Loading...
PCMIN 06 09 1998 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA June 9, 1998 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:04 P.M. by Chairman Butler who asked Commissioner Abels t° lead the flag salute. B. Chairman Butler requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler, and Chairman Butler. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Seaton/Abels.to excuse Commissioner Gardner. Unanimously approved. Commissioner Woodard arrived at 7:10 C. Staffpresent: Community DeVelopment Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn _ Honeywell, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Chairman Butler asked, if there were any changes to the Minutes of May 26, 1998. Commissioner Kirk asked that Page 3, Item 8 be corrected to read, "Commissioner Kirk stated that recreational amenities often become a phase of their own and are not developed before the homes." Commissioner Tyler asked Page 10 be corrected to read, "Commissioner Tyler asked to make a statement regarding his editing of tract maps. These maps become legal documents. Even though some Commissioners may feel it is unnecessary to note every item that is wrong on the map, it is his belief that it is a duty of the Commission to make these changes. Applicants hire professional engineers to prepare the plans and they should be correct when presented to the Council/Commission." There being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Seaton to approve the minutes as corrected. -- Unanimously approved. B. Department Report: None C :XaMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc6-9-98.wpd 1 Planning Commission Meeting June 9, 1998 V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. General Plan Amendment 98-056 and Zoning Code Amendment 97-057; a request of the City to amend the Zoning Code Chapter 9.140-Hillside Conservation regulations, and the General Plan Land Use and Environmental Conservation Elements regarding Hillside Development Density Transfers. 1. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Kirk asked Senior Engineer Steve Speer if he had the examples for presentation to the Commission. Senior Engineer Steve Speer gave an example of how to determine the toe of slope on the site located along Washington Street between the St. Francis of Assisi Church and the Laguna de la Paz development, where a lot line adjustment had recently been completed. The owners of the property had asked the City to make a determination between the developable and undevelopable land. The determination he came up with was based on a line that defined where the gradient was greater than 20 percent and that area that is less than 20 percent. They ignored the sand areas as they do not count in the Hillside Conservation Area. He then explained the computer generated analysis superimposed on a photograph of the site that had been prepared site to determine the two areas. He then explained this was one method that was being proposed in the new ordinance for determining the toe of slope. The other hand method is more complicated and Would be used on smaller parcels of land. 3. Commissioner Kirk asked if in situations where sand build up is against the toe of slope, and the sand was removed from the toe of slope, does the toe of slope change to the new elevation or is it where the sand previously met the toe of slope. Staff stated that if the sand is pulled away after the analysis, the property owner is not penalized, but will be required to prepare a new analysis. Commissioner Kirk asked hoTM high the sand dunes were against the slopes. Staff stated it varies, but might be as much as 40-feet. Commissioner Kirk stated that the possibility exists that if the sand were cleared away, the property owner could build up to 40-feet high, up the exposed toe of slope. Staff clarified that when you clear the sand away, the property owner will be required to prepare a new slope analysis. 4. Chairman Butler questioned if a property owner knew he had hard rock under the sand, and the toe of slope was determined to be 30-40 feet up the hillside, does the property owner has the right to blast out the rock. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the property owner would have to apply under the Conditional Use Permit process to develop the land and at that time they would be prohibited from blasting any portion of the mountain. C:LMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc6-9-98.wpd 2 Planning Commission Meeting June 9, 1998 5. Commissioner Woodard stated that if the sand is removed and you follow the contour of 20 percent grade down, you have reduced the amount of land that is developable. If the sand is left where it is, and a house has been constructed on that sand, the owner has the fight to build a home on that sand at less than the 20 percent grade. If the sand is removed, he reduces the amount of land he can develop. The point is that if you blast the mountain from the original point of where the 20 percent grade was, and cut a straight wall down to allow the property owner more land to develop, is that a detriment to what the City is trying to achieve? In light of these questions, he asked, what is the purpose of the ordinance? ' Is it an elevation question where the City is trying to protect the view of the mountains, or is it to protect some grade that development will not occur above. It appears the purpose is to protect aesthetics or view corridor. The 20 percent grade is a line that was determined to be that line to prevent development above. This is an elevation question, not a grade question. If the 20 percent point is where the sand exists, this is the line of demarcation between development and no development. The developer wants to use this line, blast the mountain and drop down 20 feet, his purpose would be to construct houses or structures. -- If you look at this from the view corridor from the street, you will still see a house or building in the dropped area. 