Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0107 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - JANUARY 7, 1992 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE * * � * � * * � � � � * * * * * * * � * � * � � �r I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Whitlock called the meeting to order at 7 : 03 p.m. II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner powns led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Carol Whitlock, Chairperson Bob Downs Sabby Jonathan Jim Richards Bob Spiegel Members Absent: None F Staff Present: Ray Diaz Steve Smith Kandy Allen Joe Gaugush Phil Drell Tonya Monroe Jeff Winklepleck IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: wrr Consideration of the December 17, 1991 meeting minutes. Action: Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Richards, approving the December 17, 1991 meeting minutes as submitted. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Chairperson Whitlock noted that there had not been a council meeting since the last planning commission meeting. VI . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. TT 24632 - LUNDIN DEVELOPMENT CO. , Applicant Request for approval of a first one year time extension for a tentative tract map to subdivide 77. 8 gross acres into 176 single family lots, 2 additional lots set aside for 213 future apartment units and � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 1992 a lot for the existing CVWD well site, the whole site located at the southwest corner of Country Club Drive and Portola Avenue. '� B. Case No. PM 25673 - PERRY ASHBY, Applicant Request for approval of a first one year time extension for a parcel map and variance subdividing into two lots the existing R-1 13, 000 zoned 21, 780 square foot lot located on the east side of Ramona Way, 220 feet north of Alessandro. Upon guestioning by Commissioner Spiegel, commission and staff provided clarification regarding the planning commission' s policy for approval time extension requests. Action• Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 5-0. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case No. CUP 91-16 - BIGALOW'S, Applicant � Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow the addition of 28 seats to an existing take-out restaurant at 73- 671 Highway 111 . Mr. Winklepleck explained that for the last two weeks staff had been in contact with the applicant, who had come in with a revised request asking for 14 seats instead of 28, which would reduce the parking deficiency to only one space. Staff felt this was acceptable and recommended approval of the amended request. Upon questioning by Commissioner Jonathan, Mr. Winklepleck clarified that the applicant was allowed eight seats without being considered a restaurant or requiring a ' conditional use permit; with an additional six seats ( 14 ' total ) , there would be a one parking space deficiency. Chairperson Whitlock noted that the original recommendation was for denial and that had been reversed with the reduction in seating. Mr. Winklepleck concurred. 2 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 1992 Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. .rwrr MR. MICHAEL REITER, owner of Bigalow' s, thanked commission for the continuance and stated that he wanted to clarify a couple of issues from the last meeting. He indicated that they originally requested 28 seats and it was erroneously stated that would require an additional 28 parking spaces, which wasn' t the case. He said that their options were to either put a patio outside or change the capacity of the seating, which they did by reducing it to 14 seats. He said that he reviewed the tape from the last meeting. He indicated that it was said the conditional use permit for Ron' s would not change and would stay with the owner. He noted that Ron' s applied for the CUP and got the expansion with the intention of adding extra restaurant space, which he never did and someone else moved in there that did not require a CUP. He fel! those seats that were applied to Ron' s were still there and doing nothing. He felt those seats should come back to the city for redistribution. He said that at the last meeting it was stated that the CUP stayed with the owner and he would have to negotiate with the owner and/or landlord. He did not feel that was his or the landlord' s responsibility to do negotiating for those seats--Ron' s received an approval for an �r expansion which never happened. As a result of that CUP Ron' s received approximately eight additional seats for his 800 square foot expansion approval, which he never used. He felt this meant that there were additional parking spaces out there for use. He noted that Commissioner Richard' s had mentioned that Ron' s was adjacent to the front and back parking lot so they had access to both; Mr. Reiter said that it was his understanding that the whole complex has use of the front and back parking lot, so in the front they have 18 spaces and 12 in the parking lot right in front of his restaurant, which was a total of 32 spaces, plus the back area. He felt that should also be taken into consideration. Chairperson Whitlock asked if another operation had taken over the Ron' s location. Mr. Reiter said that it was still vacant. Commissioner powns noted that it was still in the process, but Las Casuela' s could be moving in there. 3 �..r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 1992 Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was ° no one and the public testimony was closed. � Commissioner Jonathan said that eight seats were a given, so the commission was considering granting six seats, creating a deficiency of one space and felt that given that location it would be acceptable. He did not feel this would create a problem in that particular location and was in favor of allowing the request. Action• ' Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Downs, adopting the findings for approval. Carried 3-2 ( Commissioners Richards and Spiegel voted no) . Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Downs, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1551, approving CUP 91-16, allowing an addition of 14 seats. (Commissioners Richards ana Spiegel voted no) . B. Case No. CUP 91-11 A - MAPLE LEAF PLUMBING, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit amendment to allow an additional access point to the project at 74-330 +rr� Alessandro. Mr. Winklepleck outlined the salient points of the staff report and recommended approval, subject to the condition that the city reserve the right to close this access if office traffic intrudes into the residential area and becomes a problem. Commissioner powns asked what was across the street; Mr. Winklepleck answered that it was an 11, 000 square foot office building. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. SEAN ABAII, the designer of the project, informed commission that this was a straightforward project and he was present to answer any questions. 4 f � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 1992 Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the request. � MR. SELVISTER SAVAROVSKY, owner of the vacant parcel next to the project. He said that he was against this exit. He indicated that he was never properly notified that the four unit apartment building converted to commercial use, which he felt would negatively effect the residential use because of the many trucks that would be coming to the offices and it would be a disaster for the area. He did not know why staff would recommend approval for this use on Alessandro. He again said that he was never properly notified, and stated he spoke about a year ago with the owner who mentioned that he planned to use the apartment building as his private office, but never mentioned that this would be a commercial rezoning. He said that his property was next door and he planned to build a single family home there and felt this was a residential area. He indicated that he asked the planning department staff about two years ago to be allowed to build moderate and low income units and they said no. He did not feel this was fair and asked if a corporation had more rights than an individual . He felt there should have been proper notification for the conversion and indicated this request was almost done. He asked that planning commission deny the Santa Ynez access as being completely ,,,,�„ unnecessary or he would have to seek legal action. He did not feel this was the area for commercial zoning. He indicated that it was a mistake in the first position to have this type of use across the street and did not feel this mistake should be compounded by adding this access. He said there should not be any trucks in the area even if the building was approved for office space. Parking should be for staff only and no trucks should be allowed in the area and this should be posted and enforced. He indicated that he was planning to build a home and did not want to raise his child in an environment with trucks in the area 24 hours a day. Mr. Drell explained that this building was approved only as an office. Mr. Savarovsky asked why this was not properly notified. Mr. Drell stated that the notice Mr. Savarovsky did receive was from the same mailing list that was sent out for the conversion. He said that if he received this notice, he should have received the other notice because it was from an 5 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 1992 identical list and stated the use was purely office, not an � industrial operation. � � Commissioner powns said that he went by there the other day and there were six to eight trucks. Mr. Drell replied that if they were there, that was a problem that would have to be dealt with. Mr. Diaz noted that one of the problems was that if someone is told they can' t park on their property, they can park in the street. He indicated that staff would talk to Maple Leaf about that. Commissioner Spiegel asked if the property Mr. Savarovsky was , talking about was on Santa Ynez; Mr. Savarovsky replied yes, it was a vacant lot, although he had been informed there had been some unauthorized vehicle use on his property and indicated that he paid approximately $1, 000 for clean up for his lot. Commissioner Spiegel noted that the building had been approved with 11 parking spaces, which had been done some time ago. Mr. Savarovsky �said that he was upset about how this whole situation was handled and if he had received notification, he would have opposed the project. He indicated that he received something in the mail about a year ago that said the environment report was negative, which meant that the project was denied. Mr. Drell explained that a negative declaration of environmental impact was positive. Mr. Diaz K� noted that if he received that, what he received was the legal 4 notice, which called for the hearing on the conditional use � permit to allow the use and the negative declaration of environmental impact. Commissioner Jonathan asked how Mr. Savarovsky would feel if ' the driveway on Santa Ynez was present, but with a restriction prohibiting non-residential automobile usage of that driveway or some method to restrict the traffic on Santa Ynez from the ' industrial usage he was concerned about. He noted that the building and parking were already approved and the question before the commission was whether to allow the driveway or not on Santa Ynez. Mr. Savarovsky replied he was against the driveway and felt that in any event, the project should be fenced and Maple Leaf Plumbing should be required to landscape and provide trees for everyone. He said that he was highly effected because his lot size was 55 feet wide in area and he , planned to build a single family home on this narrow lot. He again said that he was opposed and did not feel the driveway ' was necessary. 