by Minute Motion, to waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2673, approving Case No. CUP 16-99, subject to removal of Department of Building and Safety Conditions of Approval Nos. 8 and 9. Motion was seconded by Vice Chair DeLuna and carried by a 5-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, Kelly, and Pradetto; NOES: ). C. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a recommendation to the City Council for approval of an amendment to Tentative Tract Map 33719 to modify Fire Department Condition of Approval No. 7, and to revise approved pad heights for a 159-lots residential subdivision located at the southwest corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue. Case No. TTM 33719 Amendment No. 1 (TTLC Catavina Investors, LLC., Newport Beach, California, Applicant). Mr. Eric Ceja, Principal Planner, outlined the salient points in the staff report (staff report is available at www.cityofpalmdesert.org). He noted that the Planning Commission received a new exhibit prior to the meeting, which better shows the changes on a parcel-by-parcel basis. Staff recommended approval and offered to answer any questions. Vice Chair DeLuna asked what the standard street width is. Mr. Ceja replied that the standard is 28 feet. Commissioner Pradetto inquired if the City has its own Fire Marshall or is it Riverside County Fire Marshall. Mr. Stendell responded that the City of Palm Desert has a contract with the Riverside County Fire, and the City shares a Deputy Fire Marshal with the Cove Communities. The Deputy Fire Marshal is stationed in the Palm Desert City Hall; therefore, City staff and developers are able to have questions answered directly. Chair Greenwood referred to the new proposed map, and asked if the secondary bolder view corridor and inlets that feed the actual duplex units are 30 feet. Mr. Ceja replied that they are not. He said that they are 24 feet, and the Fire Department is in support of the condition. Chair Greenwood commented that on the previous applications, the inlets were required to be 36 feet. He questioned if it was required for all streets or was the secondaries to be less. Mr. Ceja said that the secondaries were to be less. He believed that they were conditioned at 32 feet. Vice Chair DeLuna clarified that if the secondaries are 24 feet, they are not as wide as a standard street. 6

Mr. Ceja replied that is correct. He communicated that the project is a cluster type of housing development so they are raising a courtyard pattern around the narrower streets. He mentioned that they have off-street parking along some of the spine roads or the main thoroughfares throughout the project. The project also has allowances for guest parking, and the Fire Department has adequate access even with the reduced roadway width. Chair Greenwood requested that staff show some of the slides so he can see some of the interiors of the duplexes. Mr. Ceja displayed some of the renderings provided by the applicant. Chair Greenwood inquired if there is no parking other than in the garage within the secondary accesses. Mr. Ceja replied that is correct. Chair Greenwood confirmed that the Fire Department has reviewed all egress circulation with their trucks. Mr. Ceja replied yes. Commissioner Gregory commented that there are grade changes as part of the request for approval from the Planning Commission. He said there are up to four and half feet differential between pad heights above Frank Sinatra Drive and asked if that is correct. Mr. Ceja said that is correct. Commissioner Gregory questioned if the applicant would be building a six-foot wall at the top of that pad so that from Frank Sinatra Drive you would be looking at four and a half feet plus six feet; therefore, the wall would be 10 and a half feet top of curb or street height. Mr. Ceja replied yes. He said with the pad height changes and the pad sitting about four feet above the street, there would be a taller wall along Frank Sinatra Drive. There is a substantial setback of approximately 25 feet from the curb of Frank Sinatra Drive back, which includes an additional right-of-way width and a landscape area. Commissioner Gregory asked how the grade change is being taken into account with the slope. He assumed it is graded from the base of the wall to back of the curb or sidewalk. He stated he is curious on how steep the slope would be and how it would be addressed. Mr. Ceja deferred the question to the applicant. 7

Vice Chair DeLuna asked if there would be areas with turf for kids and pets to play or walk. Mr. Ceja responded that the Planning Department has asked applicants to limit turf in active use areas. He indicated that the applicant is showing turf around the pool and in a small park in the development available to the community. Chair Greenwood declared the public hearing open and asked for any public testimony IN FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MR. KEITH HATTON, The Altum Group, Palm Desert, California, addressed Commissioner Gregory s concern in regard to the pad grades. He stated that there is a condition to have an eight-foot attached sidewalk on Frank Sinatra Drive and also on Portola Avenue. In the worst case scenario where they have the four and a half feet between the pad heights and the street, the wall would be mitigated by three to one landscaping from the back of the sidewalk up to the retaining wall. As a result, it would not be a 10-foot wall. He stated they would mitigate the difference as much as they can within the range of engineering. Commissioner Gregory interjected and made clear that he is not saying the wall is 10 feet tall. He is concerned that the sidewalk is eight feet wide, and if it is continuous with the curb or does it meander. MR. HATTON answered that there is a condition to have an attached curb. Chair Greenwood directed staff to display the preliminary grading plan (sheet 2 of 3). He asked what the grade of the sidewalk at the northeast corner at the end of the property is. It was stated that there is a four-foot section of sidewalk along Portola Avenue, and also on the northwest corner of Frank Sinatra Drive. Chair Greenwood questioned the distance at Lots 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, and 21, which look approximately eight feet. He said it seems there is a three to one slope from the bottom of the wall. Mr. Ceja noted that the condition for the wall along the street is similar to the homes across Frank Sinatra Drive and Pele Place, which are also approximately four feet above the street. Chair Greenwood commented that with the increase grade at the south side of the property, he asked if there are concerns getting a fire truck approach. MR. HATTON responded that they have met all the appropriate standards set by the Fire Department. 8

Chair Greenwood inquired if the revisions went before the Architectural Review Commission. Mr. Ceja replied not the revisions to the map. However, the Architectural Review Commission reviewed the architecture, landscape plans, and wall designs. Commissioner Gregory clarified that the additional land gained from reducing the street width went into landscaping. MR. HATTON remarked that the street width never changed from the original concept in 2006. Mr. Ceja interjected that he cannot speak to what happened in 2006, other than the original map did show the street widths that are before the Planning Commission today. With no further testimony offered, Chair Greenwood declared the public hearing closed. MR. HATTON pointed out that they have dedicated 20 feet on Frank Sinatra Drive to mitigate the grade difference in that area. Commissioner Gregory moved, by Minute Motion, to waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2674, approving Case No. TTM 33719, subject to conditions. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Pradetto and carried by a 5-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, Kelly, and Pradetto; NOES: ). X. MISCELLANEOUS XI. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES B. PARKS & RECREATION C. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP 9

XII. COMMENTS Chair Greenwood inquired if the General Plan was discussed by the City Council during the budget meeting. Mr. Stendell responded that the City Council asked general questions, such as what is the status and when would it be completed. He noted that at the City Council meeting of July 14, the Council would consider a professional services agreement for the San Pablo Avenue corridor improvements. Mr. Stendell thanked Ms. Rachelle Klassen, City Clerk, for assisting with the Planning Commission meeting. XIII. ADJOURNMENT With the Planning Commission concurrence, Chair Greenwood adjourned the meeting at 6:44 p.m. ATTEST: JOHN GREENWOOD, CHAIRPERSON RYAN STENDELL, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MONICA O REILLY, RECORDING SECRETARY 10