The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-19 Draft Minutes �� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION . TUESDAY — JANUARY 19, 2010 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * w * * * * * * * * �:�.* * * * * * * * * * * * * * �� I. CALL TO ORDER � '�� Chairperson Tanner called the meeting tt� o�er at 6 � m. �. ��„ II. ROLL CALL �" �� ';� Members Present: Van Tanner, �� ,� �� Connor Limont,'�C��air St,�i��Campbell �t� I��r��ana �� Ma�;�ch�i� �. � ,P t ..: '�; ��.. Members None `�� , � `�,�� .� ��. Staff � nt: ;�. auri Ay�'�, Director of Community Development �° 9� ave Erwir�;.�ity Attorney �� t.,� ;,�r�emblay�'�Jeputy City Attorney " 9��. � �a��" o;:�'rincipal Planner � Kevin , Assistant Planner i/j/��%// e�� Ryan Stendell, Senior Management Analyst ,/; ��%j�,� �`�� Christina Canales, Assistant Engineer �!� '�� n a Monroe Administrative Secretar ��%iy� �j, Y , Y //j�/i /�j �� ,� IIL <,;�, EDGE O� LEGIANCE ��%� , i%% Cfi anner led in the pledge of allegiance. '��;�� IV. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Ms. Aylaian summarized pertinent January 14, 2010 City Council actions. V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION � JANUARY 19� 2010 VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Request for consideration of the December 15, 2009 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner DeLuna, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the December 15, 2009 meeting minutes. Motion carried 5-0. � ��. ; VII. CONSENT CALENDAR � � ?p� �y�T S a� dY;. A. Case No. PP 03-19 — $��TELLE D ��, ; OPMENT, LLC, Applicant �, �� 5 �� q�rf� Request for approval ofi��nro-year ti . extens�on f� � ; ase III (one remaining buildir'��f C� o. PP 03-19 1 hich allowed the construction c�� ;�<�ffice buildings totaling 53,662 gross = re feet) or� �Perty located at 39-800 Portola. �� .�z , , ��, � �� Action: �� ;. � It was mo� ��r Com R io_ i econded by Commissioner DeLuna� �rc�r��t'� the Calen by minute motion. Motion carne��. �. , � ��;� � viii. UBLIC �� \\\\\\\ -.' �4�'4�. :��: �( ,��,. ��. �� Any , ho �l�lenges any hearmg matter m court may be limited to ��\� raising � tho��sues he, she or someone else raised at the public \� �� hearing ibed��in, or in written correspondence delivered to the \\ Planning C \ ission at, or prior to, the public hearing. \�� , Cas �� s. TT 34943, DA 02-Q1 Amendment #3 and ZOA 09-494— � � 6.5, LLC, c/o TED LENNON, Applicant �� tinued from December 15, 2009) �� Request for a recommendation to the City Council of approval of a tentative tract map with associated CEQA addendum to the SEIR for Stone Eagle, third amendment to Development Agreement 02-01 (Stone Eagle Development), and a zoning ordinance amendment to revise the Hillside Planned Residential Zone Ridgeline Map to allow the subdivision of 7.7 acres into six residential lots. Subject property is located 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 19, 2010 west of the Palm Valley Storm Channel at the termination of Old Stone Trail (APN 652-090-002). Mr. Stendell noted that this item was continued from the December 15, 2009 meeting. At that time the Planning Commission directed staff to offer some site visits to Commissioners to examine some of the outcroppings that would be affected, see how the pads would ;sit into the property, as well as to conduct a study session, which or,�t��red last Thursday on January 14, 2010. The most notable chat��'` that he believed the Planning Commissioners had been made ��-� of was the proposal by Stone Eagle to alter the project that woul� " ovv � ��ttle bit smaller pads, a preferable route for the road cominc�, e��r d Pad �e,��nd creating a new Pad 2 which eliminated about 3,0 rds of fill withi�that canyon. Mr. Lennon also had the project e„ ��` er take a look afi� ��ne of the pad heights and was actually able,� ��'�� wer the p d heights st�g� on Pad 3, so the proposal that was pres in co,. at the Study ° ssion last Thursday had been refined a litt' � fr "�� e original. Staff felt it was a much better direction. �# eliminated ' � s of three retaining walls in the old project. It also gv�� f an appr` te 12,000-13,000 square foot pad and replaced it wi �: r��,200 sq � bfoot pad. That was the most notable change to the p�� ical }�t�� Sta �° this was a better solution. The fill wen m approx�s��tely t��'°��ds` 9,000 and then offset by the cut. T " ave a {��,,�at ha� ��roximately 1,500 square feet of fill i to th ject ��" .� y�n Staf °„ ommen � approval the project as revised. Mr. Stendell �:� recalle , t a� �; additional conditions were entered into �.