6 � � � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 1992 MS. ROSEMARY ELTON, co-owner of the lot with Mr. Savarovsky, stated that they came from Santa Monica to � be in attendance at the meeting and was upset about what happened and was opposed to any driveway on that street and beseeched commission not to allow that to happen. She said that she has a small child and her neighbors have children, too. She said that this was being converted to commercial usage, but indicated that Maple Leaf Plumbing has 40-50 trucks which would come by in their trucks to pick up their checks. She felt that the cost of landscaping should be born by Maple Leaf Plumbing and understood that Mr. Savarovsky talked to someone from Maple Leaf Plumbing who said they would put in 8-12 foot trees; she felt they should be 12-16 feet at the very least. She said that she was upset because their lot was purchased four years ago and there was no commercial building on that street. She said that she was an apartment owner herself in Santa Monica and did not understand how this building could be converted to commercial so easily. ' She said that did not happen in Santa Monica. She indicated that the issue before commission was the driveway, and she was totally opposed. MS. ABBY FLEMMING, resident across the street next to where Condel put the gray building with the blue awning. She said that when that went in, she thought that was .�. alright because she did not want apartments. Now, there was a security place there and they parked two abandoned cars in front of her house for over one week; she called them up and they took them away. She said that while she fought with them, they were a 9 :00 to 5:00 operation, but was opposed to a driveway on Santa Ynez. The Maple Leaf Plumbing employees would be coming down the street to get into this driveway and they would have all of these cars using their street, which was not right. She did not feel Maple Leaf Plumbing would be totally different from Condel with their vans and trucks and they would be seven days a week, 24 hours a day. Mr. Diaz said that if the security company parked abandoned cars in front of her house, she should call the police department or even call him here at city hall because she should not have to put up with that. Ms. Flemming said that the cars were there for about a week and when called the lady apologized and indicated 7 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 1992 that they cleaned up their parking lot and the cars did not run and were abandoned, so they parked them in front of her house. She said that she did not really have a `� problem with Condel, but she was opposed to the driveway. She also asked where the dumpster would go because the dumpster for the Condel building had trucks coming between 4:00 and 5:00 a.m. every morning and the dumpster was right next to their house. She said that even Mr. and Mrs. Post who live two or three houses up and across � the street hear that truck every morning. She said that she did not want another dumpster on Santa Ynez. Commissioner powns said that Mr. Diaz ' s office could probably work that out. Mr. Drell indicated that it would be taken out around the side, and would be manually taken out to the ' street. Mr. Winklepleck said that it would be regular-sized cans, not a dumpster, and would be taken with the regular pickup. Mr. Drell said that they could also talk to the people at Condel to reschedule the pick up to later in the day. Chairperson Whitlock asked if Mr. Abaii wished to add anything. � Mr. Abaii said that he sympathized with the concerns and comments. He indicated that he would be happy to address ' any further issues on the trash. He did, however, feel +� there was a misconception on the purpose of the building. He said that there was a Maple Leaf building on Highway 111 that was where the trucks went in and where they sold plumbing parts. He said that the proposed building was designed to take care of their dispatch offices, as well as finance and management. He felt the most important misconception that the residents had was that trucks would be coming in and going out. He said that was not the case; this building was designed for a certain purpose and was not for trucks, just for the use of the employees to park there. He indicated that one of the worst situations to have was a dead-end parking situation. He felt there was a risk of having an accident there. Mr. Diaz stated that the dead-end parking could be solved within the parking lot by having a turn-around area. He said that if this were going to be employee parking, it could be 8 � � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 1992 assigned parking and if no one was going to use Santa Ynez, then there was no need for the access. +�r Mr. Abaii indicated that there was a misunderstanding about what he was saying. Commissioner Richards stated that he appreciated the comments but felt it was time to move on with the issue. Chairperson Whitlock closed the public testimony and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Spiegel said that he went by the location that afternoon and Alessandro had been made a commercial street. The building being built by Maple Leaf Plumbing was a mirror image of the building on the opposite side of the street that had a driveway coming out onto Santa Ynez. He indicated the building would be used primarily for staff, but also for the various plumbers, but