The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0304 ��'� MINUTES � � PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ' ' TUESDAY - MARCH 4, 2003 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Campbell called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sonia Campbell, Chairperson Sabby Jonathan, Vice Chairperson Cindy Finerty Jim Lopez Dave Tschopp � Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairperson Campbell led in the pledge of allegiance. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent February 27, 2003 City Council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS �.. None. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 � , � VII. CONSENT CALENDAR None. 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 03-01 - CARL VOCE, Applicant (Continued from February 18, 2003) Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a 9,500 square foot cancer/chemotherapy/internal medicine medical office in the office complex located at 73-712 and 73- 726 Alessandro Drive. Mr. Smith noted that this item was before the Planning Commission at the "'� last meeting. At that time it became clear that they needed additional information to be provided by someone who was more familiar with the actual proposed operation. He informed commission that morning he met with Mr. Voce and the real estate people involved in the project. They provided them with a new floor plan. A copy was distributed to the commission just priorto the meeting and a copy was on display. He said they also had a new parking analysis that was provided by Mr. Voce. Mr. Smith said he was given to understand that this evening the office manager for the project would be able to explain the operation and respond to commission questions. Commissioner Jonathan asked what staff's position was on the application. Mr. Smith said he still had questions as he left the meeting that moming and the applicant was going to be providing additional information, so he was eagerly awaiting their responses as to how the operation would work specifically. As well, on the plan there were several rooms that either weren't labeled or he didn't understand what was going to take place in the room. So he looked forward to hearing that information. � 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 i�.. Chairperson Campbell noted that they had the new map that was given to them this evening, but they couldn't compare it to the map given to them at the last meeting. So the commission had no comparison of the two floor plans or if there had been any changes. Commissioner Finerty concurred. She recalled there being many questions about the number of doctors, two waiting rooms, how many patients would be at the facility at any one time, etc. It was her suggestion that they get the answers to those eagerly awaited answers and then come back with a staff report and also request from the applicant the first layout they saw the last time so that they could compare what happened and what their intent was two weeks ago versus what their intent was now. She didn't feel that the commission was in a position to be fully knowledgeable to make a decision tonight when they walked into the meeting without benefit of a staff report and staff's opinion with regard to the new layout since staff just met with the applicant earlier that morning. ,` Commissioner Jonathan concurred. He stated that he wasn't comfortable and that this was premature. It shouldn't be before them until the applicant presented sufficient information for staff to form a comprehensive report, conclusion and recommendation. They were obviously not at that point. He knew they needed to open the public testimony, but he didn't like to be in a position of developing a report, studying material for the first time which they didn't receive with their packets, and trying to absorb all of that to form an opinion, particularly without the benefit of reading and studying staff's analysis. He knew they needed to open the public testimony, but he would be in favor of continuing the matter to give the commission and the applicant adequate opportunity to address all of the issues. Commissioner Lopez concurred. In reviewing the newly received information and trying to compare that to what they previously received in the staff report, it was difficult to do an evaluation. He supported a continuance, although he wanted to have the public testimony. Commissioner Tschopp stated that if the applicant was present, he wouldn't have a problem listening to the changes that he saw in the map compared to the one given to them previously. However, if they weren't going to be able to take any action on it, having the additional information might be helpful. �r.. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 � � :� .� Chairperson Campbell concurred with herfellow commissioners. Reading the staff report, it was the old report and nothing new. Staff shouldn't have wasted the time to make a copy of it. They could have just said it was the same report. But the public hearing was open from the last meeting and they should hear testimony, but she did feel they should continue it. Chairperson Campbell noted that the public hearing was o�en and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. BOB YOUNG of Lyle Commercial, 42-300 Adams Street in Bermuda Dunes, informed commission that he was representing the owner. He said they had three people that would like to contribute tonight. He said Margie Taft represented the tenant and had a very strong understanding now of the flow of how the different procedures worked. Carl Voce was present to talk about the parking requirements and the statistical data information. He said Kay Gillette was also present. She is the Vice President of Operations for the Coachella Valley on the administration side of this company. She could address any questions of use, about flow, about timing issues for the different � procedures, and why the rooms were dedicated on this particular plan. He believed only minimal changes had taken place to the plan. One thing they did do was try to isolate from a use perspective what was common area, what was actually a medical location inside the suite, and then they had the business and administration function indicated on the suite. So those things combined along with the following descriptions and information would hopefully clear up some of the questions the commission had last time. He apologized to the commission and staff about not being fully prepared last time. He asked Ms. Taft to address the commission regarding flow. Chairperson Campbell informed the applicant that they had everything in front of them, but they couldn't compare it to the map from last time. As well, receiving it at the last minute before they started the meeting wasn't enough time for them to really make a decision. MS. MARGIE TAFT addressed the commission and said she understood that. She wanted to explain a little bit about the flow of the � � � � 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 � clinic so they could take that back with them and the next time they met, maybe the commission would have a better understanding and could give an opinion on it. Ms. Taft explained that the plan presented at the last meeting was the same as this plan, only they had relabeled some of the rooms as to the use. They moved the doctor's area over to the next building, so they took what was the doctor's suite in the end side (1,250 square feet) and put it at the other end of the next building. Where they saw the doctor's suite was now research area where they might be doing research on some of the drugs that were used in the infusion clinic. They also added a meeting room and an employee lounge. Commissioner Finerty asked for clarification that they were going to be doing research on the chemotherapy that they planned to use on the people. MS. KAY GILLETTE addressed the commission and said no, it would be clinical trial research. They do it quite often, especially for � oncology. It wasn't the drugs that the patients were taking, they were non FDA approved drugs, that they do clinical trials on. Traditionally in an oncology center that took place. She said they hadn't gone that far, but they wanted to have the room in the event they did do clinical triaJs. That would involve having two RN's that would actually monitor the existing patients that would come in for chemo. If they were going to do clinical trials, Commissioner Finerty asked how many people they planned to have in each trial. Ms. Gillette said that all depended on the drug company. She didn't know and said they hadn't looked into it, it was just something in the event that if they did, they had space. But at this point they hadn't even gone into looking at the possibility of doing it. Commissioner Finerty noted that Ms. Gillette said it was a common purpose at these types of facilities to do clinical trials and if they were going to do clinical trials, it generally took a number of people to do those and she was aware that they normally have several trials going on at the same time. Her question was how many people they planned in total in addition to the two RN's that would be required to participate. � 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 s f � � Ms. Gillette said that she really couldn't address that honestly because they hadn't looked into any oncology trial studies. So she couldn't say. It could vary by drug. Chairperson Campbell asked Ms. Gillette to state her name and address for the record. Ms. Kay Estell-Gillette, 275 North EI Cielo in Palm Springs, with Desert Medical Group. Ms. Taft explained that there were two separate clinics and they colored them on the map to show which part of the space would be medical space and which part would be administrative. As they enter from the lobby, the people that would be coming for the one clinic would be in a waiting room, the sigmoidoscopy/colonoscopy would come through the waiting room and go through the clinic on the other side. The people getting the procedure would be checked in and sedated. There were gurneys there and the gurneys would be j wheeled into the procedure room and from the procedure room into � the recovery area. So the one patient on the gumey went from checking into the lobby and across into the procedure room and into the recovery room. They estimated two patients per hour. It took half an hour per patient. That would be one whole side of the clinic. Ms. Taft stated that one of the questions asked last time was why there were so many bathrooms. She said it was because patients on one side of the clinic, if they were there for the sigmoidoscopy procedure and one of them needed to use the bathroom (bathroom #5) if that bathroom was full and someone else was in there for the procedure, they had to have a backup restroom for that space. So that would be bathroom#6. A question from the meeting that morning was what the room next to the nurse room and linen room was for and she said it was a storage area. It wasn't labeled. In the other clinic, which was the other waiting room, people that were coming for the infusion therapy usually did not drive and one or two people brought them. It usually took two people to bring them to their therapy. She said they would be in that waiting area. That patient was then taken into the exam room and then taken into the infusion area. � � s ..� 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNlNG COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 �... Again, they had two bathrooms. If one of those patients needed to use the restroom, they went into bathroom#2 and it was required that they have an additional bathroom in that space, so that was where bathroom #3 was located. Bathroom #1 was located next to the waiting area and sometimes people waited four or five hours for the patient in the infusion area. The other restroom on the plan was bathroom #4 which was the employee restroom. Another question from the morning meeting was how many chairs would be in the infusion area. She said there would be six. The most that could be in there would be six. MR. CARL VOCE, 545 Via Media in Palos Verdes Estates, addressed the commission. He said there were six chairs, but they could only do three or four patients per hour. Commissioner Finerty noted that there were three procedure rooms and the anticipation was finro sigmoidoscopies per hour per procedure room. � Ms. Gillette said they were two separate clinics/procedure areas. The area with four beds that was colored yellow. Commissioner Finerty explained commission's copy was not colored. She was assuming it was where they referred to the four gurneys. People come to the waiting room, they go to the changing room, then they go on the gurney, and then they were sedated for a sigmoidoscopy and then they went to the procedure rooms. It was indicated that one doctor would be working doing those and he would be doing two procedures per hour. Ms. Gillette said that was correct. Commissioner Finerty noted that there were three procedure rooms. Ms. Gillette said that a lot of times they would have the room set up with two monitors. Actually the third room would just be like an extra. They had the two and that was all they were planning on doing. The patient, because they were sedated, the nurse would get one to two patients sedated, they would put one in the room and the doctor would start the procedure on that patient and then the nurse would � 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 ; .ni take the other patient in to get that patient set up on the monitors. By the time the physician was done with the first procedure, the patient would be taken into the recovery room and he would start the second procedure. Commissioner Finerty asked where the recovery room was located. Ms. Gillette said it was where the six beds were shown on the layout. Commissioner Finerty indicated there would be a six-bed recovery room, even though four patients were going in. They had room for six people. They had an extra procedure room and an extra bathroom. She asked if that was correct. Ms. Gillette said no, they didn't have an extra bathroom. Commissioner Finerty believed what Ms. Taft said was that bathroom#6 was a backup bathroom if#5 was full. With sedated people, she didn't think they would be getting up and going to the bathroom. � ..r Ms. Gillette said that when they were coming out of recovery, when they go through a colonoscopy they had to be totally cleaned out. Commissioner Finerty asked for clarification that it was a colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy. Ms. Gillette said colonoscopy. Commissioner Finerty said that just changed, because they had been talking about a sigmoidoscopy. She was trying to figure out why someone would need to be sedated for a sigmoidoscopy. Ms. Gillette confirmed it was for colonoscopy. She noted that Ms. Taft wasn't a medical person. Commissioner Finerty thanked her. Commissioner Tschopp asked how many doctors there would be and how many employees. 8 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 i..