�,�� ecor" � elated��f� ,�a QMP. They were on the record from the �� ,,, mg;�°�� staff had requested the addition of a condition about the :// / ,i�� ment lan and if this ro ect was a roved staff still ��/ water � ty e p p � pp , �"�!� recomm�� d th� dition. The other condition discussed was about the �/�j/ �j� bike path dete� ing a dollar amount for an in-lieu fee. In addition, ��io,, '��« ///� taff adde �� That the applicant shall not disturb any significant �!� % croppin identified on the ridgeline exhibit dated July 2008, which �"�, oug j� s a result of some good dialogue at the study session last Th % aff recommended approval as conditioned. �� , "� Commissioner DeLuna noted that Mr. Stendell said there would be 1,500 yards of dirt imported and asked if that equaled 150 truck loads. Mr. Stendell answered yes. Commissioner Schmidt asked which two lots were going to be altered, 2 and 3. Mr. Stendell said it most directly affects 2 and 4. Lot 4 would actually shrink a little bit to accommodate the road to the rear and would not disturb the outcropping that they were seeing. Those were the most 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 19, 2010 directly impacted lots by the rerouting of the road. Pad 3 he didn't think changed too much on the rerouting, except the developer took it upon himself to take a look at the lot and see if he could make it a little bit smaller and lower it a little bit as that is the highest lot on the map. They were able to lower it a bit and cut it down in size to approximately 10,000 square feet; before it was about 13,000 square feet. Commissioner Schmidt asked if it was still a split level design. Mr. Stendell replied yes. Commissioner Schmidt asked if Lot 2 was still s�!� Mr. Stendell said no. Commissioner Schmidt asked for the total pa�;�"�a of Lot 2. Mr. Stendell stated 8,217. Commissioner Schmidt com�+�t��d that was a significant reduction. r ;.� There were no other questions for � . Chairpersori `��nner o�ened the public hearing and asked the ap to address the Cb�rimission. � � MR. TED LENNON, 47 ilver S � rail in Palm C��ert, stated that Mr. Stendell did a w � presenting the project. The major changes..,Game out o tudy session when there was concern about ��, � being to : �ble, although the line-of-sight studies showed� c�i��,it was`� � stic change. In their original line-of-sight he s�v�.thaf t��inee�� used 26-foot houses and the h es are lim��l to ��'�� ac Ily offered on Pad 3, they lo �� heigh� �z ��pad ��'��eet on the upper level. In ion, t could r ,� ` e the house size down to 18 feet, so they � � I pick up° ven fee�� that particular lot. As indicated, he said �� t 2 is pr �� I 25% tt��% less in size and it wasn't a split level 't r ' Ily�e grading change. And actually on this �� pla � � ve sho"' � _� oad on the right around Lot 4 and that ,�� `�\� ad�� away. That was not in the final plan. So they reduced the ��\� ize� �� reduced the grading infill by something like 70-80/o ,,\� �� a�� , tho � they still had a great project. �\� � \�\\\\ .\ The ; other thmg mentioned was staff had recommended that � �� they �� up their remaining 14 density lots and he had suggested a �� 2 �� They would like to keep 3 lots to be able to do something ��;� d the clubhouse; that was important when the clubhouse �� Ily gets done. They would like to do that as an exception. He thanked them. Chairperson Tanner asked if there were any questions of the applicant at this time. Commissioner Schmidt asked when the road was rerouted, taking it away from where it did go and coming back around, she was looking at a map that showed it has quite a large outcropping of rocks there. It looked like 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 19, 2010 that was where the road was going. She asked if that was correct. Mr. Stendell said she was correct. There is a very large outcropping and when they discussed this at the very beginning stages, that was something they said they were getting kind of close to this back outcropping, so that was probably what drove staying away from that as a priority. That was why they went from a pad area for Lot 4 of approximately 12,843 and on the new proposal 10,130. That was reduced to acco modate it. He said this is a beautiful outcropping and was probably on e bigger ones on the property. ��° � Chairperson Tanner reiterated that they_: � d pede the outcropping with the road. Mr. Stendell said no :� irperso nner asked if that answered Commissioner Schmidt's€��;��tion. She sa�� s. �. �� ,� There were no questions for th� �tpplicant. Ghairperson r asked for any testimony in FAVOR of the � ect. �, � MR. GEORGE ICHOLAS, 7'��''Pitahaya Street in Palm Desert, stated that h �,� owner o� :�� entity that has the adjacent property to this°°: dditiona�� ct map. He was in favor of this. He really � ecia .