Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0104 . �"I('v IiTE S PALM DESERT PLA�JNING CONm1ISSI0N MEETING ' JANUARY 4, 1977 7 PM - CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAP�BERS I. CALL TO ORDER The regularly scheduled meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Wilson at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Cham- � bers in the Palm Desert City Hall . II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Reading III. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioner BERKEY Commissioner KELLY Commissioner READING Chai rman !JILSON Absent: Corrnnissioner MILLS (excused absence) Also Present: Paul A. Williams - Director of Environmental Services Hunter Cook - City Engineer Stephen Fleshman - Associate Planner IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. MINUTES of the Meeting of December 14, 1976. A motion of Commissioner Reading, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to approve the minutes of December 14, 1976, with corrections as ;�, follows, was unanimously carried. Page 3, 6th paragraph, change the third sentence to read as follows: "He further stated that it was not impossible to create a sign with more than four colors." Page 5, 8th paragraph, change the last sentence to read as follows: "He stated that a precedent could be set by the realtors if the off-site directional signs were allowed and he questioned whether this matter was adequately handled in Section 25.38-10.05 (Other Signs)." Page 8, 8th paragraph, 2nd line, delete the word "additional". Page 9, 8th paragraph, 2nd line, change "then" to read "them". Page 11, add the following to the third paragraph from the top: "There was also a discussion pertaining to the reduction of the roof pitches. The Commission felt that on the three westerly- most houses, the roof pitch should be reduced to 3 in 12." Page 11, 6th paragraph, insert the word "be" between "to" and "ex- � cused". V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None January 4, 1977 Page One VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Wilson asked that it be noted for the record that the Commission had met in a Study Session prior to tonight's meeting for the purpose of asking questions of staff and to look at the items on the agenda. Further, he stated that no attempt was made to arrive at any decisions. Chairman Wilson then expl�ined the Public Hearina procedures to those present. A. CASE N0. VARIANCE 05-76 & CUP 11-76, EL PASEO MINI-MALL, �PPLICANT Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a 1,000 square foot � coffee shop in an existing building in the C-1 Zone District and a Variance from Section 25.33-7 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code to allow for a deficiency of twelve (12) parking spaces. Mr. Williams presented the staff report to the Cormnission. Said report included a description of the project, staff' s recommenda- tion for approval , justifications for said approval , and an outline of the conditions of approval pertaining to the case. Commissioner Kelly questioned Condition No. 8 which reads as follows: 8. Existing illegally installed signs in the Mini-Mall complex shall be removed. Mr. Williams explained the condition to Commissioner Kelly. Chairman Wilson opened the Public Hearing and asked if the applicant was present. SAMUEL CARMEL, 500 North Cahuilla Road, Palm Springs, spoke to the Commission and stated that he had applied for the Conditional Use Permit and the Variance due to the requests from tenants and custo- mers. He also presented a petition to the Commission which was signed by eleven merchants in the area in favor of the proposed project. � Chairman Wilson asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak to the Comm�ssion in favor of the proposed project. TOM MEARS, 73-880 E1 Paseo, spoke in favor of the project. MYRTLE FORREST, 73-880 E1 Paseo, also spoke in favor of the project. Chairman Wilson then asked if there was anyone present who wished to o � speak in opposition to the proposed project. Being no one, he then closed o the Public Hearing on Case No. Variance 05-76 and CUP 11-76 and asked the W Commission to take the matter under consideration. � � Commissioner Kelly stated that in relation to the parking deficiency, she ti • felt that there was a unique situation involved and that she would be in � favor of granting the Variance and approving the Conditional Use Permit. z � � �;, Commissioner Berkey agreed that the Variance was warranted. ��� Commissioner Reading stated that he too agreed with the above; however, he questioned the possibility of food being served on a take-out basis, Chairman Wilson re-opened the Public Hearing and asked Mr. Carmel to comment on Corr�nissioner Reading's question. �""'' Mr. Carmel stated that no take-out would be allowed and that he was concerned about litter. He further stated that his only intent was to allow the customers to eat without leaving the area. Chairman Wilson closed the Public Hearing and questioned staff regarding the possible addition of a condition pertaining to the take-out situation. Mr. Williams suggested that Condition No. 11 be added to read as follows: 11. Said use shall be limited to on-site consumption of food and beverages. January 4, 1977 Page Two ' Chairman Wilson and the Commissioners agreed with staff's suggestion for the addition of Condition No. 11. Commissioner Kelly moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 205, with the addition of Condition of Approval No. 11. Commissioner Berkey seconded the motion; motion carried 4-0 (Com��issioner Mills absent). Chairman Wilson stated that due to the large number of people in the audience who were interested in the Oral Communication� Section of the Agenda; he would like to move that section of the agenda up to the present time if it were agree- � ' able with the rest of the Commissioners. The Commissioners agreed with Chairman � ilson. � z �' g VII. ORAL COP�MUNICATIONS Q � � Chairman Wilson asked that a transcript be made of the entire Oral � Communications section of the agenda. (See attached transcript. ) z ' � ` VIIT. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS A. Review of Cases approved at the Design Review Board meeting of December 21, 1977. Mr. Fleshman presented the following cases to the Commission. Case No. 39C - Final construction drawings for a 12,500 square foot commercial building for J & R Enterprises. Case No. 45C - Preliminary drawings for a new 11,000 square foot bank building for Bank of America. The Planning Commission reviewed both of the above cases with staff and asked that a revision be made to Condition of Approval No. 17 for Case No. 45C. The revised condition is to read as follows: 17. All existing signs on Lot 1 shall be removed within five (5) working days of occupancy of the new building, to include � removal of the structural elements and poles for said signs. Commissioner Reading moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 206, with the revision to Condition of Approval No. 17 as listed above. Commissioner Kelly seconded the motion; motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Mills absent). Mr. Williams presented a letter to the Commission from CHARLES MARTIN, withdrawing his request for approval of preliminary drawings for a remodel of an existing hotel (Case No. 44C). Mr. Williams also explained that the Design Review Board had reviewed three other cases at their meeting of December 21st. They were Cases No. 21SA for R & R, INC. ; 20SA for SITYTOWN PIZZA; and 198SF which was an appeal of a staff decision regarding fencing. P�r. Williams then explained that the DRB had rejected the three above cases. IX. OLD BUSINESS None X. NEW BUSINESS �.... A. DISCUSSION OF PLANNING SCHEDULE Mr. Williams presented the Planning Schedule and discussed the fact that the Redevelopment Consultant was in the process of revising his schedule and that some changes would be made to the Planning Schedule. He also mentioned that the Planning Com- mission meeting which was scheduled for February 1, 1977, should be moved to a different date due to a conflict with the Planning Commissioners' Institute which is to be held in Los Angeles. By unanimous action, the regularly scheduled meeting for February 1, 1977, was re-scheduled for January 25, 1977. January 4, 1977 Page Three � B. DISCUSSION OF URBAN AESTHETICS REPORT Mr. Williams presented the above report to the Cor�nission. There was a brief discussion pertaining to various elements of the docu- ment. C. POTENTIAL JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION IN JANUARY There was a brief discussion pertaining to this matter. The Plan- ning Commission felt that a joint meeting should occur after the February Planning Commissioners' Institute in Los Angeles. The Commiss'ione�rs tentatively agreed upon February 9th or Febru- � ary 23rd as the date for the joint meeting. D. DISCUSSION OF ARTICLE, "THE GROWTH SHAPERS". Mr. Williams presented the art�cle to the Commission and informed them that this article was part of the agenda for the Planning Commissioners' Institute in Los Angeles. There was a brief discussion about the article. XI. CONNIENTS A. City Staff None B. City Attorney None C. Planning Commissioners Commissioner Berkey requested that the staff look into the possibility � of exchanging Planning Commission minutes with other cities in the Valley in order to get insight into some of the procedures and the decision-making process that goes on in other cities. Commissioner Berkey also suggested that a tentative agenda with maps be given to the Commissioners at the time legal notices were mailed out. Mr. Williams agreed and said that this would be taken care of. XII. ADJOURPJMENT Commissioner Reading moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Berkey seconded the motion and the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. �„��... _., �41 te.�\ � �,,�`�;��t-�._L:.:�..:�-����'��,_.,. � .--- PAUL A. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY ATTEST: � f,,: f}��i� , S. Y LSON HA P QESERT LANNING COMMIS N January 4, 1977 Page Four TRANSCRIPT PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 4, 1977 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS SECTION OF THE AGENDA My name is Henry B. Clark, 73-183 Willowo I'm here and I know a number of other people are here for somewhat similar reasons. I would lil;e to talk about the basic concept of Ordinance 126. I know some of the other people here have feel- ings that it has been worked to the detriment of the community. I'd like to start off by saying that Ordinance 126 I have re-read as recently as today. I thought ""� at the time that I saw it in formation after I got out of office that it was a good Ordinance and I think it is a good Ordinance today. I 'd like to point out a couple of things in it as to why I think it is a good Ordinance so I think everybody in the room can start from the same benchmark. On 27(2) , in the Ordinance, it states that particular attention shall be given in the design to the protection of views from adjoining property across the area to be graded. I think that' s an excellent restriction. It goes on that if in the opinion of the City Engineer, views will be substantially damaged by the proposed grading, he shall refer the proposed grading plan to the Design Review Board for a conceptual approval and no permit shall be issued until conceptual approval is obtained. The only possible weakness I see in that is that it leaves it solely in the hands of one man; but as long as we have a capable City Engineer, I don 't think we have to worry. It goes on in the same section - "Except as herein pro- vided, all work in connection with an alteration shall be done in accordance with the