► Ms. Gillette said there would be finro physicians. One on the G.I. side and one on the chemo side. They were projecting eight employees on each side. Commissioner Tschopp asked how many would be in the research area. Ms. Gillette said there would be two nurses if they chose to do that. Commissioner Tschopp said that would be in addition to the 20 they already talked about. Ms. Gillette said that was correct. Commissioner Lopez noted that one concern was the parking situation. He said it was difficult with what was in front of them to try to figure out if there was enough parking for the facility, especially when they had a clinical trial opportunity and they didn't really know how often that would happen and how many people would be involved in it. Right now they had a surplus of 14 � parking spaces dedicated to the facility. He wasn't sure that was going to be enough during certain times when they had clinical trials going on. They didn't want to create a situation where there was an abundance of cars in this area that spilled out into a residential area right next door. That was a concern and it was difficult when trying to figure out the demands on the facility and not have a square peg in a round circle with the information in front of them. He said they needed to have a little more information on what the clinical trials would be, how many people would be involved, and how often that would happen. He asked for her best guess at this point in time based on her knowledge of the data. Ms. Gillette said she does have a clinical trials consultant and she could have that information for the commission at the next meeting. She said it would all be new to them in terms of patients. She said the patients would not be coming in for a long process. It was mainly the nurses that would be following the patients clinically. From the time that the patient sees the oncologist, which was not on their site, it would be an internal medicine physician that would be monitoring that, but she would get more information from the consultant. .�.► 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 , � vr� Chairperson Campbell stated that it would be an advantage to have that in their packets, even though they might not be able to understand all the wording, at least they would have it in front of them to ask the questions about it. Commissioner Finerty requested that they revisit the po�tion of the staff report where it said they would have 20 employees, which she now understood could go to 22, and a maximum of seven patients at any one time. She asked how it was that they felt it would only be a maximum of seven. Ms. Gillette said it was with the flow of the patients. They only had two physicians. They had one physician that would be doing the procedure. So he could only do two in one hour. Commissioner Finerty noted that they needed to get the patient prepped and ready, so they wouldn't just show up at that hour. They were going to have to show up ahead of time before the actual appointment with the physician. She asked if that was correct. � Ms. Gillette said that was right. Commissioner Finerty also indicated that they would also have those patients go through the procedure while new people were coming in to be prepped and then the patients that just had the procedure were going to the recovery room, and the patients just prepped were going into the procedure room and more were coming in. Ms. Gillette said that the doctor would only be able to do eight procedures per day. That was going to be it. Eight to ten a day was the best she could figure. And on the chemo side, there were six chairs and they varied from one hour infusion up to six hours. She wanted to clarify from the last meeting that in some chemo infusion centers like at Eisenhower,they do everything. They would do just the injections like Lupron and Nupogin where the patient just came in and got a shot in five minutes. They wouldn't do that. They already had two infusion centers. One in Palm Springs and one in Bermuda Dunes. They had that staffed with nurses who would do that. This was ; strictly going to be infusion which was where the time taking would be. .� .r� 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 � Commissioner Finerty asked if they would be doing CBC's as a follow-up. Ms. Gillette said yes. Commissioner Finerty asked if the patient needed Nukine or Nupogin, they would be giving them injections? Ms. Gillette said no, they would go to their infusion centers. The other infusion centers in Palm Springs or Bermuda Dunes. Commissioner Finerty said it would also be helpful if they could provide information about the other centers in Palm Springs and Bermuda Dunes, as well as the layout that they saw two weeks ago. Ms. Gillette agreed. Commissioner Jonathan noted that they didn't have the labeling on their plan and asked if the top portion was what they saw at the last meeting. � Ms. Taft said yes. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the bottom portion was an addition to what they saw. Ms. Taft said yes. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that they were no longer dealing with one building containing 9,500 square feet, but this application was being spread over two buildings. Chairperson Campbell asked for the total square footage. Mr. Voce addressed the commission and explained that the application was made for the two buildings, 73-712 and 73-726. Mr. Smith said that the parking analysis that was given to staff today showed 10,294 square feet. �.. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 Mr. Voce said that was correct. The 1,250 square feet was on the � building at 73-712. They moved the doctor from the upper corner to the other building. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that this was now a substantially different application then even the first time. They were looking at different spaces. He noted that at the last meeting they asked the applicant how much more time he needed and he said he wanted to come to this meeting. He came to this meeting and hadn't provided staff with the necessary information for them to prepare a report. They hadn't even met with staff until that morning. He believed they were going to continue this matter and when that happened, that would be the third meeting and he expected it to be the final meeting. He encouraged the applicant to have whatever information they had that they thought would be relevant to their decision-making process to have that information to staff early enough so that they could prepare a comprehensive report which they could get to the commission in time for their review. Otherwise,they would be limited to forming their opinion based on the limited information provided and he wasn't sure that was in the applicant's best interest. ( He said he had one more question. Most doctors to be successful from what � he had seen had two, maybe three or four staff. This ratio was 11 to one. If there were two doctors and seven patients, he asked what 20 employees were doing in that space. Ms. Gillette said there were two people in the business office, one to two in medical records. Where they saw the nursing station in the G.I. area, there would be at least two RN's. And they were prepared to have a third RN if they needed one. And then they had to cleanse the scopes after every procedure, so they would have at least one medical assistant who would be cleaning scopes. Maybe two depending on the equipment they put in and how labor intensive it is. That was the most they would have. It would be the same thing on the other side in the infusion area. The admitting area would be staffed by an LVN who would be doing all the patients' vitals. She would be the one doing the phlebotomy when the patient came in if they needed a CBC. And then they would have no more than three RN's and one MA (medical assistant) in the infusion center. � 12 ,� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 �.r Commissioner Jonathan asked for confirmation that she was saying seven patients total for this whole operation in both clinics. Ms. Gillette said seven to eight in an hour. Commissioner Jonathan said he would wait for the �eport. Going through the list there were seven or eight nurses and MA's and a couple of doctors for seven patients. Ms. Gillette said it was not like someone going in to see a family practioner who might spend ten minutes and see six patients an hour because these procedures would take anywhere from 30 to 40 minutes on the G.I. side depending on the patient. So it wasn't like a quick turnaround. It was the same thing in the infusion center. Those patients might be in the chair from one hour to six hours. Commissioner Jonathan thanked her for the information. � Mr. Voce said he wanted to clear up something regarding the parking area. In his analysis he showed 20 people working and eight patients, which meant they would need 28 parking spaces. By using the ratio they had at four per 1,000 based on the 10,294 square feet, they had 41.17 parking spaces. Chairperson Campbell noted that the parking requirement for medical uses was six spaces per 1,000 square feet. Mr. Voce said that 41.17 spaces were allocated right now versus the 28 needed. So they already had a surplus. He said he wanted to give them some factual numbers. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the staff report indicated that there weren't 41, but 34 parking spaces allocated to this suite. Mr. Voce replied that it was based on the new 10,000 square feet. Commissioner Jonathan said it wasn't available spaces, but actually allocated spaces. He asked if there spaces actually allocated to this within the parking lot. � 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 � � Mr. Voce said yes. The allocation based on 10,294 square feet would be 41.17 minus 8% for the common area. Which would bring it to about 38. So based on 28 that they actually said they were going to use, they still have 10 extra spaces. Besides that, if they looked at actual numbers and not made up numbers, but real numbers right now today, Mason had finro employees and they had hardly any visitors. He put one there, but they had maybe one a week. They do designs for homes and once in a while had someone come in. So in that particular area they allocated 9.86 spaces. They were using only three. So he had 6.86 parking spaces from that one. Lorna Ball had a 1,920 square foot tanning salon. They have two employees. He said they really only have one, but he put two. They only had two beds, so they could only have finro people at a time. So they had four. They allowed 7.68 spaces. So there was another 3.68. The plastic surgeon has 4,400 square feet. They had right now five employees and he put six for potential growth. Visitors four. The doctor did plastic surgery in the morning for half a day and then he had visitors in the aftemoon. So even four might be high. He talked to � them about it and they said it was maybe three maximum. But even at that they needed 10 spaces. They have assigned 17.6. So he had another 7.6 extra. He said they just rented to a national insurance business. They were a corporate office and didn't have any visitors. It was strictly employees. They had maybe ten people working and possibly a visitor once in a great while. They need 11 spaces and they have 18.6. Basically right now with the people that were renting he had an extra 25 parking spaces available to anyone. So there was no danger if they allowed this that anyone would park on the streets or anything like that. He said they shouldn't worry about that because he had a lot of parking and it wouldn't get filled up. He had this building for a long time and it had to be rented and this was a good opportunity to do that. They were not going to overflow with patients. He said this was a factual analysis and he hoped the commission would consider that. Chairperson Campbell advised Mr. Voce to work closely with staff so that they could give the commission a very complete report of all of the parking i and all of the tenants that they would have in there. ; � � 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 �... Mr. Voce asked if they had a copy of his analysis. Chairperson Campbell said yes, but they got it at the last minute. For the next report they wanted to have everything in advance. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being none, Chairperson Campbell asked how long Mr. Voce needed. Mr. Voce said they would be ready for the next meeting. Mr. Smith said he would need the information by Monday (March 10). Chairperson Campbell suggested that if that information couldn't be provided by that time, that the meeting be continued to April. Mr. Voce concurred. Action: � It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, continuing CUP 03-01 to March 18, 2003. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case No. ZOA 02-06 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to the Hillside Planned Residential District, Chapter 25.15, as it relates to permitted density, limit of grading activity and other matters. Commissioner Jonathan informed commission that he would be abstaining from discussion on this matter. He had property near the city in the county, but to avoid the appearance of any conflict of interest, he would be abstaining. Mr. Drell explained that there was a proposed zoning ordinance amendment and three cases which pretty much illustrated all of the applicable impact of that change. What he was suggesting was that the commission first discuss and then introduce to commission the proposed Zoning ordinance amendment, open that hearing, take any testimony on that item, keep the hearing open, and then go through each of the specific applications. He thought they would be better able to evaluate the zoning ordinance .. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 � � amendment after going through the discussion on each specific case. So • they would go through each one of the cases, open those public hearings, take testimony, leave them open and then after they had all of their discussion relative to the various impacts of the proposed amendments on those three cases, return to the amendment to see if they would want to come up with a recommendation. There was another issue they had to deal with. Initially this amendment came about as a result of direction from Council in connection with a project known as the Crest project that involved nine hillside lots adjacent to the Crest. Staff got direction as part of the approval of that project to go forward with this amendment. Unfortunately, especially when they were involving a potential down-zoning, an amendment which would decrease residential density, in virtually every amendment case they had to make a finding of consistency with the General Plan. In this case they had something called the West Hills S�pecific Plan which was processed as a secondary plan which staff processed as a general plan ': amendment, so it was in essence part of the General Plan. The language of � the existing hillside ordinance was verbatim from that document. Therefore, the General Plan incorporated that same language that is in the existing hillside ordinance. Although they wanted to avoid intertwining this discussion with the General Plan discussion, because of that parallel language in both documents, they really couldn't amend the zoning ordinance without amending the General Plan. Since they were engaged in a comprehensive general plan amendment, the Council had been reluctant to even consider other general plan amendments while they were in that process. At the very least they would have to advertise a general plan amendment, which staff had not yet done. So at the conclusion of all the discussions and whether the commission wanted to give staff some direction as a result of that, they would need a continuance of at least a month to advertise for a general plan amendment which didn't really impact the substance of the discussion because they were identical documents and one would be amended exactly like the others had been. It was procedurally something they had to do. The question was when it got to Council, how they would want to deal with the general plan amendment. He asked for any questions. � ..i 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 �.. Commissioner Lopez asked if the continuance would be for a month. Mr. Drell said yes, to get the notice out they would need at least a month. Chairperson Campbell asked Mr. Drell when they would be having public hearings for the General Plan. If it would be one month from now. Mr. Drell said no, the overall General Plan discussion/hearings probably wouldn't be until June. The hope would be to get the hearings at Planning Commission in June/July and probably not to Council before their summer holiday. So the Council hearing probably wouldn't be until September. Commissioner Finerty thought it would be in their best interest to delay the hearings until September at the Planning Commission because a number of residents would be gone June, July and August. She thought if they were going to elicit public opinion, they needed to give the public the opportunity and make it more convenient for them. They had taken numerous months to do this update and she didn't think two more months would matter. Mr. Drell said that was a decision that could be made. When they got closer, he thought it might be a moot point anyway. The main task right now was the ` running of the traffic model, which was very complex. Plus, they were doing it on four different alternatives, so it was somewhat unclear how long it would take to get it done. If it looked like they were n.