Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0121 ����� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - JANUARY 21, 2003 � `�� � - 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER .� . 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE � * .� � � � � � � � � � � � * � .� � * .� .� .� � � � � .� � * * � �. .� � � � * .� �. .� � I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Finerty called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Tschopp led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Cindy Finerty, Chairperson Sonia Campbell, Vice Chairperson Sabby Jonathan Dave Tschopp �... Members Absent: Jim Lopez Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Planning Tech Jeff Winklepleck, Parks and Rec. Planning Manager Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer Homer Croy, ACM for Development Services Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Request for consideration of the December 17, 2002 and January 7, 2003 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the December 17, 2002 meeting minutes. Motion carried 4-0. � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLQNNING COMMISSION JANUARY 29, 2003 � � It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner � Tschopp, approving the January 7, 2003 meeting minutes. Motion � carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained). V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent January 9, 2003 actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CQLENDAR A. Case No. PMW 02-10 - AMERICAN INVESTMENT / PALMS TO PINES EAST, LLC, Applicant � Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot � line adjustment at 72-81 1 Highway 1 1 1 . B. Case No. PMW 02-16 - JOHN AND EMILY McLEQN AND MICHAEL STEARNS, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge three Iots into two at 73-140 and 73-150 Shadow Mountain Drive. C. Case No. PMW 02-20 - HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF THE COACHELLA VALLEY AND THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to combine two lots into one for property on Goleta Street at the southeast corner of Portola and Fred Waring. � 2 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21. 2003 �"" D. Case No. PMW 02-25 - THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF SAN BERNARDINO AND LA PAZ DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge four existing parcels for a school, church, parking lot and other related structures for property located on Deep Canyon, north of Fred Waring Drive. E. Case No. PMW 03-02 - PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge Lots 27 and 28 in Block 3 of Palm Village Unit No. 2 for an existing house situated across a common lot line. Chairperson Finerty noted that there was item they would be removing from the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Campbell stated that she would move for approva) with the exception of Item B. (A letter from the applicant was received requesting that it be removed.) � Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. CUP 02-27 - SPRINT PCS, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to altow the construction of a 63-foot high monopine wireless telecommunications tower with adjacent 6'9" high pre- fabricated equipment shelter located 300 feet south of Country Club Drive and 1 ,300 feet east of Eldorado Drive. a.. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 2003 ; � ! Mr. Urbina showed the commission a photo simulation looking north fro � Indian Ridge Country Club at the proposed 63 foot high monopine cell tower. To the left it said proposed live canary island pines at 30 feet high. He explained that the Architectural Review Commission granted preliminary approval subject to a condition that two 30-foot high canary island pine trees be planted adjacent to the monopine to camouflage the artificial pine tree. An artificial pine tree instead of an artificial palm tree was chosen because this site has several existing Mondale pines at heights of 25 to 30 feet. Surrounding land uses include the Indian Ridge Country Club golf course to the east and to the south. There is a Southern California Edison substation immediately to the west and to the north. The monopine would be located approximately 300 feet south of Country Club Drive. The nearest residence was approximately 300 feet to the south across the golf course at Indian Ridge Country Club. The next nearest residence would be located approximately 400 feet to the north in Palm Valley Country Club on the north side of Country Club Drive. f Sprint PCS was proposing the monopine at this location in northeast Pal :� Desert because there is an existing gap in cellular phone coverage in this � area for Sprint PCS customers. He said this site was chosen not only because of the required logistical location to fill the dead zone for cell phone coverage, but also because it would provide the least amount of disturbance to residents since it was located within a Southern California Edison substation and surrounded by a golf course on two sides and Country Club Drive on the north. Staff had not received any letters of objection. Mr. Urbina explained that there was a letter in the commission packets from the Indian Ridge Country Club Homeowners Association stating that they thought this was going to be disguised as an artificial palm tree. However, it was always proposed to be an artificial pine tree and that was what the Architectural Commission approved. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the subject conditional use permit based on the conditions contained in the draft resolution. � 4 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 2003 +� Commissioner Tschopp asked for confirmation that no additional comments were received from the Indian Ridge Homeowners Association. Mr. Urbina said nothing else was received. Commissioner Tschopp asked whose property the monopine would be located on. Mr. Urbina said it was on the Southern California Edison Substation property. Commissioner Campbell asked if the applicant was comfortable adding the branches to the pine trees as to the Architectural Review conditions. Mr. Urbina stated that staff had not received any objection. Chairperson Finerty o,�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. There was no response. The applicant was not present. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the project. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Finerty asked for commission comments. Commissioner Jonathan asked if we were expecting the applicant and if they could have been de(ayed in traffic. Mr. Urbina said he spoke to the '� applicant's representative last week and he stated he would be at the meeting, but he hadn't heard anything since then. However, he did E-mail him the staff report and draft resolution and they were in agreement with the conditions of approval. Commissioner Jonathan asked for the commission's pleasure. He generally liked to have the applicant present. He would be in favor of postponing the item. Commissioner Campbell said she has seen the monopine before and was actually quite impressed with the way it looks in other areas. With the condition relative to Architectural Review adding more branches from the bottom and the location of where it is, they do not have any other letters of opposition to the proposed area, she would grant approval. Commissioner Tschopp agreed. He thought the ability to use this for other carriers might eliminate ihe need for other poles going up in the area. There are already existing pines in the area and the addition of the few the Architectural Review Commission was recommending would help keep this stealth. He thought it would actually work better than a mono �.. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 2003 � palm and was in favor. He said he would second the motion if that was � a motion. Commissioner Campbell stated that she would put that in the form of a motion. Chairperson Finerty asked for any other discussion. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the motion included the requirements of ARC, all five. Commissioner Campbell said yes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4- 0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2180, approving Case No. CUP 02-27, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0. B. Case Nos. PP 02-20 and DA 97-2 AMENDMENT 'i - PREST / VUKStC ARCHITECTS, Appiicant � � ..rl Request for approval of a precise plan of design for a 32,910 square foot office / industrial building, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and an amendment to Development Agreement 97-2 allowing service industrial uses in Planning Area 2 of the Wonder Palms Master Plan. Mr. Drell noted that the commission was distributed a Miscellaneous item relative to a parcel map waiver. He said they would consider that along with this public hearing since they were associated. Mr. Bagato stated that in April of 1997 the City Council approved Development Agreement 97-2 which allowed for a master plan for 270 +/- acres around the vicinity of Cook Street and Gerald Ford. The development plan established eight planning areas. He explained that the subject property is located in Planning Area 2. The master plan land use emphasized this as regional commercial. Service industrial is not currently a permitted use in ihe master plan for Planning Area 2 in that agreement. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 2003 �rr In March Parcei Map 30042 was approved. It subdivided 134.3 acres into 20 lots and created Technology Drive located at the northwest and southwest between Gerald Ford and Cook Street. The project site plan provides for a two-story office industrial building with 99 parking spaces. The total building area would be 32,910 square feet with 16,324 square feet for industrial use, 9,540 general office on the first level and 7,050 of general office on the second floor. Mr. Bagato stated that the building elevation design was desert contemporary architecture with various stucco colors. The proposed roof height is 35 feet, the maximum allowed in the zone. All the code requirements were outlined in the staff report and the project complies with them. For the purpose of Parcel Map 30042, and Mr. Bagato said it was brought up for this project because it is the first building to be approved on Technology Drive, there would be for grading purposes an additional nine feet of pad height that was brought in for all of Technology Drive and that purpose was to maintain the positive flow for the sewer line on � Gerald Ford Drive. On November 26, 2002, the Architectural Review Commission endorsed the project and granted preliminary approval by minute motion. Staff supported the project because of the great design along with complying with all the code standards for the development area of the master plan. Service Industrial was currently not allowed, but staff was recommending the amendment to DA 97-2 because they felt Service Industrial would be a good buffer along the I-10 and railroad corridor to separate it from the other commercial, residential and office areas within the master plan. For purposes of CEQA, staff determined that the project would not have a significant impact on the environment and staff prepared a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. Staff recommended that Planning Commission adopt the resolution recommending approval of PP 02-20 and DA 97-2 Amendment to City Council, subject to the conditions. � 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JQNUARY 21, 2003 i I i f Commissioner Jonathan said he had a couple of questions. The � amendment to the development agreement, which would allow service industrial, applies to not just this project but all of Planning Area 2. Mr. Bagato said that was correct. On the map Mr. Bagato passed out, Commissioner Jonathan asked which portion that referred to specifically. Mr. Bagato asked if he meant for this project. Commissioner Jonathan said no and clarified that the change to the development agreement was for all of Planning Area 2. Mr. Bagato said that was correct. Commissioner Jonathan asked what part of the drawing was Planning Area 2. Mr. Bagato said it was outlined mainly between the Cook Street and Gerald Ford area right along I-10 between Gerald Ford and the railroad, 134 acres. The map he passed to Commissioner Campbell was labeled Planning Area 2. He thought it was different from the one in the commission packets. When Parcel Map 30042 was created it kind of divided that area with Technology Drive. He said he could pass that around as well. Looking at the other Planning Areas, particularly 4, 1 and 6 along the railroad tracks, Commissioner Jonathan asked if they didn't provide for ; Service Industrial either. Mr. Bagato said they do. Commissioner � Jonathan asked if it was somehow only Planning Area 2 that didn't. Mr. Bagato said that Planning Area 2 was Regional Commercial which would be more like Desert Crossing. For this a�ea long the free, they thought Service Industrial would be permitable in that zone as well. Commissioner Jonathan noted that Planning Areas 4, 1 and 6 are also along the railroad tracks, so they envision Service Industrial, but for some reason Planning Area 2 didn't. Mr. Bagato said that was correct. Commissioner Jonathan said that this would bring Planning Area 2 in line with the other Planning Areas along the railroad tracks. Mr. Bagato said that was correct. Commissioner Jonathan noted that Mr. Bagato didn't address the issue of the visual impact from the offramp coming off of I-10 and the fact that it is substantially higher for this pa�ticular building. He asked if staff would address that. Mr. Drell asked if he meant relative to screening the rooftop equipment from above. Commissioner Jonathan said the rooftop and the general industrial use because as he understood it they would be looking at the rear. So they were looking at the area with the roll up doors, the trucks and the potential waste and so forth. And the rooftop equipment as well. � 8 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 2003 � Mr. Bagato indicated that the full set of plans were included in the commission packets. There was a full line of sight design prepared by the architect that staff was comfortable with. All of the �ooftop equipment would be completely screened based on a screen wall that was added. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the screen wall would be along the top of the hill. He asked where the screen wall would be. Mr. Bagato said that the screen wall was actually in front of the equipment. There was a parapet and an additional screen wall on the roof. On the elevation it created a new plane to give it more architectural detail. The roll up doors they didn't see as a concern because the architecture of the building was really well done. There would be landscaping on the berm as well that the applicant would install and was responsible for maintaining. It would be City land and with that landscape plan they would try to incorporate some of that design to help, but from the overall architecture and Architectural Commission's endorsement, staff was pretty satisfied with the roll up doors the way they are because of the architecture which does a good job of screening them. Mr. Drell said they were similar to the roll up doors on the back of Tweeters. The repetition of the rectangular forms tended to make the roll up doors just another rectangular detail on the back of the building. �... Commissioner Jonathan said he had some concerns about the visibility of that whole situation, but he would address that with the applicant. He thought they perhaps had already been mitigated. Commissioner Campbell asked for the height of the doors. Mr. Bagato said they are 14 feet. Chairperson Finerty o ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. JOHN VUKSIC, Prest Vuksic Architects at 73-030 Caliandra in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. To address Commissioner Jonathan's question, he stated that he went out to the site and took a good hard look at it a couple of times recently and was actually surprised how little he could see over the bank because the cars are set in quite a ways. There is a sidewalk and then a parking aisle and then the closest most lane for driving. The bank is very steep. He said he took a few photographs and passed out one he thought showed the angle of sight the best. Then he �.. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 2003 had a smaller line of sight diagram that he could pass around as well that he thought pretty accurately depicts car location to the bank and building. He said the photograph was taken from the street parked in the parking aisle, not in the drive aisle. He said that from the left side they could see Technology Drive which is on the front of the property. It gave them a pretty good sense of how little they could really see looking down in there. He said he did a line of sight diagram which actually, in his opinion, to fully block the roll up doors they would need a barrier about two feet high along the sidewalk, which he showed in the sight section he passed around. So he thought that would mitigate that concern. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Vuksic was suggesting some kind of a retaining wall or two foot wall along there. Mr. Vuksic said yes. !t wouldn't be a retaining wall, it would just be a low wall. He said he wou�d prefer to do something a little more artful, but he realized there was no space there. There is a sidewalk and then it just drops off. It was so steep they couldn't , really add any soil or anything. � Commissioner Jonathan asked if in conjunction with that if Mr. Vuksic investigated the possibility of moving some of these trees and landscaping a little further up the hil( so that they were higher sooner. Mr. Vuksic thought the sight section actually showed how effective that would be. He put the trees down low and they could see pretty much over those trees unless they are up higher on the bank. He agreed with Commissioner Jonathan on that. Commissioner Jonathan asked if that was feasible to move some of that landscaping up the hill as opposed to having it down at the bottom. He asked if they could be planted up there and irrigation pipes put in there. Mr. Vuksic thought it could. It would involve creating some wells for those trees and retaining on the back sides of those wells in some way. But it was feasible. Chairperson Finerty asked if Mr. Vuksic had anything else he wanted to � add. 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21. 2003 �'"' Mr. Vuksic introduced Matt Johnson of Wiison Johnson real estate, the owner of the project. He said they were available to answer any other questions. There were no questions and Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Finerty asked for commission comments. Commissioner Jonathan stated that the project is an awesome design. He continues to be impressed with Mr. Vuksic's creativity and ability to do nice things with otherwise pedestrian type uses. So he thought this was an example of the kind of thing that can be accomplished. The type of quality that can be accomplished. He was concerned about the rooftop equipment and so forth, but he thought if they could add, and if staff concurs, add that two foot wall and just ask the applicant to spread some of that landscaping up the hill that would break up that line of sight more effectively and sooner. It takes a while for landscaping to mature. With that he thought this was an appropriate use so he was certainly in favor of the amendment to the deve(opment agreement and he was in r�"" favor of the project. He said he would be prepared to move for approval. Commissioner Campbell concurred with Commissioner Jonathan. She thought every project we have seen coming from Mr. Vuksic has been exceptional. She felt this was a perfect location for that and the architecture is wonderful. The colors would blend in well with the landscaping. She said she would second that motion. Commissioner Tschopp concurred. He thought the architecture is very good and hoped it would set the trend for other buildings to come in that would be as compatible and comparable as this. He said he would like some clarification on how much landscaping they were talking about moving up the hill or how they wanted to handle that. Commissioner Jonathan said it was his intent to leave it to staff and the applicant to work out. They could trust them to work out the most etfective means. He thought the goal was shared by both the applicant and the staff to create as effective a buffer to the tine of sight. He would trust them to work out that detail. ir.. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21. 2003 Chairperson Finerty concurred. She thought the architecture was outstanding and that it made sense to have Service Industrial out there. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4- 0. It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2181 , recommending to City Council approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, PP 02-20, and amending DA 97-2 to allow service industrial uses in Planning Area 2, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 4-0. Chairperson Finerty asked about PMW 03-04. Mr. Drell said the commission also wanted to talk about that item. It was a Miscellaneous item. Chairperson Finerty asked if they would be asking Mr. Bagato to address that. Mr. Drell thought the person who could best explain it was , the applicant, Mr. Johnson. X. MISCELLANEOUS A. Case No. PMW 03-04 - LOST HORSE MOUNTAIN, LLC/MATTHEW V. JOHNSON, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow for a lot line adjustment to align parcel with Parcel Map 30042 and facilitate construction of Technology Drive. Property is generally located at south of the railroad tracks between Cook and Portola. MR. MATT JOHNSON, 73-134 Bel Air in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He explained that there was a request for a parcel map waiver which is an adjustment of the parcel lines underlying this property and others that they are purchasing in the area. The purpose of the request is to facilitate the financing of the project. They had the seller of the property, Mr. Allred, here this evening. Their lender is from Hong Kong and what they were trying to do in one fell swoop was get rid of the Hong Kong lender and get all 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21 . 2003 `.. the property into their possession so that as they go through the final processes of the parcel map and the street dedications and changes that are necessary, they have the rights to do them as opposed to always having to go back to a foreign lender to get releases of the land. Chairperson Finerty asked if there were any questions for the applicant. There weren't. Chairperson Finerty noted that this was a Miscellaneous item, not a public hearing item. Mr. Drell said the action would just be a minute motion. Mr. Drell indicated that the approval would be subject to final confirmation from Public Works for plan checking as we always do. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving PMW 03-04 by minute motion, subject to technical approval/confirmation by the Department of Public Works. Motion carried 4-0. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS �.. C. Case Nos. C/Z 03-01 and PP 01-01 Amendment - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of an Environmental Assessment and Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact to allow: 1) Construction of the Visitor Center three mile loop trail on approximately 260 acres east of State Highway 74 and south of Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument Visitor Center; 2) A change of zone from Planned Residential / Drainage to Open Space / Drainage for 18 acres located northwest of the intersection of Thrush Road and the Palm Valley Storm Channel Road; and 3) Approval of a precise plan amendment to incorporate the above mentioned property in item 2 into Homme/Adams Park and to allow construction of a trail system linking Homme/Adams Park and Cahuilla Hills Park located west of the Palm Valley Storm Channel generally between Thrush Road and Greene Way. �.r. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 2003 Mr. Drell said that Mr. Winklepleck would briefly describe the project and then he would discuss a few unique aspects to the project and a suggestion of how we should proceed. Mr. Winklepleck said they were dealing with two distinct areas here. The Homme Adams/Cahuilla Hills Park area which is on the west side of Highway 74 adjacent to the PalmValley Storm Channel. They are also dealing with City owned property south and east of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto National Monument Visitor Center off of Highway 74. He said that was south of Canyons at Bighorn. He stated that the reason the City was building these trails was fairly simple. They have had in the last couple of years some voluntary closures with the main trail in Palm Desert, the Art Smith Trail. Voluntary closures are from January through June, which is prime hiking season. When they get past June there is heat. There is some hiking time before January, but it is limited. This voluntary restriction might become permanent with the approval of the Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan. � In order to provide alternatives or equivalent alternatives to residents and visitors alike, the City is proposing these two trails. The trail linking Homme Adams Park to Cahuilla Hills Park and a loop trail on the City owned land south of the BLM Visitor's Center as year round trails. The one caveat on the BLM Visitor's Center is because of its adjacency to the Bighorn Institute staff was proposing that we restrict dogs on that property; however, allow dogs on the Homme Adams / Cahuilla Hills loop. Staff had been working quite a long time with BLM, Fish & Game and Fish & Wildlife and the other federal agencies to try to come up with a management plan that would both meet our needs and the bighorn sheep recovery plan needs. He thought they were close. The one thing to mention on both sites was the trail construction on both sites would be minimal. There was actually historical trails that have been used for quite a long time on both sites. The only real trail construction that would occur would be the link between Homme Adams and Cahuilla Hills. There would be some trail maintenance and some minor modifications in the other areas, but basically they were trying to get these irails officially recognized as trails so we can manage them and assist in the bighorn issues. 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21. 2003 +�.r The other item was more or less a bookkeeping item. He said the City owns or bought after the approval of the Homme Adams Park a couple of years ago the 18 acres adjacent to the west of Homme Adams Park, which the trail basically follows. Staff was proposing that the existing Hillside Planned Residential zone be changed to Open Space consistent with the park and that it also be incorporated into Homme Adams Park with the precise plan amendment. Mr. Drell noted that there were three things going on. The rather more non-controversial inclusion of some real estate into the park. There is the route designed for the trail and then the environmental process that we are going through and a parallel process that BLM is going through. The area that links Cahuilla and Homme Parks is BLM property. So they were subject to the Federal Environmental Quality Act. Under CEQA, the approving body is the one that needs to go through the more significant deliberation and the same item is scheduled for Council on Thursday. The reason for the truncated process is because there was a lot of pressure for us to accomplish the closure of the area around the Visitor's Center that allegedly impacts the Bighorn Institute as quickly as �• we could. Based on that pressure for us to act and start to manage that area actively to prohibit dogs, staff tried to get the whole package through the system as quickly as we could. Up to this time staff hasn't acted in either case, either at Homme Adams or at the Visitor's Center to manage it at all. They never adopted an act of management for either one of these pieces of real estate. He pointed out that correspondence had been received from some interested parties. They were afso going to get some correspondence, they had a request from the Department of Fish and Game, although we received a second hand interoffice memo from one of their employees, a request for a two- week continuance of the decision on the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Toward the effort to try and expedite the process so they can get to the end of it and hopefully accomplish everyone's goal of closing the Visitor's Center area to dogs, staff was suggesting that the Planning Commission act on the precise plan and zone change request recommending those approvals to City Council. But relative to the environmental document and the actual controversy over the trails, the commission could pass it on to the Council with no recommendation and just add comments. �.. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21. 2003 � Once this controversy gets fleshed out, they won't have to go through ,� it twice before the commission and the council. Once all the comments were received they would leave it to the Council to evaluate them and make their decision. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification on which portion the commission would pass along. Mr. Drell said the environmental portion. Since the Planning Commission action is a recommendation to the City Council, given the fact that we have not received all of the pertinent environmental comments from the most significant agencies, the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, that that be passed on to Council with any comments but no specific recommendation since they were not really able to evaluate all of the comments. Commissioner Jonathan asked if that was the approval of the environmental assessment and the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Mr. Drell said yes, they could just officially act on the actions relative to the change of zone and the inclusion of the new property in the park and the , precise plan. Any comments they would like to forward individually would be forwarded in the minutes. Chairperson Finerty asked if there were any questions for staff. Commissioner Jonathan said he didn't think this was a problem, but asked if Mr. Winklepleck was familiar with the Bump and Grind Trail in Rancho Mirage. That became so pop�lar that parking became a major issue and still is. He assumed that we had more than adequate parking if these trails should become equally popular. Mr. Winklepleck said yes. With Homme Adams, which staff saw as being the main trail head since it is the easiest to get to, they currently have 15 spaces but they could easily accommodate additional spaces by simply moving some of the palm logs and creating more spaces. Up and until that time they would keep an eye on it. If a need developed, they could accommodate those people. Mr. Drell said that with the construction of the pumping station at Cahuilla Park they made room for another five to eight spaces adjacent to that. He said they welcomed the opportunity to deal with the popularity of those trails. � 16 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 2003 �•• Commissioner Tschopp asked what the anticipated use of the trails would be and if staff had any numbers. Mr. Winklepleck said it was tough to say right now. There are still quite a few people hiking where they aren't supposed to. Once they get in a management plan and actively manage it, he thought they would see quite a bit more use. When driving up and down Highway 74 in the mornings they could see any where from five to ten or 15 cars some mornings depending on if there is a group hiking or just some individuals. But he would guess at any one time if they got 15 to 20 people that would be a lot. Commissioner Tschopp noted that in the staff report staff was contemplating allowing mountain biking on the trail also. Mr. Winklepleck said they don't want to limit mountain biking out of the picture. It's a bike-able trail. There are portions of it that aren't very bike-able, but there are some hard core riders out there and he thought with Art Smith accommodating mountain bikes, we wanted to do the same. Commissioner Tschopp asked how important it was to have the dogs off the leash on the trail. He asked what the demand was for that. Mr. Winklepleck said that historically in this area they have had quite a few, � mostly from folks in the area. They bring their dogs. Although there were probably some folks from out of the area. They have historically run their dogs on those sites. Following some Federal regulations, he said they were mirroring some regulation that are out there as under voice control. He thought it was fairly important and they wanted to try to maintain that if possible. Mr. Drell said that part of it is a matter of practicality. There are some shrubs and things with dogs on leashes on a narrow trail, they could easily get wrapped around bushes. But if he was referring to the issues raised in the letters, that was one of the important ones. What they were also probably going to do is call a summit meeting and try to get all of these parties into one room together. There are some things we all want and some things are a problem and see if they could reach an accommodation. This might be one of the issues, especially for that area on BLM property because there was an internal Cahuilla Hills loop that is entirely on our property and he thought the concern there was less with the dogs because the land rises very steeply right behind there. tt wasn't likely that any dogs would be able to physically go to the west. So it was very likely we would be discussing having leash control through the BLM property. �.. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 2003 Chairperson Finerty asked for clarification about voice control and if it had to do with barking. Mr. Winklepleck said it mainly voice control where someone could call their dog and the dog would come. That is the standard that had been set under the Federal guidelines. Mr. Drell explained that if there was a sheep, it was so the dog wouldn't go off and chase it. Chairperson Finerty asked how it was that coyotes didn't go after the sheep. Mr. Winklepleck said they do. Chairperson Finerty noted that they really couldn't control coyotes, but they were making this effort with the dogs. Because of the problem with the coyotes, she asked why this area of the Institute been fenced off to try to keep everybody safe. Mr. Winklepleck thought part of the Institute was fenced off. Mr. Drell concurred. He said one of the suggestions of the Institute was that it is our responsibility to provide fencing around the Institute to protect trespassers from entering their property. Chairperson Finerty noted that they were talking about dogs with their owners versus coyotes with no one or solo and it wasn't making sense to her. Mr. Drell clarified that she was talking about the issue at the Institute of dogs with their owners coming over and looking in the pens , and the question was why hasn't the Institute taken affirmative action to secure their own property with fencing or signage to stop people from doing that. Chairperson Finerty said absolutely, and at the same time they would be protecting all of their sheep and their babies from the coyotes. She has seen what coyotes have done to rabbits on golf courses. Mr. Drell said it was a good question and was probably a question they would be discussing with Mr. Deforge. Expanding on the dog question on the Homme Adams Trail, Commissioner Jonathan asked what the motivation in allowing dogs on that trail. He asked if there was a perceived demand from hikers that want to take their dog along. Mr. Winklepleck stated that they already knew there was quite a bit of dog use on the Visitor's Center site right now. The reason for the dog use on the Homme site would be to relocate that use away from the Bighorn Institute over to another similar type use. Staff was of the mind set that if we just say no to all of it, it won't go away. But if we offer alternatives we'll get 80% to 90% of the people complying. That was the reason they were looking at this as a dog area. Commissioner Jonathan said he wasn't disputing the conclusion, but he � wanted to know if it was staff's perception that there was a demand 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 2003 �`�' from dog owners for trails accessible for dogs. He asked if that was their perception based on experience. Mr. Winklepleck said that was based on visual experience and based on input. Mr. Drell noted that there was also obvious evidence left behind that dogs have been there. Mr. Drell said he goes by there every morning and he usually sees 7:50 a.m. or 8:00 a.m. two or three cars parked. At 8:00 a.m. people can't get into the parking lot. It's gated off and people are parked right there before the gate. Virtually every morning he sees someone either going with a dog or coming back with a dog. He didn't think it was a situation where there were crowds of people with dogs. It's just a place that a lot of residence have gotten to enjoy and into the habit of going up there and enjoying the serenity of the area close to the city. In Mr. Deforge's view, every dog adds to the stress on the sheep and potentially leads to their decline. Mr. Winklepleck said that on the Homme site, he has been out many times in the last year and every two out of three times there's someone out there with their dog. Commissioner Jonathan noted that Mr. Drell said there was evidence of dog usage and that was a problem in other trails that are available to dogs, like Ironwood Park. He asked if part of the trai( management �""' program such that there would be doggie bags made available and signs up. Mr. Winklepleck said yes. Mr. Drell indicated that one of the problems has been that if they were to have done that now, that would have endorsed dog access. That had been the other thing that has prevented us from doing the rational management of the places dogs do go. Because that would be an action which would require a governmental policy action that was affirmative. So in the absence of that they haven't been able to institute any of those housekeeping sort of ineasures. Mr. Winklepleck said there would be dog bags and signage in part of the management plan. Mr. Drell noted that we have a city ordinance on park land that requires them to do that if people don't and they are seen, they can be cited. Commissioner Campbell said that was one of her questions also, bui got answered. She asked if there were signs at the Visitor's Center restricting dogs, who would enforce it. Mr. Winklepleck said that would be part of the management plan. The parking for that would be on BLM property and currently there are no dogs allowed. That's why they park outside the gate. The people who patrol the Homme Adams site wouid also patrol the Visitor's Center. He said staff would get calls if people see � 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 2003 dogs out there and staff would take any necessary action. Mr. Drell said it would be a situation where, although somewhat different, in that BLM has personnel permanently at the Visitor's Center and they would have the primary responsibility of observing what is going on in that trail area. But initially staff was seeing the need for fairly visible uniform people out on the trails. Especially in the beginning that reinforce the impression that this is something we are checking, that will be enforced and people should have the expectation that if they do something wrong, people will see them and initially they will have warnings but eventually there would be significant citations with fines. Commissioner Campbell indicated, as pointed out by Chairperson Finerty, there are coyotes and the only things dogs do differently than coyotes is bark and if the sheep go down to people's yards and drink out of their swimming pools, she didn't think this was anything to do with the lambs. Chairperson Finerty o�ened the public hearing. It was noted that the City is the applicant. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the project. There was no one. Mr. Drell recommended that the public hearing be closed to allow the commission to act on the two items mentioned previously and move the � environmental process onto the City Council. Chairperson Finerty closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Campbell stated that she would move for recommend approval of the precise plan and change of zone to City Council. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would second that motion and add the comment, in terms of passing along the environmental issues that he thought they had to be sensitive to the efforts of the Bighorn Sheep Institute and to try to formulate a compromise that meets the needs of hikers, pet owners, and the Institute and sheep and the lambs. He thought that could be done. There are people up there already. They weren't talking about putting up skyscrapers. They were talking about people enjoying the environmental and he thought that was part of the purpose in being environmentally conscious. So it was his hope that a compromise would be attained. He did think that if they were going to allow dogs on the trail, that an effective trail management plan that incorporates the issues associated with dog use should be implemented. 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21. 2003 � Commissioner Tschopp thought the trails were desperately needed and would be a good addition to the recreation facilities for the citizens of Palm Desert and the valley. The only issues he wouid pass on would be on the dog issue in that it wasn't just other animals out there, sheep in particular, that could be harassed by dogs on a trail. He noted that in the past he has met dogs off leash on the trails and it wasn't a lot of fun. So if absolutely necessary to have dogs off a leash on a trail, and if they demonstrated that need, then he wouldn't be opposed to it, but he would pass that concern along. Dogs now days could have the same attitude as cats and be pretty free minded, especially out in the wild where only the best trained dogs would answer to voice commands if confronted by wildlife. If they take the approach that they are going to allow animals, add a sign up there and enforce it. He suggested a sign saying something like "animal droppings on trails will result in the closure to animals" and have the animal dog owners help police it. Then if there are dog droppings on the trail, which was problem for him if he had to step through it, then close it to animals. '�"' As a follow up, Commissioner Jonathan stated that he didn't see the sense of having the dogs off the leash. He thought that dogs should be leashed. Even friendly dogs at times could pose a threat to infants and there are families that hike the trails. Most responsible pet owners would have their dogs on a leash and he thought that should be part of the resolution. Chairperson Finerty noted that she already made her comments with regard to the coyotes. Commissioner Campbell asked for clarification if Commissioner Jonathan wanted to add the dogs on leashes requirement to the resolution. He said no, he meant as comments to be passed along to the Council. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4- 0. .�.. 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21. 2003 It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2182, recommending to City Council approval of C/Z 03-01 and PP 01-01 Amendment, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0. D. Case No. ZOA 02-02 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant (Continued from July 16, September 3 and October 1 and November 21, 2002) Request for approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Chapter 25.21 Second Unit Senior Housin4. Mr. Drell noted that the commission had a report before them and Mr. Urbina would discuss what staff is proposing. He said depending on how the commission acts on this case, that would guide the commission on how they want to act on the subsequent conditional use permit applications. Mr. Urbina noted that state law allows local government's discretion to � craft specific zoning regulations regarding second units only with respect to the following areas: 1 ) Unit size. The commission has the discretion of specifying the maximum unit size of a second unit. 2) Owner occupancy. Per advice from the City Attorney, the City could require that the main unit be owner occupied. 3) Locational restrictions of second units. The Government Code states that second units maybe limited to certain residential areas when it can be justified that such restrictions will result in less impacts to public infrastructure or public streets and traffic. In the staff report, there were two alternatives. Zoning ordinance amendment alternative number one involved keeping the existing second unit permit ordinance. That wasn't an alternative that staff was recommending because the existing ordinance was not in compliance with current State law regarding second units. Keeping the existing ordinance could invite litigation against the City from affordable housing advocates. For alternative number two, Mr. Urbina said that the language was the same as what was recommended back on Novembe� 19 except that � 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21 . 2003 �+ there were a few additional areas where the Planning Commission could provide additional zoning ordinance language. On page five of the staff report dealing with subsection "C", it dealt with unit size. Originally staff was recommending a maximum square footage of 1 ,200 for a second unit. They gave this larger square footage in an attempt to allow as much flexibility as possible for a property owner proposing a second unit to be creative with a fioor plan design and hopefully it would effect the quality of life positively for future tenants. If the Planning Commission wanted to have a smaller maximum size other than 1 ,200 square feet, staff recommended that the size be no smaller than 600 square feet. The reason for the 600 square feet was because that is the minimum size of the smallest apartment allowed in a non age restricted multifamily development currently in the city. State law says that the local zoning ordinance must allow at least for the creation of an efficiency unit and that is defined as a unit with 220 square feet of floor area. New areas in the new staff report were on page seven starting with �""" subsection "K" which Mr. Urbina said could be added to the proposed second unit zoning ordinance. He said the Planning Commission could place a requirement that the main unit be owner occupied on a property where a second unit is proposed. Staff was not recommending that, but that was a regulation that the Planning Commission could direct staff to incorporate into the zoning ordinance amendment. The other area not previously discussed was on page eight under subsection "L" dealing with locations for second units. Previously staff was recomme�ding that second units be allowed in any residential zone of the city to provide maximum flexibility to facilitate affordable housing. However, the government code allowed local governments to restrict second units to certain locations when it could be justified that the impacts will be less on public infrastructure and public facilities such as traffic. Under subsection "L" one of the options that the Planning Commission might choose to incorporate in the new zoning ordinance amendment was to restrict second units only to those residentially zoned properties within 400 feet of an arterial street or major thoroughfare such as Portola Avenue and Fred Waring Drive. The theory behind this limiting of second units only to p�operties within 400 feet of a major street was � 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 2003 to reduce the amount of iraffic impacts generated from second units into the heart of residential neighborhoods. Mr. Urbina stated that staff hoped to receive input from the Planning Commission as to specific language they would like to see incorporated into a new zoning ordinance amendment dealing with second units. Specifically, staff wanted the input as to maximum size of the second unit and whether or not a property where a second unit is proposed should be owner occupied. Third, if there should be a locational restriction for second units such as if they should only be allowed on residentially zoned properties within 400 feet of an arterial street or major thoroughfare. Chairperson Finerty asked where the figure 400 feet came from. Mr. Urbina said that staff contemplated 300 feet or 400 feet, but didn't want to be completely restrictive, for example proposing something like only 100 feet or 200 feet from a major arterial. Staff wanted to be a little more flexible and thought maybe 400 feet might be something more justifiable without getting too deep into the heart of a residential area and they could still confine most trips from the second unit to the proximity � of an arterial street. But they might want to choose something different. � Chairperson Finerty asked if it was a number that staff came up with, it didn't have anything to do with Assembly Bill 1866. Mr. Urbina said it was related to Assembly Bill 1866, but Assembly Bill 1866 didn't specifically mention a number, Chairperson Finerty noted that on page six number "E," they tatked about parking requirements and the reason for the change is the current State law says there can only be one offstreet parking space per bedroom. Mr. Urbina said that was correct. Chairperson Finerty said that if they go down to "I" it says that State law does allow local ordinance to impose standards which include parking. She said she was trying to figure out what pa�king standards the law allows when they already say there is one offstreet parking space per bedroom. She asked what happened if there were two bedrooms and that would require two spaces. Our covered parking poiicy requires 50% to be covered parking. Mr. Urbina thought that what state law was setting was the maximum parking requirements that a local jurisdiction can impose. They might not be greater than the state law, but they could be less. He didn't think state law addressed the issue of whether the parking had to be covered or not 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21. 2003 """ covered. Staff interp�eted it to mean that it did not have to be covered parking. He asked for clarification from the City Attorney as to whether he thought we could impose a requirement that the parking space required for the second unit could be required to be covered parking. Mr. Hargreaves believed it could. He thought the interpretation in the staff report was a little more restrictive than his would be. State law allows local jurisdictions a reasonable amount of latitude in crafting regulations for second units as long as the intent and/or effect of the regulations was not to absolutely preclude second units. The current ordinance complies with state law with one exception, the possible problem with the number of parking spaces. He thought the state law was clear now that the maximum parking they could require was the one space per bedroom. But other than that the current ordinance was probably defensible as long as it doesn't have the effect of effectively precluding second units. Commissioner Jonathan asked if he was saying that in general, or only with respect to the parking requirement. Mr. Hargreaves said generally. He noted that there was a statement that said they could not limit it to persons 60 years and older. He thought that was more of an inference than a direct statement in the law. He thought that could be argued �"� either way. Commissioner Jonathan asked about the process for a public hearing as opposed to an administerial act. Mr. Hargreaves stated that as of that June or July date, that was very clear in the law that they could no longer require a CUP process. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that meant that our current ordinance would be deficient in that regard. Mr. Hargreaves said yes. Mr. Urbina asked for confirmation that we could require that the parking space for that second unit be covered. Mr. Hargreaves said yes. There was no preclusion as long as it doesn't somehow preclude second units. Mr. Drel! said the problem was the history with the current law. The last 20 years we have had four that he could remember. It wasn't a good track record. He thought the parking issue was probably the one that was most limiting. There were very few properties that physically have the room for a second two-car garage in their front yard. Unless they designed it in advance in anticipation of it. Chairperson Finerty said if they have two bedrooms and they decide they should have two parking places and our ordinance says that 50% has to be covered, which was a reasonable ordinance especially living out here, she asked how they would deal with that. Mr. Drell said that the problem with the covered part is that uncovered parking spaces could be in a front �.. 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 2003 , � yard. Once they created a covered requirement, it became a structure and � structures are subject to the front setback requirement. So it made compliance much more difficult. Having one space covered wasn't as bad as having two spaces covered. Chairperson Finerty asked for confirmation that our ordinance allows for 50%. Mr. Drell said it was required of apartments, but apartments were built from scratch and they were built with the anticipation of parking and were designed that way so the structures are out of the setback. In terms of this state law which is designed to accommodate the addition of second units to existing single family homes, typically those homes weren't built with the anticipation of adding another structure in the front yard. He said a lot of these things are subjective in how they ultimately will operate and whether they provide reasonable oppo�tunity for property owners to do this. Something that only time will tell. They could adopt something and if it turns out that everyone who comes to the counter don't have room for a third covered space in their front yard, that could be over time presented as evidence that our ordinance does not provide a reasonable opportunity for people to do this. , When Mr. Drelf said parking in their front yard, Chairperson Finerty asked for clarification if he meant parking on the street. Mr. Drell said no. They ,� don't allow structures in the 20 feet of space between the property line and the building. That was the front setback. It would have to be in their property. He noted they modified the requirement for a carport a little bit and they now allow them to be 20 feet as measured from the curb. Depending on the setbacks of the property, it allows a little more opportunity for the addition of that carport. Their concern is that if they start adding a lot of parking structures in front of the house it stops looking like a single family house. Which is contradictory to the goal of having these look like single family homes and not dominated by garages in the front of them. Chairperson Finerty asked about the term "single family." Mr. Drell said it was defined by the new law as including a second unit. Chairperson Finerty said that the single family they knew or used to know was one family, one house, on one lot. Now essentialiy they are being asked to create double family but maintaining their single family neighborhoods. To her that was in direct conflict with the term "single family neighborhoods." Mr. Drell said the State was redefining it, although � accessory apartments have been very common and probably exist 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 2003 � throughout this city far more commonly than they realize. Accessory apartments are far more common. He knew a planner who worked in his department who part of,the time when he came to live here lived in an accessory apartment on Fairway. So they do exist and have existed commonly throughout single family neighborhoods in a less than sanctioned manner. But regardless of that, the specific language of this State !aw redefines what the legal term for single family is and they say that the addition of an accessory apartment does not violate the concept of a single family lot. He said the State does this frequently when they feel there is an issue of statewide interest. They preempt zoning. They did it in terms of day care centers, they did it in terms of in home care for the elderly, so they have done it on other occasions where they feel for whatever reason that certain decisions they don't want left up to the cities. Chairperson Finerty indicated that on the front page of the staff report she read that there were four zoning ordinance amendment alternatives. Mr. Urbina said it should have read two. Under the existing Zoning Ordinance and under the possible proposed �" amended Zoning Ordinance, Commissioner Jonathan asked what the procedure would be when someone wants an exception. For example, if they wanted a larger unit than the Zoning Ordinance allowed or some other kind of exception. He asked what the procedure would be for that kind of request. Mr. Drell said that was a good question. One, they were not bound to grant an exception. If they wanted to grant an exception, they should probably put a procedure in there which would involve a conditional use permit. Or if they were inclined to want to consider exceptions, then they create an exceptions section. If they don't, it would �equire an application for a variance which are very difficult to justify. So if it was commission's inclination to not necessarily overly encourage these things, then they wouldn't provide for an exception and force people to go through the variance process, which is a hearing process. Commissioner Tschopp asked if there was an implied threat from the State that if 20 years from now there aren't any more of these units built that we have somehow not followed the law. Mr. Drell said there wasn't an implied threat from the State, but any applicant who gets denied by virtue of not ever being able to comply and if there was a long history of r.. 