latest revised standards of the City of Palm Desert. Such drawings, specifi- cations, and general conditions are on file in the offices of the City Clerk and shall be kept for public distribution," etc, etc, etc. The Ordinance, and here I have a question because the Ordinance was approved dated June lOth. I received today one of the drawings which shows that lots have to be graded so that the water flow is toward the street. This map is dated October, 1976, which indicated to me that at the time the Ordinance was passed, it was not one of the drawings and conditions that it says are on file, which indicated that some of us who were keeping up with it were not familiar with a new drawing and I wonder if all mem- '�"' bers of the Commission and Council were aware of it. Then we have one other, on 27(5) , Page 2, 03.01, a vicinity sketch or other data adequately indicating the sight location must be filed. That's obvious. .03.03 a contour map showing the present contours of the land and I insert "to be graded" will be filed. It doesn't say that it should also show the change in grading from the adjoining property. However, in .03.04, location of any buildings or structures within the land alteration boundar�es and the location of any building or structure on adjacent property which is 15 feet of the land alteration boundary must be shown. Now, that's fine if the neighbor's house is within 15 feet of the boundary; but in my own house I 'm more than 16 feet on one side and 20 on another so rr�y house eleva- tion would not be shown. That's the only weakness that I've seen in it. Now, what has happened, of course, is that as the City Engineer and, I assume, the Design Review Board has approved these new elevations showing water running to the street; it has raised the elevation of property as much as half again as high as the adjoining house. This means that when the house is finally completed, the roof- line will be considerably above the roofline of the adjoining house and in my esti- mation, the view that I referred to earlier in the Ordinance will be seriously er- roded. I suspect that the reasons for building a lot up so high that it will push water onto the street are good. But I would like to submit to the Engineer and the Commission that there are a nunber of alternatives which aren't as drastic, probably not as expensive, will not affect views, and most importantly, worked during the floods that we had in Septembero � -1- You've all seen houses that had a wall along their front line and water came and was diverted by that wall and channeled onto the water-bearing street where it was supposed to remain. You've seen that the only breach in those walls were where either the driveway went through or a golf cart gate was open or a walkwaya Now, some of the people were strong enough, alert enough, and were fortunate to have a piece of half-inch plywood and when they saw the water starting to go through those openings, they were able to put them across there supported by the wall on either side and the water was in truth diverted and went on down the street. Obviously a driveway is too wide for anyone to get a piece of plywood and get it across in a hurry; but the houses that had driveways on the low side of the street and were adequately bermed, in other words they had a bump that you go over, if that bump was more than a token bump, it too diverted the water and kept it on the street. So, what I'm suggesting for your consideration and the Engineer's consideration is that we make sure that adequate thought is given when an elevated pad is authorized � or demanded that the City's staff has I'd go so far as to say consulted the neighbors, either by sending a letter with an elevation drawing or asking them to come in and have it explained. I submit too that there are at least three alternatives, a wall which has been proved practical and feasible in the floods, a berm - there's a num- ber of berms on Desert Lily that effectively worked. There's a brand new house, Dr. Williams, where he had a high berm where it effectively worked. So there are at least three alternatives and to the Engineer, others can be thought up and I am sure they will work. So, I feel that we have a good Ordinance. I feel that the drawing that was submitted in October showing water running to the street slipped by me and I suspect slipped by others so that I would hope that this Commission and I'm going to ask the Council the same thing; to review the situation with staff and hoepfully come up with something less drastic than bringing in 500 to 1,000 yards of dirt and raising an elevation on the back of the lots four to five to six feet as I suspect they are effectively doing away with the privacy that the neighbor down- stream from them formerly had. Thank you. My name is Walter J. Currey. I live at 73-706 Shadow Lane, off Grapevine. I 'm a member of the Board of Directors of Mountain Shadows, a condominium development of 16 units. I concur with Mr. Clark and his comments and I would point out that my particular building which backs onto the Dunham project on Grapevine, at the present � time the third terrace down which comes down from I don't remember the number of the house, but the present house which is west of Mountain Shadows. The terrace outside my unit is now about four feet above, that is the terrace level is about four feet above my ground floor level which means that my view is completely cut off and also there is a danger of �ater coming downo Now, I want to go back to - I witnessed the flood of Septem6er lOth and 23rd. I was there at the time and the way Grapevine is constructed; all of the water flows from south to north on the north side of the street. I think that the street is incorrectly built but that's beside the point. The fact remains that with the raising of the pads to the west of us in the Dunham project, all of the water