indicated the plumbers take their trucks home. He stated that during the day to get pay they would come into this lot and how much of a problem that would create on Santa Ynez he did not know; it was a conditional use permit and if it was used to excess and found a problem, then the commission could close it off. Commissioner Richards said that he felt differently on the +� subject. He had a problem with a service industry being open 24 hours a day being located anywhere but on Cook Street and felt that the residents here had a good point. He said that originally the Las Palmas plan was that there would be a buffer created to allow harmony between the commercial uses on Highway 111, busy traffic on Monterey, Deep Canyon and Fred Waring. He felt that he should have looked more closely at this project when it originally came to the commission for approval, because he did not like the location, the driveway, or the use. He did not feel a plumbing company open 24 hours a day should be on that street. He said that he would move ' for denial because this use does not serve as a buffer for the residential area. He noted that he has never seen a conditional use come back and changed because of some excess use. Mr. Drell replied that they never had occasion because the problems anticipated did not occur; the one exception to that was Elephant Bar--they did come back and the city had them participate in an employee parking lot. He indicated that unless people come back to the city and say there is a problem, staff has to assume everything is fine. Commissioner 9 �... MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 1992 Richards suggested that the process of coming back might not be as easy. Mr. Drell noted that complaints are received for ' things happening all over the city all the time. Commissioner '�` Richards stated that he had a problem with a plumbing company next door to residential on Alessandro. Commissioner powns indicated that he was also opposed to the Santa Ynez driveway because the building use was supposed to be for office use only, not a 24 hour a day dispatch service. Commissioner Spiegel suggested a continuance to allow someone from Maple Leaf Plumbing to be present to give testimony on how they plan to use the building. He did not feel they planned to use it as a 24 hour truck stop. He said that he was sorry that other commissioners did not go over there and talk to them and find out what they plan to do. Commissioner Richards said that the problem with that is that what they plan to do did no� mean anything years from now when Maple Leaf sells out to someone else. The commission was here to educate on planning issues and a particular operator of any business was probably the last criteria on making a decision. A building was built for 30-40 year life spans and any usage allowed in the code could accompany that building. Businesses change, people change, operators change. Commissioner Spiegel noted that commission required ten parking spaces and they didn' t need ten spaces. Commissioner Richards agreed that the � argument given by the architect that the site wouldn' t be used by customers or trucks seemed to indicate that employee use and amount of turn-over in employees should be minimal and they should be able to pull in and back out. If it were going to be used for customers or trucks that would come and go, there would be more of a justification for the driveway. If this was for employees only, it did not need a driveway. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he was persuaded by the testimony given and comments by Commissioners Richards and Downs. He felt the encroachment issue was valid and the driveway on Santa Ynez would cross the line of what was acceptable. Commissioner Jonathan commented that as to going to the applicant or moving for a continuance, it was not up to the commission to go to the applicant to find out their intent. They should be at the meeting to give testimony to the commission. He said that he was in favor of denial . 10 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 1992 Chairperson Whitlock indicated that she also was persuaded by the residents on Santa Ynez and she would not be willing to '�""' approve the driveway off Santa Ynez. Action• Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, adopting findings for denial of CUP 91-11 A. Carried 4-1 (Commissioner Spiegel voted no) . Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, instructing staff to prepare a resolution of denial for adoption at the next meeting. Carried 4-1 (Commissioner Spiegel voted no) . C. Case No. HDP 91-1 - ROBERT SCOTT SOHN, Applicant Request for approval of a hillside development plan to a�low grading of the site and construction of a single family home on 1.3 acres within the Hillside Planned Residential zone as delineated on the attached legal notice. Mr. Smith addressed commission and explained that the site was 1 .3 acres located just west of the storm channel and south of �+ the green way bridge, immediately south of the former recreation building which was now the church building, and to the south of the site there was on-going construction for the CVWD reservoir and further to the west there was a graded pad, and further west of that graded pad was the Frost residence constructed five or six years ago. He informed commission that the architectural commission granted preliminary approval on the architecture and landscaping scheme for the site. He said that the site was not a steep hillside lot, but dropped 16 feet across its longest length of approximately 300 feet from corner to corner, so the slope was 4 1/2 to 5 percent. He indicated that in the recent past there had been considerable fill dumped on the site, which was done without benefit