Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-03-11 PC Study Session MinutesCITY OF PALM SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES March 11, 2015 / Study Session Large Conference Room, City Hall 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 CALLED TO ORDER: Chair Hudson called the meeting to order at 12:09 pm. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioner Calerdine, Commissioner Lowe, Commissioner Middleton, Commissioner Roberts, Commissioner Weremiuk and Chair Hudson EXCUSED: Vice -Chair Klatchko ALSO PRESENT: Director Fagg and Principal Planner Robertson REPORT OF POSTING OF AGENDA: The agenda was available for public access at the City Hall exterior bulletin board (west side of Council Chamber) and the Planning Services counter by 4:00 pm on Thursday, March 5, 2015. PUBLIC COMMENT: No comments. DISCUSSION ITEM(S): 1. SUMMIT LAND PARTNERS REQUESTS A PRE -APPLICATION FOR A PLANNED SMALL LOT SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON APPROXIMATELY 10.2 NET ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTH WEST CORNER OF EAST PALM CANYON DRIVE AND MATTHEW DRIVE, ZONE R-3, SECTION 30 (CASE NO. PA 14-006). (ER) Principal Planner Edward Robertson provided an overview of the application. Presentation by Applicants: Rhonda Neely, Summit Land Partners, Mike Woodley, Woodley Architectural Group, and Paul Haden, C2 Collaborative, Landscape Architect. Commissioner Calerdine discussed the treatment of the flood control channels, and suggested that additional design would be necessary so that they are more than just Planning Commission Study Session Minutes March 11, 2015 concrete -lined channels. He also emphasized the importance of pedestrian connections from the site to the trail on E. Palm Canyon, Matthew Drive and to the Vons Shopping Center, and requested that staff review the use of "complete streets" treatments in the area. Mr. Calerdine asked about mitigation measures for the Casey's June Beetle, and requested additional information from staff regarding building code issues and zero lot -line setbacks. Chair Hudson noted visibility and safety concerns with the east driveway on Matthew Drive; and commended the applicant for not gating the development. He also requested that the applicant review the amenity zones to make sure the remnant areas were useable and suggested that additional benches and spaces for residents to congregate be provided. He encouraged the use of berms to address noise issues along E. Palm Canyon and requested additional street trees be provided. Chair Hudson recommended that the applicant provide a 3-D drawing to show how the interlocking yard spaces function with the houses, to include the streets in the drawing so as to demonstrate the street scene, and provide section drawings through the site. He noted that the rear yard walls facing Matthew Drive would need articulation and variation in materials, and requested that the applicant think about safe pedestrian connections to the shopping center across the street. In reference to the house elevations, Mr. Hudson commented that he has issues with the authenticity of how the materials were being used, such as the "floating" stone veneer above the garage on Plan 2/Elevation B. Commissioner Roberts commended the applicant for not adding gates, and for providing 36-foot wide interior streets. He also commended the applicant for staggering the houses, but expressed concerns with the amenities, noting the need for more benches, fewer active uses, and more spaces where people can congregate. Mr. Roberts noted that amenity area #6, as shown on the Landscape Site Plan, would not lend itself to a "social" area due to its location. He said in regards to the house elevations, they are very busy and that the applicant should simplify the fenestration through combining the numerous windows together. Mr. Roberts commended the applicant on the variation in garage door designs and material variations, and supported the proposed color choices for the elevations. Commissioner Weremiuk concurred that the benches are more important in the amenity areas than bocce courts or other active uses. She expressed concerns with the 5' deep driveways, and suggested that 18' deep driveways are an important amenity that would be valuable for buyers. Ms. Weremiuk commended the applicant on the shared -use easements, supported the house plans that featured the dual courtyards, and expressed concerns with the outdoor space on Plan 2. She requested that a minimum of 10 feet be provided between houses, and recommended that HVAC and pool equipment be located at grade and screened. In reference to the amenity areas, she recommended that the area of the dog park be increased, and that fencing be provided around the area. Ms. Weremiuk suggested that the units with frontage on Linden Way 2 Planning Commission Study Session Minutes March 11, 2015 and Matthew Drive be provided with gates to the pedestrian sidewalk, and encouraged the applicant to provide shade trees and shade structures in pedestrian areas. Commissioner Lowe questioned the two U-shaped streets in the center of the project, and expressed a preference that those areas be used for open space if adequate turn- around area could be provided for emergency service vehicles. Commissioner Middleton offered support for the shared -use easements, and stated that she would like to see a zero -lot line configuration. Ms. Middleton recommended that the HOA documentation address short-term (vacation) rentals. She questioned if solar panels would be provided, and encouraged the applicant to provide them as an option for buyers. Overall, the Planning Commission while reviewing the house elevations, suggested that applicant eliminate the versions featuring shed roofs, and expressed preference for the flat -roofed variations. As this was a Pre -Application request, the Commission took no formal action on the application. 2. REVIEW OF APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURAL ISSUES FOR ENTITLEMENT APPLICATIONS. Director Fagg gave a brief presentation on the use of story poles to represent the height of proposed buildings, and provided guidelines from other cities that are currently using story poles as part of the entitlement process. In addition, he discussed the procedures in Section 94 of the Palm Springs Zoning Code relative to Conditional Use Permits, and the requirement for action within 30 days of closing the public hearing. Direction to Staff: Develop a policy for the use of story poles as part of the entitlement review process, giving Planning Commission and City Council the authority to request story poles where warranted. ADJOURNMENT: Chair Hudson adjourned the Study Session at 1:26 pm. Flinn Fagg, AICP Director of Planning Services