Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0320 /�"'T""'`� MINUTES / �B�� � PALM DESERT P�ANNING COMMISSION : .�`�, TUESDAY - MARCH 20, 2007 < � � , � � � � , � � � � . � � � , � . � . � � � � � > � . � � , . , � � , , � . � � > � . � � � � � � � . � � . � . 1. CA�L TO ORDER Chairperson Campbeli calied the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. P�EDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Tanner led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CA�L Members Present: Sonia Campbeli, Chair Dave Tschopp, Vice Chair Connor Limont Mari Schmidt Van Tanner Members Rbsent: None Staff Present: Steve Smith, Acting Dir. of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Ryan Stendell, Assistant Planner Phil Joy, Associate Transportation Planner Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Request for consideration of the March 6, 2007 meeting minutes. Action: it was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, approving the March 6, 2007 meeting minutes. Motion carried 5-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCI� ACTION Mr. Smith summarized pertinent March 8, 2007 City Council actions. MINUTES PA�M DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20 2007 VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. Vil. CONSENT CA�ENDAR To avoid any possible conflict, Commissioner Schmidt stated that she wouid be abstaining on Item A and left the room. Mr. Smith noted that there were two items on the Consent Calendar. He suggested that Commission pull Item A; he understood tnat there were people in the audience who wished to speak with respect to it. He indicated they could handle Item B first and then come back to A; Commission concurred. B. Case No. PMW 07-07 - BRANDI PARIS AND CHARLES HAWKINS, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to aliow a lot line adjustment to allow a larger lot for property located at 74-550 Old Prospector Trail. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, approving Case No. PMW 07-07 by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Schmidt abstained). A. Case No. PM 31862 - GILCHRIST & RUTTER ON BEHA�F OF INDIAN SPRINGS, Applicant Request for approvai of a one-year time extension of a parcel map to establish a one-Iot subdivision with a condominium overlay at the 191-space Indian Springs Mobile Home Park located at 49-305 Highway 74 (APN 652-120-007). Mr. Smith indicated that Item A could be discussed now or at the end of the meeting under Miscellaneous. Chairperson Campbeil asked for staff's recommendation. Mr. Smith recommended taking care of it now. He said people wished to read some statements into the record. He also indicated that staff wanted to modify the recommendation on tne agenda. Code aliows for a maximum of an 18-month time extension. He suggested approving 18 months so that it is taken care of longer, rather than coming back in a year. 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20 2007 He confirmed that peopie in the audience couid be allowed to address the Commission, but it wasn't a public hearing. Chairperson Campbeil invited those wishing to address the Commission regarding this item to step forward. MRS. BETTE HEINZE, 49305 Highway 74 Unit 12 in Palm Desert, the President of the Association, addressed the Commission. She read a letter into the record (see Exhibit A attached hereto). MRS. MARGO IVERSON, Indian Springs Mobile Home Park No. 79, said that she personally did not have funds to move from Indian Springs Mobile Home Park; she's on fixed income. She noted that Mrs. Heinze mentioned the rents going up. Mrs. Iverson didn't know wnat she was going to do because she didn't have tne money to pay it. They couldn't sell their homes because of this conversion and/or a combination of that and the rent increase the owner was trying to enforce on them. They were in Iimbo. Staff suggested 18 months and that was 18 months of limbo. She didn't know what she was going to do. She thought the owner of this park should make a decision now, not six months down the line, not 18 months; it was tearing people apart in the park. There was no place for them to go. They couldn't move their homes; hers is from 1972. Even if she had $20,000 to move it, nobody would move it because it would fall apart. She couldn't sell hers because no one will buy because of this conversion going back and forth. They weren't even sure it was going to be approved and there might be this gigantic rent increase, so they couldn't sell their homes and they are just sitting on the market. One was sold, if she remembered correctly, in the Iast six months at half the asking price. What do they do? They couldn't go into low income housing because they own property and couldn't even appiy for it, so they were in this Iimbo of nothingness. She asked that Planning Commission not even extend it six months. Chairperson Campbell asked if any of the owners were present wishing to speak. There was no response. Mr. Nargreaves spoke up and acknowledged that the situation was a rather convoluted mess. He said there was really nothing the Planning Commission could do at this point to resolve it in any sense at all. The map extension was a formality. They are entitled to it. Anything else would complicate an already compiicated situation. He knew that the City and residents were doing aIi they could; they were dealing with a particularly difficult property owner and they were moving forward as they 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20 2007 could. His understanding was that most of the residents would like a conversion and this map is the one that facilitates the conversion. Assuming that they could somehow not extend it and have the map lapse, then they would go aIl the way back to square one rather than being at square five. There was reaiiy no purpose in denying the map extension at this point. They had to resolve the sewer issues and who wili pay it and they had the litigation out there, but his recommendation was that they not further complicate the situation by not extending the map. Whether it was extended a year or 18 months, if they extend it a year, they would just have to deal with it again in a year if it hadn't been resolved. At Ieast if they extended it 18 months they wouldn't have to have it before them again until 18 months; hopefully by that time this would �II be moving forward in a productive manner, but there was really nothing the Planning Commission could do one way or another that would materially affect the outcome except possibly make it more complicated. Chairperson Campbeil asked for and received confirmation that Mr. Hargreaves' recommendation was to approve an 18-month extension while litigation is taking place so things can be resoived. She asked for any Commission comments. Commissioner Tanner noted that in