of permit; they should have obtained a stockpile permit and the code enforcement department was looking into that. He also noted that public works was reviewing the rough grading plan and they have had some concerns raised concerning the amount of fill they were proposing in that the grading plan which showed the pad elevation as high as a relative height of 45, with the garage at 41 and an intermediate step 11 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 1992 > at 43 . Public works in their review of the grading on the � site would be requiring that the maximum grade be 43, and that would effect a small portion of the lot, which was a result `� of their requirement to review it for compatibility with adjacent pads--the pad to the west, as well as to the existing grade at the church property. Commissioner Richards stated that he walks the channel on a daily basis and watches the dumping on these sites. Now staff was going to look into it and make some minor modification to something that was illegal in its entirety. He did not feel that was the way to do things in Palm Desert. If a property owner wanted to enhance his property, and in this case at the expense of his neighbors, the neighbors ought to be compensated and the city require the proper amount of planning fees and review. He did not know why this should be allowed. Mr. Gaugush clarified that there were three properties: Mr. Frost and his existing residence; another lot owned by Mr. Frost; and this property which had been owned by Mr. Zamora. He indicated that there hac� been on-going legal battles with Mr. Zamora to get him to clean up his illegal dumping. He said that it became a favorite dumping spot. He noted that there had been an on-going battle with the code enforcement department with respect to Mr. Zamora' s activities. He said that Mr. Smith was apprised that in the last week to ten days that substantial material had been brought in without benefit of a permit. What was being looked into was the violation of � the municipal code and a code officer had been assigned to apply corrective measures, if necessary. Commissioner Spiegel said that the request was to allow grading and felt that it looked like it was already graded; Mr. Smith passed out pictures to clarify which piece of ' property was under discussion. Commissioner Richards stated that he recently was involved in a situation which involved the use of the channel road. The fire department has a comment that says access over the channel by way of a single bridge is substandard. He indicated that before the channel was there, when the water district proposed the channel the city of Palm Desert was a co-developer in the case, and the application said that none of the people back there had legal access because there were no easements. Palm Desert persuaded CVWD that they needed to put in some bridges in and they elected to install three. The fire department has a problem--some rule states that there can 12 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 1992 no longer be one access into a project. He said that he was involved in this particular process now. The problem was that �„► the way to remedy the situation was the use of the access road, which was on the west side of the channel . If the road was in good shape, then if a bridge got wiped out because of a storm, one could travel along the west side of the channel and go over another bridge. The water district gave letters saying the road was available for use, but the fire department doesn' t like the road. Commissioner Richards noted the road was used as a permanent use for the residents of the h._�lside behind the church. He suggested that staff get together with the fire department and water district and come up with some way for the road to become acceptable to the standards of all parties involved. He also suggested that anyone coming to the commission for a development be required to join an assessment district because this was a serious problem. He noted that the city approved a number of developments to the south of this area although none of them had been built. He indicated those approvals required them to develop hard surface roads. Mr. Gaugush said that was off Thrush and they had been working on it. There had been extensive discussion on joint participation on improving the district access road and at one point discussion was moving positively in that direction. He felt the economic situation had probably effected that as well . Mr. Diaz suggested also talking to the fire department �.,. to find out where they were when the bridges were built and why they did not say anything then. Commissioner Richards stated that the County of Riverside has a new ordinance that says there can't be only one road into the area; he said that he has been fighting it. He felt that something needed to be done to improve that west channel road and he was asking staff for a condition that indicates that the developer and anyone in the future had to participate in some sort of road improvement program. Mr. Diaz said that staff would look into that, but noted there had been a problem ' with conditions that were relatively "blank check" conditions ' that required joining an assessment district. He indicated that research would be done because it would have been a lot easier to improve the road when the Palm Valley Channel was being built and would try to answer those questions. He said that commission might wish to continue this item and staff would also look into the amount of dumping on the property, but commission could require that the lot be returned to its original grade prior to any grading being allowed. 