Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 95-50 and Ord 781 GPA 95-1 CZ 95-1 Joshua Road between Cactus and Park View CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT I . TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II . REQUEST: Approval of a change of zone from PC( 4 ) resort commercial to single family residential (parcels 640-031-006 thru 010 , 640-031-015 thru 019 ) and from PC( 4 ) resort commercial to O. P. office professional ( 640-031-001 ) . Also requested is a general plan amendment from resort commercial to medium density residential ( 640-031-006 thru 010, 640-031-015 thru 019 ) and from resort commercial to office professional ( 640-031-001 ) . These parcels are located west of Joshua Road between Cactus Drive and Park View Drive. III . APPLICANTS : William J. Cox City of Palm Desert P .O. Box 967 Palm Desert, CA 92261 IV. CASE NOS : GPA 95-1 , C/Z 95-1 V. DATE: June 8, 1995 VI . CONTENTS : A. Staff Recommendation B. Discussion C . Draft Resolution No. 95-50 and Draft Ordinance No . 781 D. Planning Commission Minutes dated May 2 , 1995 E . Planning Commission Resolution No . 1689 F . Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 2 , 1995 G. Related maps and/or exhibits A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1 . Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No . 95-50 , approving GPA 95-1 . 2 . Waive further reading and pass Ordinance No . 781 to second reading, approving C/Z 95-1 . B. DISCUSSION: 1 . CHANGE OF ZONE : A Mr. Cox is requesting a change of zone to revert his parcels 1 ( 640-031-006 thru 009 , 640-031-016 thru 019 ) back to their previous R-1 zoning. In addition, the city has contacted Mr. and Mrs . McGaffin, the owners of lots 19 and 24 ( 640-031-010 1 . and 015 ) and they had no objection to including their parcels j? STAFF REPORT GPA 95-1, C/Z 95-1 JUNE 8, 1995 in the zone change. These lots are all located between Cactus Drive and Cholla Drive. The city has also been in contact with Mr. and Mrs . McLachlan, the owners of parcel 640-031-001 which is located between Cholla Drive and Park View Drive. There was no objection to being included in the zone change; however, Mr. McLachlan indicated that he would prefer office zoning (O.P. ) as he had some interest in relocating his dental practice to this location. 2 . GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: The applicant is also requesting a general plan amendment from resort commercial to medium density residential for lots 15 thru 19 and lots 24 thru 28 . This designation is consistent with the zone change request and the existing designation for the adjacent residential area. In addition, a general plan amendment is requested for parcel 640-031-001 from resort commercial to office professional . This matter was before planning commission on May 2 , 1995 . Several area residents addressed the commission. One resident expressed concern with changing the zone to allow more single family homes which, if construction, may be vacant. At the conclusion of the discussion, planning commission concurred with staff ' s recommendation and recommended approval of GPA 95-1 and C/Z 95-1 to city council on a 4-1 vote (Commissioner Campbell voted no) . Prepared by: 'n Reviewed and Approved by )` " c JW/tm 6-4A-1-- s40 qS SD ¢awe CITY COUNCIL ACTION:1?f24 �, " C N: APPROVED �/ _ DENIED DENIED(� —`` P RECEIVED OTHER ECEIVED DENT MEETIN DATE ETING DA E © — AYES: AYES: NOES: `y1,4-4 ' F c NOES: ABSENT: -ta,p-yLAL 2 ABSENT: A,3STAIN: � ��Q ABSTAIN: 14 - __ VERIFIED BY: X�'a VERIFIED BY: ----- --- Original on Filei' th City Clerk's Office Original on File with City --- :- ty C3ezk 8 Oft�. ORDINANCE NO. 781 EXHIBIT B Pursuant to Title 14 , Division 6 , Article 7 , Section 15083 , of the California Administrative Code. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: C/Z 95-1 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: William J. Cox City of Palm Desert P.U. Box 967 Palm Desert, CA 92261 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: A change of zone from PC(4 ) resort commercial to single family residential (parcels 640-031-006 thru 010, 640-031-015 thru 019 ) and from PC(4 ) resort commercial to O.P . office professional ( 640-031-001 ) . These parcels are located west of Joshua Road between Cactus Drive and Park View Drive . The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures , if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. RAMON A. DIAZ DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3 ORDINANCE NO. 781 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 107 , THE PALM DESERT ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FROM PC(4) RESORT COMMERCIAL TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (PARCELS 640-031-006 THRU 010, 640- 031-015 THRU 019 ) AND FROM PC(4) RESORT COMMERCIAL TO O.P. OFFICE PROFESSIONAL ( 640-031-001) . THESE PARCELS ARE LOCATED WEST OF JOSHUA ROAD BETWEEN CACTUS DRIVE AND PARK VIEW DRIVE'. CASE NO. C/Z 95-1 The City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN, as follows : SECTION 1 : That a portion of Ordinance No. 107 referencing Section 25 .46 . 