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 2003 � � virtually everyone having it never happen and then to be able to show �,,,,� that physically lot by lot that there are very few instances where it is physically possible to comply with the regulations, then that could be used as evidence that the regulations do not and, two things would happen. That would be the result of a litigation initiated by someone that got denied. Another thing that was likely to happen, one thing we have to do after we amend our ordinance is report that amendment to the State legislature. One of the reasons there has been this progressive ratcheting down of this regulation is that cities have tried to avail themselves of the all the potential restrictive measures they could under the law and the result of that has been that these things have been difficult to do and because of the monitoring that the Legislature has done over the years every once in a while if they see a certain pattern of regulation they see as onerous they have tinkered with the law and that opportunity. The last one being the history of denials at public hearings and their realization that . neighborhood groups were often not enthusiastic about these things and they often prevail at the hearing process, so they created this last amendment that removed the ability to have these at a public hearing. ..ir Commissioner Tschopp summarized that there was no implied threat and we adopt a code that is within the guidelines and we even perhaps take a step further and provide for exceptions that include coming before a public hearing and giving a neighborhood time to address their concerns, we would be in compliance with the law and meeting the potential needs of the citizens. Mr. Drell said that there would be hearings on the exceptions. Commissioner Tschopp said that was correct. Mr. Drell said as outlined the ordinance does require architectural review. The drafted ordinance staff believed, either as drafted or in the alternatives, includes all of the restrictive measures staff felt they could employ. So the answer was if we appear to have done that, the City Attorney would say we have a defensible case. Commissioner Tschopp said that if they even provide a way for exceptions, then they could look at those cases that might warrant an exception. Mr. Drell said that was correct. If historically eve�yone gets denied, then that could potentially create some problems. Commissioner Tschopp said that if they are following State law and adopt a code within the guidelines, they have a provision for exceptions, what happened after that was not a violation of law. He asked if that was correct. Mr. Drell said that the problem with the State ; 28 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 2003 '�"" law is that it was written very poorly and hopefully it would get interpreted in our favor as a result of that. Chairperson Finerty asked if our current ordinance provides for owner occupancy. Mr. Drell said no. Chairperson Finerty asked about being within a certain number feet as stated in item number "L." Mr. Drell said no. There was no locational criteria. The most prohibiting criteria has been the parking regulation. Commissioner Campbell noted that we currently have an ordinance allowing accessory buildings. Mr. Drell said they would apply. All the physical standards of development for single family zones would apply. Assuming a detached building complied with the existing standard, the only difference is that we would allow a kitchen in that unit and we would allow it to be rented. Commissioner Campbell indicated that the accessory building has to be a certain number of feet away from the property line as its height. Mr. Drell said that was correct. All of the physical standards of the R-1 zone would be applicable to any development associated with these second units. Commissioner Campbell thought that in these single family residential lots they wouldn't have 01/ enough room for a secondary unit. Mr. Drell said that if they don't, they don't. But if they have a 30-foot or 40-foot backyard, there's plenty of room. So they would still have to meet and they would evaluate the physical improvements as if it was just a guest house. Commissioner Campbell said they approve them in certain areas where they do meet the requirements. Mr. Dreil concurred. He said that in terms of physical development standards, the requirements would be identical to any improvement that a pure single family owner would be subject to. Commissioner Campbell noted that there was a 1 ,200 square foot requirement and some of the homes were only 1 ,200 square feet. That was the whole total home right now in some of those areas. Mr. Drell said they could be bigger. The present could probably double in size and still meet the zoning requirements. Having 35% coverage was an example. On a typical 8,000 square foot lot, that would allow for about a 2,600 square foot home including the garage. Commissioner Campbell said that looking specifically at the area they were looking at now, some of the main residences were probably 1 ,200 square feet. Mr. Drell said that was correct, but nothing would stop them from doing a room addition to their house. Commissioner Campbell said they could do that, but not add a second unit. �... 29 MlNUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 2003 Chairperson Finerty noted that the public hearing was open and asked for any testimony in FAVOR of the proposal. MR. JERRY BEAUVAIS, 74-041 San Marino Circle, addressed the commission. He said he would like to read from a statement and did so as follows: "I've stated this before, I love this town and I really love my neighborhood. When I was last before you my neighbors and I made a rather long presentation regarding our labors of the past 20 years. There was no dishonesty, misstatements or smoking mi�rors. Yesterday it was my pleasure to give Commissioner Jonathan a tour of two of my homes. I believe he.got a sense of what we have accomplished since and I can't help but think that you all realized having listened to my neighbors at our last meeting, that this is indeed a fine thing that's happened to our little piece of Palma Village. More than stopping the deterioration of our neighborhood, we've provided desperately needed housing for some very good people and truly this is the real point of this exercise. This changing of the City code, there is a shortage in the extreme of this type of affordable quality housing. Christina Faust, mother of a six year old, purchasing agent and department head at Desert Springs Marriott, is a completely typical example of my tenants. With no assistance of any sort she is raising her daughter, providing private education as well as the latest pink Barbie purse. Megan is a happy child. She loves her bedroom with its french doors opening onto her own courtyard under a palo verde tree. She is safe here. Christina pays 5600 less than the other tenant, her neighbor Ken, for comparable accommodations. Ken jokingly asked me yesterday what he had to do to get this kind of rent reduction. I told him a six year old and a wife who sends a postcard every six months. Because you are the Planning Commission, I think you must put yourself in Christina's shoes for a minute because it is her fate you are about to decide. The amount she currently puts aside every month for housing would in today's market put her and her daughter into a second rate apartment complex. Imagine your own six year old growing up in an apartment complex while you are struggling to make ends meet. I know for a fact that there are many Christina's out there killing themselves to be the best mom's they can. Under the types of stress it would do most men in. You are deciding , tonight whether Megan and all those like her are raised in a home 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21. 2003 ''�"' on a peaceful street or subjected to the typically transient atmosphere that is apartment dwelling. My tenants are good people all involved at the core level of our Palm Desert business community. They provide the kinds of services that make our city one of the best. They have worked for and deserve quality housing in good neighborhoods. We are not Indian Wells, a community that looks down on its service people wishing they would go else where at the end of the day. I find such snobbery distasteful in the extreme. We are the premier business community in this valley. We take great pride in our success of the past 20 years. Let us take pride in knowing that we provide for and take care of our own." He further stated that he was raised between two sisters, an older and younger. They were quite close and he has a big brother complex and that's why he gets involved in watching out over people that need watching over. He said he would like to speak to Mr. Kopp who spoke at the last meeting about encroachment in the neighborhood. Mr. Kopp and �"" his wife, long time highly respected citizens of Palm Desert, known and respected here at City Hall. Personally respected by him. He said Mr. Kopp spoke of encroachment by him into the neighborhood. Mr. Beauvais stated that in the past year there were two houses headed down the block toward his house which came up for sa(e. Mr. Beauvais said he had no interest in buying the houses. One of those houses was purchased, restored and turned over to a son. It was now party central. There was trash in street in the morning, there are kids partying there al! night long, there were a lot of people living there and there was a lot of people coming and going. This was a legal situation. He said he wasn't at the meeting to complain about that because if it wasn't for his application, he wouldn't be at the meeting because he understood that everyone gets to do what they need to do. But Christina and Megan are so well incorporated into the neighborhood, Megan was learning how to ride her little bicycle down the street, the cars are off the street, she has parking. All his neighbors are off the street. Last Sunday morning when he came home from Starbucks Coffee, there were no cars parked on San Marino Circle, which is where his houses are. Going down San Marino Way towards Mr. Kopp's � 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 2003 ; where they are all private residences, there were cars, trucks and boats lining both sides of the street. He said he took pictures and he had them if the commission wanted to see them. They could see the difference and they could see it in all those residential blocks. In that neighborhood where there are single residences, there are many people living in them and there was no parking and there were cars all over the place. His residents are off the street, they're quiet, and they're very integrated into the neighborhood and he was very on top of making sure that his places look good and that they are not a bother to the neighborhood. He stated that these places are already there, they are functioning, Mr. Jonathan saw two of them the other day, and he thought Mr. Jonathan enjoyed what he saw. He also stated that if any of his neighbors have any problem, that they come to him and he would seriously address anything that needed correcting. He has already made two corrections they asked for and they were under control. If there was anything else that needed to be done, he was very up front about being the best he could be for his neighborhood. ; � He hoped the commissioners would consider Christina and Megan ,,,� and all the Christinas and Megans out there. He wouldn't want to raise his six year old daughter in an area that had no control like an apartment. He wouldn't want her out on the street. Christina couldn't afford a house right now, but she could afford where she is and she was very happy and it was a good deal. Megan would turn out to be a good child. She would turn out to be a good adult. She's cared for and she's safe. He asked for any questions. There were no questions and Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone else wished to speak in FAVOR. MRS. KIM HOUSKIN, 73-237 Somera in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. She urged the Planning Commission to amend its Second Unit Ordinance in a manner that preserves the integrity of single family neighborhoods. She was very concerned about the growing number of second units in North Palm Desert and believed that concentration of these units in the neighborhood was causing traffic and congestion and reducing the quality of life. 