the information provided to them it said they wanted the record to reflect that on December 8 the State Department of Housing and Community Deveiopment (HCD), the ultimate authority, authorized and told the owners to put in a sewer system. He asked if the City had any authority to make this happen. It sounded Iike maybe a bit of a health hazard there. Mr. Hargreaves said there were a couple of difFerent issues. There was a dispute on the limits of the City's authority; HCD wasn't acting and so the City acted. The owner objected and he ended up winning in the trial court on that issue; basicaliy, the trial court found that it wasn't a City issue, it was an HCD issue and the HCD acted. He noted that there was another Iaw firm actually representing the City in the litigation and they are activeiy working with HCD to push NCD to be a Iittie more proactive in terms of enforcing their order. He understood that there were ongoing conversations at this point. Absent the City filing another lawsuit, this time suing the State Department of Housing and Community Deveiopment, there was little more the City could do to push that particuiar aspect of it. Half is in HCD's hands and they are kind of moving very slowly, and the other haif is in the courts' hands and that was moving even more slowly. When it came through the City's planning process, the map was approved subject to the condition that the sewer be instailed. That's a condition that was still on the map. By approving the extension of 4 MINUTES PALM QESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20 2007 the map, they were proionging that condition. dther than that, there wasn't much they could do. Commissioner Limont reiterated that if they did not extend it, they would be complicating it more; Mr. Hargreaves said that was correct, they would just be creating another piece of litigation. Commissioner Tschopp asked for clarification that no action the Commission would take would assist the home owners at this point in time. Mr. Hargreaves said that in his view extending the map actuaily assists in the resolution of this matter; it keeps alive the map that ultimately wili be the vehicle for the resolution. The map has the sewer condition embedded in it. There were no other comments and Chairperson Campbeil asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tscnopp, seconded by Commissioner Limont, approving an 18-month time extension for Case No. PM 31862. Motion carried 3-1-1 (Commissioner Tanner voted no, Commissioner SchmidY absfained). Commissioner Schmidt rejoined the meeting. VI11. PUBI.IC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any nearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone eise 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. PP 06-13 - MIRKO STARK AND EDMUND CELAYA, Applicants Request for approval of a precise plan of design to allow the construction of a 7,540 square foot auto repair building at 73- 731 Spyder Circle. Mr. Stendell reviewed the staff report. He said that staff received a Ietter from the property owner to the west expressing concern with the zero setback being proposed; their opinion was that the zero setback somewhat dictates what they might be able to do on their property and in the letter requested a continuance. Mr. Stendell stated that stafF was not concerned with the zero 5 MINUTES PA�M DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20 2007 setback; it is permissible in the zone and did not hinder the adjacent property in his opinion and he didn't see the need for a continuance. He said tne project complies with the standards in the zane, has a very nice Iook and coiar schems which should be a nice addition to the neighborhood, and recommended approval, subject to conditions. Commissioner Tschopp noted that there were severai other buiidings in the area with zero setbacks. He asked if there had been any problems. Mr. Stendell said no; he knew that there was one situation where the zero setback borders onto the adjacent property's parking lot. In most cases the developers want to develop the zero setbacks on the same side and share the zero setback; however, there is one instance that he was aware of where it could go either way. In his opinion it didn't hinder the future design of that property in any way. Commissioner Tschopp asked what wouid be at the south elevation. W hen 35th develops out, he assumed this building would be seen from the back end of 35tn and he couldn't teil from the drawings if there would be a wail back there or whether there would be additional Iandscaping. Mr. Stendell said that staff and Pubiic Works piaced a condition that says that no grading pian along 35tn be approved until a continuous wali plan nas been designed. He said there would be about 15 feet to the street where they would have a sidewalk and landscaped area that has been conditioned to be maintained and installed by the property owner. The wail would be a minimum five-foot slump stone wall with a pilaster column at every property Iine since they are fairly regular and there should be a regular column at about every property line corner. He corrected himself that it was conditioned at six feet to be continuous ali the way across. There would be a six-foot wali, iandscaping, a sidewalk, and then tne street. Since this is a service i�dustrial type of buiiding, Commissioner Tschopp asked if there would be some type of landscaping, trees and foliage to break it up. Mr. Stendell said yes, the landscape plan and comments were given back to the applicant from the Landscape Department. There were several comments, but he thought the elevation from 35th would be a nice elevation with good colors and nice landscaping and would be set back such that it would not be extremely close. Chairperson Campbeii opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. HAMID SHENASI, 24735 Forest Drive in Idyliwild, came forward. 6 n�iNUTEs PALM DESERT PL.ANNING CQMMISSION MARCH 20 2007 Chairperson Campbell asked if Mr. Shenasi had anything to add to the staff report. Mr. Shenasi tnanked Mr. Stendell and the Planning Department for their help and cooperation in making this project happen. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project. MR. PUZANT ZORAYAN, 1 Plymouth in Irvine, California, said he was the owner of the adjacent property and a Ietter was faxed to Mr. Stendell this afternoon requesting a continuance. He said they hadn't had enough notice to be abie to sufficiently review the complications from this project to their own plans, especiaily with the aspect of the zero setback. It would have a zero setback on the west side, which would be their Lot 19. They received the notice of the hearing two or three days ago and their counsel advised them to request a two or three-week continuance. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the application. There was no one and the pubiic hearing was ciosed. Chairperson Campbell asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Schmidt asked staff for the zoning of the adjacent Iot, l ot 19. Mr. Stendell said it is also Service Industrial. Commissioner Schmidt asked if staff knew the pians for that lot. Mr. Stendell said no. Referring to the map, he said there were currently proposals for Lots 16, 18, 21 and 22. Ne pointed out the Iocation of Lot 19. Commissioner Tschopp noted that it is in a service industriai area and the code allows zero setbacks. When someone buys in the service industrial area or any area with code on it, it is incumbent upon the buyer to be aware of the codes and what the worst case scenario could be under the codes. The applicant tonight was building within his rights and it looked like a fine building. He was in favor of the project going forward and encouraged the applicant to meet with the adjacent property owner and hopefully discuss his concerns. The applicanYs building met the code and he thought it would be a fine building. Commissioner Tanner concurred. Ne said it meets the requirements and he wouid aiso vote to accept the project. He asked the applicant to meet and maybe soften the western view if there was some way they couid work together to do that. But ne was in favor. 7 MINUTES PA�M DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20 2007 Commissioner Limont agreed with the other commissioners. She liked the building, thought it was well done and falis within the guidelines, but noted they would also want to have good neighbor relationships. Chairperson Campbeil also concurred. She thought it would be a beautiful building. The setbacks met the service industrial code and people should know the codes before they buy. She asked if there was a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, adopting Pianning Commission Resolution No. 243�approving Case No. PP 06-13, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case No. PP 07-03 -PRESTNUKSIC ARCHITECTS FOR BOB AND MARILYN FORD, Applicants Request for a recommendation of approval to the City Council of a precise plan of design to ailow construction of a 2,486 square foot two-story professional office buiiding with a 30-foot tower element at 73-141 Fred Waring Drive. Mr. Smith reviewed the staff report and recommended that Pianning Commission recommend to City Council approval of Case No. PP 07-03, subject to the proposed conditions. He noted that the applicant brought to his attention just prior to the meeting a couple of concerns with respect to Fire Department Conditions 12 and 17 on page 7 of the draft resoiution; the appiicant needed to clarify them with the Fire Department. Mr. Smith's recommendation was that both of those conditions be imposed as stated or subject to whatever the applicant works out with the Fire Department. if the two cannot come to a satisfactory resolution, then tne matter would end up back at Planning Commission. At this point, he recommended that the matter be placed in the hands of the appiicant and Fire Department to work out. Commissioner Tanner asked if there were any other buildings with 30-foot tower heights along there within half a mile of each other or roof lines at 30- feet on Fred Waring. Mr. Smith said no, not that he could recall. He said they threw away the pattern after the Culturai Center was built across the street. He guessed that the buiiding at the corner with the parking underneath was right at the 25-foot limit. Along the Monterey side there are a number of two- 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20 2007 story buildings at the 25-foot Iimit, but off the top of his head he didn't recall tower eiements. Commissioner Tanner asked if the height limit along Fred Waring was consistent with 26 feet, two-stories. Mr. Smith answered two-stories, definitely; the height limit in the zone is 25, however, towers fall under an exceptions provision conceivably allowing up to 50 feet. The proposai is for 26 and 30 feet. Commissioner Schmidt noted on the grading pian that there was an old electric company, California Electric Power Company, easement that would be deeded over to the property owner and she asked if that was of no value or use any Ionger. Mr. Smith said they needed to make that go away and that would be accompiished as part of the mapping/grading permit. Commissioner Schmidt inquired about the amount of space between the dental building and the proposed building. Mr. Smith said it was probably one inch. They were both built with a zero iot line. Chairperson Campbell o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. DAVID PREST, Prest Vuksic Architects, 44530 San Pablo in Paim Desert, came forward. He said he didn't have anything to add. Ne thought Steve gave a good presentation. He informed Commission that he met with the Fire Marshal at the onset of this project. Initially they tried to get access from their neighbor, the dentist, and probably would have done something different in the front with that access. His recoilection with the Fire Department discussions was that if they couid somehow punch a hole in that wall to get a person through it, not a fire truck, that might soive that problem. Also, the 12-foot height was impossible. It was his understanding that they couid fight the fire from the front of the buiiding or from the neighbor's parking lot. That was his recollection from when he met with the Fire Marshal. Otherwise, everything else was good. On the one side, the dentisYs office is at zero lot line, but they were actually three or four inches away from the property Iine and the other side was open to a parking Iot. He said the easement is in the process of being removed to refiect what was shown on the plans. Commissioner Tschopp asked Mr. Prest if the Fire Department held firm on the conditions of approval, if the conditions would be insurmountabie. 9 MINUTES PA�M DESERT PI.ANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20 2007 Mr. Prest said with the 12-feet absolutely because right now they oniy have ten feet. From the first floor to the second floor is 12 feet. That was tne maximum they couid use for the second floor because of the 25-foot height restriction. So they only have ten feet for sure clear, maybe a little more, but their ceiling height underneath the drive-thru is ten feet plus a few inches. He said it would be impossible to do a two-story building with a drive underneath at 12 feet. It was impossibie to make that work. They would have to be granted access from the neighbor to be able to get access to this property and that was the neighbor's wall they would have to go through. The ownsr talked with the neighbor and they were not interested in granting any access. Mr. Prest noted that it is a pretty smail building at 2,400 square feet, and it seemed to him the Fire Department could fight a fire there pretty easily and they could certainiy get underneath it. The whole lot is only 112 feet deep and the building was quite a bit less than that, so it was a smail area. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the size of the lot was driving the design of the building. Mr. Prest said yes, absoiutely. Commissioner l.imont asked if there was anything housed in the upper part of the tower. Mr. Prest said no, it was empty, and there was no equipment on the roof. He confirmed it was for aesthetics only. There were no other questions for the applicant. Chairperson Campbeli asked for any testimony in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the application. There was no response and the pubiic hearing was ciosed. She asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Schmidt thought it was a stunning buiiding. She said it was an interesting approach, but there was a tower at 30 feet. She personally felt that the buiiding didn't carry at all without that architectural feature, so she was really torn. She would prefer to see it go away or be at 25 feet, but acknowledged that in ail reality it couldn't because of the clearance needed to drive under and was at the minimum now. Commissioner �imont agreed. She thought the building was terrific and recognized the difficuities to try and fit something onto a smali Iot and make 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20 2007 it not only look nice, but aiso be functional. But the tower flies in the face of what they are trying to do in Paim Desert and that is to maintain iow architecture and heights. She Ioved the building, but agreed that without the tower, the architectural design was diminished. With the tower, she was not in favor of the building at that height. Commissioner Tschopp indicated that Prest Vuksic Architects has done a fantastic job on alI their buildings they have put up and is one of Palm Desert's premier architecturai firms. He Iooked at the design and it was difficult in his mind to picture that over there, but he thought it would probably fit in well. The tower element didn't bother nim because again, that was why the code was given the authority to put in some different elements into a design in order to make the rest of the building look desirable. When dealing with a smali Iot, they needed to do something to make it work and that's where the architects were exceeding the height limitation to put in a design element that is permittabie by code. Nis concern was with the Fire Department, because the 12-foot limitation and the other access wouid make the whole building be redesigned. He didn't know if it wouid go forward, and if there was going to be any major changes to it, it would nave to come back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Tanner stated that there are other eiements along Fred Waring that do exceed that height, but they were also off of the "beaten track." It was unfortunate, but this building would be in a more prominent location. He was in favor of allowing the building to go forward as presented. He was a little concerned with the 30-foot tower, but at the same time it was a very small eiement. it wasn't the entire roof Iine. Along with Commissioner Tschopp, he was aiso concerned that the Fire Department would not ailow this building to be buiit simply because they couldn't get access to it. He was in favor of recommending to City Council approval, but thought it was really in the hands of the Fire Department and designers to either approve or not approve that minimum requirement. Commissioner Campbeil stated that she was very much in favor of the building. Even thougn Mr. Smith stated that everything along Fred Waring is uniform at 25 feet, she thought they needed to have a break in the existing architecture and this is a very well designed building. They've never had any problems with these architects and have had nothing but praise for them. For Conditions 12 and 17 that Mr. Smith mentioned, they couid go ahead and have the architect work it out with the Fire Department to see what could be done, or indude Conditians 12 and 17 in their motion. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20 2007 Action: Commissioner Tanner made a motion that they accept the building with the conditions and that the building owners work with the Fire Department to get those two issues worked out. Chairperson Campbell asked for clarification that the motion inciuded approving the building. Commissioner Tanner said yes. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Tschopp. Motion carried 3-2 with Commissioners �imont and Schmidt voting no. It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2438 recommending to City Council approvai of Case No. PP 07-03, subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-2 with Commissioners Limont and Schmidt voting no. Mr. Smitn stated that the meeting beiween the appiicantslowners and the Fire Department would take place prior to City Council public hearing and those two issues would be resoived. C. Case No. ZOA 07-01 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for a recommendation of approval to the City Council of an amendment to Chapter 25.15 Hillside Planned Residential District and Chapter 25.86 Public Hearings. Mr. Stendell reviewed the staff report, pointing out the additions and changes that had been made since the last meeting. He said there was correspondence on the matter and copies received within the Iast few days had also been distributed to Commission. Some letters were in favor and some felt it would devalue their properties. Mr. Stendell expiained that development standards weren t being changed; owners were still entitled to a 10,000 square foot pad, 3,000 square feet of access road and a 4,000 square foot house. They were just insuring now that no more ridge-top developments were being created. Commissioner Schmidt asked for the definition of "that roof Iines do not create a negative visual impact on the city'; she asked what that meant to staff. Mr. Smith replied that it means that the goal is that rooflines wili not be visible above ridge lines a�d if from some vantage points they happen to be visible, they are not at a point where they become an adverse impact on that view. Commissioner Schmidt asked Mr. Stendell the same question. He replied that his definition was very similar. As Mr. Tschopp pointed out to him at the iast meeting, it was very hard to say it wouidn't be seen depending on 12 MINUTES PA�M DESERT PLANNIN6 COMMISSION MARCH 20 2007 the vantage point. He noted that this was the purpose section of the code where they are stating their goais and policies. Even discussing it with legal counsel, it became very difficult to state what they had in the last draft. If