RECAP: 29 Palms Planning Commission, April 16, 2024
RECAP: 29 Palms Planning Commission, April 16, 2024
The nitty gritty of fence heights, curbing and paving, boat storage in set backs and so so much more...
Community Development Department staff parleyed with Planning Commission members on Tuesday as they strove to update and add consistency to development code in a city that values its idiosyncratic nature. Should boat storage be allowed in set backs? Should all new subdivisions be required to pave and curb the streets regardless of lot size? What fence heights are acceptable? What looked like a brief meeting on paper, extended to more than 1-1/2 hours as these topics were discussed.
Details of the agenda are available in our preview or by reading the agenda packet. Video of the meeting is available on YouTube.
There were no consent calendar items and no speakers for general public comment.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. General Plan Status Report The General Plan Status report was voted through to Council 5-0.
2. Development Code Amendment- Chapter 19.90 Dedications and Improvements-implementing a process for establishing legal access and adopting Development Impact Fees. Per Community Development Director (CDD) Keith Gardner legal access was discussed and settled by City Council last year, but staff found inconsistencies in other parts of the Chapter which needed to be addressed.
The bulk of the discussion on this item addressed confusion over a requirement that appeared to mandate that new single family residence construction in open space, rural living and residential single family estate zoning pave roads and install sidewalks or asphalt berms.
The land use districts are defined as:
• RS-4, which allows a maximum of 4 units per acre.
• RS-3, which allows a maximum of 3 units per acre.
• RS-2, which allows a maximum of 2 units per acre.
• RS-1, which allows a maximum of 1 unit per acre.
• RS-E, which allows a maximum of 1 unit per 2.5 acres
• RM, which is multi-family residential
• RL, which is a rural living district, including RL-1, RL-2.5 and RL-5 for minimum lot sizes of 1, 2.5 and 5 acres respectively
• OSR, which is open space residential and allows for 1 unit per 10 acres, and OSR-40 which is 1 unit per 40 acres
Commissioner Jim Krushat, who resides in rural living zoning, successfully argued that this requirement should only apply to subdivisions. But it appeared that the change requested would apply regardless of land use designation or parcel sizes — for example, whether a 100 acre parcel subdivided into 10 acre parcels would have the same paving requirements as a 100 acre parcel subdivided in 100 one acre parcels. Most of the roads in rural living zoning in 29 Palms are dirt but the City only maintains paved roads.
In public comment Tourism Business Improvement District (TBID) Board member Ashton Ramsey argued for protecting “our character” and charm:
We're this beautiful desert community and we have a chance to keep our character and keep our charm. And I believe it's Harmony Hills or Harmony Acres, the neighborhood across from the Harmony Hotel, that has beautiful two and a half acre lots and it's very raw and you see the desert and there's the charm, and you feel like you know, roadrunners are running across your yards. I just think if we can protect that style we're gonna have a beautiful, you know, we're gonna have beautiful neighborhoods and things. So that my vote would be to protect that as much as we can.
Hotel owner Veno Nathraj commented on another aspect of the code amendment, the assessment of Development Impact Fees of $8.52 per square foot on commercial development, and offered a theoretical example of adding sidewalks. He also expressed concern about fees being paid but never actually used. CDD Director Gardner replied “Its really hard to talk about theoretical projects on the spot” and offered to talk further once there is a concrete project.
The amendment passed 5-0 with the caveat that language would be added “that the following street improvement standards shall apply to local streets upon subdivision of the property” per CDD staff member Diane Olsen.
3. Development Code Amendment - Article 4 Part 1. Per CDD Gardner, staff was recommending changes, clarifications of language and seeking guidance on recommendations. No decision will be rendered, instead guidance will be used to write suggested amendments. This discussion tended to wander across the different code chapters at play but we are reporting public comment and discussion by chapter for clarity. Design guidelines were deleted from several Chapters - Gardner stated “design guidelines to us should be a separate effort.”
In public comment on this item, Susan Peplow asked about what constitutes storage and whether her local plumber could park his plumbing truck in the his driveway. She felt the proposed language (or lack of it) could be confusing. In discussion Commissioners and staff attempted to make a distinction between a plumbing truck that is parked and moved for daily use, versus vehicles and equipment, such as backhoes, which are stored. Commissioner Krushat recommended adding “as defined as” and then providing a definition for clarity. Left unresolved in text of the proposed code was lack of a defined time limit for “parking” versus “storage.”