is intended to flow to the street. If it does flow to the street; it's gonna come down and it's gonna jump the curbing which is about this high (demonstrated height) and go in through our project which in the last flood cost us over $10,000 damage in our particular unit; to the common area alone to say nothing of the individual damage to the condominiums in our project. There is no way that Grapevine is going to be able to take that flow of water in a serious flood situation and it's gonna come down between our two buildings as it did on September lOth and 23rd and wash through our entire project; through the swimming pool which had 8 or 9 feet of mud in it and on down to the golf course. The solu- tion that the City Engineer is proposing certainly may protect those particular houses which he is talking about. It's gonna take away the view from ours and other units along there; but the fact remains that it's gonna cause us considerably more damage by that water going down through. That's all I have to say. Thank you. � -2- • ..� My name is Mary Hutchinson and I live at 73-421 Joshua Tree and our home is located directly behind the house that is being graded. A lot is being graded right now for a home and the grade level according to the City personnel is 10 feet above the center of the street. This in effect makes the back of the property about six feet higher than rr�y property line and it is going to take away our view and on top of that, they are building a tennis court which could be a potential water trap and fill for water to go through; plus the noise and nuisance factor and we would like to have you review this. We feel that if the water runs to the street as the City proposed; there's no where for it to go except to the property that is already developed in the area or a vacant lot. So, wha�t's gonna happen to the 50% of us that are already there. �.■► My name is Lawrence G. Prey, 73-385 Joshua Tree Street and rr�y wife and I are next door neighbors to the Hutchinsons and I can verify everything that Mary Hutchinson has just said concerning the effect to her property and the effect that it will have on other properties such as ours. I wrote a note of protest to the City Hall the other day. We protest building diagonally back of our home on such a high pad as to impair our view and overshadow the adjacent homes. It is on Juniper Street at the address given here. I received a reply signed by James L. Hill , Director of Building and Safety, City of Palm Desert - Complaint investigated, structure to be located at 73-450 Juniper. Contractor, Brock Olson, has followed directions of Ordinance 126 involving grading and drainage to the street. The Pad is approxi- mately 12" above centerline of street and meets conditions of Ordinance 126. This is certainly a definite statement; but I believe that in view of what has been said and in view of these extremely high pads, in fact we have a wall and we look over to this property and we see this pad above our wall . Where's the house gonna be? We'll have no view whatsoever and it's going to do very serious damage to most of the homes in our area. Thank you. � My name is Mrs. Leonard Scannel. I live at 73-610 Grapevine in Palm Desert. I have already approached City Hall . We are two isolated houses. My neighbor, Mrs. Wainrust, and �r�yself are the first of a project that Mr. Curt Dunham is building. At no time after this Ordinance changed in June were we advised prior to closing escrow that this would be altered. The original plan was that the houses would all be on the same level . I have pictures of before the flood, during the flood, after the second rain, and recently. I went to City Hall when that wall of dirt was six foot above me. Now, prior to it being six feet above me when it was leveled as it was, we suf- fered severe damage twice to our pool . It was completely gone. There was no pool . Everything was wiped away. The front coming into the garage and into our front door was protected because we have a, whatever it is called, bump to go down into the garage and I had insisted on a wall for privacy that blocked water from coming to badly into the house. However, the damage was caused as I say when the land was level and Mr. Dunham had four mounds of dirt at the far west end of where he's developing this property and when the water came down from the dam it hit these mounds of dirt and diverted into our pool area twiceo Now, I came to City Hall about this and within two weeks that mound of dirt has grown to ten feet in height. There is a cement block wall as I look out of my kitchen window where I observed all of this and took pictures. The cement block is now right up against my cement block wall , higher than it obscuring my wrought iron either to its limit, its limit now, and I assume something is going above it. I have no view out of my kitchen window and still I am concerned and particularly with these last rains with that dirt still piled and nothing has been done about it. I will have worse damage than I ever had if we got anything comparable to what we had before. Of course, the """"' flood in drainage problem in our house was a substandard and did not exist. I have a letter from a Mr. Joseph Schafray who inspected it and is an engineer, saying that there is no drainage. This was permitted to pass so it has not been corrected yet and I'm concerned about that. Among other things, I'm really concerned that some- one who has supported this community for over twenty years, 12 months a year, has so little ear from City Hall when developers who are coming here who don't even live in Palm Desert; who are residents of Rancho Mirage and my visit at City Hall was treated as one woman complaining about a pile of dirt that a neighbor had placed next to her property. It was never stated that it was a developer who is not a resident of this community. It never