1 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Map (Chapter 35 .46 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code) is hereby amended to read as shown on the attached Exhibit "A. " SECTION 2 : That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, Exhibit "B" attached, is hereby certified. SECTION 3 : The City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby directed to publish this ordinance in the Palm Desert Post, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Palm Desert, California, and shall be in full force and effect thirty ( 30) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Palm Desert City Council this 22nd day of June , 1995, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: KELLY, SNYDER, SPIEGEL, CRITES NOES : NONE ABSENT: BENSON ABSTAIN: NONE BUFORD A. CRITES, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California KEY ; I•---] IV...\. \. 1 I : . 1_ ',H .--- PC(4) to O.P. I ...... PC(4) to R- 1 I _ i . }- NM _31.I.\.r,Ill _ Pi R.-7 : I.P.R. ::11!. i E , :iii::i;:i:iii::i:i::ii.iiii. PAC. 3) )1-,..L. P. R. - 22 qt L . -1 _ iiSP. `1 AHD - • • 1 �--NQUN ,... • - ►. I_J 41 e .�'—(4 MANZANIT ��— 1 FRED WARING Tr� err V _1 P.C.-(3) �� S.P. '• �' Pint �► �� P STATION • i i lit!i 4 i it I 4 `1 �Q���i \ 4 t i T CITY OF PALM DESERT Case No.C/Z 95-1 CITY COUNCIL S o o ORDINANCE NO. 781 ,z P Chang © O� M0n © �;sNA",' . � I ,' V o Date I A 1-1 D) I I ORDINANCE NO. 781 EXHIBIT B Pursuant to Title 14 , Division 6 , Article 7 , Section 15083, of the California Administrative Code. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: C/Z 95-1 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: William J. Cox City of Palm Desert P.O. Box 967 Palm Desert, CA 92261 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: A change of zone from PC(4 ) resort commercial to single family residential (parcels 640-031-006 thru 010, 640-031-015 thru 019 ) and from PC(4 ) resort commercial to O.P. office professional ( 640-031-001) . These parcels are located west of Joshua Road between Cactus Drive and Park View Drive. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. RAMON A. DIAZ DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2 , 1995 Action: Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0 . Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1688, approving PP 95-2 , subject to conditions . Carried 5-0 . B. Case Nos . GPA 95-1, C/Z 95-1 - WILLIAM J. COX and CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicants Request for approval of a change of zone from PC(4 ) resort commercial -CO>,single family residential (parcels 640-031006 thru 010, 640-031-015 thru 019 ) and f=rant PC(4 ) resort commercial to O.P. office ��. • professional ( 640-031-001) . Also.. requested is a general plan amendment ,. from resort commercial to medium density residential ( 640-031-006 thru 010, 640- 031-015 thru 019) and from resort >' commercial to office professional ( 640- 031-001) . These parcels are located west of Joshua Road between Cactus Drive and Park View Drive. Mr. Winklepleck noted that the City of Palm Desert was also an applicant on two of the parcels . He reported that this was initiated by Mr. Cox for a change of zone for his parcels along Cholla Drive from resort commercial back to residential . He said that this was a left over piece from the DSL project. When DSL went through their zone change, this piece was left out. After Mr. Cox submitted his proposal, the city felt the other two property owners should be contacted to obtain their input on their parcels . Staff contacted Mr. McGaffin who owned the other two parcels on Cholla on the south side and Dr. McLachlan who owned the one parcel on the north side of Cholla. Dr. McLachlan indicated an interest in moving his office complex to this location. With past experience on utilizing an office use as a buffer to residential uses, Mr. Winklepleck felt it would serve a good purpose. He noted there was a letter received from Mr. McGaffin who expressed concern with his two pieces of property (the one facing Cactus would face the wall of the shopping center and the one facing Cholla would face the wall of the office building) . Mr. McGaffin indicated that going 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2 , 1995 back to residential was a good idea, but did not like the idea of his property sitting across from office professional uses . Staff recommended approval of the proposal . Commissioner Whitlock asked for and received clarification as to the owner of the lots on Joshua Road. Mr. Winklepleck noted that he received a call from one of the Joshua homeowners; a possible zone change to allow all the homes to go to two story was discussed. Staff did not have a problem with that, but did not want to slow down this application. The residents were supposed to have a meeting on Sunday; he asked for the results of that meeting but had not heard anything. Chairperson Jonathan asked if all the homeowners of the existing homes, particularly those on the north side of Cholla adjacent to the McLachlan site, were