the Commission wished, it could be massaged a Iittle bit to possibiy get more of the intent of the relationship between the roof of a home and the ridge of a mountain. They didn't want to create somsthing in the ordinance that was impossible. Commissioner Schmidt read the information three or four times and the impression she was left with was that they can't have a roof above the ridgeline, but if they do, it shouldn't create a negative impact. That was how she was interpreting that sentence. So it was contradictory and too vague for her. The whoie purpose in reviewing this is to tighten it up and it seemed they were floundering. Tnat was the impression. Mr. Stendeil said he could work on that statement with Iegal counsel if it was too vague. Commissioner Limont said there are slopes, and a good example is going down Highway 74; in one spot it will be seen and in another it won't. She said maybe they could take into consideration tne elevations, because it would be difficuit even if they go below the ridge lines and on three sides it can't be seen, but maybe from one spot it couid. If it said no ridge lines, it would render it impossible to build because a person could argue depending on where they were standing. Mr. Stendell said that was correct; their intent was to leave the negative visual impact determination on the city up to the Commissions and Council. Commissioner Tanner said included in the city are the neighbors who were also involved. He thought this provided a good guideiine to them and Architectural Review. It added teeth to the prior one and protected visual impact to the city and surrounding neighbors. They were talking about increasing the notification and this is what is going to appear. If there is any kind of a negative impact on the city, and they were talking about all of the city, not just Palm Desert; it was all involved. For nim it added teeth and he was comfortable with the wording. It gave them an opportunity to say it wili give a negative impact on the city and its inhabitants, whether they are next door neighbors or on Interstate 10. Commissioner Schmidt thought perhaps the way to address this wouid be to not have the sentences ail in one paragraph. The first sentence was very strong and ciearly states our intent; don't do it. Then they were giving some sort of out depending on who objects and then it was very subjective from that point on. She suggested Iabeiing the two sentences D-1 and D-2. She thought that might help. But she would love to know a clearer definition of 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT P�ANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20 2007 what negative impact is because to her it might mean one thing and to someone eise quite another. Commissioner Tanner agreed. Commissioner Tschopp thought setting up the D-1 and D-2 was a good idea. With the topography and view angles which are impossible to define and the D-2 statement giving a lot of discretion, it also gives the applicant(builder a lot of warning that they better design something that isn't going to have a negative impact on the city and better not be sitting above the ridgeling for the most part. It gives them some discretion and is a good statement. He thought separating them was a good idea. Commissioner Tschopp brought up the issue of the 4,000 square foot notice. He liked what Mr. Stendell had done; it gave some reasoning and thought behind doing it, but he thought of the old adage that if you are standing next to something you can't design it, you have to stand back to realiy see it. Because they were dealing with something that is seen by the rest of the city, he asked if it would be a big problem to have it also noticed in the paper, not as a legal notice, but as a general notice so that other citizens who might not be within the noticed area might get an idea of what's going on in the hillside. Mr. Stendell said right now it goes into the newspaper as a legal notice. He didn't know how to notice it in the paper any other way. He asked Mr. Smith if any other noticing had been done historically. Mr. Smith repiied not on an individual property application basis. When the general plan went through, display ads and the like were placed. He was talking about the General Plan Update, not individual general plan amendments. Mr. Hargreaves explained that State Iaw establishes certain minimums, but the City could require whatever it thought was appropriate, as long as it was reasonabiy legal. Mr. Smith said if they wanted to say a display ad was needed, they could. CommissionerTschopp didn't think that would be necessary. He thought with the way they were ciarifying it now, the new code would take care of the problems of seeing something from interstate 10. He was comfortable with what had been done and thought staff gave it a Iot of thought and it appeared they didn't think it was necessary. Commissioner Tanner feit there could be representation with the Desert Sun. The originai pian would go through Architectural Review and if there's any indication there's an issue, it would get printed in the paper and maybe that, along with U.S. mail would be enough of a notification to get people to the meeting to teil them if something is or isn't satisfactory. Mr. Stendeil stated that he was very comfortable with the 4,000 square feet and the homeowner's association notification. He thought that would get the word out to a massive number of peopie. He noted that Palm Desert is a small town 14 MINUTES PA�M DESERT P�ANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20 2007 and word usually spreads like wildfire. That was the intent of the noticing. He was comfortable with the level of noticing proposed. Commissioner Schmidt asked Mr. Stendell to show them how far 4,000 feet was on the map. Mr. Stendell explained that there are two areas of Hiliside Planned Residential zone; one being the Canyons of Bighorn and the other being west of the storm channel. Commissioner Schmidt asked to see the distance that wouid still notify ironwood. Mr. Stendeil pointed it out. There were no other questions for staff and Chairperson Campbeli o ened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this application. Referring to the Request to 5peak cards that had been submitted, she invited Mr. David Nelson to address the Commission. MR. DAVID NELSON, 72595 Beavertail in Palm Desert, informed Commission that he has five acres on Upper Way West up in the hills that he bought and struggled through with the general plan update process. He wanted to build a nouse up there and had started the pians. Now he was struggiing through another zone change around him. He said his property is basically ail ridge line, but he was trying to work something out with the City where they could build a Iittie more into the canyon. Wnen taiking about ridge