stated that there were 8 people present and I would like somebody to review this because I don't intend to stop here. Our house has devaluated at least 50%. We are down in a basement now, the two of us, and all -3- of these houses are going to be raised above us. Outside of the view, it's still dangerous. Thank you very much. Ben Hutchinson, 73-421 Joshua Tree. Like Hank Clark says, I think that the Ordinance , basically is a good one. I would certainly like the same ordinance as a pharmacist. You go to the doctor, the doctor says you're here. You have to take all the pills in the pharmacy; not just one prescription but all of them. That way you're well . So I think probably it is a case where each individual property should be considered individually. This pile of dirt behind me. I look and watch those guys floating � around up there and it's just unbelievablea I'm now told that they can put also on top of the five foot fence another fence. So, in effect, we would be living in a tenement section and of course they would be looking not only into our back yard but into our living room and our bedroom. So, it seems that there could be other alternatives. Hank Clark had mentioned other alternatives - berm walls, maybe drain- age pipes to the other street below. But if you have a 5% drainage, 5% grade between Juniper and Joshua Tree, you're talking about a 14-15 foot drop and if you're going above the other street on the high side, you've not only created a view factor loss but you've also created a hugh hole for the other house to sit. Now, this particular house that Charles or Brock Olson is building also has a tennis court which he called a sunken tennis court. I have never seen a sunken tennis court above ground level . So, you have on one side of the lot this huge pyramid and right beside it this huge drainage ditch which the tennis court literally creates and that's exactly where that water comes when the flood waters come. By the grace of God it just took a turn, but not its channeling right for our house which will be in a hole; so we pray there won't be no more floods but how is he going to take care of the existing water that falls on that lot. No way, in that tennis court. Also, there is a total of three levels. So, the level where the swimming pool and jacuzzi sit; there has to be a drainage for that. It isn't properly taken care of. The level where the tennis court is; they're building a retaining wall around it and I do not believe that that will take care of a good desert rainfall . I'm not satisfied with that. So, I think probably in this Ordinance 126 maybe something should be written into it where that not only each side be considered but the neighbors around it be informed as to what ` is happening or going to happen; if a permit is allowedo It reminds me of a case '�'r" in another city we lived in where some one was going to build a tennis court and all the neighbors, all of us, got notification because of the light and the sound factor and, o� course, this huge fence that would be unsightly before the permit was issued. Now I don't know if anyone else had notification but I did not have notification as to the noise factor, the light factor, the unsightliness of the fence. I 'm young enough that I ' d like to play tennis; but I do like to sleep in the morning sometime. But it seemed to me that there ought to be a reivew of this Ordinance and I would like also a review of that particular piece of property that is being built on Juniper behind rr�y residence. Now there may be other alternatives to get that pyramid of dirt down. Now, one of the Council members I had talked to said the reason they passed this Ordinance was to comply with a State Ordinance and someone else told me that it was adopted as a part of the National Unified Code or Ordinances; but I think that why is it all of a sudden now? Why is it all of a sudden now, when Palm Desert has been built ac- cording to the natural grade. Now, all of a sudden - wham - we're building above the grade and we're doing it out of respect for those people who are already here; who have paid their taxes for the last 25 years or the house has been productive in paying these taxes. They have formed a City and they have even elected a City Council and as one City Council member told me - Well , after all 50% of the lots � in Palm Desert have not been developed< Well , that's fine and dandy but in the existing area there are not 50% already developed. There are not 50% in my neighbor- hood already developed. Maybe out in the "boonies" there it's 50% not developed but to us 50% who have been paying those taxes, or our predecessors who have been � developing this City. That's what I think we should turn to; not to the guy that's coming in or to the developer who is going to put a house upo Take his cash and leave that pyramid with the ditch alongside of ito So I think maybe it would be nice to review not only my particular piece of property that I am concerned with behind me; but also review this Ordinance 126 as to considering that individual piece of property and the property owners around it and also submitting to the property owners who it will affect; the fact that somebody has taken a permit out, to go down and take a look at it and let's see if you've got any gripes and moans there, maybe something that we missed. Thank you. -4- My name is Darrell Engels and I live at 73-700 what we call Shadow Lane, sometimes called Grapevine. I happen to be on the Board of Directors of the Shadow Mountain Association. I 'm Chairman of the Board. We have 4 condominiums at the west end of our property. When they were grading that lot behind them at the west end, they've got that thing built up to the point that when they run water over it to settle the dirt, it was already into the back yard of those 4 condominiums. We are presently at least 4 or 5 feet higher than