�� at st��.�. d done in the sense of desi�n�n, this wit � . Le "�� t c�'� nge the outcroppings and the� and t is p �thin those appropriate areas �I��ivoul � u�ffect t � ridgelines and outcroppings. He thought ��s was th��ht way right direction for the hillside. They have �� : ir 40 a� and whe ey bring something to staff, they would ' � �� ' t�i�., s e e type of requirements because he Irk� o � � �. \\��\ be�"� ° �� rotecting t�t��;r�ti1lside was very important. He thought the ��\ plic��iad done that with what he proposed. He was in favor of �� '� ,� d di��, have a problem with it because of the way they've �� ta �the dfi��ligence to do what they've done. �\\ � '� � `�� Chairperso �� nner thanked him for his comments and asked if anyone \� � \� e wishe �� speak in FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to the proposed t. T was no response. Chairperson Tanner closed the public he , �� asked for Commission comments. ,,�� Commissioner Campbell stated that the staff report was excellent from the beginning. Then after visiting the site with staff and the developer pointing out the different outcroppings and the ridgeline so that they could understand it a lot more, it was very clear to her. They had the study session that the Planning Commission wanted to have and a lot of the questions were answered. The changes that were made in the area that the developer was going to do, plus Mr. Lennon's expertise and 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 19, 2010 experience they knew what he couid do and not do, and she was all in favor of the project, as is. Commissioner Limont said she stopped a little short of getting into outcroppings and where the pads go, although she knew they worked hard on all of that, plus the roads and resituating. She stopped with the fact that it is a seven and a half acre parcel that th�y are looking to put six homes on, which just flies in the face of everyt,�� they've held dear to them for the Cahuilla Hills. The difficulty she h �ias there wasn't a doubt in her mind that what Ted Lennon build� ��ways high quality. That wasn't the issue. The issue is they are ��or� � �nd looking to put six homes on a piece of property tha : s�� the rrt�mum allowed two, basically one and a half. So, un ately, she dit�'�, have the same �;� approval thought as her fellow C� ssioner at this tim�k��, �� ;*; Chairperson Tanner asked if t � was a � ore discussia =`�'fhere was no response. He said they ha �. � on the floor to approve as , submitted and entert�i�ed a seco`� "' mmissioner Schmidt said she would second it. ��. � � . � j ,� �:� ,x, �° Action: � It was mov, by Comrrt�ione� -� II, conded by Commissioner Schmidt,�� the f��r�� T- nd i��"�� mendation as presented by staff. erso nner as�,� for any further discussion. There was no res . He ca for th��ote. The motion failed on a 2-3 vote (Co ioners ,�' W una, Limo�� nd Schmidt voted no). p�.<: ,.�, �� ,m�iss ampbe � � ��at Commissioner Schmidt seconded the �j�i�` � �� an � �. ed how she could say nay. Commissioner Schmidt i'��i/ �%� > > �%� explai��, he ed to get �t to a vote. It doesn t mean you re in favor �f %%� %, '�� you sec a m � Chairperson Tanner concurred. Mr. Erwin clarified ,��%i, ',�i ,////%, % that the m- n wa enied. Commissioner Campbell asked if that was � ��j��ven if the �� oval motion was seconded. Mr. Erwin said that was correct. � conding motion got it to the floor for a vote. Chairperson Tanner ted,, the motion did not carry and was denied. Ms. Aylaian said tha � � �� uld prepare a resolution of denial to bring back for the next meeti � taff asked for clarification if a motion was needed to direct staff to prepare a resolution. Mr. Erwin stated that technically it wasn't needed. It would be satisfactory if they wished to make a motion to deny it. He believed the outcome would be approval of that motion, so they would just prepare the resolution of denial and bring it back. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 19, 2010 B. Case No. CUP 08-433 — CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for revocation of an existing conditional use permit for a massage therapy establishment within an existing office suite located at 72-855 Fred Waring Drive. Business Owner: Lawrence M. Andrews; Property Owner: Haven Management. Mr. Swartz reviewed the staff report and reco�rt�rtended approval of the findings and adoption of the resolution to r��F Conditional Use Permit 08-433. � �.� � �:_ �� `� � �=-.,�", Commissioner Schmidt asked if the ir�ess was ��ed at this point. Mr. Swartz said yes. .