lines and not being above a ridge line, he noted that the ridge iine is not a horizontal line, iYs at an angle. So if he is below it or next to it, he wouid be above it further down the hiil a Iittle bit. So it had to open up to the city somewhere, some way, some place. It was not in a bowl. By doing this, they were saying he has to build in a bowl which was impossible because there were no bowls up there. He bought his property to build a home for he and his wife and it just seemed like they kept getting down zoned and down zoned. He thought the Hagadone house was ridiculous and thought the City might have a knee-jerk reaction, but after such a big house was built that the City didn't have to approve, they nad been telling him that they don't want big houses up there and at the same time approved that. But he hated to see it being micro managed. They couldn't have it below the ridge Iine because the ridge line goes aII the way to the floor, so that didn't make sense to him. But he said he was trying to work with the City and was working on a property swap with a piece 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20 2007 of property the City might have where he could build down more in a canyon, but it wouid open up to somebody somewhere. He liked the fact that it was changed so it couldn't be above the ridge Iine, but there is some common sense to it. That was all he asked. He got worried when they kept trying to make zoning so tight on something in the hillside that is next to impossible to do because every iot is so different up there. Those were his comments and he said he appreciated their time. MR. RICHARD FROMME, 48625 Paisano Road in Palm Desert, said he Iives in the County, b�t owns two five-acre pieces down by the water tank. He has been a valley resident since 1965. He believed these proposed restrictions being placed on the property owners of the Palm Desert Cahuilla Hills properties was nothing but a response to the uproar from the Hagadone project in the Canyons at Bighorn. It seemed very unfairfor these property owners to be restricted by this for this reason. The responsibility for the Hagadone property belongs to the City that issued the permit to build the house, not the rest of the property owners who happen to have property on the hiilside. He thought the restrictions being piaced on hillside properties by Palm Desert would have significant effect on their value. The property on Upper Way West was Iisted for$1,295,000 on a 04/28l06 CMS report he had in his possession that he thought he furnished a copy to the Planning Department that morning. It was sold for $276,500 in December of 2006. The assessed vaiue of the property was $882,300 at that time. Ne understood the reason for the low price with restrictions placed on the property by the seiler to insure privacy. These restrictions were simiiar to the ones proposed by this ordinance. He stated that Canuilla Hills property owners should be paid for this decrease in value and the owners of ridge iine lots that are unbuildable should be paid the entire value of their property. Mr. Fromme understood that the City is purchasing property in the hills and it seemed to him that this ordinance would be a good way to purchase the property that the City wants at a devalued price. He hoped this was not the case. Notifying everyone within 4,000 feet by mail is expensive and he thought unnecessary. If this is the new criterion, then it should be same for everyone, even the properties on the flat parcels beiow. It was much prettier for the Cahuilla NiIIs residents when they couid see 16 MINUTES PA�M DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20 2007 the wild flowers and sand dunes instead of houses. Shouldn't they be allowed the same courtesy with publishing the project in the newspaper? Mr. Fromme aiso thought there were some confiicts on the City Council concerning the hillside plan and voting on this shouid not be aliowed by those Council people invoived. The federal government allowed the hilis to be homesteaded so people wouid build and settle on the property they homesteaded. He realized now that the federal government defers to the Iocal government to administer deveiopment, and rightfuliy so, but he felt that intent should be considered also. He asked when they considered a building abandoned. He asked what constituted abandonment. It was aiso stated that this pian serves the public health and safety of the community and he didn't understand how it had anything to do with the health and safety of the community. He commended Mr. Stendeil; he said he has a real grasp of the problems in developing the Cahuilla Hills. He said he spoke with Mr. Stendeil at Iength the day before and he thought he was a good man to have doing this job. He beiieved that he would be fair if allowed to do things and make decisions that would be fair to everyone around. He thanked them. MR. LAWRENCE SUTTER, 49220 Quercus Lane, said he is the President of the Ironwood Master Association that represents 1,050 homes. They followed this process over the last year and he filed a Ietter yesterday, which he assumed they had before them so he wouldn't repeat what he said except to say that he thought the wording choices recognized in the Iine-of-sight issue, in fact aIl the changes recommended by the Planning staff, they really supported. They thought it made a lot of sense. The big issue for tnem in the past with Hagadone was not being notified. They Iearned about it when they got up one morning to see a crane on the hill. He really liked the line-of-sight pius 1,000-foot idea, but as he thought about it, it got complicated and he thought Mr. 5tendeli's recommendation of 4,OOQ feet was fine. They were also comfortable with the wording talked about earlier. In terms of prohibiting deveiopment and saying absoiutely nothing could be built, that wouldn't make sense either, so they support the 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT P�ANNING CQMMISSION MARCH 20 2007 wording as it stands. They were appreciative of the Planning Commission and Council working hard to improve this ordinance. He also thanked Ryan Stendell. He thought the map was a great tool and if they had the map before or this kind of tool with the noticing, then they wouldn't nave experienced what they had gane through in the past year. Ne encouraged the Commission to vote yes and supported it strongly. MRS. GIGI MCCORMICK, 29220 Via Las Palmas in Thousand Palms, said that she and her husband have owned a piece of property in the hiliside for 21 years. She said they were working class people who had a dream to buiid a home. She said they weren't rich people, just working class people, and she understood the ridge Iine; they have the highest peak up there. Their property, like some of the other properties, is mostly ridge