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