our floor plans on those 4 condo- miniums that are back there. It's gonna not only shut their view out but it's just ridiculous the way they're stepping everything up on that street, It's destroying all the property, Ruskins, and the other one that was talking here. It's ridiculous the way they're, nobody's gonna pay 80 or 100 thousand dollars for a pyramid, or a house built on top of a pyramid when every other house is down lower. One condo- minium setup unfortunately was built before Grapevine was put through and when they put that through, they raised the street; so there's a lot of our property that's � lower than the street level . This water is gonna come down in every place where there's a driveway. It's gonna jump the curb and go right in. We're just gonna be a disaster area; particularly with Marrakesh on the other side of us that has all the streets funneled with curbs on them down right to the back of our property and every time it rains, we get a very strong rain, all the water runs down those streets toward your Grapevine and it has to make a complete right hand turn to stay in that property and it won't do it. It's washed out in the street every time we've had a big flood and this is the whole thing is gonna be complicated by running everything down toward us. Besides that, they're just gonna completely destroy the value of that property on Shadow Lane and Gradevine and I think that low drain that we have right there at the entrance to our condominium parking place was originally the dead end of Shadow Lane and I think that that property probably belonged to the County. Now that you've got a street built there and they got about a 30 foot little segment there that you can't do anything with and everytime it rains that water comes down there and it runs into our parking lot. We carry the dirt into our parking lot. We've tried to build it up and put flowers in there. We had white rock put in the thing. Everything is gone. Now, I 've got big boulders our there - beautiful - but I think that that's County property not ours and I think there should be well , what do you call it, an elevated place put in there with curbing on either side of it cause when they curb that street we didn't pay for it along Grapevine; but they stopped and left this stretch here. It's an eyesore to the whole street along with what they're doing up above where they're grading. �.. My name is Leonard Scannell and I live at 76-310 Grapevine here in Palm Desert. I 'm very concerned, first of all , with the treatment that was meeted out when we met before the Mayor and his Council ; wherein the City Manac�er brought forward the fact that we realized after many, many years that errors are being committed with allowing property to be built below street level and that the said directions have to be made and at great sacrifice and our home, in back of Mrs. Ben Ruskins, is a sacrifice probably in the neighborhood of $300,000. Now, the zoning that has been changed as far as affecting something in the way of flood control , first of all , is neglecting the basic feature that is a concern of each and everyone of us. Mainly, that there is no drainage, no drainage existing. They've never made an allowance. They've never made arrangements for drainage other then putting up the curbing which is not the answer. Now, as far as the water coming down, the water comes from the entire west all the way to our door and at our door there's a wall that goes up, I would say, probably in the neighborhood of 8 foot. The wall does not go to the street. There's a break in that wall of I would say probably in the neighborhood of 8, 10, possibly 12 foot; so if the water will never get to the street because the wall has just been prepared to protect us and get it to the street. There's never been, and some part of the planning here has been neglected, and I consider the area and the neighborhood and the managers here very derelict and i feel that a very, very grave injustice has been done to ourselves. First of all , that we weren 't considered, even informed, because had we been informed, that this is the situation that is going to come to pass; there's no way it would be a breach of intelligence to think that we were gonna build below street level and put '�""' in an investment where right now we have in the neighborhood of $170,000 in our home, a custom built home. There's no such thing as custom. There's no way that any family can be in there. Any potential buyers, we've had the sign up before the floods came along again not knowing that; but here is the situation. There's no way you can get $55,000 of $50,000 for that home right now and there's some way that we have to be reimbursed. I don't know what it's going to be but we are going to go as far as we have to go to get at it because I feel that, first of all , I don't know how many of you are familiar with or have made a uisit to the area. We come down as we say and we protested to City Hall before any of this was started and we didn 't seem to get much of an answer. Despite that protest, this situation was allowed to come to pass. There's no drainage existing at our home and yet it was passed. We had Mr. Hill up there and he said, "We11 , I went around with the builder and showed him just what he had to do.". I said, I don't fault you for that. You probably did; but now my -5- " question is that after you told him what he had to do did you ever follow up and see whether or not that he complied to the regulations; which regulations the con- tractor has never complied with to this very day and yet there's no step made as far as City Hall . The water's gonna flow down Grapevine, It's coming all the way from the west. It's gonna come down and hit the two homes where we are. That's ar far as it can go and once it gets over there, it's gotta come into that area and then it's gonna, as I say, from there