13 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 1992 Commissiozer Richards suggested that in conjunction with that th�re was another development that severely misused the use wr� of fill--th� development on the east side of Highway 74 above Mesa Viaw, which was a four or five unit home development and the developer piled in huge amounts of dirt to get a hillside view. He indicated he would like an aerial photo from seven or eight years ago to determine the amount of illegal dumping and also noted that the lot behind it had absolutely violated all the rules that everyone else lives by. He felt that staff and the city had to get tough and enforce the existing ' ordinances. He requested a continuance on this development and clarification regarding the road and how much fill had been put in and what was legal and what was not. Commissioner Jonathan agreed with the comments and concerns by Commissioner Richards and also stated that Cahuilla Hills section was a part of the City of Palm Desert. It was a growing community and at some point there would be more development in that area. ` He did not like waiting for the development to occur. He felt there were other problems beyond access and fire department up there: dirt roads and PM10 regulations regarding dust particles, which the city condones by non-action. He noted there were so many residences up there that whatever was done with the water channel road, he did not see how any four-wheel vehicles, much less fire trucks, could make it up some of those steep grades. +�' He felt it was a disaster waiting to happen. He suggested a study session with all parties concerned ( i.e. fire department, water district) to address that whole area. Commissioner Richards stated that he requested from Dick Folkers that a road ordinance be looked into to cover the hills. The problem was that hills greater than a certain degree require 28 foot roads; the hillside ordinance says you can' t cut into the side of the hill; and the building codes say that any hillside street that is greater than x degrees had to be built in concrete. Mr. Gaugush indicated that was a city ordinance. Commissioner Richards said that they had gone through this in the past, and still asked Mr. Folkers to come up with something. He noted there was a condition, b�;�- something different needed to be done and indicated that othe_ communities have found a way to handle this situation. He felt Palm Desert needed this also. He said that for the benefit of the applicant, which did not happen to be on a hillside but was in the path of direction to the hillside, that road and the roads that have been in use for years are 14 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 1992 probably illegal and creating dust problems. Mr. Gaugush noted there was another issue that had been brought up and � that was the diverse opinions of the residents in that area as to what they want to see for their property ( i.e. rural, which would be changed to an urban environment with an asphalt road) . Commissioner Richards concurred, but felt the city needed to take a lead because there was chaos in the Cahuilla Hills area. He noted that he had been to five or six hearings on how the county does things and indicated the County of Riverside and Corky Larson was embarrassed and would like for the city to take things over. He felt this was a planning problem and noted there are hillside ordinances that contradict with fire requirements. He indicated the public works department should come up with something and take the lead and public hearings could be held to develop a solution. He also noted there was a problem with the annexation over toward Bermuda Dunes because there were some different streets over there and types of uses. Mr. Diaz indicated that staff would look into this and talk to the fire department, and look into the diverse issues that residents in that area prefer and if they want to be rural to the point that they want dirt roads, they can' t expect to have the same level of fire service and other emergency services as in the inter-city. He stated that staff could look into that and come back with a study session and requested a � continuance of six weeks to get everything together. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. SCOTT SOHN, owner of the lot, stated that in regard ' to the fill dirt, that was an accident on his part. He , said that it all got dumped without his knowledge, but he would take full responsibility for it. He felt that commission was using his lot to set an example for the rest of the area properties. He said that his lot was not "a hillside lot" . Commissioner powns informed him that because it was in the hillside overlay district, it was considered a hillside lot. Mr. Sohn asked what commission was recommending or suggesting. 15 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 1992 Commiss�oner Richards stated that two concerns he had was the amount of fill put on the lot illegally and the effect on neighbors. He felt those kinds of things had to be dealt with +w�i in a way that prohibits people from attempting to making those kinds of changes in the future without the city' s acknowledgement. Also, the Riverside County Fire Department did not feel one access was enough because the 500 year storm bridge could wash out. The city was obligated to provide a secondary access. Mr. Sohn indicated there was a secondary access. Commissioner Richards stated that there was a road, but the road that was the secondary access was not suitable to the fire department. Coachella Valley Water District says it can be used and is fine for their trucks, and there are residents who use it every day don' t complain, but the fire department doesn' t want to send big equipment up there. Mr. Sohn said that th� notice he received from the fire department commented on this and they did not