'This being the case, what is the City trying to accomplish? 6. Commissioner Kirk noted you would see exposed rock. Commissioner Woodard then asked if it was an aesthetics issue. If so, then the Ordinance should prevent any blasting or cutting away. Commissioner Kirk stated this is a question that needs to be clarified. 7. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated she did not believe the intent of - removing the sand was to create an artificial line someone could take away from. One way to' address this issue would be to add a sentence, stating that "If sand is removed from against the determined hillside slope, it will necessitate a new analysis and determination of where the toe of slope is located. 8. Commissioner Kirk asked staff to explain Page 55 of the staff report regarding the General Plan Amendments. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated it is to revise the language to clarify less than 20 percent or greater than 20 percent grade density transfer, referencing the conditional use _ permit process and site development process, and changing the title of the District. Commissioner Kirk asked if on Page 60, under boundary of the HUGO District, there is an acknowledgment that there are areas above the toe of slope that are flatter than the 20 percent topographic gradient, and asked C:hMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc6-9-98.wpd 3 Planning Commission Meeting June 9, 1998 if these areas are treated any different than those areas that are less than 20 percent. Staff stated that slopes that are less than 20 percent are not in the HUGO District, it is slopes above the toe of slope that are less than 20 percent that can have single family residences. Commissioner Kirk stated there are no areas in the HUGO District with slopes less than 20 percent. Staff stated this was correct. Commissioner Kirk stated that if this was true, other areas that are a part of the HUGO District, such as canyons/boulder fields are left. Staff stated they are left, but it is not the slope that is the definition, it is the definition of being a canyon or boulder field, not that it is less than 20 percent. Commissioner Kirk suggested dropping the last two sentences. Either identify all of the geographic and other features that might contribute to the boundary, or take them all out. Staff stated they should be added to the General Plan. 9. Commissioner Kirk asked Senior Engineer Steve Speer if he had done a similar analysis for the boulder field on any subject property. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated no analysis had been performed on any boulder field. It was generally a conservative number to catch the areas that were of interest to preserve. Commissioner Kirk suggested staff use the analysis on a site and see if it works. Staff stated that at the recommendation of the City Attorney, staff was asked not to go to any particular property, for fear that the property owner(s) might feel singled out. In order to give the Commission an idea of what would be an appropriate number, staff would have to analyze several properties. 10. Commissioner Kirk asked if staff had done any view shed analysis to determine the impact on an access road on our mountains. Staff stated they had not. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio pointed out that a clarification had been given to the Commission regarding a change staff was proposing concerning access roads that would mitigate the view of access roads. Commissioner Kirk stated that in these dramatic slope areas the width of the right of way has an impact on daylighting, or the impact amount of cut and potential fill. Has the City considered this impact in light of possibly reducing the fight of way requirements for access road. Staff stated it would be reviewed during the conditional use permit process. Commissioner Kirk asked if staff would have any objection to including language regarding reducing the right of way as a possible strategy for reducing the impact of access roads. Staff noted under the General Plan they had reduced the width for private roads to 28-feet. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that through a conditional use permit process, .the City has the right to review the width of road. At that time they would take into consideration all C :XaMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc6-9-98.wpd 4 __ Planning Commission Meeting June 9, 1998 other aspects of the road access. -Commissioner Kirk stating he is hearing a lot about the conditional use permit process, and one of his continuing concerns is that this ordinance offers the developer no certainty nor any certainty to the environmental and aesthetic .interest to the City. We have examples of how to minimize the impacts of accessways such as depressing the roadway, restoring rock coloration, and the question he is raising is whether or not staff is amicable to including a reduction of the right of way as an option to addressing access road on slopes. 