on in from the Ruskin home down to the Shadow Mountain homes as another elevation but for the water to get down it's gotta hit these two areas and from there on we don't know what's gonna happen. But, we're in bad shape even in slight rains; such as we had the past two evenings as far as runoff problems. We have experienced difficulty again. We have experienced damage again and we're looking for some way out and we can't get an answer from City Hall . Now, that's the bad thing and as they've pointed out, we've paid the taxes for years and lived in the neighborhood for years and yet, what return? We're allowing this man to come `'" on in and I won 't go too far there because we feel that, first of all , we've been ripped off very, very much so, not entirely by the contractor but also as far as the City is concerneda Thank you very much. tv�iNUTES AN���+��D . /-�1'•17 �++" ! My name is Wa te�r S eider. I live at 73-840 Whitestone Lane. All of us are con- ` cerned with flood damage. We've lived through the flood and worked our way out of it, partially out of it, and are extremely interested in the program of preventing floods and doing that in our City which will help. I believe your Ordinance is good. I believe that we need some sort of flood control which will funnel the water to the proper area but to pass an Ordinance and to create a condition that is detri- mental to our City and to our people is basically wrong. Firstly, if we do divert all the water to the streets, the streets are not adequate to handle it. We have no flood control system within our streets to handle the water, if we dump it on there. This, therefore, makes your very premise erronious. Then if we, I have, lived in many cities where if we changed the terrain of your lot to the lot next to you over one to one and one half feet, you must therefore get a permit to do this. I feel that if we are going to create a situation with this Ordinance wherein we change the terrain higher than a foot and a half each time, that we should create special consideration on both the people on each side and the Planning Commission or the City Building Inspector should inspect that area to determine the damage that '� it is creating. I don't believe that as a member of this City I want to be a part of damaging this City and the people in it and that is what we're doing. Thank you. MINUTES AMEND�D � ��,�f�7? �� , Lawrence Prey, 73-385 Joshua Tree. I think this matter is urgent enough so that a stop if possible should be made to the buildings in that area just starting in the places: which have been specified and other places too and I 'd like to recommend that to this Board. Chairman Wilson: "Thank you. Is there anyone else present who would like to address the Commission? If not, I think we need to discuss this very serious problem that has been brought to us this evening. We have a dilemna here between two very impor- tant items or concerns of the City. One is proper drainage and the other is protec- tion of the natural sites and views of the neighborhood and protection of one proper- ty owner from runoff from anothero I think we've heard quite a thorough presentation on this. What do my fellow Commissioners feel an appropriate direction might be to take. I might point out to the people that have spoken that the Commission which did � recommend the passage of Ordinance 126 to the City Council ; did it on a recomnendation, it was a recommendation. Any correction of this properly belongs with the legislative body - the City Council. Although we are concerned with the situation because as Mayor Clark indicated, the intent of the Ordinance, as I think everyone who reviewed it, saw it was to protect both the line of sights and to protect the views as well as make adequate provision for runoff and drainage which apparently it is not doing total ly.�� -6- Commissioner Reading: "I can certainly sympathize with each and every one of you ' out there as I was completely wiped out. I would suggest that if there are inade- quacies in the Ordinance, we have staff review it and bring it back and try to make this thing as equitable for everybody concerned." Chariman Wilson: "Thank you. Commissioner Berkey." Commissioner Berkey: "I've looked at all of these examples that have been mentioned tonight and I 'm very much concerned with what it's doing not only presently but poten- tially. If the City continues to follow the example of what's been created to date, the whole south side area that we're concerned with here will be a mess. Many views will be ruined. The drainage and flooding problems will be compounded. I think it's very serious and that staff should immediately report to the Commission and to the Council any suggestions that will correct these sort of situations that are being created in many places." � Chairman Wilson: "Thank you. Commissioner Kelly." Commissioner Kelly: "I'd just like to say that I agree with what Comnissioner Reading suggested and also with what Commissioner Berkey has stated. I too have been deeply concerned with what is happening and I sympathize with all of you here in the audience. I see the problem. I feel the unique situation we've had - the flood and we're suffering from it and we have many problems from it and we're trying to correct it and the problems arising from it; so I 'd like to see some staff input on this. At this point I couldn't suggest what to do legally but I would like to see something done. I don't know about halting construction right now. I don't know, maybe staff can give us some input on that, because if a situation is to be corrected in the middle of construction} I 'd hate to see that happen." Chairman Wilson: "I believe, of course the City Council would be the only Agency that could put such a moratorium or stop on building and I believe this is an urgent concern and should be taken to the City Council at their very