��°� �u Chairperson Tanner opened t�� lic hearir� and asked i# �n�rone wished to speak in FAVOR of or in OSITI the propose�`revocation. There was no response. Chairpe T :: ��'closed the public hearing and asked Commission for�heir comme��`�� ti� � � Action: �� It was moved by Com��sioi��` ;,E pbe �, � conded by Commissioner DeLuna, ap��ying the fir��igs a��me � �tion as presented by staff. Motion c��'� �;� �� ':�,. ��' ,� � It w�x��ioved by ;��mmissiax�r Campbell, seconded by Commissioner DeLt�. adoptin��lanning C mission Resolution No. 2517, revoking Case I� ' �UP � ��t�Q�n c "ed 5-0. q � IX. �� LAN��US �� \��\� A. R �� st f�'`�rection regarding short-term rentals in the R-1 � ��\ zon ��, �� \ 'ncipal P�° er Tony Bagato explained that recently there was an ' atio ` \ a short-term rental on Utah Circle that was denied. That de ,� en appealed to the City Council. The City Council upheld the decisi � f the Planning Commission denying the conditional use permit application. The discussion was being brought forth because there are some short-term rental properties currently operating without conditional use permits and staff was going to go and require them to file for a conditional use permit. As he listed in the staff report, he said he gave a brief explanation of what a conditional use permit is; it allows for a flexibility of uses in different zones. Currently in the R-1 zone, Section K allows an applicant to do short-term rental. This ordinance was enacted in 2000 because staff found that a lot of times they are done in country clubs and 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 19, 2010 those hadn't been a problem because they are regulated through CC&R's and a lot of homeowner associations have management companies that actually manage them, so they weren't having any problems with those homes. Around 2000, staff started getting complaints in R-1 zones that homes were being operated on a short-term basis and even sometimes as party homes for spring break and things like that. This ordinance was done at the time to just require a conditional use per it because they thought that there could be some cases where it was - atible with conditions and certain restrictions. He went back thro ' ince the ordinance has been in place and found they've only proc�� ` bout five applications and two out of the five were approved. That��` � e � : t two-thirds of the time iYs been acceptable and the other ��n�� it has�� n more problematic homes. The decision by the Plar�� Commissio�� s based on the majority because it was believec� �� this wasn't com le in the single famil zone and Cit Council � '� Y Y ��d• ``�s �.� �,�g Staff was therefore requesting d��tiQ�t� �fore bringing forth any new applications, as to wh er or not th��`uld consider a zoning ordinance amendment that wo � ' ally prohit��iort-term rentals. From the TOT side (transient occupa¢. �� recei�� short-term rentals, it is only a little over $2 000, so �� ey 'bit it, � �sn't an impact on the City � 3f:.`,..; budget. Staf� believed t �f th %�' ��to �1`ocess a zoning ordinance amendm �� Jd be at�� , or��'""� ould conti�nue operating them with a,�; � itiona�=�e per d then bring them in on a case-by-case � �-:. bas�� ff was a : �g for di �on. �� ' Commr �er �,�� l �f t olks renting without CUPs were notified �� ted, r��Wey've fi� �� 'issue in the past. Mr. Bagato said they \�� eer��fied. This came to staff s attention when the last applicant �� g �'"r�;�aid there were some people in her neighborhood doing �� came � h, � ` � �� \�� this with CU�?� � staff did some research and were able to identify a ��' few. Typic these r�re found in associations, and not often in R-1 zones �� ecause th ` ad to complaints and they know right away. Commissioner �� ont ask � he had run into this in the past where they had someone in � � 'on � ey cited them or send Code out, or how did staff handled it. Mr. said every one they've had has come from a complaint. Com oner Limont asked how they handled it, did they say starting February 1 please make sure you're not doing short-term rentals any longer because it is in violation. Mr. Bagato said it becomes a Code Enforcement action and they come in to apply for a permit. That's how it had been done in the past. Commissioner Limont agreed that this wasn't an issue of money, but what they were talking about was what they discussed months ago when they denied that CUP and that was to really make certain that we maintain the integrity of our neighborhoods as neighborhoods. Other cities in the valley have had unfortunate problems 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 19� 2010 when renters got out of hand in their neighborhoods. It completely changes the whole character. Mr. Bagato agreed that conditional use permits give them some restrictions, but whether it was worth having them was