11. Chairman Butler asked if depressing the roads created a problem with water runoff. His understanding is that staff is choosing to address this issue in the conditional use permit process to ensure that all areas of concern are considered at the time of development. Commissioner Kirk stated that depressing the road may require more right of way. However, staff has included examples such as a tool box approach, to reduce the impact of access roads. What he is suggesting is that staff include, as one of the tools, the ability to reduce the width of the fight of way. 12. Commissioner Kirk asked staff to explain the difference in the approval process as it is now and when this ordinance is approved, in regard to the site development processes. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio explained it is currently reviewed by the Planning Commission through the conditional use permit process. Staff noted this is a standard process under the conditional use permit. The Zoning Code outlines how the process is handled. In addition, as it is a specific district there are additional criteria besides the one for processing., What staff has added is City Council approval. Commissioner Kirk clarified that a conditional use permit would be submitted to staff, reviewed by the Planning Commission for a recommendation to the City Council for final action. He then asked how the site development process was reviewed. Staff stated this process has been added. An example is where a tract was processed in conjunction with a conditional use permit for the hillside areas with a condition that any houses developed for the hillside area, would come back to the Planning Commission for review. Conditional use permits and site development permits are both reviewed by the Planning Commission. Discussion followed regarding clarification of how the reviewing/approval process would be handled. 13. Commissioner Kirk asked staff how much density could be exceeded beyond the General Plan requirements when clustering is used. Staff clarified that if it goes to another'residential area of the City, it could be exceeded'by up to 20 percent; however the total number for the density figure for the entire site, can then be transferred below the toe of slope, if it is the adjacent property or contiguous piece of property. C:hMy DocumentsXWPDOCS\pc6-9-98.wpd 5 Planning Commission Meeting June 9, 1998 14. Commissioner Kirk questioned why sand dunes were included under Applicability in the HUGO District. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated it is to clarify that it does not fall within the HUGO District, because sand dunes have the potential to have a 20 percent slope. Commissioner Kirk asked how this clarified it? Staff stated that under the definition of sand dunes and in the boundary definition. It could be clarified in this section as well. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the intent was not to find a sand dune in the middle of the City that has a 20 percent slope and not allow development, commissioner Kirk stated the way it reads is that sand dunes are a part of the Applicability of the HUGO District. Staff stated it would be clarified in Item 6 on Page 62. 15. Commissioner Kirk asked staff if during the review of ordinances by other cities, the City of Indian Wells and Riverside County both seem to prohibit development over the 20-25 percent slope; is this for all development? Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand stated the City of Indian Wells includes all forms of structural development and probably access roads. Commissioner Kirk asked if either of these ordinances had been challenged and does the City Attorney have any concerns about this type of approach. City Attorney 'Dawn Honeywell stated she is not aware of any challenges to their ordinances and yes she would have a concern. 16. commissioner Woodard asked staff to clarify the difference between a 20% grade line and a 25-foot calculation band beyond that point. Senior Engineer Steve Speer explained the calculation band was used to determine where the toe of slope existed and by using the hand method, a person would use the topographic map similar to the example given by staff. It is a trial and error method until a determination has been made as to where the 20 percent area exists. 17. commissioner Woodard asked staff how they arrived at 200 feet for the width. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that on the field trips with the Council and Commission, staff asked for feed back as to what the Commission/Council would be comfortable with. There is nothing specific or particular about the figure. Staff would prefer the Commission, or Council, determine the number. Commissioner Woodard asked staff to explain how they arrived at their definition of a boulder field. Staff stated they would meet with an applicant to determine whether the site is a boulder field or not. Discussion followed regarding different scenarios of determining a boulder field. Commissioner Woodard stated his concern that a developer would have to spend a lot of money to determine whether an area is a boulder field or not. Is there some way that staff could come to this C:LMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc6-9-98.wpd 6 Planning Commission Meeting -- June 9, 1998 decision without requiring a developer to expend an exorbitant amount of money. Staff stated this would be difficult. This ordinance has been in the drafting stage for almost six months. There is no way to have a specific definition that will cover everything that might be a concern to the City. Therefore, staff established specific numbers that will help to define which categories the property would be in. The topographic aberrant is an issue where the developer may want a preliminary review by staff. Commissioner Woodard asked the City Attorney if there was a process whereby a developer could apply to the City for clarification before spending a lot of money. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that when the process is set up as a conditional use permit process requiring a public hearing, you cannot take portions of that process and predetermine the answer. Any time anyone comes in for a conditional use permit or something that requires Some discretion as to whether the project will be compatible with the surrounding uses, staff can only say it appears to be possible. It is not until the project goes through the hearing process that this can be determined. These types of properties are going to be more expensive and difficult to develop than other properties, but it is the nature of the property. 18. Commissioner Tyler asked if the software program to make the determination was readily available so a property owner could prepare his own evaluation. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated it is readily available, but it is not something that a lay person would use. Most of the engineering firms have it. Commissioner Tyler asked why the .Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy legislative map .was not listed as a reference in our Environmental Impact Report. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated they did not have an 'answer, but staff would look into this. 19. As there were no other questions of staff, Chairman Butler asked if anyone else would like to address the Commission on this item. 20. Mr. Chevis Hosea, representing KSL Land Corporation, stated that from the their perspective, they are being asked to place a significant amount of land into a conservation district for development rights. In mm for doing this, they are given density bonuses. What may be more beneficial is to allow changes in zoning, or some favorable type of treatment or program, whereby a property owner can change residential zones to tourist commercial, since density is not an issue in tourist commercial. There should be a way for hotel developers and tourist commercial developers, to have some consideration. The reason they are sensitive to this issue is KSL is trying to acquire a piece of property adjacent to the La Quinta Hotel that has 68 acres of which 36 are developable. At some point, the fm'thest width from the toe of slope for this C:hMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc6-9-98.wpd 7 Planning Commission Meeting June 9, 1998 property, is less than 300 feet. When you talk about the toe of slope or any mitigation measures for environmental issues, you could render this property undevelopable and have a "taking" by the City. It is therefore, very important to have this defined. If they do purchase the property, they would want to change the zone to "Tourist Commercial" and try to develop an additional residential specific plan overlay zone within it and the Hillside Ordinance needs to have some provision that the nonresidential developer, to whom density is not important, has something in mm for the taking of land. The other question they have is whether this ordinance is adjustable within a specific plan. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the City was not about to rezone a piece of property to "Tourist Commercial" so they would have to pay more for that property ~than what it was previously zoned. If the property's current zoning is residential, one unit per ten acres, the City would want to retain that zoning. In regard to density transfers, no one knows their value. Therefore, it is not something that can be addressed at this time. If it is within the umbrella of what the General Plan would allow, it could be done, but it is not something staff would want to recommend. This would be creating a specialized hillside ordinance for each and every specific plan. Mr. Hosea asked if the City had jurisdiction over private areas. If a development occurg next to a hillside area they could be preventing any access to the mountains by anyone except the property owners in front of those hillsides. Does the City have any jurisdiction in regard to this? He then presented two analyses they had prepared regarding their property and where the toe of . slope would fall based on the proposed ordinance. In summation, Mr. Hosea asked that golf and golf amenities be allowed to be developed'up to the 30 percent slope in non-canyon areas. Also, can a lake be developed next to a mountain within the 30 percent grade. In regard to boulder fields, they do not understand why they are being protected. Everyone needs to agree on what the protected view area should be from a vertical or view shed area and restrict any development above that point regardless of how the slope may come back to a buildable plateau. Fencing should be prohibited anywhere on the hillside. Chairman Butler stated he is unaware of how this ordinance could affect KSL's development. Whether the proposed ordinance is in conflict with the ultimate goals of KSL's development at PGA West or not. There is some conflict as to whether or not a private golf course is able to be developed against the hillside and toe of slope, should be excluded or modified in the way they are handled in comparison to a private project. The City is setting a precedent by whatever they do approve in this instance. The other issue is how California Fish and Game and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service will affect any development above the toe of slope. 