next meeting. I think some of the suggestions that were aired this evening - several people, starting with Mayor Clark - that some kind of provision be built into Ordinance 126 that would allow for consultation with adjoining neighbors to get some kind of agreements and some kind of input as to the impact these people might see on the effect of the particular pad elevation next door, behind or to the side of the property. Probably, I'd like to suggest that the staff immediately put top priority on this item, take the transcript from this meeting and the input that we've heard from all these people this evening, �' make it as thorough and as verbatim as possible and forward it to the City Council immediately with what I think is the concern, if I read the Commission correctly, with our concern that some kind of action be taken as quickly as possible to alleviate this problem and put a stop to the problem. I also feel that the Commission, because we are equally concerned with not only drainage but also line-of-sight protections and what have you, that we be kept advised as to the progress that's being made on this, the recommendations that are being made to the City Council . Is that agreeable with the Commissioners? Would that take a minute motion or just a suggestion to staff? A minute motion might be in order, if anyone would care to make it or are there some other alternatives that some of the Commissioners might suggest? " Commissioner Berkey: "I think it's appropriate that the staff take a hard look at this as to the alternatives, as to possible revisions to Ordinance 126 and as to what can be done with regard to anything that is now in process or under consideration. I would move that the staff be directed to give highest priority to the matter and to make im- mediate recommendations to the City Council ." Corr�nissioner Kelly: "Second." Chariman Wilson: A motion by Comnissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, that this item be given'Itop priority by the City staff and that a rpoert be prepared and presented to the Council and the Commission as quickly as possible. I assume by that at the next meeting which would be the meeting of the City Council . Mayor Cl�rk, would you like to make some further comments, please?" �' �ienry B. Clark, 73-183 Willow. A number of people here as you've heard have been terrifically upset about the specifics as it affects their own property. I can't speak for them but I've heard other people in town say that they're going to the ex- pense of getting a lawyer and trying to get an injunction against these pads that are already being prepared for buildingo Fortunately, from my inspection, neither of the pads that were talked about today have any forms or concrete or underground piping in them, as near as I could tell . I would hope that the people here and all of us could get some expression from staff as to whether, short of an injunction, there is any hope for going back on this approval of the pads that the staff has already approved and getting cooperation. I realize it would take cooperation from the builders; but they both have built in this town, they seem to be reasonable people; so I think it would be fair if this Commission would ask staff to give direction to the people here and -7- , I will see it gets to other people. Thank youa" Chairman Wilson: "I 'd like to refer that question to Mr. Williams. Mr. Willi��ms would you respond to that possibility?" Mr. Williams: "Former Mayor Clark may remember with the 0'Malley building down on San Pablo, a building permit is the right to construct and as long as the con- ditions of the building permit are met, there is really no way to revoke that per- mit. As I understand the situation, I 'm really not involved other than talking to Mrs. Hutchinson and other people coming in inquiring about what was going on. These two developers are apparently attempting to comply to all the requirements of the City including Ordinance 126 which was duly adopted by the City. I think it would take an interpretation by an attorney to say any different on it because the issuance "'�' of a building permit is a contract between the guy that's building and the City where on the City's part it says you shall construct under these standards and the c�mmittment by the builder to agree to construct under those standardso That committment is made and met by both parties and there's no way to stop it from happening in my opinion. That's the experience we had with the 0'Malley building as Mrs. Scannell will well remember that experience." Chariman Wilson: "Does the Commission have any questions or any response to that interpretation? I'm wondering if it would be appropriate for the staff to make contact as of tomorrow morning with the City Attorney to explore this and to explore the alternatives. I think that was the intent of Commissioner Berkey's minute motion that we have before us at the moment and that is to do something to solve this, for the staff to investigate ways to solve this problem and the solution may need to iriclude ways to reverse what has been done up to this point as far as pad elevations, etc. So, you have in front of you a motion. I believe and hope by that, Mayor ClarE;'s concern that at least the staff be directed to explore this and to explore all alter- natives. The next meeting of the Council is January 13th, which is a week from Thurs- day night. All right, is there any further discussion on the minute motion th�►t is before us? If not, all those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye." Commissioner Berkey: "Aye" Commissioner Kelly" "Aye" Commissioner Reading: "Aye Chairman Wilsons "Aye" � Chariman Wilson: "Opposed? Motion unanimously carried and I'd like to thank those of you present for bring this concern to our attention. We would hope that the pr�oper solutions can be worked out." �,.�► -8-