iine. She said she could live with the map being proposed, but her question was on development on or across ridges being prohibited. If they Iooked at their parcel, access to their parcel has to be across a ridge line. Coachelia Vailey Water has an access road to their property and she was wondering if that meant they couldn't cross a ridge iine to get to their property. Is the road no longer accessible to them? Or to Coacheila Valley Water? She had a Ietter from the water district showing that a meter has been there since 1986 and they have been paying their water bill. That was ali she had to say. There was no one else wishing to speak. Chairperson Campbeli asked if Mr. Stendell had any other comments. Regarding Mrs. McCormick's questions, Mr. Stendell said it was uncertain at this point; the access road is there and they have talked about it. He thought it wasn't visually seen from the city because it was behind an existing ridge which blocks it. He said there were no guarantees in this ordinance, but the wording allowed staff, the Commissions and Council to make the determination of a negative impact. If there is no negative impact or it was very minimal and they didn't see it and they have a very responsibly done hillside home, staff would recommend approval and it would hopefuliy gain approval from the Commissions and Council as weil. They were looking at responsibly done, weil-designed architecture that does not happen on the ridge lines. Commissioner Tschopp asked if Mr. Stendell would comment on Mr. Nelson's comments when they have a parcei that is primarily ridge lines. Mr. Stendell said Mr. Nelson's lot is extremely difficult to develop. He said it was 18 MINUTES PA�M DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20 2007 a good exampie of an interesting Iot to develop to say the least. Mr. Nelson has a major canyon running through his property and it is completeiy ridges. It was an example where they have an extremely difficult case, if ever, of being deveioped. To Mr. Nelson's benefit, the City owns some property and if they can flip a property line, that could create a nice place to put a home with the least amount of visual impact. That couid work out to everyone s advantage; however, if that was to never happen, he'd be stuck with the very hard task of deveioping an extremely steep ridge iot. So any deveiopment that couid occur would have to be very creatively and well thought out. That was par for the course when dealing with hiliside lots. Commissioner Tanner asked for and received clarification that Mr. Fromme has two five-acre pieces of property and their location. He noted that he would also have some valleys and peaks to deal with. Mr. Fromme said he already has an approved pad. Mr. Stendell noted that there was also an oId concrete pad from a homestead home with an existing access road. He had been out to that site and it is fairly low and he thought spots on those properties could be found for development. Commissioner Tschopp asked how they would balance the needs of the property owners. They obviously have property owners who have been holding land for a Iong time with dreams of building homes up there and to Ieave it so vague; he didn't like that. Mr. Stendell said that the existing exceptions section is still intact. They can always ask. Whether it would be approved or not was another story. Second, at the first discussion relative to this proposed amendment at City Council, it was kind of the impression that if development was going to be restricted to the point where it couldn't be developed, the City should consider taking on those properties. Their intent wasn't to do that; they are still aliowing them their 10,000 square foot pad, their 4,000 square foot house. Their intention is to increase the noticing and to insure that nothing gets stuck on top of a ridge line. He didn't think that killed anyone's chances of developing their dream home. He noted there are many creative hillside developers in this town that couid create something almost anywhere. If they were ever to restrict someone to the point where they couldn't ever develop it, they would have to see what wouid happen with our Iegal counsel. Mr. Hargreaves said that if it was restricted to the extent that it couldn't feasibly be built on, then the City would have to buy it. Commissioner Schmidt asked for discussion on the testimony regarding the access road. She asked Mr. Hargreaves if access could be denied to a propertylproperty owner. Mr. Hargreaves said no; if a property has access and the City somehow messes it up, then the City has a certain Iiability there. That didn't mean that the City had to guarantee access to every piece of 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARGH 20 2007 property; some properties are inherently difficult to access. There was kind of a give and take there. His understanding is that when those lots were homesteaded, there were access easements aiong the boundaries. If they tried to put a road on those boundaries, there would be some extremeiy difficult access issues. Commissioner Schmidt said it was truly a case by case situation. Mr. Hargreaves concurred and said the City has a poiicy to work with every property owner to find out some way to make it feasible. But if a piece of property is inherentiy undevelopabie because of access issues or other issues, they didn't have an obligation to make it developable. Commissioner Tanner noted that Mr. Stendell mentioned an exceptions section. Mr. Stendell clarified that in the existing Hillside Planned Residentiai zone there is an exceptions section. He explained that it says that the standards of the Hillside Planned Residential zone can be modified based on several criteria as listed on page five of the current Hillside Planned Residential zone. The standards shail be required unless modified by a precise plan of design, taking into consideration aIl circumstances, inciuding, but not limited to, viewshed, topography, color, texture, and profile of any structure that the Planning Commission or City Council may determine to be in conformity with the purposes set forth in Section 25.15.010. He said that wouid leave the ability to take a lot that may have something iike a road that crosses a ridge that they have identified as being prohibited, if it is responsibly done and the Commission and Council feel it is acceptable, an exception could be granted and they have granted some in the past. It is there if it is needed. Commissioner Schmidt said it wouid never be her intent to deny someone access to their property. She didn't want them to misunderstand that and was glad they cleared that up a bit. Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Tannerthought there had been some great discussion on this hiilside exhibit in front of them. He liked the suggested change to the Draft Resolution Exhibit B under Section 25.15.010 (Purpose) separating the two sentences as D-1 and D-2 and there was an understanding that there are exceptions to these provisions. They wouid go before Architectural Review and then to Planning Commission. They were trying to Iearn from what has been done in the past and they didn't want to create any more of an eyesore nuisance than what they have right now. Ne liked what was presented by Mr. Stendell, but it needed a little bit of work. He was in favor of approval at what they were Iooking at with those couple of exceptions. 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING CdMMISSION MARCH 20 2007 Commissioner Limont agreed with Commissioner Tanner. She thought it was a great start. SI�e thought a couple of things needed adjustment and the reality is that no matter what they do, they will get challenged at some point. The nice thing about it is that it's a step in the right direction about being very clear on what they are looking for and that will save residents, architects, and a lot of time for staff. She agreed with the approval, subject to a couple of adjustments as mentioned. Commissioner Schmidt added that Riverside County is also wrestling with their hiliside ordinances and her feeling is that they are sort of looking this direction to see what Palm Desert is doing. The County has a larger area to deal with and worry about. She thought it was interesting to see them wanting to put some sort of Ianguage together that eliminates some of the intense building that has gone on some beautiful ridge lines in Riverside County--all over the county. She agreed that as long as they try to find a definition for negative visual impact, she too wouid be in favor of what was before them. Commissioner Tschopp complimented Mr. Stendell for doing a good job. He noted that it wasn't easy and there was no way to put into words to bring it ali together to be any clearer than it is now. it was incumbent upon future Commissions and the Council to make sure the intent is kept, but he feit it was a good hillside ordinance and he was sad it wasn't in place a Iittle bit sooner. Chairperson Campbell was aiso in favor and said that Mr. Stendell had done a very good job. The Planning Commission would be reviewing aIi proposals as well as Architectural Review; if someone wasn't happy, it would go to Council anyway. But it was a great beginning and she was in favor of proceeding with it. Commissioner Tanner clarified that the intent wasn't to prohibit anyone from building, the intent is to protect the integrity of Paim Oesert. People would still be coming before the Planning Commission with their proposals. With proper plans, hopefuily it would be accepted. But it wouid be within the guidelines being set forth. This wouid also go to Council with their changes. They weren't trying to eliminate building, they were just trying to make sure that it doesn't infringe on anyone's sight lines and helped keep the hiils beautiful. Commissioner Schmidt asked if the radius map and exhibits were referenced in the ordinance anywhere. Mr. Stendell said the radius map with the bulis eye was for demonstration purposes only; the more important map with the 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT P�ANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20 2007 identified ridges was attached and Iabeled Hiliside Planned Residential Zone Ridges and it was an exhibit tied to the ordinance. Commissioner Schmidt said that if someone wanted to see what 4,000 feet would be, they wouid ask staff. Mr. Stendell concurred that staff had the ability to provide that information for each individual parcel. Each application would be different and an applicant at the time of submittal wouid provide the 4,000 square foot radius as prepared by a title company. There were no other questions and Chairperson Campbell asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2439 recommending to City Council approval of Case No. ZOA 07-01 with the changes as identified to D-1 and D-2. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCEL�ANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIG P�ACES Chairperson Campbell indicated that the next meeting would be March 21, 2007. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE Commissioner Limont reported that the next meeting would be March 21, 2007. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner Limont reviewed the issues discussed. 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20 2007 D. PARKS & RECREATION Commissioner Tanner reported on that morning's discussion items and actions. XI. COMMENTS 1. Commissioner Tschopp noted that there was a meeting with the Oien Properties after the last Pianning Commission meeting and he requested an update and asked if progress was being made. Mr. Smith said not really. Other development options were being evaivated. In all Iikelihood, they would be requesting another continuance. 2. Chairperson Campbell thanked Mr. Smith for his years of service, not just to the City, but to her personally being involved in the City in different sections. He had been very heipful and she would personally miss him very much. Commissioner Tanner said everyone would. Mr. Smith said he sometimes wondered if he was ever going to get to this night. At dinner he did some calculations and he attended approximateiy 517 meetings over the past 26 years, estimating he missed four or five a year. Ne said it has been a pleasure to work with the various members of Planning Commission along the way. He thanked the current five members and the past Planning Commissioners he had worked with along the way. He said at the next meeting �auri Ayiaian would be sitting there and along with Ryan and Tony, he knew aii of them would do whatever it took to help the Planning Commission to reach the proper decisions; they saw it happen tonight with the hillside ordinance Ianguage. Tneyjust needed to give staff some direction and something to come back with and they would get it back the way they wanted it. He hoped those three would be joined by some other staff members in the not too distant future because in his opinion they were going to need the help. Ne said there would be a retirement party; he didn't know the date yet, but he wouid make sure they aIl received invitation. He thanked them all for their assistance. Chairperson Campbell thanked Mr. Smith for everything all these years and welcomed Lauri Aylaia� to their next meeting. 23 MINUTES PA�M DE3ERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARGH 20 2007 XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner�imont, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjoumed at 7:53 p.m. / �, ST��TH�cti" ng S�cre ry ATTEST. ONIA M. CAMPBE�ha�� Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm 24