the bigger question. Chairperson Tanner said that one of the issues they were also looking at is that people can do this without a conditional use permit. You can rent a home for long term, but people can rent them f��:;two weeks or a month during holidays and they don't need a condit��r��i use permit. He asked if that was correct. Mr. Bagato said that if sc��'t'��e is in an R-1 zone, they are supposed to have a conditional use ��'�t. Th�e is always going to be an enforcement side, but some of t_, e�people t��actively know have websites advertising their homes staff sees t�t�;they can go after them. The ones that don't adve ' r somehow do it u��r the radar will �,F be a little more difficult to tra � t there is,always the ert ement side, whether or not they require �� P. Ch �; son Tanner r`"� erated that typically the way staff finds out a � it,�� ough a complaint. Mr. Bagato said that was correct T�rpically this� �� ned when someone has used a home during spring k��'��t��',for a pa � ekend or wedding and a bunch of neighbors complam � ��r�;��ice dep� , nt on the weekend and then also follow-up outside o�;�e pol��;v+��h sta .' Monday morning and then they are con, ed. �` ��°� ; Chairp �h Ta�� noted tt��staff was^^asking for direction from the Pla� Commis . Mr. B��#o said yes, because staff doesn't typically initia oning ance am��nent, but they also don't want to send in nine a' nt d��d if it isn't considered compatible any �� So �� ere ask� � �� irection on whether or not they should be /�'j;, i ��/� ,to � ' ue on a case-by-case basis or eliminated. Chairperson j i;%��, � Tanne ��',� ed re were any applicants since the May 19 meeting. Mr. Bagato no,-� they are aware of some they need to contact. ��////j�j� Commissi�' � Limo� �explained that these nine will apply when they are ��Id they ar ; violation. Chairperson Tanner said they would probably be �� ied. Co� issioner Limont noted that is our process. Mr. Bagato ,� 'ed t � the zoning ordinance amendment prohibits it, they would the% �� tact them afterward to say it isn't allowed. ,:;;� Commissioner Limont asked Mr. Erwin if they did something along those lines to limit whether or not a person can do a short-term rental under the R-1 zone, if that was any sort of denial. Mr. Erwin said basically, if it was the Planning Commission's feeling they ought to be thinking in terms of initiating an ordinance eliminating the current conditional use permit process in our ordinance and just indicate it is prohibited. Commissioner Limont: indicated they could just say no short-term rentals period. Chairperson Tanner said they could direct staff to do a CUP on no short- 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 19� 2010 term rentals in an R-1. Mr. Erwin clarified it would be an ordinance amendment. Commissioner Campbell asked for the definition of a short- term rental. Less than 30 days? Mr. Erwin concurred that it was 30 days or less. Commissioner Campbell indicated that otherwise it would just be a regular rental. That was in the R-1 . She was happy to see that it wouldn't hold true to the gated communities. Commissioner Schmidt said that was a question that she had. How do they do that? The assumption is that all gated communities have CC&R's or bylaws an� ��gulations that preclude short-term rentals. Mr. Erwin wasn't sure tha�;�'of them do. Mr. Bagato clarified that they manage them. They �+�t��r allow them and some actually have management companiesR :� `�� Resort Management, who will manage it for people. The w�e zone€��fferently, so they've always been treated differently ir�Y past becaus� �ey have different standards they follow within the� ' community and t haven't been a �. problem. And typically they q going to #�nd more off��an not in a �; gated or country club commun they ar ond homes �t�� do choose to rent them out on a month-to- ' or as a weekend home in the ,�s season. a9� '',��,�, � �,; Commissioner Schm�� - if the �� ance would be drafted to specifically exclude an " ted ity. in said that was going to be difficult. �c�t�missione hm' 3 t w her point. Mr. Bagato said that is ho��'�� ted no con use permit. It applies only to the R-� �ne, r��#he P mmissioner Schmidt asked if the gated com�"I�,��ties appl� �or CU . Mr. Bagato said no, it wasn't required. Chait��on Tanr�said they e their own set of rules and regulations. Commi�;�i�ner �.