�nning into summer, then they would probably delay it and it was something he would report back to the commission and council if that was their pleasure. To a certain degree, there was no absolute reason why this needed to be tied into the whole general plan update. It was a fairly specific, specialized issue which theoretically could be dealt with separately and they were allowed four general plan amendments a year and.they hadn't done any this year and probably wouldn't, except for the comprehensive one. There was something to be said for resolving this earlier for the benefit of the property owners. Commissioner Finerty stated that she understood Mr. Drell's point of view with regard to wrapping this all up together, but she would have preferred to amend the ordinance and the ordinance stand on its own because that was the direction they felt the ordinance needed to go with regard to the hillsides. But to wrap it up with three other cases, she didn't think those three other cases should impact what they feel the hillside ordinance should reflect. Mr. Drell said that these three properties were almost the only properties � 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 � � � � impacted by this ordinance. Almost all the other properties in the hillsides were 36% slope or over and were limited to one unit per five acres even under the current ordinance. He believed it was always a good idea to actually see the practical impact of an ordinance on a real application. With the exception of maybe one or two other properties, these three properties were the only ones impacted by the ordinance. To evaluate thern in the context of the proposed changes and see how the changes operated on a real project. They didn't know the ramifications of an amendment unless they did see it in the context of how it affected real property and in this case these were about the only properties that would be impacted at all. So it was even more relevant. But they had to amend the general plan, either individually or as part of the whole update. Chairperson Campbell thought they were premature in approving any amendment to the hillside ordinance when they really hadn't implemented the General Plan with public hearings, so she felt these cases in front of them should be heard under the current ordinance. Mr. Drell stated that the Council at the time wanted to implement an ordinance change as soon as possible. That was the specific direction from a motion from the Council � when they approved the Crest project. Coincidentally, about the same time � staff received these three applications. But staff was directed to proceed forthwith on the ordinance amendment. Commissioner Finerty noted that was November 14 of last year and questioned if being forthwith meant three months later. Mr. Drell said yes. Commissioner Finerty asked if Mr. Drell was absolutely certain it was Council's direction for one unit per five acres and one unit per acre on areas with an average slope of less than 10% or if the direction was not to have to deal with the slope anymore. Mr. Drell believed that was directly from the recorded motion in the minutes. Based on subsequent conversations with some council people, staff prepared an altemate to also consider, but they took it right out of the minutes in terms of the motion. Commissioner Finerty thought that the discussion was pretty much based on one unit per five acres, period. Mr. Drell said it could be taken up with the City Clerk who took the minutes, which were usually done after listening to the tape. The specific issues on the parcels next to the Crest were one unit per five acres because those properties didn't include any flat area. But as part of that same discussion in the staff report, staff mentioned that the hillside ordinance dealt ; � with varying things including flat land and they made a recommendation. 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION � MARCH 4, 2003 � That recommendation was the one in the motion. Based on the alternatives submitted, the commission could make the recommendation they feel is appropriate. Chairperson Campbell asked how many applicants Mr. Drell really thought were in the hillside development that would be coming before the commission. There were finro before the commission this evening. Mr. Drell said there were other undeveloped properties. What he was saying was that based on their terrain, there we�e very few, if any, impacted by this amendment because they were at a slope which under the current ordinance limited them to one unit. So this amendment wouldn't change that. They would still be limited to one unit. It was only the prope�ties on the fringe that had slightly less than the 36% slope or included flat property that was really subjected to a change as a result. He thought there might be only one or two other properties besides the ones in front of the commission tonight which were in the situation where they were in the flats. What happened was the CresULowe Development bought up most of the lower properties as part of their project and it was included in theirs. So those entitlements had already � been gotten. Then there was another property called the Whitman property which was to the south which might also have terrain which falls into this toe of slope area or areas where slopes are below 36% that changed from having two or three units per five acres to one for the steep part and from three units per acre to one unit per acre for the flat part, if Option A was recommended. If Option B was recommended, then the reduction would be significantly greater for that other parcel. But these applications before them tonight probably constituted 90% of the potential properties impacted by the ordinance. Chairperson Campbel! noted that on the application from the City, she wouldn't feel comfortable approving this without having a public hearing for the whole General Plan before making any changes on the amendment. Commissioner Finerty said she tended to go along with that. As she mentioned before, she thought they should establish their ordinance first and then let the cases come before them. But to allow specialized cases to determine and influence what the ordinance should be was the wrong way to go. � 19 MiNUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 ; � 1 ../ Chairperson Campbell stated that she was willing to hear the cases before them now because they would be subject to the current ordinance and not the amended ordinance for the hillside development. She thought they should be heard under the current ordinance. Commissioner Lopez indicated that staffs direction was to consider the zoning ordinance amendment before them tonight, although it would be continued for a month, they would open up the public hearing on all the cases before them tonight and continue them for a month, and they would be reviewing an ordinance that would be an amendment to the current ordinance under the current General Plan. He asked if that was correct. Mr. Drell said that staff would be proposing amendments to both the current ordinance and to the General Plan as it relates to the hillside area, because right now they were identical. Commissioner Lopez stated that he was okay with that. Knowing that a continuance would be for a month, he thought there were a lot of folks present tonight who wanted to speak on this and he thought that information was valuable and he liked the idea of applying specific cases to a change in the ordinance to get a perspective that is realistic. So he thought they should move ahead on the public hearings, � , knowing that the continuance would go for 30 days and could go longer .ri based on staff's recommendation. Mr. Drell said there was one issue they would have to deal with. They were required to act on a tentative map within six months of an application being deemed complete. So if the issue was put off until the whole General Plan discussion and for some reason the General Plan dragged on longer than six months, then they would have to adopt a moratorium, which they are allowed to do relative to a general plan process so that the Permit Streamlining Act Provisions didn't come into effect and they weren't forced to approve things by inaction. He said this was a very specialized discussion about a very specialized area of the city which didn't have that broad impact as a lot of the other things in the General Plan, but that would be up to the commission and City Council. Commissioner Lopez thought it might be helpful in the 30 days to focus in on what Mr. Drell anticipated the changes in the General Plan would have on this particular area, if any. Mr. Drell said the commission was seeing them now. Mr. Drell said that Mr. Smith would give a staff report. ; ; 20 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 r�.► Mr. Smith stated that the report outlined the existing ordinance and then outlined the two proposed altematives, A and B. He said he would briefly run through the current ordinance. Of the three, it was definitely the most complex in that it is based on an average slope formula. Based on that average slope they then determine acceptable density and grading limitations. The bottom of page two of the staff report showed the six categories in the percentage of slope with densities ranging from 7.5 units per five acres down to one unit per five acres depending on the average slope that is achieved through the formula. At the bottom of the page, grading was similar in that they have six categories ranging from 10% to 15% which had a requirement that 32.5% of the site remain in its natural state while a percentage of slope in excess of 36% was required to leave 95% of the site in its natural state. That was Option 1 of the current ordinance called parcel average slope method. Option 2 under the current ordinance was the toe of slope. That option could be applied to the toe of slope areas where they have an average slope of less than 10%. On the areas of less than 10°/a, they were allowed three lots ~ per acre, at minimum one-third acre lots. So that was about 14,520 square feet. Under the current ordinance in that area, grading was not limited. Under the toe of slope Option 2, any remaining hillside area in excess of four acres was entitled to an additional unit. If the remainder was less than four acres it must remain undeveloped. For remainders greater than five acres, density was determined under Option 1 or Option 3. Option 3 under the current ordinance had the applicant specifying dwelling unit building sites. This area must be on land with less than 20% slope, minimum half-acre sites, minimum dimension of 100 feet and they end up with a maximum overall density of one unit per acre. Option 4 was the preferred development area. The zoning map included an area where it encouraged density transfers from the steeper, higher elevations down onto the lower flatter toe of slope regions. Depending on the acreage involved, the density increased for larger parcels from two units per five acres to three units per five acres. That was the current ordinance. There were two proposed alternatives in front of commission. One was Alternative A which mirrored the direction from Council at its meeting of �... 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 ; < � November 14. It retained the average slope but it reduced the six categories of density to two. That would be areas of less than 10%. Those areas would have a density of one unit per acre versus the current three units per acre allowed. So the minimum size went up from 14,520 to 43,560 square feet. In Alternative A areas greater than 10% were limited to one unit per five acres. All lots under that alternative would be entitled to at least one unit. Consistent with the current ordinance, if the remaining hillside area had at least four acres, then an additional unit might be developed. This option, Option A, also reduced the number of grading ca�egories from six to three. Areas over 36% slope could disturb no more than 5% of the lot. Slopes between 10% and 36% could disturb up to 7.5%, and on areas less than 10% slope, then 50% disturbed area was permitted. He said that in the latter category, they should keep in mind that currently it was unlimited. The alternative also provided that all lots were entitled to a minimum 2,000 square foot pad. Staff also addressed maximum driveway area and set it at 3,000 square feet. Any area in excess of 3,000 square feet would be required to be deducted from the building pad area. 3 Under Altemative B, it was a more drastic amendment. It did away with the ar� average slope formula. Density was set at a maximum of one unit per five acres regardless of average slope, building pad grading was limited to a maximum of 10,000 square feet, and driveway area was once again limited to 3,000 square feet. Anything in excess of 3,000 was subtracted from the 10,000 square foot pad. Staffls recommendation was for Alternative A. It provided for the standards which were as directed by Council and also reduced the complexity of the matter in reducing the number of categories and density and in grading it reduced the amount of grading they saw in the hillside. Under the current ordinance they were allowed to disturb 67% of the site where there was a slope befinreen 10% and 15%. Under Alternative A that area would be limited to 7.5%. They would also be controlling the grading activity on the areas at toe of slope versus the current ordinance which was unlimited. Under Altemative A it would be limited to 50%. Mr. Smith stated that it was his intention to go through and explain each of the three applications that followed on the agenda so that they had a feel for , � 22 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 r..► how each of these alternatives impacted the proposal, if that was what commission would like staff to do. Mr. Drell recommended that they take testimony on the first public hearing. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked for testimony in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MR. DON BENTLY, a recently retired faculty member at Pomona College, addressed the commission. He said he taught statistics and mathematics for about 40 years. He said his family acquired a hillside parcel on Southcliff Road. Commissioner Lopez asked if Mr. Bently would state his address for the record. Mr. Bently said he lives at 1826 Roanoak Road in Claremont, California. He said his family acquired a hillside parcel on Southcliff � Road about 1958 and they did the original upgrade to the improvements on the property as required by the Homestead Act. So they had basically been there since the beginning. While he spoke to the proposed amendments, as Mr. Drell said, these comments also referred to public hearing items C, D and E on the agenda. To emphasize his family's concern, he wanted to start with an example from his teaching experience. He apologized that it was a little bit crude, but he felt the analogy to the proposed amendments and to the ordinance itself made it uniquely appropriate. A number of years ago he had a student in a relatively small upper division math course who came in and sat in the back row of the classroom. Early on in the semester at the very beginning he noticed that in the middle of class she would start to pick her nose. A few minutes later he noticed that the finger she was picking with moved to her mouth. This was totally disgusting to him, but it was also extremely distracting and he kept wondering why in the world in his plain view she was doing that and why she didn't realize that he was watching her. He realized that in the back of her mind she subconsciously had a one-way mirror sitting there. She could see the professor perfect(y well, but he was � 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 ; i J totally oblivious to what was going on in the classroom. He couldn't see that direction. With respect to the amendments and to the ordinance itself, he saw the city as being primarily people on the flat land. And they were concerned about protecting the natural beauty of the hillside, which was their view. It was a cause his family fully supported to protect the natural beauty of the hillside. But this represented only one direction of that mirror. It was the student's view. (Photographs were distributed.) He said those pictures represented their view of the flat land. He pointed out how little natural area was left. Just the little piece to the west of the drainage channel. In 1958 when they acquired this property, there were about two blocks on either side of Highway 111, the Shadow Mountain Club and Bing Crosby's complex to the south up Highway 74. That was where the development was and the rest was beautiful flat land. That was basically now gone. So what they wanted to ask was for the commission to consider their view of the flat land as they make their } decisions, as well as the protection of the hillsides. He realized that r,ri a couple of years ago the City purchased an area of the flat land in order to create a park and bought hillside area. In establishing the park, they created a parking lot so people could park on the flat land and then hike into the mountains. He said they could see that parking lot in that photograph where the flora was totally removed. The greasewood, the brittlewood, the palo verde trees and the wildflowers were all gone. There was a great big pad there. That was not maintaining the natural beauty of the flat land. He said they would like to request that the action the commission takes would take into consideration maintaining the minimal amount of flat land, natural flat land that is left and he urged the commission to endorse and recommend Amendment B to the proposal to save as much as possible. MR. CALVIN CREE, 47-400 Southcliff Road in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He stated that he owns a five-acre parcel at the toe of the slope on the hillside in Section 30, specifically Lot No. � 36. His family has had this property, and his mother has 25 acres, for ¢ 4 S 24 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 �.. almost 30 years now. He remembered over 20 years ago the City took drastic measures to specifically rezone the hillside to make development very restrictive. If rezoning was to take place and the Planning Commission to decide between Alternative A or B, he strongly opposed Alternative B because it literally stripped any remaining rights he had to develop the property they had in this area. He said most of his five-acre parcel was flat land and was at the toe of the slope. He requested the Planning Commission to vote for Alternative A, which was reasonable and fair to the property owners. He thanked the commission. MR. JOHN BAILEY, 6761 Brockton Avenue in Riverside, addressed the commission. He stated that in 1993 he started representing a couple of clients, Mr. Webber and Mr. Parrott, on a piece of property called Fox Canyon, Lot No. 17. He said it was a relatively large development proposal. After four years of litigation with Mr. Fox trying to protect his clients' interests, he spent another five years trying to force Mr. Fox to live up to his settlement agreement on that piece of �... property. In September of last year the City approached his clients, and he also had a half interest in this piece of property, they approached his clients to purchase this piece of property. The City later told him that they ceased those negotiations with Mr. Fox and they weren't going to acquire his/their piece of property. Then just last week he received notice of this proposed amendment. He said this was the notice he received of this amendment to the ordinance. It was at that point in time that he leamed for the first time that the City did in fact go forward and buy Fox Canyon, which essentially left their piece of property land locked. He said he hadn't had the opportunity to really analyze these ordinance proposals or had sufficient time to retain a land use attorney or engineer to help him assess the impact of the ordinance amendments on the buildability of their lot. He said he was in a toe of slope area, but the piece of property was about 11,000 square feet. Under the toe of slope area, he wouldn't have a buildable lot because it was a minimum of one acre. In the � 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 ; � � , ..r� upper slopes, no matter what the size, they could build at least one unit. But down below it was a minimum of one acre and no matter what size of lot, they could build a 2,000 square foot pad. But when they were building that 2,000 square foot pad, they had to knock off for the 3,000 square foot access. That could effectively turn his property into virtually being worthless. He could see no reason why they needed to move forward with either one of the proposals tonight. There was already an indication that there was a General Plan coming up and this could be taken into the General Plan. He said he needed at least 60 to 90 days to retain a land use attorney and an engineer to help him assess the impact on his piece of property and the City's acquisition of Fox Canyon, which he was in the middle of. He urged the commission not to take any action on the two proposals, to kick them out for 60 to 90 days, and if it was going along the lines of a comprehensive plan, he suggested they do it hand in hand with the comprehensive plan so that everyone that has properties in these areas that will be impacted would have an opportunity for the public hearings and to address these points. il � , Mr. Drell explained that as part of this legal notice, every property owner in r,ii the zone was notified. MR. HAYWARD PARDUE, 47-455 Southcliff Road, addressed the commission. He said this wasn't a parcel which could benefit from either alternative. It had a slope steeper than 36%. However, he urged the commission to adopt Alternative A, which seemed to be recommended by staff and as directed by Council. MR. DAVID NELSON, 72-595 Beavertail Street in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He stated that he recently purchased finro parcels, five acres on Upper Way West and almost six acres on Campesino, which was up for a parcel map later this evening. He said that he purchased these properties based on the current zoning. He always figured that for five acres he would be getting one house up there which would fall under the new zoning. But his lower parcel was currently zoned for up to 11 lots. He understood that was a lot of lots for that area. Working with Planning and understanding the City's concern, they lowered that down to three parcels, which would fall under Alternate A. 6 � 26 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 r.. He said he did have concern with the down zone on Alternate B which would drastically reduce his property, which was basically flat area divided by a ridge that runs through it. He felt they needed to delineate between the flat area and the hill area. They were two different topographical areas and they both basically should be looked at differently because they had different issues. The topography of the flat area was basically the same as most areas of south Palm Desert where the hills had visual impacts on the city. With Alternate A, basically they still had a density very low for the area, the flat area. On his particular piece, by dividing the three parcels he ended up with almost an average of one unit per 1.94 acres, which was quite large. More importantly by doing this, they would also be restricting any future deve(opment on fhe hilfs of these parcels, which was probably a big objective of the City. By reducing the number of lots which falls under Alternate A, it would still preserve the natural beauty of the area and the aesthetic look the City was going for. So he was in favor of Altemate A, but was definitely against � Altemate B. He thanked the commission. MS. DORI CREE,47-205 Southcliff Road, addressed the commission. She said her proposed map for the flat area was at the toe of slope. She understood the City's concern about developing the hillside and making more cuts and more pads in the hillside. She tried to keep her development down on the flat part. Under the current zoning, she wou�d be entitled to many more lots than she proposed. Knowing that staff was coming up with these alternatives, she and her engineer tried to keep that prope�ty zoned approximately one acre per lot. Then they kept one unit on the hillside. She said she would let her engineer give the details of it because he was better qualified, but she wanted to point out that they have tried to be very sensitive to the issue of building into the hillsides. They kept the entire hillside free of any development. Lot 7 was all hillside and they weren't proposing any kind of building in there. They kept the building strictly to the flat area. She agreed with her neighbor, Mr. Bently, about looking down at the city from the hill. She said her residence was just above this property � 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 ; � x . � � at 47-205 Southciiff Road and they did look out at the property the City purchased, which was the park, and they were hoping it would be more open space like, but understood that the parking iot was a temporary issue until the church has their parking garage finished. So they were looking forward to having that open space again the way it was. She turned the discussion over to her engineer, Christopher Schultz. Mr. Drell said he hoped that the engineer wasn't going to talk specifically about Ms. Cree's project and would keep his comments generically about the ordinance, because it would be more appropriate when the commission got to her case on the agenda. MR. CHRIS SCHULTZ of NAI Consulting, 41-955 Freedom Court in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He said he would keep his comments generic. He explained that when Ms. Cree approached him to prepare the tentative map, she was insistent that they were very sensitive to the City's desires in the hillside ordinance. As indicated, they substantially down-zoned the proposed map from the current � ordinance and said he would address that in more detail when they .r�i got to that item. They believed that Alternative A encouraged the use of the flatter areas and if Altemate B was adopted, it might actually encourage development in the hillside versus the flatter areas. If they were limited to only one unit per five acres, they might be encouraged to put it in the hiflside if they only got one. So they strongly felt that Alternate A was a fair compromise and hoped the commission adopted Altemate A and adhered to staff's recommendation. He said they would be available to go into more detail on both the tract map and the hillside permit when they got to those items. He thanked the commission. MS. KATHLEEN RUST, 47-455 SouthCliff Road, addressed the commission. She said that she and Hayward Pardue lived at the same residence and she also was strongly in favor of Altemate A. There being no further public testimony, Chairperson Campbell stated that she would leave the public hearing o en and move onto the next public hearing. • � � 28 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 � Commissioner Tschopp said he had some questions about the ordinance and asked if wou(d 6e appropriate to address those with staff at this time. Chairperson Campbell said yes. Commissioner Tschopp said his first question was about the roads in that area. He asked if they would become public roads and maintained by the City or the individuals developing them and he was talking about the properties before the commission tonight as well as some of the other homes up there. Mr. Drell stated that all the roads up there are private and privately maintained. This ordinance wouldn't impact that issue. The one road that was kind of ambiguous was the triangle access road which was a quasi public right-of-way because it was owned and for most of its length the responsibility of CVWD. There was a generalized gentleman's agreement when the channel went in that all existing parcels would have access to bridges that bridge the channel via that road. Partly because property couldn't be land locked and that road was necessary to get to those bridges. For the road by the park, the City got an encroachment permit from CVWD, � the price of which was that we have to maintain the road and take liability for use of the road in front of Homme Park. Technically the road was a public easement maintained by CVWD primarily for seniicing the channel and that they allow the general public to access those parcels. That was more of a City policy/Public Works sort of a question which was probably something that could be discussed and included in the recommendation and was probably appropriate to discuss as part of the general plan amendment whether as part of the General Plan it was recommended as a policy that the City assume full responsibility for that road and improve it in some way. That was a CVWD road and the secondary question was Upper Way West and the other roads, which were now private. Commissioner Tschopp asked if CVWD could deny access to properties other than the park, which had an agreement. Mr. Drell said his understanding was, in the old days before the channel was in, there were numerous crossings of the channel because it was just dirt and people would bulldoze a crossing and drive across it and a flood would come and wash it away and then they would bulldoze it again. He said he talked to the current City Manager, who was then the Redevelopment Agency Director who negotiated the deals, and the building of the channel was a Redevelopment Agency project. He asked him about the exact nature and documentation of � 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 .ri that understanding. As part of that project those three bridges were created and he had never received more than a handshake and a smile from Tom Levey of CVWD. It would make no sense to build bridges if people couldn't drive on the road on the other side. There was a general understanding, and he wasn't sure it was any more than that, that the public would have access to that road to gain access to all the existing parcels. Again, it would probably be a good idea to memorialize it in something more than a handshake. But in California, someone couldn't land lock parcels. Mr. Hargreaves said that under those circumstances, CVWD probably could not deny access. Commissioner Tschopp said that a couple of signs up there might be incorrect then. He noted that there was a lot of development taking place higher up on peaks and assumed that property was in the County. Mr. Drell said that was