say anything about not sending their trucks up there; it would just slow down their service to the area. Commissioner Richards informed Mr. Sohn that he had been to five public hearings with the fire department on this issue in the last two months. � Commissioner Spiegel asked if there was an existing Baptist church and an existing home adjacent to where Mr. Sohn plans to build; Mr. Sohn said that was correct--there were two homes up there and the church and those homes were higher than the one he plans to build. Commissioner powns read the condition that said access was ' substandard and a single bridge could become impassable and emergency response could be less or insufficient to save lives or property. He noted that was included in the packet. He explained that this was why a continuance was being recommended to get all parties together to resolve this problem. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone wished to address the cc�:nmission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION on this proposal . There was no one. 16 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 1992 Commissioner powns moved for a continuance to February 18; seconded by Commissioner Richards. Commissioner Jonathan � called for discussion. �`�mmissioner Jonathan was concerned about delaying this -�oj ect. He wondered if there was a way that this proj ect could proceed while the concerns were being addressed. Commissioner Richards stated that he would have agreed with Commissioner Jonathan if there hadn' t been illegal dumping on the property that had to be resolved. Commissioner powns indicated the condition called for a hard surface all-weather driveway to be provided and felt that the city should do something now that could solve all the problems and not use Mr. Sohn as a scapegoat, but try to get some answers. Mr. Diaz suggested that Mr. Sohn contact the fire department also. Commissioner Richards felt that staff had to get together with Clyde Chittenden, but also Brad Smith because this particular road in the eyes of the county was the secondary access road to the 50-70 homes in the Cahuilla Hills area, which was not in the city of Palm Desert. Commissioner Richards stated that he had met with people from Bighorn and both fire marshals (county and city) and did not get anywhere. Commissioner Richards felt a continuance would allow Mr. Sohn to get his lot cleaned up and the city could get their act together so that the fire department, water district, the City �,,, of Palm Desert and County of Riverside could arrive at some conclusion as to the suitability of the road for emergency use and every day use. Commissioner Spiegel felt that the commission was holding this project up until Mr. Sohn cleaned up his lot. He said he did not know how much fill went in there and if it was done illegally; it was wrong and there should be some kind of recrimination, but felt that one should not have anything to do with the other. He asked why the applicant was being held up on the road issue because of the illegal fill . Commissioner Richards clarified that the motion of continuance was to a time certain because there were several problems, which did not necessarily mean they had to be resolved at that time. He noted that staff had not had time to respond to his concerns about the road and staff indicated code compliance department was looking into that violation. Mr. Diaz stated that staff would be talking to the fire department; but in his history of dealing with the fire department, every time he 17 � ' MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 1992 recommended something against what the fire department wanted, he lost. � Commissioner powns asked if someone from the fire department could come to a study session. Mr. Diaz replied yes, and also someone from the water district. Commissioner powns felt that the concerns with the fire department conditions required a continuance to get some answers. � Mr. Sohn said that in regard to the fill dirt that got dumped on his lot, commission mentioned that they wanted him to remove the fill dirt that had been dumped. He ' indicated that it was unfortunate because it was not his doing but he would have to take responsibility and asked if instead of going to the expense and cost of removing it, could he pay a penalty or fee until there was an agreement on the grading plan because he felt that additional soil on the property would be needed. Commissioner Richards state`d that from his standpoint the fill would have to be removed and brought back at a later date if it was required. Chairperson Whitlock stated that the city would have to decide what penalties would be imposed and suggested that he talk to the code compliance department. Mr. Gaugush clarified that as far as the illegal stock piling was concerned the city +� municipal code provides for the issuance of a stockpile permit when an individual has received approval of a grading plan. For this particular property Mr. Sohn could not receive the stockpile permit because he could not get approval of the grading plan until commission takes the action. Mr Gaugush �elt it was not a fee situation, but it was a removal situation, unless the commission want�d to give him approval to leave the dirt there until he received approval of a grading plan. ' Chairperson Whitlock called for the vote. Commissioner Jonathan asked if commission was going to ask the applicant to remove the dirt and give him approval of a grading plan that could require moving the dirt back in. Mr. Gaugush replied that yes, that was what commission was potentially looking at. Commissioner Jonathan did not feel that made �enss. He �uggested just the continuance to look at the whole issue wa.thout requiring the removal of the dirt at