21. Commissioner Tyler asked if Mr. Hosea was requesting the City set an arbitrary figure and require no development above that figure? Mr. Hosea stated that was true. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\pc6-9-98.wpd 8 Planning Commission Meeting June 9, 1998 22. Commissioner Woodard asked staff to explain what the question was regarding how this ordinance would be affected by a specific plan. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated KSL was asking to have a large part of their land that is up next to the toe of slope redesignated as "Tourist Commercial". As there are no density limitations on Tourist Commercial, the fact that some of their property might be transferred to a non-toe of slope area and get a greater density bonus, has no value to it. The point is the City is not required to change the zoning in an area that it makes no sense to have "Tourist Commercial" because you would be unable to build in that area anyway. Therefore, the City will not have a situation where they have something zoned in a way that it is valueless to have any density transfer rights. It is not clear, even as residential property, what the value of that density transfer is in our City. Commissioner Woodard asked if the specific plan could change the zoning. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated only if it is consistent with the General Plan. Commissioner Woodard questioned whether or not the reason for the ordinance was aesthetics. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the ordinance does not state whether it is the mountain or whatever. It is just the protection of the mountain. Commissioner Woodard asked if -- there is a boulder field transfer or whether fencing should be allowed. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated this is a policy decision to be answered later on. 23. Chairman Butler stated the fence issue is one that is unsolvable at this time. City Attomey Dawn Honeywell stated the only issue on the fence at this time is whether or not it is to be allowed on any particular project. 24. Mr. John Criste, Terra Nova Planning and ResearCh, representing Richard Meyer, thanked staff for keeping them informed regarding the development of this ordinance. They do have an issue with the toe of slope and the short run of 25-feet in band width to determine a 20% slope measurement. In addition, there is a need for more. clarification on what constitutes a boulder fields. Who is the beneficiary of the boulder fields? The criteria is still too restrictive. The largest caliper being two feet and only one per 100 square feet is not a difficult situation. As written, the Planning Commission could redefine the boulder field at any time during their review of a project which gives the developer no sense of security regarding their project. In regard to the access road mitigation, they like the tool box approach as it gives everyone alternatives to see how they can make it fit. 25. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the public heating was closed and open for Commission discussion. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\pc6-9-98.wpd .9 Planning Commission Meeting June 9, 1998 26. Commissioner Kirk stated that in his opinion, this is one of the most important issues the Commission will address this year. There is a need to have more certainty in the ordinance. Perhaps declaring a certain line would solve the problems. A lot of the issues melt away if a certain line is defined. He cannot support the amendment to the General Plan and Zoning Code unless it provides more certainty to the development community. If a line is defined, he could support it. The issue of fencing may not be on the slope if they restricted development above a certain line. It may be at the toe of slope. It is illuminating to read the ordinances from adjoining cities and the County. It is distressing to realize the City of La Quinta does not have an ordinance that is not nearly as certain and definite about what it is trying to protect, than the City of Indian Wells and the County of Riverside. Chairman Butler asked what he thought of the fencing and the slope. Commissioner Kirk stated that if a definite percentage is defined, most of the problems go away. Discussion followed as to how this would affect development. 27. Commissioner Woodard asked why they should require a fence at all. The issue would be resolved by either the U.' S. Fish and Wildlife Service or California Fish and Game in conjunction with the developer. The purpose of the fence is to restrict the sheep and there may be areas in the City where this is a concern and other areas where it is not. Therefore, to require a fence anywhere when this issue is not prevailing, is aesthetically discouraging. He asked if Commissioner Kirk was making a point that a fence was all right at a certain point on the hillside. Commissioner Kirk stated no. The fence is a small, but important, part of the aesthetics. The City needs to address where the line should be instead of having it addressed through the conditional use permit process. As it reads, it gives the development community no certainty at all. He would rather have the consultant be able to come to the City, read the ordinance and determine whether or not they can do a development. He would support eliminating that portion of the ordinance that deals with fencing. 