correct. He said that for the entire operational life of our current ordinance, which was nearly 20 years, they have only had the three houses that were build next to what was a church next to the Cahuilla Park. He said they had one house built up on the hill and the house that was subject to litigation for a great period of time which was under construction and they could probably see it now being framed. Then there was the Carver house which was now under construction which they couldn't see. Most of the vast „rr majority of houses they could see that were really south of the Crest were all in the County. Commissioner Tschopp indicated that Mr. Drell made the comment that there was probably only approximately five prope�ty owners affected by this ordinance. He asked how many other parcels there were up there that were buildable. Mr. Drell replied 15 or 20. He said that technically every parcel was buildable, it was a matter of how much they wanted to spend. In response to one of the public's questions, regardless of size, the way their size ordinance worked throughout the zoning ordinance regardless if it was hillside or otherwise, those minimums prevent subdivision of any existing parcels smaller than the minimum specified in the ordinance. But every existing parcel was entitled to a dwelling. They were not proposing to deprive any property owner of reasonable economic use of their property. Commissioner Tschopp said his understanding of the purpose of the ordinance was to lirnit visibility of development on the sides of the hillside from other individuals in the city of Palm Dese�t, but nowhere in the current ordinance or the West Hills Specific Plan did he see the words visibility or 30 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 � line of sight ever used. It was never calculated or brought up in any of the documents specifically. It seemed they just focused on density but not on what could be seen. Mr. Drell said the intent and purpose of the ordinance, and there were also other sections, it said encourage architecture and landscaping which blends with the natural terrain to the greatest practical extent. That was a visibility issue. Obviously they couldn't make things absolutely invisible, but it could be minimized through architecture, landscaping, color, the retention and protection of use such as national landmarks and features including vistas and natural skylines and encourage minimal grading. So the goal of the ordinance was to make buildings and development disappear. One of the more visible impacts of development was grading up there in that the colors of the natural mountains was from a desert patina and grading usually resulted in a gray color instead of brown, so they required renaturalization and recoloring of the rocks to blend back to the natural. He thought it was included in there. � Commissioner Tschopp commented that landscape design and architecture only goes so far when trying to keep something from the line of sight and it encouraged only minimal grading in the hillside which if they were trying to hide a home in the mountain, typically they wanted to bury it. Mr. Drell said that was where "to the greatest practical extent" applied. It was a case by case review. They looked at each site and the location that best accomplished that and it was usually a balancing act. There might be a wonderful little hollow where they couldn't see the house, but to get to it they had to create a horrendous slash of a roadway. It was both evaluating the particular characteristics of the house site and the potential impact of the access road to come up with the one best spot that blends and allowed for the least amount of grading and visual impact on the hillside. Commissioner Tschopp indicated that this ordinance and whatever was adopted tonight as an alternative was only affecting five property owners approximately. Mr. Drell said yes, in substantial effect. For example, the addition where they are now specifying the amount of land they could disturb from grading of a roadway, the old ordinance was pretty much silent on. It was always unclear because sometimes in some instances the required road would eliminate virtually any potential building pads, so they always thought that was a problem. That would affect everyone. Clarifying some of the �.. 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 general language would affect everyone. In terms of density and the amount of grading they could do, it only affected the properties at toe of slope or with slightly less than 36%, so there were very few of them. Commissioner Tschopp noted that three of the property owners had something in front of the commission tonight and he didn't know if perhaps two of the other ones perhaps spoke. Mr. Drell thought most of the people who spoke were in the 36% or over category. The gentleman with the paper lot in Fox Canyon, which was a flat pad, in his case it was such a small parcel that he was entitled to one parcel, either under the old ordinance or the new ordinance. Commissioner Tschopp asked if any ordinance they adopted tonight could be granted variances in the future if the commission felt it was to the benefit of all for a longer roadway to hide the house better. He asked if that included these. Mr. Drell said that theoretically if there were exceptional circumstances which would apply uniquely to a particular property. The roadway system was set up so that someone could get a larger roadway. It � just came off the entitlement for a pad. Commissioner Tschopp said that he � was specifically talking about one of the individuals tonight who had other parcels up there. He didn't think it was the intent of the ordinance to end up with a negative 1,000 square foot house. He asked if the availability would be in any ordinance they adopted to give a variance to allow a road to go to a pad that would be tucked out of site better then perhaps sitting on top of a hillside. Mr. Drell said yes, in that they would be able to identify unique features of the property, which was what they had to do with a variance, which did not apply generally to other properties which justify their decision. If they started finding that those unique circumstances applied to every single property, then they had to look at amending the ordinance again because they shouldn't be in a position to have to grant variances to everyone. It should be a special, unique circumstance tied to a unique physical characteristic of the real estate, Commissioner Lopez noted that most people spoke either for or against or had an opinion. Mr. Bailey had some specific comments as it pertained to his property and the need for additional time for review and he asked if Mr. Drell had any comment regarding that. Mr. Drell said that what he knew of Mr. Bailey's property, he had one of the simpler problems out there. He believed i it was a flat paper lot in the old Fox Canyon. Without question his property 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 �r..r was less than 10% and under any option he believed it was entitled to one unit. Under the existing ordinance he was entitled to grade the entire property 100% because it was flat. Under Option A he was only entitled to grade half of it, so he could only have a house pad on approximately 5,000 square feet. Under Option B he was actually entitled to a 10,000 square foot pad on the whole thing since there were no percentages in Option B. From an engineering point of view, he probably had the simplest problem to evaluate in comparison to other property owners who had very complex topography. Hopefully they would be able to resolve his issue in another way. MR. TOM BANNON, 47-655 Chapel Hill Road, addressed the commission. He said he owns the property immediately to the west of Public Hearing Item E. He said he was under the impression 25 years ago, and he has lived there 25 years, he thought that only buildings could be constructed on places that had pads already and that was the law, as opposed to everyone having property could build a place. He asked if he was wrong that an existing pad already had to be on � that property. Mr. Drell said that had never been law. In fact, most of the existing pads were created without the benefit of permits. Mr. Bannon said they were homestead properties. Mr. Drell said that any property, regardless of how they came to own it, required permits. He said those existing pads were counted as part of the disturbed area, as in the past. But as a matter of rea! estate law, he believed they had to provide every property owner with economic use of their property and in a residential zone that usually meant at least one unit. Since the city was incorporated, all property owners in the city who owned a residential lot, whether it was on Bel Air or Upper Way West, were entitled to at least one unit. Mr. Bannon asked if sewers would now be on that side of the wash, or if there would be septic tanks like he was on. It would be septic tanks. Mr. Drell said that unless the property owners wanted to create an assessment district and go through the cost of getting � 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 , it through that way, they would be subject to the same Health Department regulations in terms of location of an appropriate leach field and everything else they would need to accomplish sewage disposal. Mr. Bannon asked if paving of Calle De Los Campesinos would be mandatory. And if so, what was the first attempt at paving that wasn't really pavement in front of the park that made the dirt road a pleasure to get on. Mr. Drell said that was an experiment that an installer of a certain sort of acrylic sealer offered to do for the City. He didn't do a very good job. As part of the discussion on the General Plan, he said it would probably be appropriate to discuss a policy addition to the hillside plan relaying if there would be City participation in the paving of the CVWD road. That was a separate issue relative to the land use issue, which �was part of this ordinance amendment. Mr. Bailey readdressed the commission and said he didn't understand a why they had to cram down this ordinance tonight. Even assuming for � the moment that he could get a 5,000 square foot pad that Mr. Drell was talking about under this ordinance, which under his reading he cou(dn't see how he could do that. If he had to build an access road that was 10,000 square feet to get to it, he had to take that away from his building pad. So by the time he got there, there was zero building pad left. He was only asking that they kick this out a reasonabfe amount of time so that he could do the assessment of this ordinance on his property. He didn't think that was unreasonable. After no further comments, Chairperson Campbell stated that she would leave the public hearing open and continued the item until after Public Hearing Agenda Items C, D and E. C. Case No. TT 31135 - DORI CREE, Applicant Request for approval of a tentative tract map to subdivide 15.44 acres (three lots) into seven (7) residential hillside lots in the hillside area west of the storm channel north of Southcliff Road, APN 628-120-004, 007 and 010. a i 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 �.. Mr. Smith explained that the plan was on display. The property currently consists of three approximately five-acre lots with a total area of 15.44 acres. The properties were vacant except for a single family residence on the southerly lot which took its access from Southcliff Road. The westerly two- thirds of each lot was steep mountainous terrain, while the lower easterly portion was at the toe of slope and had an average slope of less than 10%. This toe of slope area was adjacent to and overlooked Homme Park. The map before the commission would, if approved, create seven lots. No grading activity or homes were proposed at this time. The application had basically been broken into finro sections. First, the applicant delineated a 2.34 acre area at the toe of slope which had a slope of less than 10%. On this area the applicant proposed five, approximately 16,000 square foot lots. On the steeper westerly 11.6 acres, two lots were proposed. One would encompass the existing residence. For analysis, staff looked at how this proposal complied with the current ordinance and Alternatives A and B. The current ordinance on the toe of � slope option was allowed on areas of less than 10% of slope and then it permitted a density of three units per acre on those lands. The applicant did the average slope formula and it came out at 6.8% and qualified for the three units per acre, so the five lots at the bottom were in compliance. Those lots would take access off a proposed 20-foot wide street which would be installed along the easterly limit of the lot and it would run north from Southcliff Road adjacent to Homme Adams Park. That road would terminate in a cul-de-sac at its north end. The 11.6 westerly acres of this property had an average slope in excess of 36%. Under Option 1, this area was to be divided into two lots, a four-acre lot which would encompass the existing residence and a 7.6-acre lot. The map as presented was consistent with the provisions of Option 2 toe of slope and the current ordinance. He noted in the sfaff report tF�at the map as submitted proposed to create building pads on easements which were created through the land patents when the lots were created. The City Attorney looked into this and in discussing this with him, he expressed the feeling that if they could obtain proof of title insurance with this exception that they could then go forward. � 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 ..� Under Alternative A, the 2.34 acres at the toe of slope would be limited to two lots in that they have a one acre minimum in that area. Then the 11 acres to the west, the higher slope or the greater slope, would also get the one unit per five acres and they would come up with two. Under Option A they would have a reduction from seven lots down to four lots. In discussing this with the applicant, he felt, and it might be something he would be looking at in an amended application, that the area at the toe of slope could be enlarged beyond the 2.34 acres which might get him another lot or possibly finro if he could come up with four acres at the toe of slope. So that was a possibility in the future. But with what was before the commission tonight, it would be two lots. Alternative B had a minimum of five acres. No additional lots could be created, but it was possible that the applicant could reconfigure the existing three lots in some other form if that was beneficial. In conclusion, Mr. Smith stated that the map as presented was consistent with the cu�rent ordinance, it didn't comply with Alternative A or B. Were the commission to recommend approval of Alternative A or B, then the application should be continued and under the circumstances relative to the .r general plan amendment, it should be continued consistent with that time frame, whatever that became. He asked for any questions. Chairperson Campbell asked if the proposed map was consistent with the current ordinance, why they would wait for Alternative A or B. Mr. Smith said that if the commission felt the current ordinance was appropriate to retain, then they could act on it tonight. Commissioner Jonathan asked what the legal ramifications were to postponing an application to a time after which the zoning ordinance changed. He asked if an application was entitled to be heard under current zoning. Mr. Hargreaves said no, the commission was allowed to change the rules of the game while the game was being played. Mr. Drell said that technically until they started doing physical improvements to the ground or get a development. A development agreement was another way to vest a right in the current ordinance. But until someone went through a process like that or physically started making investment in the ground, they had no vested right in a current ordinance.