notified. Mr. Winklepleck said those within the 300 ' radius were notified and the only letter staff received was from Mr. McGaffin and the one phone call from the Joshua resident. Commissioner Campbell felt that the city had enough office professional available and right now there were buildings between Park View and Arboleda on Monterey that were vacant. Mr. Winklepleck said one reason staff was recommending approval was that Mr. McLachlan was a dentist and he indicated some interest in moving his office. In the past few years those were the only types of office buildings that he had seen built--the people who built them for themselves with a couple of other units to rent. Commissioner Campbell asked why they would want to put it in a residential area. Mr. Winklepleck felt that right now it would still be less of an impact to the existing residents than the current zoning. Commissioner Campbell felt that people would probably not want to buy there unless it was priced below $100, 000 . Mr. Winklepleck felt that was a good point, but noted that office buildings sometimes tended to be better neighbors because they were generally closed at 5 : 00 p.m. and gone weekends . Chairperson Jonathan opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. JEFF COX, the applicant' s son and a resident of Desert Hot Springs, stated that he listened to the comments and one of the problems with the doctor' s property was that it faced Park View and there was a four foot berm, so it was hard to make it residential and have that four foot berm in the front yard. He 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2 , 1995 first approached the owner about making that property residential, but he already had plans to proceed and planned to proceed with a commercial building for his offices and he needed about 10,000 square feet. He stated that he would be happy to answer any questions . Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was an objection to the change of zone to the office professional for the McLachlan parcel; Mr. Cox replied no--he noted that the resort commercial needed three or four acres to make it feasible. Mr. Winklepleck concurred that it was a substandard piece. Mr. Cox said that was why they wanted go to office professional . Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was any discussion about the various mitigations possible when office professional was developed adjacent to residential uses such as setbacks, landscaping, etc. Mr. Cox stated that he addressed that; because of the square footage of land versus the amount of building square footage it had never been an issue. He has had an architect/planner that did medical facilities come in and do some preliminary drafts of a plan. He spoke to him and they would basically be single story buildings and there would have to be quite a bit of parking. He noted that with the four foot berm in the front, they were concerned about access, so it was limited it in terms of use. He felt it would be difficult to develop it as residential . Mr. Winklepleck informed commission that in circumstances like this where access backed up, during the design phase the city would stipulate no access off Cholla and no access through the residential area. As far as the setback, staff tried to get as much landscaping to make it as similar to a front yard as possible. The surrounding residences would be taken into consideration. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MR. RAY KILORN, a resident at the corner of Joshua and Park View, said they had a meeting and they were concerned because they had not seen any plans . They didn' t know what it would look like. They didn' t know what to say about it because there were no plans . He asked how they could support or not support the plan. He felt that Park View was a "horrific" street to begin with and an Indianapolis 500 . He stated that the City of Palm Desert has done a lot when asked to help that street, but some things were impossible. With all the 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2 , 1995 traffic coming from the Rancho Mirage side it would be even worse . He felt a plan needed to be seen to receive approval from the area residents . Chairperson Jonathan noted that the people in the area would have that opportunity; it was a two step process and the first step was to change the zoning and the general plan to allow the kind of development being discussed. In the first step there wouldn' t be anything to see, but for the second step to happen (the development of the actual buildings) the applicants would have to go to planning commission with a precise plan and there would be notices sent and they would have an opportunity to provide input and feedback. It would be a full review and approval process before anything could begin. Mr. Winklepleck noted that would be for the office use only. For the single family homes , depending on what they propose, it could just be an over the counter approval or they might have to go through architectural commission. The office would be the only use coming back to planning