A more common residential complaint is the storage of boats and trailers along common property lines in the “setback” or the distance between the property line and where structures are allowed — often around 15 feet per CDD staff Olsen. While commissioners considered allowing storage in the side yard setback, but not the front yard setback, they had difficulty agreeing on anything other than this type of storage shouldn’t be allowed on multi-family properties.
Commissioners also wondered about the intent of the setback storage ban for single family residential zoning — whether it was intended to address “junkyard situations.” In conclusion, Gardner suggested “Let's get some clarification from code (enforcement) on the complaints that they've seen. I think the intention here of this particular section was to avoid the whole junkyard situation.”
Peplow asked about the current requirement of mobile homes needing to be 10 years old or less, noting “Most mobile homes have a lifespan of 30-55 years. If it's in good shape, and it's gets through HUD [then] I'm not sure why we would be limiting people the opportunity to put in housing, [which] I thought that was a number one priority.” Commissioners agreed that the current language allowing an older coach if approved by the Planning Commission could be made clearer by specifically mentioning that that older coaches are allowed with a variance (which requires payment of a fee).
Commissioner Krushat requested clarity on the limit on guest houses. CDD staff Olsen provided the distinction between Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and guest houses: guest houses are not “livable” as they do not have a kitchen. Also they are limited to 16 feet in height and cannot be rented. Additionally, language specifying architectural compatibility between structures is being simplified to read “shall be determined by similar architectural style and color.”
Commissioner Jessica Cure inquired about cargo containers for storing materials prior to planned construction. CDD staff Olsen clarified that cargo containers cannot be used to store building materials until a building permit has been issued. CDD staff also added that if a home is already constructed and the resident wants a container for permanent use, that is a separate permit process.
Commissioner Alex Garcia asked about cargo containers being used as a house. Gardner replied that if a house is being built from a cargo container, that counts as a house — meaning that the relevant home construction permitting would apply.
This code section was not discussed.
With regard to the storage of cargo containers on commercial lots, Peplow pointed out that commercial fences are limited to 8 feet while cargo containers are 10 feet.
Also speaking in public comment, Ashton Ramsey spoke in favor of fencing for security and privacy, especially in regards to the pool and other amenities at Hotel Ramsey and in residential neighborhoods, “like Central America and different places where people have the the front fences and gates and they have the security. So I think that that's something that's really cool. And would be you know, pretty valuable.”
In discussing raising allowable residential fence heights to eight feet, Commissioners ran into the question of what might be permissible under the development code, but then require permitting under the building code. Under the building code fences higher than six feet require permits. The consensus was to raise the maximum front fence on residential properties from four to six feet and keep the sides at eight feet. The same height increase recommendation was applied to commercial districts. The front and side fence for industrial areas was raised from six to eight feet.
If residents have questions or concerns on these items, the code will be returning to the Planning Commission with revised language on May 21.
And in closing…
Commissioner Krushat raised the issue of time, “The only thing I want to bring up is we had a lot of material to go through. And I had a lot of material — it was 149 pages that I received on Thursday. And if we can do anything to kind of split that up so I can give the time and effort that's really needed.” Chair Walker agreed while Commissioner Leslie Paahana thought the public airing was useful.
New Planning Commission Chair Max Walker closed the meeting with a thank you, “And before we adjourn, I want to thank the public for coming out and participating tonight because we greatly appreciate it. Your voices and your comments are welcome.”
Share your thoughts in the comments below. Please note that we do not allow anonymous comments. Please be sure your first and last name is on your profile prior to commenting. Anonymous comments will be deleted.
Share this post—it’s free!
Desert Trumpet subscriptions are always free—but thanks to our paid subscribers, we raised $2,390 toward our first-quarter goal! We hope to raise $2,500 in our second quarter. Help support our reporting and our June 8 town hall by upgrading to a paid subscription below or donating $100 or more through Paypal! Please note that your donation/subscription will be listed as AHA Projects, the name of our fiscal receiver, on your statement.