this point. Commissioner Richards did not feel it was up to the commission 18 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 1992 to determine if the applicant should take the dirt out now. Whatever code decided commission would not have- a say about. �irr Commissioner Spiegel clarified that the matter was being continued to find out what was going to happen between the fire department and city based on road acc�ss to the property. Commissioner powns replied yes, that was what he asked for. Chairperson Whitlock noted that Commissioner Richards made a comment that he personally would like to see the fill dirt removed--that was just a personal statement made and not a request by the commission, and code enforcement would undertake whatever they needed to do regarding the fill dirt. Action: ' Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Richards, continuing HDP 91-1 to February 18, 1992. Carried 5-0. D. Case No. PP 91-15 - HaWARD BRIEN, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design for a four unit single story apartment complex on a 13, 500 square foot lot on the south side of Shadow Mountain Drive, 500 feet east of San Luis Rey. � Mr. Smith outlined the salient points of the staff report. He indicated that the applicant was still working with the Palm Desert Property Owners Association and the project had been before the city' s architectural commission and would return there next week. He requested the addition of a condition no. 7 requiring the installation of a six foot block wall on the rear and side property lines in place of the existing wood and chain link fence that was currently there. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. HOWARD BRIEN, applicant, indicated the matter had been resolved regarding the fence between Mr. Gaugush, Steve Smith, and Mr. Barry. He felt the best thing to do was his suggestion that Mr. Barry would.:tear down his wooden fence and Mr. Brien would �.nstall a six foot block wall that would benefit both parties. : He said that an agreement had been reached that Mr. Barry would tear down 19 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 1992 the �ooden fence and have it hauled away, and Mr. Brien would put up the block wall. He indicated that he was willing to do this to keep peace in the family. "� Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MR. LEE BARRY, the property owner behind the proposed project, informed commission that he did not recall agreeing to tear down the fence and haul it away but felt it could be worked out later. He indicated that the Jefferson' s next door to him, whose property line also backed up to the applicant ' s property although not as much as to his, were not in town and he had explained the situation to them and did not feel they had a problem. Mr. Barry said that he would tear down the fence if Mr. Brien would haul it away. Mr. Brien distributed some pictures to the commission of the property in question showing the fences involved. Commissioner powns recommended that Mr. Barry tear down the fence and Mr. Brien haul it away and install the block wall. Mr. Brien concurred that he would do this. Chairperson Whitlock closed the public testimony and asked for any comments by commission. � Action• Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner powns, s�cond�d by Commissioner Spiegel, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1552, approving PP 91-15, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 5-0. E. Case No. GPA 92-1 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to the General Plan Housing Element adding an analysis of existing low income assisted hou�ing at risk of being lost cstrer the ne�s� ten years. 20 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 1992 Mr. Drell explained that there was a change ir�-the housing law that required the city to analyze the existing housing stock � and decide which projects could be lost because of contracts with H.U.D. or assisted housing that expire periodically. He noted that in Palm Desert there was �nly one project which was in that category--Candlewood Apartments owned by Dick Oliphant. He indicated that Mr. Oliphant had a contract through the year 2018 and did not feel Mr. Oliphant had any intention of giving up that option. Mr. Drell noted that ' Exhibit B had the required paragraphs that the law specifies and had been reviewed by the State Department of Housing and Community Development and was found to be in substantial compliance. Chairperson Whitlock o ened the public hearing and asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the , proposal . There was no one and the public testimony was closed. Action: � Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1553, �.,, recommending approval of GPA 92-1 to city council. Carried ' 5-0. VIII. MISCELLANEOUS < None. � IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ' MS. DIANE DUNN, 77-777 Country Club Drive, introduced herself to the commission and said that she was Dan Ehrler' s new assistant and would be attending the planning commission meetings. MS. RUTH GUIBERSON, 44-875 San Ant,o�io Circle in Palm Desert, addressed the commission regarc�ing. Case ��No. PP/CUP 90-5 Amendment. Chairperson Whitlock explained to Ms. Guiberson that this case was at the city council level and the planning 21 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 1992 commission was not in a position to hear any further comments or take any additional action. wr� X. COMMENTS None. XI. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Spiegel, seconded by Commis ioner Richards, adjourning the meeting to January 21, 1992. rried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8: 5 .m. . RAM N A. DIAZ, ec ary ATTEST: a Y CAROL WHITLOCK, Chairperson /tm � 22 