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 2003 +�.. She specifically requested that the commission incorporate the following into its ordinance: 1) A requirement that second units be permitted only for owner occupied homes. This language protects neighborhoods against profit motivated additions to be used as rentals; 2) A requirement that offsite parking be provided. The growing number of cars on San Marino Circle and San Marino Way was unsightly and a safety hazard; 3) A restriction of second unit size to 30% of the size of the original house. Without that rest�iction, their neighborhoods would be converted to duplex style housing. She opposed the staff recommendation of a minimum size of 600 feet. She said this was the smallest non age restricted multifamily rental unit. The problem was these are not multifamily areas they were considering. They were considering single family residences. So she didn't see that 600 square feet needed to be the minimum. Again, she recommended 30% of the size of original house. She agreed with Commissioner Tschopp's idea that they could have an appeal if there was an exception, but 30% to her seerned ,�,,,,, adequate. With regard to limiting the location, she felt they would be condemning single family residences that fall within 400 feet of an arterial. She wanted to know if this was being crafted with Mr. Beauvais in mind. She wanted to know how far his units were from Portola, perhaps 300 or 400 feet. She thought that if second units were done properly and done correctly, they could be incorporated in any neighborhood in Palm desert. But they need a proper lot size, appropriate parking, and being owner occupied was critical. She knew originally this was considered senior housing for a mother-in-law type unit. Again, there was a need for it and she was in favor with certain restrictions. She felt these changes would balance the interest of homeowners with the need to allow for second units in our city. She urged the commission to do the right thing and amend its ordinance to protect neighborhoods from speculation and concentration of second units. Until this was done, no action on request for second units should be taken. �.. 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMlSSION JANUARY 21, 2003 s �.4 i � Limiting to within 400 feet of an arterial seemed like it was � unfairly burdening those families that live there. They would all be concentrated and eventually those people would move out and they would just have multifamily all along the arterials. She said at this point all she wanted to comment on were the changes to the second unit ordinance. She also wanted to speak regarding Mr. Beauvais's cases, but she assumed that would be open when his cases were also heard. She asked if that was correct. Chairperson Finerty explained that it was her understanding that if they don't approve the ordinance or they decide to continue, they would take testimony. She asked for clarification from Mr. Drell. Mr. Drell assumed that staff would get direction on which way the ordinance should go, Based on that direction, they would then continue Mr. Beauvais's cases, evaluate his applications based upon the direction the commission gave for the ordinance and then come back with an appropriate recommendation at the next meeting. But the hearings would be open ` and Mrs. Houskin could speak now or later, it didn't matter, so she might � as well speak now. Chairperson Finerty agreed. � Commissioner Jonathan asked why Mr. Beauvais's applications were in any way related to the possible amendment of the zoning ordinance. He asked if his situation would be grandfathered in. Mr. Drell said no. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the amendment was effective July 1 . Mr. Drell said no. He explained that the amendment relative to the elimination of the public hearing process is July 1 . Most of the amendments they have talked about were initiated in 1993. They had just never responded to any of the State law amendments that have occurred over the years since 1983. Commissioner Jonathan noted that we have a zoning ordinance in place. Whatever applications are before them at this time, they are subject to that zoning ordinance. Mr. Drell said yes, unless they determined to modify them and that was one of the options the commission had before them. To direct staff to not amend the ordinance. He thought it would be a little bit unfair to evaluate Mr, Beauvais's based on the ordinance and then at the same time direct staff to change the ordinance. Staff's goal would be to have the commission give staff direction on what they feel the appropriate ordinance would be � and then they would evaluate Mr. Beauvais's applications. He said it has � � 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 2003 r.. been very common for staff to take projects to the commission along with ordinance amendments that staff thought were appropriate. That has happened almost every time there has been an ordinance amendment. They bring them projects that are an example of the implementation of those amendments. Commissioner Tschopp said it would be of assistance to him if they confine their comments here to the new ordinance and not to specific cases. Mrs. Houskin might have to come back to the podium to speak about those, but he didn't think they wanted to confuse the applicants in the future with what they are trying to do today with the ordinance. Mr. Drell said that would be fine. Chairperson Finerty also agreed. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone else wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one. Chairperson Finerty said she was going to leave the public hearing open for now. She believed that last time they discussed this they talked about putting a little subcommittee together. With all the information that was being provided in the staff report and al! the information staff was wanting the commission to think about, she �,,, was thinking it might be best to continue this for a month and assign two commissioners to work with staff to try to piece together something. She wasn't prepared to make a recommendation on staff's suggestions relative to the location, owner occupancy, and the minimum square footage at this time. Commissioner Jonathan agreed that made sense, but he was also wondering whether that subcommittee or task force should be combined with or at least have a meeting with one or two council members and Council. He continued to have questions about their obligation to comply with the State's proposed solution for their perception of a perceived problem. So he wanted to expand their consideration to all alternatives including Alternative No. 1 . Chairperson Finerty agreed 100%. Commissioners Campbell and Tschopp also concurred. Chairperson Finerty stated that she would like to serve on the task force. Commissioner Jonathan said he would as well, but if someone else wanted to he wouid defer. Commissioner Tschopp said he wouldn't mind serving either, but he would also defer. Commissioner Campbell said it would be fine with her to have two council members. Commissioner Jonathan asked if it was alright with the chairperson if he and Commissioner Tschopp discussed later which commissioner would �... 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 2003 i 3 participate. Chairperson Finerty said she didn't mind if they wanted to "'� alternate because she didn't know if they could do this with one meeting. Mr. Hargreaves said that if there was subcommittee it needed to involve only two members. Otherwise they would run into a Brown Act problem. Commissioner Tschopp asked for confirmation that it didn't preclude the other commissioners from making comments that other would hear. Mr. Hargreaves confirmed that in an open session everyone could make comments. Commissioner Tschopp suggested that Commissioner Jonathan participate on the committee and he would be happy to make comments. Commissioner Jonathan said he was okay with that, although if Commissioner Tschopp had a desire to participate, he was totally okay with that. Mr. Hargreaves advised that if there were going to be comments they needed to take place in an open session. Commission concurred. It was determined that Commissioner Jonathan and Chairperson Finerty would serve on the committee. Chairperson Finerty stated that they would have comments first, then they would move to continue the case for one month. � Commissioner Campbell said she would move to continue it for a month. ..r1 Commissioner Tschopp referred to the comments he made at the November 19 meeting. He also said that with every code, every rule and every law there are always exceptions and he would like to see the process at least provide for exceptions to be reviewed and made if they were so inclined. He would also like to take a look at the number of feet that the setback would be from an arterial street. He thought there should be some reasoning behind that. He agreed with the comments he made earlier and the comments by the individual tonight and in letters they received that it should be owner occupied. The State has provided for that to be a condition understanding the nature of a neighborhood. He thought with them understanding that, the city should encompass that into any code they look at. He also thought they should look at the square footage of a unit. There are some smaller units in the city and they didn't want to completely overwhelm those, so there had to be some percentage of that unit that could be built on a property that would still allow a good, liveable efficiency unit to be there. Chairperson Finerty indicated that he was saying something similar to what Mrs. Houskin was talking about. Commissioner Tschopp concurred. � i � � 36 MINUTES PAL_M_DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 2003 �" Commissioner Campbell said they should also have adequate parking. Commissioner Jonathan said adequate offstreet parking. Commissioner Campbell concurred. Chairperson Finerty noted there was a motion to continue this matter one month to February 18 and appointing Commissioners Jonathan and Finerty to the subcommittee to work with Counsel and two Council members. Commissioner Jonathan said a Council subcommittee and the City Attorney. Chairperson Finerty concurred. Ac i n: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, by minute motion continuing Case No. ZOA 02-02 to February 18, 2003, and appointing Chairperson Finerty and Commissioner Jonathan to the subcommittee. Motion carried 4-0. Chairperson Finerty asked for clarification on how Mr. Drell wanted to proceed with the following cases. Mr. Drell said that if the commission wanted staff to proceed with the CUP's based on the current ordinance, � they could proceed that way or if they wanted to continue them as well, that was also an option. Chairperson Finerty asked if she needed to read each one and ask for testimony and then to continue to February 18. M�. Drell said she could probably read all of them and then ask for testimony and have people identify which one they are speaking to. To finish up with the last matter, Commissioner Jonathan noted that Council meets on Thursday and asked if staff would be presenting the commission's request to them at that meeting. A month goes by pretty quickly. Mr. DreN said he would check with the city manager to see if he wanted to add that to the agenda, but that agenda was set and they couldn't add anything later than 72 hours to it. Commissioner Jonathan asked if it could go under Miscellaneous. Mr. Drell said no. He said the City Manager would have to agree to present it and have them vote to add it to the agenda. Commissioner Jonathan said he would leave it to Mr. Drell, but cautioned the commission that a month goes by quickly and in order for Council to consider the request and then schedule the meeting for five people, a month really disappeared very quickly. Mr. Drell said he would make the request to the City Manager to find a way to add it to the agenda. � 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 2003 � � � � E. Case No. CUP 02-14 - JEROME M. BEAUVAIS, Applicant (Continued from November 21 , 2002) Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a 930 square foot, one-bedroom detached second unit with a carport for two parking spaces located at 44-574 Portola Avenue. F. Case Nos. CUP 02-15 and VAR 02-04 - JEROME M. BEAUVAIS, Applicant (Continued from November 21 , 2002) Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a 522 square foot attached second unit and variance to reduce the rear yard setback from 15 feet to 8 feet to allow a carport for two parking spaces for property at 44-536 Portola Avenue. G. Case No. CUP 02-16 - JEROME M. BEAUVAIS, Applicant � (Continued from November 21 , 2002) � Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a 945 square foot attached two-bedroom second unit at 74- 041 San Marino Circle. H. Case No. CUP 02-17 - JEROME M. BEAUVAIS, Applicant (Continued from November 21 , 2002) Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a 920 square foot attached second unit at 74-060 San Marino Circle. Chairperson Finerty noted that the public hearing for all these cases was open. She asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MR. JERRY BEAUVAIS, 74-041 San Marino Circle, addressed the commission. Having listened to Mr. Kopp's daughter a few minutes ago, he thought she painted him as a man who was bringing down the value of the neighborhood. He noted that her � � 38 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21. 