28. Chairman Butler stated he too agreed with his comments, but when discussing this with staff, it was his understanding this needed to be included in the ordinance in case it would be an issue and it could be resolved in the conditional use permit process. If it was not put in the ordinance, the City could not deal with the issue. Commissioner Kirk stated that if the fence were eliminated from the ordinance and at some point in the future the U. S. C :X_My Documents\WPDOCS\pc6-9-98.wpd 10 Planning Commission Meeting June 9, 1998 Fish and Wildlife Service and/or California Fish and Game brought the issue up, there would be a way to modify the conditional use permit to address this issue. City Attomey Dawn Honeywell stated this should be resolved now, as there is a current issue where Califomia Fish and Game want a fence and the City needs to decide whether or not they are going to allow a fence. 29. Commissioner Tyler questioned how the Commission should respond when an issue is before them that is anticipatory. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated it was not, and the decision needs to be made now. It is a rule the City needs to determine and not leave to outside agencies. 30. Commissioner Woodard asked if the City decides they do not want fencing, does the Federal and/or State law preclude what the City wants; or secondly, if the City determines fences will not be allowed, does California Fish and Game abide by the City's decision but, state that no development is allowed in this area due to the wildlife because fences are not allowed. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the second scenario is the more likely. They would not be allowed to force the City, under our local Zoning Ordinance, to allow fences. By the same token they have their own permitting ability with people in their designated habitat areas. If they cannot sufficiently mitigate to their criteria then they will not allow development. Commissioner Woodard stated then the result will be the developer gives up and installs the fence. In that case, when California Fish and Game dictates where a fence will be installed, the City can then look to the conditional use permit process to allow the fence. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated this is why staff worded the ordinance as they did. There has to be a basis under the mitigation measures to require the fence. 31. Commissioner Abels stated the fencing issues is important and should be included in the ordinance and should be addressed when appropriate. 32. Commissioner Woodard stated he was for allowing a developer to develop land in areas less than 20 percent and some areas that require them to exceed the 20 percent to get to that area if the road system is satisfied with problems relative to view cones and view corridors. In addition, he would like language added which allows road systems to be reduced in width. He has a hard time with public vs. private roads. The Commission has a responsibility to protect the views of the mountain, but it is a distance and elevation question. Therefore, he would support a 30 percent grade on those places where there are golf courses or waterways as it enhances the view of the mountains. He is against fences unless it is environmentally required. He agrees with the need for more certainty and would make it a 30 percent for nonstructure development and 20% for structure. c:wIy Documents\WPDOCS\pc6-9-98.wpd 11 Planning Commission Meeting June 9, 1998 33. Commissioner Seaton stated she agreed with requiring more certainty in the ordinance, but would want it to be more strict. Fencing should only be allowed for mitigation on environmental impacts. She agrees with the comments made by Senior Engineer Steve Speer that if the sand is removed from the determined hill/slope, it will necessitate a new analysis of where the toe of slope is. 34. Commissioner Tyler noted some changes that needed to be made to the staff report. He agreed that if the sand is pulled away from the hillside, you have to redefine the toe of slope. In regard to private versus public views and what the City is trying to protect, in his opinion, it is the mountain as they exist and that includes the sand that has blown up against it. He agrees with the precedent set by the City of Indian Wells and Riverside County that a line should be determined and leave it at that. If the sentence is to remain regarding fencing, it should be strengthened and made more definitive. If sheep are involved, fencing is involved. He agreed with his fellow Commissioners that the ordinance needs to be tightened up and made more readable for developers to know what they can and cannot do. He would like it to remain in the conditional use permit process. 35. Chairman Butler stated he would like to encourage the Commission to reach a decision on this tonight. He asked if the recommendations could be included in the motion so it could go forward to the City Council. 36. Commissioner Tyler suggested this be continued to allow staff time to put their comments into a form they could approve. 37. Commissioner Woodard suggested having a 'straw vote on the major issues to give staff direction on the areas that needed to be changed. Chairman Butler agreed. 