� 36 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 ..r Commissioner Tschopp asked where the access would be to Lot 7. Mr. Smith deferred the question to the applicant. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the dead palm trees belonged to the City. Mr. Smith said yes. Commissioner Lopez noted that Mr. Smith made a comment regarding the possibility of additional property and asked if that would be Lot B. Mr. Smith said it would entail some of Lot 6. What would happen was the lots would be designed at the one acre minimum and then they would have a drainage easement over parts of the iots. Chairperson Campbell o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. CHRIS SCHULTZ with NAI Consulting addressed the � commission. He said he was representing the Cree property. Regarding access to Lot 7, he stated that the Crees were willing to dedicate that as open space and basically put a conservation easement over the entire Lot 7 so that it would remain open space � forever if there was no access required. In return, since they would be eligible to get one unit on Lot 7, they would like to do a density transfer and have that unit on the flat land. So that was the intent of having the five lots within the flat land area. For clarification purposes, he said they actually have four acres delineated by the toe of slope. It included the drainage easement on Lot B and the roadway easement on Lot A. But the entire toe of slope area was four acres. So unde�Alternate A, they would be entitled to one unit per acre, so four units. With the additional unit as a transfer from Lot 7, that was where they got five units on the flat land. Under the current ordinance with the four acres of flat land, they were actually eligible for 12 units. So they were going from 12 units to five units, which was a substantial reduction. Then they would be giving up approximately eight acres on Lot 7 as a hillside conservation easement. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. Chairperson Campbell asked if Mr. Schultz had any final comments. ... 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 � � � Mr. Schultz said they would like to be considered under the current ordinance. Under the current ordinance they were well within the entitled uses. He said they would like to move forward with this application. If there was some clarification that staff needed to demonstrate they have four acres within the flat land, they could certainly do that. But he believed under either scenario, the current application met either Altemate A and the current ordinance. So they would like some consideration tonight on the matter. Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Tschopp said that in looking at this proposal he was in favor of it. Whether it was the current or Alternative A plan they adopted, it was consistent with the current ordinance and very close to Altemative A. The Lot 7 transfer he felt was acceptable. Additionally, he liked the five lots on the flat land, not visible from very many points from the rest of the city and he thought it fit in very well. i y Commissioner Jonathan concurred. He was a little uncomfortable continuing ,.� an existing application that was coming in under the current zoning ordinance to a later time when there was a change in the ordinance. He understood that they were permitted to do so, he was just a little uncomfortable doing that. He felt that applicants had something beyond a legal right, a moral right or whatever, to bring an application in under existing standards and have it be evaluated under those standards. In doing so, the application met the test and was appropriate for the area. He concurred with Commissioner Tschopp and was in favor of approval. Commissioner Lopez thought they presented a compelling case to move ahead. In reviewing the staff recommendation for continuance, it was really based on the assumption that the commission would be in favor of amending the ordinance with either Alternative A or 6 and in that case it would not comply. But again, in looking at the land use, this was within the current ordinance was very close to Alternative A, so he was in favor. Commissioner Finerty stated that she was in favor of Alternative B. She thought that it was important to protect the hillsides and important to protect � their views. She thought the pictures spoke a thousand words. Yes, almost � 38 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 �.�.. every spot of land was developed in Palm Desert and hillsides were one of the few areas they had left. She didn't feel allowing five units was appropriate and was opposed to the subdivision application. Chairperson Campbell thought the map was consistent with the current ordinance and these lots were really not considered hillside developments, they were on the slope on the ground. She thought they probably had a disadvantage to have homes in front there to look at Homme Park and maybe the applicant would call them the Homme Park Estates when she decided to build. She hoped the City did something with the park to make it better than what it is right now. She was in favor of the project. Mr. Drell suggested that if there was a motion, the motion should include the condition requiring a conservation easement to be applied to Lot 7. Commissioner Lopez noted that since there was a recommendation for continuance, there was no resolution before them. Mr. Smith said it would be appropriate for the commission to direct staff to prepare a resolution for � adoption at the next meeting. , Chairperson Campbell asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, by minute motion approving Case No. TT 31135 and directing staff to prepare a resolution of approval. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). D. Case No. HPR 03-01 - DORI CREE, Applicant Request for approval to construct a driveway and 15,043 square foot building pad on a 5.12 acre lot in the Hillside Planned Residential District west of the storm channel, south of Southcliff Road, APN 628-120-013. Mr. Smith explained that this was a five-acre lot located south of Southcliff Road. The property has an existing single family dwelling located on a flat section of land at the east end of the lot. On the map he pointed out the �.. 39 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 ; � � .� location of the existing residence, Southcliff Road, and the driveway to the existing residence. The westerly portion of the lot encompassed steeper mountain slopes. The elevations ranged from 515 to 610. Toward the center of the lot there was a somewhat flatter plateau area. The applicant proposed to grade the plateau area and create a 15,043 square foot pad at an elevation set at 552. The second part of the request involved the creation of a 12-foot wide by 289-foot long driveway extending from the east lot line weste�ly to approximately the mid point of the proposed lot where it would provide access into the pad. The driveway proposed a section with a 20% grade in it. The Fire Department couldn't get up a hill at 20% grade. They indicated they could provide service at 18%. As well, the Fire �epartment requested a pull out on the driveway approximately midway up and it could be provided. That would allow two vehicles to pass on the driveway. The alteration to the slope the applicant indicated eould be provided without altering its alignment and the pull out could be provided in the fill area adjacent to the pad. i Similar to the last project, at this time they were being asked for approval of �I the grading to create the pad and the driveway. He said staff didn't have home plans to evaluate that and it would follow under a separate process. Mr. Smith said that staff evaluated this proposal pursuant to the current standards and the two alternatives. Average slope on the entire five-acre lot, 34% under Option 1, lots between 31% and 35% average slope were entitled to a maximum of one unit for every two and a half acres, hence two units. Building pad disturbance was not to exceed 7.5%. The 5.12 acre lot would permit a total disturbed area of 16,727 square feet and a maximum of finro units. Staff calculated the area of the existing residence to have approximately 6,500 square feet of disturbed area. So in order to comply under the current ordinance, they would have to reduce the pad area from the 16,727 by the 6,500 square feet. If they wanted to retain that existing dwelling unit and pad. Were they to eliminate the residence and renaturalize this area, then the 16,727 pad size would comply. In discussions with the applicant, it was staffs understanding that they were not opposed to removing the existing residence and renaturalizing the area. � � 40 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 +�.. In that case the proposed pad at 15,043 square feet would comply with the current ordinance. If they wanted to retain it, then the pad needed to shrink. Relative to Altemative A, the lot would be entitled to one unit. They wouldn't have a choice of removing the existing residence if they wanted to create a second one. The amount of disturbed area stays the same at 16,727, plus 3,000 square feet for the driveway area. The driveway in this case exceed the 3,000 square feet. Any overage would then be subtracted from 16,727. He noted in this discussion on Alternative A that there was a preferable driveway location on the adjacent lot to the south. The driveway the applicant proposed involved considerable cut and through a ridge area. It was possible they could take a driveway across on the diagonal on that lot to the south below the toe of slope or on the toe of slope which would eliminate much of the necessary cut through the ridge area. That would require the cooperation of the property owner to the south and he wasn't sure that was available, however a driveway in that location was definitely preferable if it could be achieved. Staff concluded that the proposal was consistent with Altemative A if the existing residence were removed and the pad was totally �r.. renaturalized. Mr. Smith said that Alternative B was somewhat similar in that one unit on the lot with the pad limited to 10,000 square feet, the driveway to 3,000 square feet, and any overage on the driveway being subtracted from the 10,000 square foot pad. The pad was proposed to be set at an elevation of 552. Looking at where the driveway comes in, the contour lines were at approximately 542. So what would happen was they would end up frlling the southem portion of the lot to get up to 552. He said it could be preferable to set the pad height at 545 or something in that range so that on the pad itself, they wouldn't solely be importing fi!!. They would be able to offset it. The discussion earlier was to try to keep the visibility of these units to the minimum. By lowering the pad approximately seven feet, it would take that much out of the height of the unit. It probably wouldn't be as desirable from the applicanYs perspective; however, it was something that commission might want to consider. The recommendation in the staff report was to recommend approval of this proposal, subject to conditions consistent with Alternative A. He asked if there were any questions. � 41 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 � � � Commissioner Jonathan noted that approval could be given under current . standards if the applicant would agree to eliminate the other existing residence and reestablish the terrain. Mr. Smith said that was one direction. Or they could reduce the proposed pad by the 6,500 square feet, because under the current ordinance they are entitled to finro units within the 16,727. If they assumed the 6,500 it would be approximately 10,000. Commissioner Jonathan indicated this could be done to gain approval under current standards. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Chairperson Campbell indicated there was also a break in the ridge and some steps there. She asked if that was where staff proposed the driveway location. Mr. Smith said yes. Chairperson Campbell asked if staff or the applicant worked with the other property owner to the south to allow a driveway to go in there since Mr. Smith recommended that as the best solution. Mr. Smith believed that Mr. Drell had discussions with the owner of that property. Mr. Drell thought the applicant had discussions with the owner as well. It was his understanding that the property owner was not particularly enthusiastic about that idea. And that was an understatement. Chairperson Campbell said they should disregard that as an option then. Mr. Drell � concuRed. Unless that property owner was cooperative, it would be a difficult task to put the road there. He said it was not necessarily an easily accomplishable or realistic goal. Chairperson Campbell said that actually they would be looking at the driveway over that little bridge. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Jonathan noted that under current standards, the total disturbed area was 16,727. He asked if that included the driveways as well as building pads. Mr. Smith said the ordinance wasn't clear. Mr. Drell said that historically they haven't counted driveways as required to gain access to an approved pad. They were clarifying that in the new ordinance and they looked at the reasonable lengths of driveways and that was how they came up with 3,000 square feet. A 12-foot driveway allowed for 250 feet of driveway, which reasonably got someone to most areas of one of these lots. Commissioner Jonathan said that was why staff came up with allocating the 16,727. If it was between the finro, there was existing at 6,500 which left 10,272 for the new one. That was why the driveway didn't figure into that calculation. Mr. Smith said it would be reduced by another 473 to account for the overage in the driveway. � � 42 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 � Chairperson Campbell o ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. CHRIS SCHULTZ addressed the commission. He felt that Mr. Smith did an excellent job describing the hillside development permit application. He explained that the existing structure was somewhat encumbered by Southcliff Road and the existing easements. So there was very little room for adding on or enhancing the existing structure. It was such a sma!! area they thought it was unreasonable to be restricted to that one small pad, thus the application to provide a larger pad on the five acres. He said Mrs. Cree agreed to restore this area and remove the structure in order to get a larger pad structure. As far as the access, the Fire Marshal indicated that he would prefer a flatter driveway approach. As a mutual benefit, he said that they would put the fire hydrant to serve the new pad and it would also benefit the existing structure. He noted that there were portions of Southcliff Road that didn't fall within existing easements. He wasn't sure if the City Attorney could elaborate on the legality of varying outside the easements that were set back when the parcels were `"" created. He asked if there was an unwritten authority that they could veer off the easement. Mr. Hargreaves said he didn't want to opine on something he wasn't aware of the facts. Generally, if there was an easement out there and they use it, over a time someone could acquire prescriptive rights. But he didn't know enough about the circumstances to elaborate. Mr. Schultz said that short of pursuing this access, that was the only legitimate access they had to the new pad. It was feasible roads like this, especially in hillside areas, were not that uncommon. It was constructible. They had a soils engineer verify the cut slopes so it was just a matter of finalizing the design for Public Works approval and hiring a qualified contractor to grade the slope and restore the slope after it was constructed. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the applicant was in agreement to remove the existing house to receive permission for the new lot. � 43 MtNUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 � � � Mr. Schultz said that was correct. The larger pad would more than warrant the removal of the existing structure. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There being none, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tschopp noted that the applicant stated that they would be permitted under the current ordinance to do this. In addition, if Alternative A was adopted they would be permitted under that ordinance and under Alternative B they would be very close. So he was in favor of the proposal. Commissioner Jonathan concurred. He said he was basing his approval upon current standards and based on a condition of approval that would require the removal and restoration of the existing 6,500 square feet to facilitate the larger pad of up to 16,727 square feet less the 473 square foot d riveway. Commissioner Lopez also concurred. Under the current ordinance it worked very well and he also wanted the existing structure to be removed and renaturalized. He was in favor. Commissioner Finerty stated that she had real concerns with this because it seemed this proposal would fly right in the face of the intent of the ordinance. The ordinance said that they were to require the retention of natural landmarks and features including vistas and the natural skyline. By adding the fill to get it from the 540 to 552, they would basically eliminate the skyline and it would disappear because it would be just about the same as the ridge line. They talked about the visibility of units in the hillside and the whole idea was to try to hide them so that they didn't see them from the flat land. Again, by adding the fill that was exactly what they were doing. They were elevating the pad high enough so that the house would stick out like a sore thumb. She noted that there was a nice view at the existing house and she was hopeful that house could be expanded if the issue was the view. But according to Mr. Schultz, he felt there was little room to expand. But it looked to her that they could expand toward the elevation 515 toward Southcliff where there was a little space, as well as behind the existing house. She believed this application totally negated the intent of the hillside ordinance and she was opposed. 44 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 w.r Chairperson Campbell said she looked at the property that day. She didn't think there was room to add to the existing home, which was very small. She also noted that they had to look for it because it was really behind trees and was very well camouflaged. She agreed with the other commissioners that it fell within the current ordinance and since that present building would be removed and the land renaturalized, she was also in favor of the project. Commissioner Lopez thought Mr. Smith brought up a good point with regard to the grading of the lot and perhaps doing something to better hide the building. He asked him to elaborate. Mr. Smith suggested that if they set the pad at some number between 540 and 552, they could balance the amount of fill and amount of cut going on at the site and at the same time by whatever amount they would lower the pad, they would be reducing the visibility of any residence by that amount. Commissioner Lopez said he would make the recommendation that they incorporate that somehow into the requirements. Mr. Drell said that could be � a condition. It would be to set a specific pad grade relative to the height of the ridge. Set it at a maximum pad height. That was well within the � commission's rights under the current ordinance or proposed ordinances. Commissioner Jonathan agreed with the concept and the objective of what they were trying to do, but he thought setting a specific pad height had some significant repercussions. He wasn't sure staff had studied it sufficiently to determine the correct number. Commissioner Finerty asked why they couldn't set the pad height at 540, the existing grade level. Mr. Drell said they could do that. Commissioner Jonathan said they might do that and it might end up that way, but there might be engineering limitations or complications that might make that feasible or unfeasible. Mr. Drell said that to evaluate it they might want to have the engineer prepare various exhibits showing it at 540 and 545 and showing what increased cuts and reduced fills result from those and maybe the engineer had some comments. Chairperson Campbell pointed out that the staff report said the areas exist with elevations ranging from 538 to 552. Mr. Drell clarified that the applicant r.. 45 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 ; � � proposed fill all the way up to 552 and he was able to accomplish that purely by filling and not cutting. That was his understanding of the plan. Mr. Schultz stated that was correct. The pad was entirely a fill pad. Even if they lowered it, there was still no offset of cut and fill. The only cut they had was for the roadway going through the knoll and the entire pad was a totally filled pad. Mr. Drell pointed out that as they lower the pad, there was a slope coming into it and to maintain the same area and the same perimeter, they had to cut it as they lowered it to a certain degree at the edge. Mr. Schultz said that was not necessarily the case. If they went to the 550 contour, to maintain the same pad area it would actually push it out to the south. Mr. Drell noted that they could do it by pushing out, but they were limited to how much they could push out because they would run up against another a < property line. � � Mr. Schultz said that was correct. Mr. Drell said that if the decision was 545, that would push it out considerably more. His understanding was that it was substantially rock under a couple feet of dirt so there could be a steep cut depending on the nature of that soil. But they might want to see the engineering ramifications of the pads at varying elevations. Mr. Schultz said they would also like to at least maintain some views to the north. If they lowered the pad significantly, any view to the north would be obstructed. He thought they could lower it a few feet, but if they were talking about 10 feet, it defeated the purpose of setting the pad in the area they selected. Commissioner Jonathan thought that maybe they could say that the applicant would work with staff to achieve the least amount of disruption and least amount of fill as possible within the objectives the applicant was seeking. Commissioner Finerty said she wasn't comfortable with that. Mr. Drell said he wasn't either. Commissioner Finerty didn't think the commission 46 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 r.. should place their duty onto staff and that wasn't right. As well, they have an ordinance they're supposed to follow where they are supposed to minimize disturbance and visibility and they have an applicant asking for an additional 12 feet of fill when there was no real reason why this unit could not be built at the 540 level. Mr. Schultz disagreed. He pointed out the location of the 540 elevation and said that to get any sizeable pad would be encroaching within the access easement and very close to the property line. They would have a very minimal pad area and it would be somewhat unreasonable to do that type of wor{c for a 5,000 or 6,000 square foot pad. In order to achieve a reasonable pad size for five acres, the pad elevation had to be set far enough up the hill to maximize pad area. Commissioner Finerty indicated that the intent of the ordinance was not to use fill to raise the height of the pad. Mr. Drell said it wasn't required that they create a pad purely by adding fill. They could cut in the back at the same time they were filling the front and keep the pad at exactly the same � location at the same size and reducing it in elevation. Mr. Schultz thought it was much more difficult to restore a cut slope than to mitigate a fill slope. Mr. Drell disagreed. He had seen them both done very effectively. Commissioner Campbell was opposed to the house at 552. She was in favor of 540 as long as the applicant was willing to eliminate the existing house. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the pad was essentially tilted and to get it flat they either had to fill it all up or fill it part way and cut into the rest of it. He wasn't sure what one was better and what the exact pad height should be. If they were going to set a limit, which he didn't think was appropriate. The ordinance didn't address setting a pad height or specifying whether a flat pad was to be achieved by filling or cutting. He didn't think that was specified under the current standards. He thought it was wrong for them to even venture into the area. But if they were going to, he thought they needed to continue the matter and understand what they were doing, what the alternatives were, and what was acceptable to the applicant and to staff. With regard to some of the earlier comments, he stated that he was equally � 47 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 � � concerned and appreciated the beauty and value of the hillside. One of the impo�tant qualities and objectives of the hillside ordinance was that it sought to not just protect the hillsides, but balance the importance of our hillsides with the rights of property owners who do own property and have some expectation of development. For example, to limit development to one unit per five acres was something that was not replicated anywhere else in the city and it was fairly extreme. That was an example of a reasonable compromise and balancing between the rights of an owner and the needs of the environment. So he felt they needed to evaluate this application and others on the basis of that balance and compromise. In that regard he thought this application met the standards and objective. With regard to this application, Commissioner Tschopp concurred with Commissioner Finerty's comments that the idea was to try to screen development on the hillsides as much as possible so that the line of sight was not so visible from the outside. Given that though, he didn't feel comfortable setting a pad height. He noted he wasn't an engineer and it wasn't his field. He asked what would be the appropriate next step. Mr. Drell � suggested going out on the site and have the engineer mark where the � various elevations were and maybe they could go out and get an idea of what views various pad heights would result in. Grading and the character of grading was an important part of the ordinance. The nature of the disturbance was half of what the ordinance was all about. Commissioner Jonathan said he wasn't comfortable without more information. He thought Mr. Drell's idea was excellent and might edify them about what would be more damaging, to add dirt or to cut into the mountainside. He could only make that evaluation by standing there on the pad and looking at it and he would be willing to do that. Commissioner Lopez also thought it was a good idea. He wouldn't know what number to pick, but if they went up there and looked at it, that would help. He suggested a continuance until they do that knowing that they are considering it under the current ordinance and that they will have the opportunity to reevaluate how that lot would impact not only their views, but the line of sight from the rest of the valley. He was in favor of a continuance. Chairperson Campbell concurred with the other commissioners regarding � setting a number for the elevation of the pad. That wasn't in front of them 48 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 � and didn't apply to the present conditions of approval. She was in favor of having some balloons put up there to see them. Mr. Drell said they wouldn't necessarily be balloons, but some markers or stakes delineating the elevations in that area so they could somewhat visualize it. He noted there are other more sophisticated ways through computer visualizations which could show what the graded pads would look like. But they could make that judgement. Chairperson Campbell noted that some of the other places on the hillside were so unsightly that she didn't think they should be too picky with one at this location that would be camouflaged more so than anything else up there. Commissioner Lopez made a motion to continue this item. Mr. Drel1 noted the applicant indicated they could have it done as soon as possible and wanted a continuance to the next meeting. Chairperson Campbell noted that date was March 18. Commissioner Jonathan expressed concem. In addition to getting the property ready, they would need to schedule no more than two commissioners at a time to go up there and he thought the applicant would want to show them what they were looking at. He was concerned that two weeks might not be enough. He didn't mind scheduling it on the 18th, but an �`" additional continuance might be necessary. He suggested the first meeting in April, but would leave it up to the applicant. The applicant requested the next meeting. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez,seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, by minute motion continuing Case No. HPR 03-01 to March 18, 2003. Motion carried 5-0. E. Case No. TPM 31056 - NELBECK LLC, Applicant Request for approval of a tentative parcel map to subdivide a 5.84 acre lot into three residential hillside parcels located west of the storm channel adjacent to Calle De Los Campesinos, south of Chapel Hill Road, APN 628-140-004. Mr. Smith explained that the 5.84 acre site is south of Chapel Hill Road and a portion of it wraps around the recent CVWD booster station. He showed the commission where Upper Way West cut through the property. The other ` 49 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 i � , ar/ significant feature on the property was the hillside outcropping where there is a significant rise which effectively comes out to the street and cuts the property in half. He stated that the applicant proposed to create three lots out of the current 5.84 acre lot (one lot 1.4 acres, one lot 1.6 acres and a third lot at 2.8 acres). The rock outcropping was not buildable, so pads would be created on the flat portion on either side of the outcropping. This would comply with the current ordinance. The area in question fell under the toe of slope at less than 10% when excluding the outcropping in the center. He said this met Altemative A and the current ordinance. It would not meet Alternative B which had a minimum of five acres in it. He stated that the conclusion was that the map complies with the current code and with Alternative A. Staff recommended approval of the tentative parcel map, subject to conditions which would make it consistent with Alternative A, but said it would also be consistent with the current ordinance. He asked for any questions. � .� Commissioner Jonathan asked if the specific building pad sites were not part of this application, this was just a parcel map. Mr. Smith said that was right. This was just the mapping and pads would come later, grading to get to the pads would come later, and the home plans would come later also. Mr. Drell stated that the assumption would be that the house pads would be in those areas delineated as less than 10%. Chairperson Campbell o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. DAVID NELSON, one of the partners of the partnership that owns the property, 72-595 Beavertail Street, addressed the commission. He indicated they have 5.84 acres currently zoned for 11 lots. They were proposing just three parcels. There were approximately four acres of the flat area,which was under 10% slope. It was divided by the ridge. They have about 2.5 acres to the north side and 1.5 acres of flat area to the south side of the ridge. He said there would be no development on the hillside. They understood that � concern and that was why they did this and alleviated that problem. 