2003 �... mother and a good deal of the other neighbors in that neighborhood were concerned about the house that he ended up purchasing because it was falling apart. It was unsightly and was bringing the neighborhood down. There was a lot of complaining to the City about how bad this house looked. It was one of the houses that he showed Mr. Jonathan the other day and it was now a completely and totally restored craftsman style 1920's house. He said it has very much brought up the value of that part of the block. He stated that end of the block has almost no cars on the street ever. Whereas where the residences are, the street is packed with cars. So her statements weren't accurate regarding unsightly cars in his part of the neighborhood. He said he was wishing he brought the photograph that he took Sunday morning. It was so clear that all his tenants were off the street, the cars were where they belong, the streets were clean, the houses looked great and it was a picture. He took a picture. He took a picture looking down towards Mr. Kopp's house. Cars, boats, trucks, trailers, diesel compressors. That was the �esidents. ,�, He said he was being painted as someone bringing down his neighborhood when in fact if they looked at the pictures he presented last time, these were drug houses or houses that were so badly falling apart that they were going to be torn down. They are now exceptional in every way. There was no parking problem. There was no high density problem. Again, he said that if anybody has a problem with any of his properties, he would address it in the best way he knew how. He thanked the commission for their time. Commissioner Tschopp asked if Mr. Beauvais was aware that the ordinance they were looking at would not necessarily stop the deterioration of neighborhoods, it had to do with the second unit and not with fixing up the primary unit. So what Mr. Beauvais had done was very exceptional and beyond what they were looking at in this code. Mr. Beauvais asked in what way Commissioner Tschopp meant deterioration of a neighborhood. He understood that they weren't addressing shabby looking houses although that was one of the things he corrected in his neighborhood. He asked what he was speaking to when he said deterioration of neighborhoods. � 39 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 2003 Commissioner Tschopp said specifically in the future someone could approach them for a second unit and might have a property like Mr. Beauvais' prior to his fixing it up. Not doing anything to the primary unit, but spend their time and effort on the secondary unit, so it wouldn't necessarily improve the physical layout of the property. Earlier comments that Mr. Beauvais made that what he had done stopped the deterioration of a neighborhood would not necessarily apply to other areas of ihe city in the future if someone decided not to fix up the primary unit and to just build a secondary unit. He was just asking if Mr. Beauvais understood that. Mr. Beauvais said he did, but if the primary unit was already in a deteriorated shape, he would say that the deterioration was already there and whether or not a second unit went in, it had no impact on that unless he misunderstood what Commissioner Tschopp was stating. Commissioner Tschopp said he thought Mr. Beauvais had done a tremendous job. His properties were very outstanding. But his point was ; that what Mr. Beauvais has done might not carry forth into other areas � of the city if they don't have individuals like him involved in those properties. Mr. Beauvais said that was correct. That was why it was very valuable that there was oversight from the Architectural Board, from Planning/Mr. Drell's department, and he thought it was quite possible to put in methods of oversight that could be crafted to watch out or control. Obviously there was a need for control here. He was well aware of what the board was concerned about. With all these new teenagers moving into his neighborhood partying all night long, he wished he had some control there. But he didn't because what they were doing was legal, although they might be ten of them living in the house and trucks and cars all over the place. There was no control there. But he thought with Architectural Review and Mr. Drell's department of planning, there was enough oversight to watch out for that. Commissioner Tschopp said that was something he would ask the committee to look at. That in the future if they had applicants come in to � look at a second unit to build it, that perhaps there could be something � � 40 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21 2003 `" in the ordinance that would require the primary unit to meet standards if necessary. Mr. Beauvais said he was in total agreement. He thought impressing upon anyone who would want to develop this type of situation which at heart was a good situation for reasons he already stated. Just looking at his tenants, there would be a regime stating that if they want to do this, they had to meet certain requirements so that the neighborhood is safeguarded against future possibilities here and these would be the hoops they would have to jump through. They would have to make the property presentable in those ways and not let it deteriorate. Commissioner Tschopp said that was a good point and led to his second question. He asked F�ow Mr. Beauvais happened to overlook existing codes and so forth on second units. Mr. Beauvais said the houses that were there had junk second units there. They were what he called 40's and 50's efficiency r.. units. Commissioner Tschopp asked if all the units before the commission were existing units that Mr. Beauvais was repairing. Mr. Beauvais said he didn't think they were legal. It was quite possible, he thought it was c�early possible that they were not legal, but he also knew that in order to put the amount of effort and money into the restoration of these houses that he did, that there would be no possible way to do what he did without having that second income coming in. So what he did, and it was an obvious mistake at this point and he regretted it, was that without telling the City he developed these second units. One of the houses had a second meter on it that had been installed. He and Carlos Ortega had a conversation some time back discussing the rehabilitation of these old houses and the City has become involved on several occasions in the rehabilitation of older units for affordable housing and Mr. Ortega said he was astounded at how much it cost to rehabilitate these units and he understood what it took in order to do this. So although he pulled permits on most everything, he never came up to the City and said he had these �.. 41 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 2003 � junky little secondary units here and he'd like to redo them because it was his feeling that the City would say they weren't on the books and wouldn't let it happen. The truth of the matter was that the restoration work he had done would never have been able to happen because it was the second unit that pays for all of that. He said there's a ton of money that goes into making a house look like it was built in 1920 and has been perfectly kept all these years when it fact it was a junker four years ago. There was a lot of effort and money that went into that. It had brought up the neighborhood and people were complaining now? They were the same people complaining four years ago about these houses being drug houses on EI Cortez, about people coming and going and selling drugs and fireworks going off in the middle of the night and houses that were totally dilapidated. Weeds. Systems that didn't work. City people sending Code Enforcement out all the time. There was a lot of complaining. These were the same people complaining now. He said he would defy anybody to drive through that neighborhood and find cars on the street. It doesn't happen. That street was whistle clean. The gardening was perfect. Those i houses are perfect. He felt badly about how people were painting � him to be. He said that Christina was paying 5600 less what he could get for that place. People look at him like he's a money hungry guy. He goes to bed easy at night because he knows that Megan is able to stay in that house because he is cutting her mother some kind of serious deal and it made him feel good to know that he has a part. He said he doesn't go to church on Sunday, but he practices his Christianity seven days a week. He goes out and helps people when they need it. There was no one that gets between a rock and a hard place. They come to him and he asks what he can do. He wasn't the bad guy. They should drive his neighborhood and check it out. Look for deterioration. They would see it, but not any where near any one of his places. He asked if there was anything else in the way of questions. The�e weren't any other questions. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone else wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MS. ANGELA SCOTT, 74-050 San Marino Circle, addressed the commission. She said that what Mr. Beauvais said was not entirely true. There are cars parked in front of his homes. The trash cans 42 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21. 2003 �.. were sometimes out there two or three days after they have been emptied. Sometimes his places looked trashy. He adds a little something every single chance he gets. Another storage unit. The trailer left, but something else went there instead. It was trashy and was a matter of taste. It wasn't her taste. She didn't think it looked good. The street parking was not true. Last Saturday she walked outside and there were four cars parked in front of one home and two on the other side. She didn't take pictures. This was a normal occurrence. Mr. Drell said he hears these comments about cars parked on the street as if it was some sort of illegal activity. They specifically design the streets to accommodate parking. In fact, there's a great deal of evidence out there that when they design streeis for parking and people don't park on it, people speed on those streets. Streets designed for parking with people parked on them were actually safer than streets without parking on them because it tends to constrict the travel way and slow people down. So the mere fact that people park in legal parking spaces on the street was not necessarily a negative or derogatory statement about a `, street. Streets are physically designed with the intention of cars being parked there. With that comment, Commissioner Tschopp said he would like to state back that he thought that if he pulled the citizens of any city, and Palm Desert in particular, they would find most people would prefer not to have lots of cars parked in front of their homes. What they were dealing with here tonight was what the citizens perceived as being what they want to see in their community. Chairperson Finerty concurred with Commissioner Tschopp. Where she lives they did a survey because there were a number of complaints about too many cars being parked on their streets. It turned out that 83% of the homeowners didn't want cars parked on the street. So people were certainly entitled to their opinions with regard to how many cars were parked out there. She asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MR. TODD ESTINSON, 74-043 EI Cortez Way, addressed the commission. He stated that this was nothing against Jerry and wasn't about him. This was about the City and what they have to .� 43 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 2003 implement. He was in a position where he could either join Jerry or he could hopefully stay with the City and keep our city clean and to one person or one resident. As Jerry and other people had mentioned, the City couldn't police what was going on right now. Across the street there were homeowners that had many people in the house. Many cars were parked there. He didn't know about the one car per bedroom requirement, but they had a lot of cars. So it wasn't policed now. If for some reason Jerry took off from the city and left them with these bootlegged units, some other person that comes in there and either wants to jack up the price or just throw whomever he wanted in there, and it turned into a little crack land or whatever it once was and which it could easily turn back into. He thought the property values in Palm Desert alone was kicking those people out. They couldn't rent to those people because the prices of the homes were skyrocketing. So it was just today's age. The city is growing and he didn't know if these people were going to other cities. He didn't like to bother the other cities around them, but that is where they should go. We have a beautiful city, they take care of it, they have street sweepers that sweep these streets that apparently it was okay to � park cars on and �ust sweep the middle. He en�oyed the curb to be cleaned. That was what the idea was. If they wanted to adopt these mass parking on the street options, he thought they should put signs off the streets during certain hours so the street sweeper could do his business. He was sure maybe they could all get along on this idea. Unfortunately where Jerry was located on the corner. They couldn't park on Fred Waring and he has a fire plug that takes more than half of his space on the EI Cortez side. He has a driveway that takes the other spot. So where was he going to park these extra cars? He was sure he had some ideas. This was the only thing he didn't like. The more people, the more cubicles for people to potentially come to, even though someone has a good heart and takes care of their property, they weren't always there and he hoped that having a nice piece of property or single farnily home would invite someone else that would intend to keep their home single and proud, build a pool, make a nice beautiful backyard and not shove it full of apartments. This was just ludicrous. There were other cities he could move to and enjoy this condo living or apartment living with cars on the street so that they couldn't even park anywhere. He hated to name the cities, 44 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 2003 �" but they all knew of them. This city didn't need to turn into that. We have our older parts of the city that have its problems and he didn't want to create more problems to those. Not take the jewels in the city and stick a bunch of units in those with a bunch of cars. He was highly against this idea and realised the commission had a big challenge with the State and Mr. Drell seemed really for this for some reason. They had a lot to fight with here. He said he knew they were going to make the right decision, which they had been, and he said it was a pleasure to live in this city. He has been here since 1983 and he didn't want to go. He loves it and he understood why more and more people come every year. Good people. Young people. There were places for them. He noticed by the soccer area. The apartments popped up like mushrooms. If they were really out priced, he didn't know why they weren't getting these apartments less expensive so that they could get people that need to be in there. He thanked the commission for letting him speak. MRS. KIM HOUSKIN, 73-237 Somera in Palm Desert, addressed � the commission. She said she does have an identity and her name is Kim Houskin, not Mrs. Kopp's daughter. She was curious if Mr. Beauvais was feeling guilty about something because she was merely addressing her concerns about the second unit ordinance earlier. She had mentioned cars on San Marino Way, but that was it. She mentioned nothing else about his units and thought that was very curious. She read the following into the record: "Aside from the issue of the ordinance amendment, we need to address or we need to question the appropriateness of retroactively permitting uses that violate the city's ordinances. My comments are now related to the CUP cases before the commission. I strongly oppose retroactively permitting three of these uses because the applicant did not undertake his activities in good faith with the City. First, he violated existing city ordinance by converting these "remodels" into second units for which he charges rent. The fact that these units exist and he is retroactively seeking permits attest to the fact that he did not obtain the necessary permits. Do we reward him now? Particular(y since it appears that the applicant has misrepresented his activities to the City. .... 