38. Commissioner Kirk stated there should be two line determinations: one at the 20 percent grade for nonstructural and the second at 30 percent where nothing could be build. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell asked for clarification that once the initial slope has been determined at 30 percent, no development is allowed above that line. Does this include the area behind the ridgeline that is perhaps 10 percent for perhaps a mile. Is the Commission saying no development will be allowed on the ten percent slope; or, if the area behind the ridgeline that is below the 20 percent line, is allowed to be developed. Commissioner Kirk stated in his opinion, that if the property owner can get to it without building a road on the hillside that is above the 30 percent, yes C':LMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc6-9-98.wpd 12 Planning Commission Meeting June 9, 1998 it is developable. Following discussion it was determined that staff would change the ordinance to permit the allowable uses between 20 and 30 percent, and add a new sectibn prohibiting any development in areas greater than 30 percent. 39. Commissioner Woodard questioned development above the 20 percent line that falls back to below the 20 percent behind the ridgeline. Commissioner Kirk stated he would not like to allow any development beyond the line. 40. Chairman Butler asked if Commissioner Kirk was stating that he would not like any development above the 20 percent line. Commissioner Kirk stated that if it can be reached without going above the 20 percent line, then it can be developed. 41. Commissioner Tyler suggested that during the two week continuance, the City Attorney be asked to review the ordinances for the City of Indian Wells and Riverside County to see how they reached their decision. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated some cities develop polices and wait to be challenged. The direction the Commission is taking is to have three categories and the primary difference being' the cutting off of access roads above the 30 percent line. This in itself is not something that on its face is a taking. 42. Commissioner Kirk asked staff to provide options regarding the slope determination. One being a strict reading of the 30 percent line and one a reading of the 30 percent line that would allow the development of the upper highland areas. If the City Attorney could check into the other city ordinance bY not only reading, but speaking with their attorney, in part. icular any litigation on the issues. Other areas he would like staff to evaluate is the pulling away of the sand from the toe of slope; the fencing for sheep if it is needed be clarified, in that it is to be allowed only for environmental purposes; the other area is that of boulder fields. The concern of a developer going through this expensive process of determining what is and is not a boulder field, and at the last minute the Commission or Council determines just the opposite. Certainty needs to be provided as to where development can occur and where it cannot occur and that should be based on a sound technical analysis. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that if the Commission wanted to be more specific, it will require a detailed analysis. As it is written now, they are not required to do a detailed analysis. If the City wants to go to a clear definition as to whether or not it is, it will require a detailed analysis on the part of the developer/land owner so that it is C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\pc6-9-98.wpd 13 Planning Commission Meeting June 9, 1998 documented. The reason for writing it on the discretionary side, is that with staff and the property owner spending some time at the site and going through the mathematical process, a determination can be made without having a detailed analysis. 43. Commissioner Woodard asked if staffknew how many boulder fields there are in the City. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that what they are referring to mostly is the alluvial fan area. One area heis familiar with is that area off Avenida Montezuma and The Quarry. The calculation is only a tool to say yes or no we do, or do not, want to have the area preserved. Commissioner Woodard asked if a house could be built around a boulder field and if so, what development requirements are in place to construct a house. Staff stated it would be determine by a lot line as building setbacks are determined from the lot line. Commissioner Woodard questioned that with these requirements a boulder field could be quarantined off by all the development that occurs around it. Discussion followed regarding criteria for a boulder field. Chairman Butler suggested leaving it as written as it was user friendly. 44. Chairman Woodard stated that if it is the desire of the City to retain boulder fields, shouldn't the ordinance have "things" in place that will protect it. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated not necessarily, because there is a perspective that you just want to protect it because it is there. Even though there isn't access, the site is protected. Chairman Butler stated he did not believe there were many boulder fields that needed to be protected and in any case staff is able to work with the developer within the present definition of a boulder field. 45. Commissioner Tyler asked if language could be provided to allow public access. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated this could not be done without "taking" it. Commissioner Kirk asked if this could be provided for under an easement. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that under current U. S. Federal Supreme Court decisions where you are requiring an easement for public access to something that is not caused by the property being developed, but is caused merely for the public, is a taking. 46. Commissioner Woodard asked that staff supply the Commission with the number of boulder fields that currently exist in the City and fred two or three boulder fields that can be analyzed to see if the criteria works. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated .it would not be possible to determine where all the boulder fields are in the City that are below the 20 percent slope as the C:WIy Documen.ts\WPDOCS\pc6-9-98.wpd 14 Planning Commission Meeting June 9, 1998 City does not have access to that type of information. Staff can look at some areas that are known to be below the 20 percent grade and provide that information to the Commissioner. 47. Commissioner Woodard asked if staff could review were roads are allowed in slopes greater than 20 percent, whether or not there are creative ways to make that fight of way as nondetrimental as possible. 48. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to continue this item for two weeks. Unanimously approved. Chairman Butler recessed the meeting at 9:30 p.m. and reconvened at 9:38 p.m. B. Zoning Code Amendment 97-058(A) and 98-061(A); a request of the City for consideration of miscellaneous amendments to Title 9 of the La Quinta MUnicipal Code. 1. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Start Sawa presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Senior Engineer Steve .. Speer explained that storm water retention cannot be accomplished in conjunction with berming in the 20-foot landscape setback except in the area along Highway 111 which has a 50-foot landscape setback. Therefore, in revising the Code, the only area that was allowed to have storm water retention and berming was the front setback along Highway 111. 2. Commissioner Tyler questioned staff regarding the deletion of berming in combination with upsloping. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated they rewrote this section to clarify staff's intent. 3. Commissioner Woodard stated he too did not understand how upsloping in the landscape setback would prohibit the ability for berming for a residential project. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated that a residential development will normally construct a six foot high wall on a two foot high berm to meet noise requirements. With the wall and two feet of berming there is already some type of contouring/berming that is included in the residential zone. Therefore, staff removed the requirement for berming. It was staff's concern that berming was more important in the commercial areas for the screening of parking areas. If the Commission so desires, the requirement for berming in the 20-foot setback for residential could be added back to the Code with the height of the berm at 2-3 feet. C :~Vly Documents\WPDOCS\pc6-9-98.wpd 15 Planning Commission Meeting June 9, 1998 4. Commissioner Woodard asked staff how they make a distinction between a commercial and RV trailer. Staff referenced the Municipal Code. 5. Commissioner Kirk asked what the impact would be on a development if they were not allowed to have a retention basin the front setback. Staff stated they would have to devote more land internally for retention. Discussion followed as to the purpose of berming. Commissioner Kirk suggested the wording be changed to "undulating terrain" with a height limit of two to three feet for residential with no grade below curb level. 6. As there were no other questions of staff, Chairman Butler asked if anyone else would like to address the Commission on this item. 7. There being no public comment, the public participation portion of the public hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 8. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98- 042 recommending approval of Zoning Code Amendments 97-058(A) and 98-061 (A), as amended above. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Gardner. ABSTAIN: None. VI. BUSINESS ITEM: None. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATER/AL: None. VIII. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS. A. Community Development Director Jerry Herman gave a report of the Council meeting of May 19, 1998. B. Commissioner Woodard informed everyone he would not be present at the next meeting and he had enjoyed working with each and everyone of the Commissioners during his term on the Commission. C. Commissioner Tyler asked that when revised, new copies of the Zoning Code be distributed to the Planning Commissioners. He also asked when the Commission would be included in the General Plan Update discussions. Staff stated they were waiting for the consultant to prepare the necessary reports. ADJOURNMENT: C:LMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc6-9-98.wpd 16 Planning Commission Meeting June 9, 1998 ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting .of the Planning Commission to be held on June 23, 1998, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:10 P.M. on June 9, 1998. C:LMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc6-9-98.wpd 17