50 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 � By reducing the lots from 11 to three, they felt this would still preserve the natural feeling of the area without significant impact to the aesthetic value of the area. On the zone amendments, he stated that it talked about the fact that anything built in there should have natural colors, desert colors, desert materials, natural landscaping and he full heartedly agreed with that. He said they would probably end up eventually proposing something along those lines to keep this area looking as natural as much as possible. He was looking forward to a yes vote on this since the project fell within both the current zoning and Alternate A. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. TOM BANNON, the owner of property on Chapel Hill Road south of the proposed project, addressed the commission. As land owners, he asked if they had any say about whether there would be a wall along where his little house was shown or if he would have to look � into someone's yard. He said he didn't even know about this until last week and he's been there 25 years. He didn't buy his property to sell it. He just got his first social security check last week and he bought his land to finish his days there. So he didn't have an agenda except for a little peace. Chairperson Campbell explained that there was no building at the present time. Mr. Drell concurred and said the building would be subject to another hearing process. If and when there was an actual development proposal, it would be back before the commission and Mr. Bannon would be notified to have the opportunity to comment on the improvements. Mr. Bannon stated that he was speaking purely from a selfish standpoint. He has enjoyed living there for a long time and now everything was falling around him. Mr. Drell explained that this was private property that has been developable potentially since as long as Mr. Bannon has owned his property. Some other property owners have purchased property around them to prevent their development. And the City has purchased other properties as well to prevent �. 51 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 � � � their development, but didn't have the wherewithal to purchase all the properties. He suggested that Mr. Bannon engage in a dialog with Mr. Nelson in terms of what things he would like to see in terms of a potential development which would somewhat mitigate his concerns. Mr. Bannon said he didn't want to cause a scene, he just wanted some peace. Commissioner Jonathan stated that Mr. Bannon was entitled and it was appropriate for him to be concemed. This is a potential development that will impact him and his home. But the same way he had a right to build a home on his property, others have a right to build homes on their properties. What he could do, however, is control the outcome, which is what Mr. Drell was referring to. They were just there to approve the lot lines now. Mr. Bannon asked for clarification on his controlling the outcome and in what respect. Commissioner Jonathan explained that tonight they were just setting lot } lines. They were splitting the lots. Later on, the applicant if he chose, would r.r�i process an application to put homes there. If and when that happened, there would be a public hearing process and Mr. Bannon would have an opportunity to be involved either with the applicant, through this process or with staff to give his input as to what his needs where. For example, he asked if he would be looking into someone's backyard or vice versa. If that happened and he was opposed to that, he would have an opportunity to express that. That wasn't happening now, but if and when it happened in the future they would have an opportunity to give his input and opinion and affect the outcome. Mr. Bannon thanked the commission for their time. Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Tschopp stated that this application meets the current code and it meets Alternative A. Looking at the property it is relatively flat and is next to other developed areas, so he was in favor. He hoped the applicant looked at the Coachella Valley Water DistricYs letter in which it states that � � 52 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 +r.. the street is a District access road and not a public right-of-way. Hearing what he said, he couldn't believe lenders didn't have concerns when that popped up. Mr. Drell said it was likely as they see more and more parcels created in this area that the pressure to resolve the status of that road would mount and it was probably something they should deal with in the general plan amendment and state a policy as to how they were going to deal with that road. With that, Commissioner Tschopp said he would make a motion for approval. Commissioner Jonathan concurred. Commissioner Finerty stated that as a proponent of Alternative B, one unit per five acres, she was opposed to the application. Commissioner Lopez stated that he was in favor of the application. It was consistent with current ordinance and a potential Alternative A. Chairperson Campbell stated that she was also in favor of the application � and asked if there was a motion. Commissioner Tschopp said yes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the findings. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp,seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2188, approving TPM 31056, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). Mr. Drell pointed out that the resolution before the commission was a recommendation to the City Council, so if the commission wanted to approve it, they had to change it. He said the reason it was a recommendation was because they thought it would be attached to an ordinance amendment. If the commission was approving it based on the existing ordinance, then they wanted to make it an approval resolution. So the motions would be approval of the resolution as amended if that was their intent. Commissioner Tschopp said yes and amended his motion, Commissioner Lopez seconded the amendment. Chairperson Campbell called for the vote. The motion passed 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). �.. 53 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 The commission continued the discussion of Case No. ZOA 02-06. B. Case No. ZOA 02-06 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to the Hillside Planned Residential District, Chapter 25.15, as it relates to permitted density, limit of grading activity and other matters. (Commissioner Jonathan left the room) Mr. Drell said at the very least, the commission might want to continue this item for one month to allow staff to advertise a general plan amendment. Mr. Smith noted that the commission wasn't recommending approval of Alternative A or B. Mr. Drell explained that this amendment was initiated by the City Council, so the commission had to take some sort of action of either passing it on to them with some sort of a comment, but staff determined that the commission couldn't take any action on it. He said they could send it by minute motion up :, to Council to the extent that they feel it was not appropriate to consider it at this time and should defer it to consider with the Comprehensive General � Plan process. Upon hearing that, they could send commission more direction. He said there were various things that could happen. Commissioner Finerty noted that they could just make their comments tonight and send them off and wait for further direction. Mr. Drell concurred. He said they were hesitant to act on it in that it requires a general plan amendment, they were hesitant to act on it separate(y from the Comprehensive General Plan, and they would prefer to put this off and have a discussion. He said they would be interested in how the commission dealt with the cases before them tonight. But they would probably have to take some action since it was something they initiated. Chairperson Campbell asked if he wanted a minute motion relative to the alternative plan they were recommending. Mr. Drell said no and indicated if they wanted to move it on to Council in its entirety and let the Council make the appropriateness of the general plan issue their issue, then they would continue the matter for one month, do the notices on the general plan amendment, and then the commission would make a recommendation on it and move the whole thing on to them and let them deal with it and whether they wanted to hold up the general plan discussion until the Comprehensive � , .�i 54 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 �... General Plan. In any event it was a recommendation to Council. It was just that the commission couldn't officially act on the amendment and make the general plan consistency finding without also making an action on the general plan. Commissioner Tschopp asked if procedurally the commission could make a recommendation tonight on Alternative A to be recommended to the City Council. Mr. Drell said no, because they couldn't make the finding that it was consistent with the General Plan. Alternative A was at a Iower density than the lowest density specified in the current General Plan, therefore, under State law they couldn't down zone residential property below the minimum in the General Plan. So they had to be tied together. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the Planning Commission's resolution was absolutely necessary. He asked if they could pass it onto the Council as a minute motion with comments. Mr. Drell said that they could make the comment that this whole discussion should be put off. Both actions had to go together. It is a requirement that general plan amendments go before the commission. And it was also a requirement that zoning ordinance amendments go before the � commission. In this case, they couldn't act on the zoning ordinance amendment unless they've also acted on the general plan amendment. Chairperson Campbell suggested waiting until the public hearing on April 1, 2003. Mr. Drell said if they wanted to pass it on then, they could. There was no legal constraint on adopting a general plan amendment at this time. The City hasn't adopted a moratorium or instituted a moratorium which would preclude isolated amendments outside of the big process. They had looked at several over the last two years and acted on them. They were just getting closer to the culmination of that process. The consideration of a moratorium might be coming forward, but procedurally they could act on a general plan amendment and make their recommendation to the Council on both of these. But to do that they had to advertise it and come back in a month to do that. Commissioner Finerty said she would have preferred to have dealt with this amendment some time ago, so they would have had all their ducks in a row. She didn't like having to decide amendments based upon applications. She would rather set the course and then let the applications follow that set course. She thought it was really up to the Council as to whether or not they wanted to hold up the General Plan. She thought they should in some way, shape or form do what the Council asked them to do and if the commission r. 55 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 felt Altemate A was the direction to go, then she was understanding that they would have to continue it for a month and then require the general plan amendment. If the Council didn't like that action, they could call it up. Mr. Drell explained that it would go to them anyway. They could decide to defer action. Nothing compelled the City to amend anything. They could always defer action on both the ordinance amendment and the general plan until the comprehensive process. This was something the Council initiated and the commission would have given their opinion on the direction they should follow and move it up to them to follow it. Commissioner Finerty concurred. The Council initiated it, the Planning Commission should do their part and add their comments, and put it in their hands. Chairperson Campbell said they should continue it for a month and then make their recommendation on Alternatives A or B. Mr. Drell said the commission should also direct staff to come back with a general plan amendment. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner � Tschopp, by minute motion continuing Case No. ZOA 02-06 to April 1, 2003, and directed staff to prepare a general plan amendment. Motion carried 4-0- 1 (Commissioner Jonafhan abstained). Commissioner Lopez asked for clarification about the resolution in finding number two where it said the Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent with the adopted General Plan and affected specific plans. He asked if it was the adopted new General Plan or the currently adopted General Plan. Mr. Drell said that paragraph would have to be removed because it didn't mean anything until the new General Plan was actually adopted. Commissioner Lopez also noted that there was an Exhibit A, but he couldn't find Exhibit B until he realized Altemate A was Exhibit B. He thought that should be easier to identify. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Per Planning Commission direction on February 18, 2003, presentation of a resolution denying a request for a conditional use ; permit to allow an attached second unit on an R-1 zoned parcel � � 56 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 r.. located at 74-060 San Marino Circle. Case No. CUP 02-17, Jerry Beauvais, Applicant. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Fine�ty, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2189, denying Case No. CUP 02-17. Motion carried 5-0. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (February 19, 2003) Chairperson Campbell said that Council turned down the Cactus Patch that they looked at for the Fred Waring corridor. But they did consider dancers in the Civic Center park by the new amphitheater. � That item was put on hold until the amphitheater is constructed to evaluate if the dancers would go well with it. She also indicated that Mr. Twedt, the City's Art Director, requested approval of artwork called the Agave to be placed on the Fred Waring corridor and AIPP approved that. B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMM(TTEE - (No meeting) C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (February 25, 2003) Commissioner Finerty said it was an informationa! meeting. E. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) F. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) r... 57 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 � ;� � XI. COMMENTS Mr. Drell informed commission that the Council requested a subcommittee be created to include a member of the Architectural Commission, a member of the Planning Commission, and others, to discuss public art at city entrances. He said it would be a subcommittee of the AIPP. He noted that it was up to the Commission to appoint a member. He noted that Chairperson Campbell is the liaison to the committee. The meeting would be March 24 at 10:00 a.m. Commissioner Tschopp noted that since Chairperson Campbell was the AIPP representative, he would be in favor of having her participate on the subcommittee. Commissioner Jonathan said he would second that. The other commissioners concurred. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Chairperson Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:17 p.m. � �'�'' • � ---�-�'��.,..�.�� PHILIP DREL , Secretary ATTEST: , `� �-L, �..��,�-�--e ,-�SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm 58