��,��s, y don't fall under a CUP. Mr. Erwin said �� ng a��' �re not R `F. ��assumed all of the gated communities are ' Re� ntial (PR). Mr. Bagato said that was correct. Mr. Erwin ��G��\�� aske\ � �� ey ��e. Mr. Bagato said typically they are. Commissioner �� Limont a if N��gato could think of one that isn't. Mr. Bagato replied �� Regency a hiteh�vk; they are R-1. � � �� mmissio � Schmidt felt they should direct staff and counsel and \ one� Ived to explore this and make certain that the gated co all comply and can be accepted because they have their own. She ed seriously that was really totally true, but she thought they had to know. Chairperson Tanner asked how they would direct a private residential community to change their CC&R's to not allow or to allow. Commissioner Schmidt indicated there had been a blanket comment made tonight that most all gated communities have their own rules, regulations and CC&R's, which would exclude them from whatever they would be doing. That was her understanding. Mr. Erwin said no, not necessarily. That does not occur. The ordinance, if they apply it to R-1, it is applied regardless of the CC&R's. Commissioner Schmidt said that was her point. 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 19, 2010 If someone lives in a gated community and you do not like the next door rental that is weekend rental, you would still have an opportunity to complain and have some sort of enforcement. Mr. Erwin replied as far as R-1, yes. It falls under the R-1 at the present time. Commissioner Schmidt indicated that it did not necessarily have to be gated. Commissioner Limont thought it might be helpful �f staff came back with a list of the ones that fall under R-1 and with sug rt `� � ns. It sounded simple, but if they have a couple of communities � re going to be affected adversely, they need to look at that. Mr. E `�� 'd they could look at it and see what they could come up with as �� o �.; rnatives and see what the problems might be and bring it ba�l�,� hem in r 45 days. � ��: �� °�: Commissioner Schmidt stated she would be ve ch in favor of eliminating weekend rentals ir��_ e R-1 zor�e. She �ust `�''�, ed to make certain they weren't stepping or��s they � : not be. Mr. � n said they �... would explore it and see what the�c�uld ��e back with. �.� In the meantime, C °5 ' ner Limor��ted there are nine rentals that are not in compliance�`"� �� ess to t�� = rson whose CUP they turned down, they have a pro�� s o� �� "� them � that they cannot do this and they ne��o apply the � � .� do �op running the short-term rental un#� ��;��ut thr ir co al use permit. Mr. Bagato explaine+��iat th�� aven't contacted yet because they would want to kno�� process ��;how to�, approval and he didn't want to give them an �� ` ation, s��they nee apply, and have them pay a fee for someth"�r��ha�� ed e're changing it. Commissioner Limont tha�� rdinanc� �i��.��tow. Mr. Erwin said it did create somewhat �,�� lerrr;��ause they know the feeling, at least what he was hearing �� is tha a� �'� ning mission is interested in prohibiting them in an R-1, and o�� \� if these R-1'� , y are going to waste not only staff time, Planning � Commissio time, t� applicant s money, in coming through the process. \O \� Until the PI ing Commission has put something in black and white and �� ommen it to Council for approval, either prohibiting it in the R-1 and ' ok thin gated communities, until we get something definite, he su �� at they not go out and chase people at the moment, because if we� , there might be a whole lot more than these nine. Commissioner Limont asked how we should handle the complaints. If someone lives in an R-1 neighborhood and it's in our ordinance that you need to have a CUP and the person doesn't have a CUP, in the meantime they are renting their house out on a short-term basis. Mr. Erwin's inclination would be to tell them that we are in the process of looking at it and until we conclude the study, we're just going to be aware of the complaints and tell the people there that we are studying it so they have at 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 19, 2010 least some long-term notice that it may be prohibited. Not give them a violation. Commissioner Limont asked if they could stop them from doing short-terms rentals in the interim. Mr. Erwin explained that if they do, we have to tell them they are entitled to apply for a conditional use permit and they have to pay the appropriate fee and start through the process. They would then come before them. Chairperson Tanner said they would be denied. Ms. Aylaian added that these nine that the are aware of out there appear to be operating in good faith. They prob�k�� just don't know. They have registered with the Finance Department �c; are paying bed tax when they rent the place out, so it would seem a � , nnecessarily harsh to ask them to come in. Commissioner Limont ��d ��at them paying tax. Ms. Aylaian noted that the staff repo� ir��icated ��, the City received approximately $2,000 in bed tax , '' hem, so it v��t��'t a great