45 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 2003 , � I pulled the building permits today on two of his cases and was unable to find any permits for the Portola house. He noted on one application that he was applying for a 372 square foot remodel. In the CUP case, however, he is requesting approvals for a 945 square foot second unit. He also indicates on another building permit application he was building a room addition, a dark room, a nursery and a courtyard." She was curious as Mr. Jonathan would know since he saw the properties, the first thing Jerry does when he buys one of these homes is put up about an eight-foot high fence so nobody could really see what goes on back there. So she wasn't sure if he still has the dark room or if that has been converted to one of his units. "Has he dealt straight with the City and should he be given any benefit of the doubt when he has not been directly and fully disclosed the full purposes of his "remodels"? In addition to violating city procedures and ordinances, he has not paid his fair share of development fees. By under reporting his unit square footage, he avoided paying school impact fees. Curiously he has ' a young child living in it, but apparently he would like to avoid � paying for the money for that although it's okay because he can help by having her live there, but he won't contribute to her schooling. If I wanted to build a duplex would I be given the same treatment? There appears to be no distinction between his second units and a duplex besides the physical construction. The second units are being built and rented as separate living units and he should be responsible for paying his burden of fees. I calculated that based on the school district's square footage fee requirement his total fees are approximately 55,100. I would assume that if the commission does decide to grant these approvals he will be required to pay these fees and any othe� local fees. I would also be curious to know if Mr. Beauvais is licensed to manage his properties here in Palm Desert and whether he is at this time paying State and Federal tax on his income regarding rentals. In addition to all of this, I am very concerned about retroactively granting a variance. State law dictates the standards that must be met to grant a variance. Are these met? I understand that � variances are typically only granted when there is a unique � characteristic of the property that precludes its underlying use. A 46 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMlSSION JANUARY 21, 2003 � second unit is not an entitlement. He needs the variance for his carport in regards to the second unit on Portola. If he hasn't met the standards of the underlying zone, he should not be permitted to do what he proposes and actually has already done. Even your own proposed ordinance for secondary units requires compliance for single family units and also that secondary units meet the setbacks of the single family residence. Is a variance the appropriate mechanism to legitimize what he has done? That is not my understanding of what a variance is for. How many other people would love to get a variance to make more money off their property? If this is allowed, it would set a very bad precedent. Finally, I would question how these situations will be prevented in the future. How was this occurred to happen?" She stated that she was at the Building Department today and fea�ned a lot. She had seen how things were signed off and was curious how with all the inspections that go on, how this was allowed to happen? How did Code Compliance miss this? How did � this happen not once, not twice, three times? And how will they prevent it happening else where in the city? She thanked the commission. There were no other comments and leaving the public hearing �en, Chairperson Finerty asked if there was a motion to continue all of these cases to February 18. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, by minute motion continuing Case No. CUP 02-14, Case Nos. CUP 02-15 and VAR 02-04, Case No. CUP 02-16 and Case No. 02-17 to February 18, 2003. Motion carried 3-1 �Commissioner Jonathan voted no►. Commissioner Jonathan explained that this was an application for a conditional use permit. It was not related to the possible amendment of the zoning ordinance. He thought this application was before them now and it would be improper to judge the application based on what may or may not happen in the future, which he presumed would not be effective retroactively, so they had four conditional use permit requests before � 47 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 2003 � 1 a them. In his mind, and he appeared to stand alone, the applications were � not related to anything else and they stood on their own and deserved to be heard and should not be continued yet once again. That was his humble opinion and was why he wasn't voting again. Chairperson Finerty said that perhaps they needed to back track. She was under the impression, and maybe incorrectly so, that they needed to continue these cases until they decided where they were going with the ordinance. She asked if that was correct or not. Mr. Drell said that staff gave the commission a number of choices. One of the choices was staying at least for the time being with our current ordinance and then they would evaluate these CUP requests according to our current ordinance. They didn't recommend it, but it was an option they could choose. In land use planning there was no death sentence. Applicants could always avail themselves of new ordinances, immediately. So he disagreed with Commissioner Jonathan's characterization that it is not unreasonable and improper while they are considering changing an ordinance to suspend the enforcement of that ordinance so that an applicant who might fail under the old ordinance, but might succeed ; under the new ordinance, should have the benefit of that new ordinance. � What they were doing is hopefully changing the ordinance because they thought it would be better. Most of the provisions that they are amending to are provisions that are responding to State law that is probably ten years old that they never responded to. Commissioner Jonathan asked what would happen if it worked out the other way around. What if a change in the ordinance resulted in an application not being approved. Mr. Drell said that he could pretty much guarantee that if the commission's direction to staff was to review Mr. Beauvais's CUP pursuant to the current law, then staff would be coming back with a recommendation of denial. It was very simple. It very well might be that they would be coming back with a recommendation of denial after they have amended the ordinance. But he thought it was only fair, unless ihere was an eminent health and safety threat by delaying it, that once they decided on the proper way to regulate these uses, that it be afforded to Mr. Beauvais. If he did work without permits, they have a specific ordinance which penalizes him and forces him to get permits and pay additional fees and fines because of that. Our codes do provide for redemption. Our goal is to end up at a spot they think is appropriate ' and if people violate procedures we have penalties for doing that. � � � 48 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21. 2003 � Since these units were already built, Chairperson Finerty asked if they would have to be judged against our current ordinance. Mr. Drell said not necessarily because if they change the ordinance he could be back two days after that and apply under the current ordinance. To avoid that confusion while they are changing them, but if commission wanted to give staff that direction, they would review his cases pursuant to our existing ordinance. Commissioner Jonathan didn't think the two were related. If the applicant, who has an application before the commission, he brought it so the presumption is that he wants it heard. If the applicant wants to request a continuance, he would respect that request. But if the applicant wanted them to move forward, then he thought they were obligated to do so. That might be a consideration of the CUP, an exception or a variance. He didn't think they should by any means assume denial if the matter was going to be considered. He just thought that if there's an application before them there is an obligation to hear it and not to keep continuing it on the basis that it might relate to some ordinance that might get amended. And if so in some perceived way. Again, he thought � it was the applicant's choice. He suggested asking Mr. Beauvais his preference. Chairperson Finerty asked if there were comments from other commissioners. Commissioner Tschopp noted that they have appointed a committee and it would be nice to have that committee come up with a recommendation and if Mr. Beauvais falls under the old code, but the new code may have an impact also, so given that, Mr. Beauvais has heard all of it and if he would like to continue it, he would be in favor of that. Or if he would like to hear it now, he would be in favor of that. Commissioner Campbell agreed with Commissioner Tschopp. They have agreed to go ahead with the committee. If they had to judge it by the old ordinance, it wouldn't be good. Chairperson Finerty asked Mr. Beauvais if he was comfortable with a continuance. ... 49 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 2003 � , � Mr. Beauvais said he wasn t expecting this at all. He said he needed to talk to his attorney because he understood generally speaking what was going on here, but what he really needed to do was get a clear clarification of code as it exists now. He appreciated Mr. Jonathan's bringing up the point and quite clearly that he has an application before the committee and he applied for it quite some time ago. What might may or may not happen in July is fine, but this is what it is now. What he would like to do is get personal clarification so he would make the right decision. He has 20 years of work here and has some people he didn't want to end up on the street and wanted to make a really good decision. He told Code Enforcement and the Building Department that it was his goal to get right with the City. He understood that he couldn't move forward in this town unless he cleared up everything he did wrong and he was going to tell them that it wasn't half as bad as the young lady just stated. Chairperson Finerty explained that in order for him to make the correct decision she assumed that he would be in favor of a continuance until February 18. � Mr. Beauvais said he believed that he was in agreement with Mr. Jonathan that there is a separation here that he did put forth this, but he needed to speak to his attorney. He needed to find out most precisely what he was dealing with here. The fine points. Chairperson Finerty said that they would hear from him on February 18 because the hearings would be left open and he would have time to have made his decision. Then he could let them know and they would go on from there. Mr. Beauvais said that was correct and he appreciated that very much. Chairperson Finerty asked commission if they would like another motion. They did. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner ' Tschopp, by minute motion continuing Case No. CUP 02-14, Case Nos. 50 MINUTES PALM DESERT PlANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 2003 �`` CUP 02-15 and VAR 02-04, Case No. CUP 02-16 and Case No. 02-17 to February 18, 2003. Motion carried 4-0. IX. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION Request for Closed Session: Conference with Legal Counsel regarding potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (b) Threatened Litigation in connection with Case Nos. ZOA 02-02 and associated cases. Action: Chairperson Finerty stated that staff would be setting up a date for the subcommittee to meet and didn't feel that closed session was necessary at this time. Commission concurred. � X. MISCELLANEOUS None. XI. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (No meeting) B. CiVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (January 15, 2003) Chairperson Finerty noted that the committee discussed circulation and whether to stay with Level of Service C or allow D. The next meeting would be January 30, 2003. E. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (No meeting) i... 51 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21 2003 3 , � F. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) "'r G. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) H. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) XII. COMMENTS None. XIII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. ���✓� S � PHILIP DRELL,� ecretary � ATTEST: C �. �,, �, �, CINDY FINE Y, Chairperso Palm Desert Planning Commi sion /tm � � 52