deal of revenue, but they are at least re �s� g their rentals an�t��ing in tax. She said they became aware of ��'� � locations�,by going thr��i Finance to find the ones that are paying b �,� and t, '"� � ied to deterrr�� if they had a CUP in place for it. �� ,� � Chairperson Tanner th�tu�� the con s of the Planning Commission � was they asked for sta�`�o d�� tudy an ��s � e back by our next meeting with those restrictions o� �-1 v�� R. � missioner Campbell noted � that they re mended� �-45 d�� `��=�m� � ack. Chairperson Tanner asked if�� when��i� �xt sc�i�ed meeting would be. Mr. Bagat ` he n't dr��,t��s in two weeks. Ms. Aylaian said it would pro be the s nd mee°�� in February. Mr. Bagato said staff could iden � hich c ��`��'� clubs ar�r �n R-1 and gated, but probably couldn't have a �P in ��., �Id have some other information by the ��% nd m n Febru �:s�� y/%'�°,,,, %/ '�%i% /�� Chair�" ,� n r said that if that was the consensus of the Planning � Commis the �� Id instruct staff to do a study of those PR gated and , �, �///� R-1 gated� muni s and come back. Commissioner Schmidt said with ��j//� aybe a d;� ordinance. Chairperson Tanner concurred. Chairperson �� ,�, ner ask they needed a motion. Mr. Erwin said he thought staff had � ,i nstr '` s. ��j�j/�� Action: %ii% None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner Campbell reported that the meeting would be next Wednesday. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 19� 2010 B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE Commissioner Limont stated that the next meeting was January 20, 2010. C. PARKS & RECREATION Chairperson Tanner summarized the hig��hts of the meeting. D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE : Commissioner Schmidt revieu��9 the discus�i��, items from their meeting last week. � `�,,. XI. ELECTION OF OFFICERS AND ��AAMI�"'�''�E LIAISONS A. Election of C on and Vi��hairperson ,, ��,5 �, e�, a �,� Actiorr. `'� �' � It was mov,�� by Co �� sio � �� a, �econded by Chairperson Tanner, ��ommi ` � onn �� mont as Chairperson and electin- ��mmis��ier Ma , chmidt as Vice Chairperson by minute mot� : otion carr�l 5-0. � �� ;� °" � � �� , .�� , . x Ap�� ent ofi' ��' ,��t in Public Places Representative, � ;��o� po��ent of a Landscape Committee Representative, �� oint��t of a Parks & Recreation Commission °�� R \ sen��r�, and Appointment of a Project Area 4 ;��, Co 'ttee F�+�presentative. �, �� \ � Actio � �� s rr� by Commissioner DeLuna, seconded by Commissioner Li , �� inute motion, to they keep the current appoints in place. Motio� rried 5-0. The motion reappointed Commissioner Campbell as the Art\in Public Places representative, reappointed Chairperson Limont as the Landscape Committee representative, reappointed Commissioner Tanner as the Parks & Recreation Commission representative, and reappointed Commissioner Schmidt as the Project Area 4 Committee representative. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 19. 2010 XII. COMMENTS 1. Commissioner DeLuna stated that there is an obvious omission in the Hillside Ordinance that she thought needed to be addressed so that outcroppings aren't treated any differently than ridgelines. She didn't think they needed to reinvent the wheel. A great number of cities have already addressed this very issu in their ordinances and she would like to move to direct staff to r �° the Hillside Ordinance ,,�.. with regard to outcroppings. There arev ral cities that have done this and she would be happy to��° � staff review the hillside ordinances of those cities. She�� ' `�� loaded several, most notably Truckee Nevada, Bel�d�e, and�� le Valley California. She had about six or seven �ri+�'they had sp � � ordinances. She would be happy to share t��vith staff. �� r � �:�� Mr. Erwin recommendet��a t a mo ��be made to ��'� this to the agenda so that the Plannm�� m�rr��on could discuss�it. � �� ,.� Actiorr: �� It was moved by C r DeLur��y seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, adding discus o sed ��de Ordinance Amendment to the agend�t��r minute � ion. v ried°�`-0. 3 � ��3 �� a � ,�,< 2. ��rpers�"�anner -;�� comment he wanted to go on record. He � �s a bit �prised ` thought he should have said what he ught a the applF 'on they had from Mr. Lennon. He was �� c�ly ��' ±�`��,�d held his comments and wanted to go on �� rec��.'�saying t�r�� t�`was definitely in favor of it. The applicant \�� d ct��'i�t��r with all requested information. He did not attend the �� se�;�� and apologized for that, but again, he wanted to go on `�� re , by �t:��tating that they failed to take staff's recommendation `�� and� ff did ��ologize for doing things that maybe they shouldn't � have�� ne on the ridgelines, but he thought it would have been a � � grea� ject. He asked for any other comments. �� \� �� .\� 1. �� ued: Mr. Erwin said it would be appropriate at this time to \� sider Commissioner DeLuna's motion to direct staff since it was added to the agenda. She made the motion and it needed a second. Chairperson Tanner said it would get seconded and then he calls for the vote. Mr. Erwin concurred. Commissioner Schmidt asked if they could have discussion. Mr. Erwin further clarified that it is a second motion to direct staff to provide the ordinance amendment adding the outcroppings, so that needed to have a second and take action by the Commission. Chairperson Tanner thought they did that. Mr. Erwin explained that they only added it to the agenda. It required 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 19, 2010 two separate motions. They needed to take a specific action to add it to the agenda. That they had done and they voted on that. Now they could consider the motion to add the outcroppings. Chairperson Tanner asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner DeLuna, seconded by Commissioner Limont, instructing staff to prepare an ordinar�� amendment to treat outcroppings the same as ridgelines. Chai�r'son Tanner asked for discussion. �° � �� . Commissioner Schmidt state hat she Y�� ;,.,studied the Hillside Ordinance and could almo, � ite it. It wa� �ery, very clear in purposes of the Hillsid � � inance that outcrc��ings are very important features on � ��`�� the hillsic� s. She thou�the last time she was here she said" � mean�� outcropping�.�annot be a ridgeline. The point is that'=� h �� to the existing ordinance are relatively mino��,wand redefin� � �� rposes in Item C adding such �,, things back ir� t� �rdinance u" 25.15.120 Item A-8, it actually talks about out�t��i �`'�"s �he tho�� ,�, �hey had to make it very clear that these are pr�ious ��kler co� , nt earlier about the road bein ocated, w�i�? sh� ��° t t map it was going straight th�� major �� -�ng or��7.7 acres until they told her �� ey reducir�?� e pad size and the road wasn't going to go � ough it. se were ,r gs that were terribly important to her and e thoug most of �eople who live in the city. They need to �` e `� � � y � n't �ing to be rocket science to update this y,> /�i/�j�� or� �� , but it�� cally important to them all and to staff to �jjj��//�i� , //, ; ; ve��" re clear cut no, they may not do that, yes, you may do ,%%� �� ;;i;�%� �i,��/��j/ � //��%i�, Co �� ,� ;�� sion��`: ampbell pointed out that they have no say on what °!ii%/, ` ��j/�, the � nty is allowing up there with their outcroppings and ��'�%, rid e ��°s. Whatever Palm Desert does, we have this ordinance but ,�/i�,,,, g�;�%,. `��j�j th� I se g a��the'S haver had someh ealoun o�r�ork with them n � , r t thou h y y g �� last couple of years. Granted, Roy Wilson was the Supervisor, but they had a group that was going to put homes up there several years ago and they all went out to meet with the Supervisors and they said at that talk that they would work with the City of Palm Desert. Commissioner Campbell noted that they still see the monstrosities up there. Commissioner Limont didn't disagree. Commissioner Schmidt asked if that meant that they should continue it. Commissioner Campbell said no, because they weren't doing that. She didn't think they needed that type of ordinance. They 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 19. 2010 knew what they were voting on and they were keeping it in line with what we want to do, but here, they were keeping Mr. Lennon from doing this, yet they are looking up and seeing all this junk up there. Commissioner DeLuna noted that they couldn't control what the county does. Commissioner Campbell stated that was what she was saying. So they can't control the outcroppings or ridgelines up there. Commissioner DeLuna agreed, but said th could control the ones in the city limits. Commissioner Campbe � eed and thought they were doing a good job of that. Commis r DeLuna agreed. ��° Chairperson Tanner hoped that , �`� o ome back with a good study and something to sink th� t�� th in � � � ��. Chairperson Tanner ca " "�for a vote. carried 4-1 (Commissioner Campb��ed no) ��:��,_ ��. �� s ��,,.. y � 3. Commissioner Limont than��Va,�"�'"�nner for his services as Chair. �� y �a XIII. ADJOURNMENT � `'��'�� ' : 9��,�� a. It was mov�d by Com�' ione � II, s�conded by Commissioner Limont, � �' the y motion. The meeting was � � ad�our�`�t 6 5�'�. �. ��. < � � � �� r � g �. � a°-� V �,� ,-"% h..'.•,' �� \��\\\\ \ `� � ° ��```\��\ LAURI AYLAIAN, Secretary � \\ � �;, \ ��, ATT � � % �; \ ��\\\ y ; � �� ,\ �� VAN G. TA ; , Chair � � Palm Desert �� 'ng , "�, ission �\,�� /tm \\� 16