commission. Mr. Kilorn noted it was said that the office would only have access from Park View. Mr. Winklepleck concurred. Chairperson Jonathan indicated that depended on what the commission recommended and city council approved. He noted that the houses, although they didn' t require approval , had certain limitations placed on them. Mr. Kilorn stated that it was an older neighborhood and they wanted better houses put in because that neighborhood had gone down. He said a few of the houses needed fixing, but most people cared about the neighborhood. He suggested that Mervyn' s was the shadow that caused it to happen. He felt that a nice office building and some nice houses might help change the situation. Commissioner Campbell asked if Mr. Kilorn had any problems getting in and out of his driveway. Mr. Kilorn said that he did a little, but he was at the corner and that was where the drop started toward Park View and people came around the corner in a hurry. He stated that there was a little problem there, but most 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2 , 1995 of the street he did not feel had that much of a problem. He noted that a lot of things had been corrected and skateboards had been cut down, lights installed, and good things had happened and they were grateful for that. Commissioner Campbell said that if they did have residential in that area, then it would eliminate a lot of the traffic . Mr. Kilorn replied that they would have more traffic because there would be more people, but as long as they didn' t get the office building traffic and the trucks that would have to go in, that would be a big plus . MRS . BEVERLY VORWALLER, a resident at the corner of Joshua and Cholla, said that she would have to apologize to Mr. Winklepleck because they had a meeting Sunday night but there was no final decision made as they had done in the past. Part of the problem was that when Downey Savings came in, they had pictures and diagrams that would show what would be built. One of their concerns was that because they didn' t have that right now, and there were about 30 homes, most of them had poured too much money into these homes in a declining real estate market to get their proceeds out of them. They were concerned because they were located between commercial property and One Quail Place, which was low income housing. Now there was this little space to build houses that would face walls and that said to her "low income housing" below $100,000 . That would not be something anyone would want put into their neighborhood and she did not want that in hers . They were sold when Downey went to commercial and when this property went to commercial . The fence, lights and gates went up and they mitigated every condition that they had asked for. Now if it went to residential and they put in a $90,000 home like they did at the corner of Santa Rosa and Portola, they would get nothing but low income housing. She didn' t see that as a benefit to them. She stated that she would rather have a wall at the end of her road and commercial on the other side and maintain the neighborhood as it was . Chairperson Jonathan noted that it would not remain vacant. Mrs . Vorwaller felt that vacant houses would be worse than vacant land. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2 , 1995 Chairperson Jonathan reiterated that what was before the commission was a change of zone from resort commercial . Mrs . Vorwaller said she understood that. When the convalescent hospital was proposed, everyone was in favor because there would still be a buffer zone that would define the neighborhood better. She said she would rather see it stay. There were many people that felt the way it was planned was fine. When Mr. Cox delivered the notices for the convalescent hospital, she did not believe anyone showed up for the meeting because they did not oppose it. They were expecting that. She felt this proposal was risky in this economy. On the office professional part, she failed to see the argument about the driveways; she worked in a building that had a U-shaped driveway that had access from both sides of the building and the building fronts right on the street with some steps . She felt that with the right design a building could work there without any problem. She felt that even office professional was fine. She stated that they already had one abandoned home on Joshua Road that the city got calls about occasionally that happened not long after Downey came in. The property values were declining partially because of the Downey project and One Quail Place. She felt that eight homes (because McGaffin wanted to sell) if they were built out and sat empty a long time, that would be 12 vacant homes in their neighborhood. That was blight. She said that sales were down since Downey went in; she informed commission that Mr. Dave Downs that used to come to the meetings and was opposed to everything, he lost everything and went into foreclosure. She asked who wanted to live between those two uses and did not want to see it get worse. Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mrs . Vorwaller saw the possibility that the homes could be built and sold one by one. Mrs . Vorwaller did not see that happening next to a brick wall . She did not feel people would want to drive through some homes that were 30 years old, face a brick wall and pay more than $100, 000 for a home. Chairperson Jonathan asked Mr. Winklepleck what types of uses were allowed in a resort commercial zone; Mr. Winklepleck replied that it was primarily set up for a restaurant, entertainment types of uses, or hotels; the size of this 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2 , 1995 piece limited if not completely restricted that type of development. Chairperson Jonathan said that he wanted Mrs . Vorwaller to understand what they had versus what was being proposed. Mrs . Vorwaller stated that she did understood; she noted that it has gone from R-1 all the way up and circled back. She said that something could have been done with that property, but the people that would lose were the ones that stayed there. That was unfortunate. She felt that this neighborhood was unique because right now everyone new each other and talked. When something happened in the neighborhood everyone was very supportive. She wanted to preserve that quality. Adding houses that would bring their property values down or lead to more low income housing would be a detriment. Chairperson Jonathan felt that Mrs . Vorwaller wanted to preserve a family neighborhood, but the current zoning would permit hotels and restaurants . He felt the alternative would detract from the family type neighborhood that Mrs . Vorwaller seemed to favor. Mrs . Vorwaller said that what had been proposed in the past were not hotels or restaurants . Chairperson Jonathan clarified that they were talking about zoning, which is what would be permitted on the property. Not about a particular project. There was no guarantee either way. Mrs . Vorwaller said that was the problem--there was no guarantee. Even though it was zoned that way already, it would have had to go through a review and they could have mitigated any problems then. Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mr. Cox wished to readdress the commission. Mr. Cox stated that he respected Mrs . Vorwaller' s views . In looking at the whole area, he felt there was a need in Palm Desert for housing in the 1400-1600 square foot range. Anything less than that would not allow the square footage prices to be where they would sell . Looking at that part of it, he knew they would have to go in with more than $100,000 homes and their marketing survey showed a need for homes in the $125, 000-$145,000 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2 , 1995 range . If someone wanted to buy a new home in Palm Desert right now, there would not be a chance except at the Merano development on Country Club. There were eight lots and that was the type of market they were hoping for. There was down sides as well as up sides on the walls . The walls also provided security once all that came in. It was a closed in neighborhood and it was not a through road. He noted that he used to live on Guadalupe Street and noticed that once they dead- ended off of Monterey, the crime and traffic went down and made a better neighborhood. They just looked at this as an entry neighborhood. That was their plan and while there were no guarantees , he would be more than willing to meet with the homeowners to mitigate any of the problems they have. Chairperson Jonathan closed the public testimony and asked the commission for comments . Commissioner Campbell stated that she would be in favor of changing the PC( 4 ) to R-1 for the homes and instead of allowing office professional , she would like to see that property zoned R-1 also. This would allow all homes instead of offices with walls . Chairperson Jonathan clarified that what Commissioner Campbell was asking for was that the McLachlan property be zoned R-1 as well . Commissioner Campbell concurred. Commissioner Whitlock indicated that she was not opposed to the office professional use . She felt the plan presented by staff and the comments by Mr. Cox were good ones and the concerns of Mrs . Vorwaller about the type of home was semi- answered. Consequently, she would support the total proposal as presented by staff . Chairperson Jonathan concurred with Commissioner Whitlock. He felt staff had come up with something that made sense for that area . The concerns raised by Mrs . Vorwaller were quite sincere and legitimate, therefore the office professional made sense on Park View because they were at least reducing the number of homes that were up against a major shopping center and at the same time providing an opportunity to soften the transition from major shopping center and street to a residential neighborhood. He had faith in the commission to help the developer create something that would utilize landscaping and setbacks to benefit the residential community on Cholla and Joshua Road. The residential area, 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2 , 1995 the Cox property and McGaffin property, was a better alternative than the current zoning. He would rather go with residential zoning than resort commercial for that area. It would be a greater enhancement to the existing family neighborhood. There were no other comments and Chairperson Jonathan asked for a motion. Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff . Carried 4-1 (Commissioner Campbell voted no) . Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1689 , recommending approval of GPA 95-1 and C/Z 95-1 to city council . Carried 4-1 (Commissioner Campbell voted no) . Mr. Winklepleck informed commission that staff would try and schedule this item before council at their first June meeting. IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - B None. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Update on Esquire Apartments at De Anza and San Carlos . Commissioner Whitlock thanked staff/Mr. Diaz for the update on that situation. Mr. Winklepleck noted that he visited the site and the swimming pool had not been emptied. Code enforcement would be following up on the matter. Action: None. X. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE UPDATE Mr. Winklepleck reviewed EDAC April 20, 1995 meeting actions . 11 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: May 2 , 1995 CASE NOS : GPA 95-1 , C/Z 95-1 REQUEST: Approval of a change of zone from PC( 4 ) resort commercial to single family residential (parcels 640- 031-006 thru 010 , 640-031-015 thru 019 ) and from PC(4 ) resort commercial to O. P. office professional ( 640-031- 001 ) . Also requested is a general plan amendment from resort commercial to medium density residential ( 640- 031-006 thru 010 , 640-031-015 thru 019 ) and from resort commercial to office professional ( 640-031-001 ) . These parcels are located west of Joshua Road between Cactus Drive and Park View Drive. APPLICANTS : William J. Cox City of Palm Desert P .O. Box 967 Palm Desert, CA 92261 I . BACKGROUND: A. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE : North: Rancho Mirage/Single family residential South: PC( 3 ) S .P. /Waring Plaza East : R-1/Single family West: PC( 3 ) S . P . /Waring Plaza B. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Resort Commercial . II . DISCUSSION: A. CHANGE OF ZONE: Mr. Cox is requesting a change of zone to revert his parcels ( 640-031-006 thru 009 , 640-031-016 thru 019 ) back to their previous R-1 zoning. In addition, the city has contacted Mr. and Mrs . McGaffin, the owners of lots 19 and 24 ( 640-031-010 and 015 ) and they had no objection to including their parcels in the zone change. These lots are all located between Cactus Drive and Cholla Drive. The city has also been in contact with Mr. and Mrs . McLachlan, the owners of parcel 640-031-001 which is located between Cholla Drive and Park View Drive. There was no objection to being included in the zone change. However, Mr. McLachlan indicated that he would prefer office zoning (O.P. ) ,A._ STAFF REPORT GPA 95-1, C/Z 95-1 xxxxx/ MAY 2 , 1995 as he had some interest in relocating his dental practice to this location. B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: The applicant is also requesting a general plan amendment from resort commercial to medium density residential for lots 15 thru 19 and lots 24 thru 28 . This designation is consistent with the zone change request and the existing designation for the adjacent residential area. In addition, a general plan amendment is requested for parcel 640-031-001 from resort commercial to office professional . III . ANALYSIS : A. A change of zone and general plan amendment to ultimately allow construction of single family homes and an office building fronting on Park View Drive will be a benefit to the surrounding neighborhood. It is very unlikely that an acceptable project would ever be built under the current PC( 4 ) resort commercial zoning as the area is substandard in size for a resort commercial project. B. Findings necessary for approval of a change of zone and general plan amendment: 1 . The proposed change of zone is consistent with the policies of the adopted Palm Desert General Plan. Justification: The project will be consistent with the General Plan when the required amendment is approved. 2 . The land use resulting from the change of zone and general plan amendment will not substantially depreciate property values nor be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Justification: The future uses as allowed by the zone change will be compatible with adjacent land uses . 2 STAFF REPORT GPA 95-1, C/Z 95-1 MAY 2 , 1995 III . RECOMMENDATION: Approve the findings and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. , recommending to the city council approval of C/Z 95-1 and GPA 95-1 . IV. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft resolution B. Legal notice C. Plans and exhibits Prepared by \x(Z)Reviewed and Approved b JW/tm 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1689 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM PC ( 4 ) RESORT COMMERCIAL TO SINGLE FAMILY ,ESIDENTIAL (PARCELS 640-031-006 THRU 010 , 640- 031-015 THRU 019 ) AND FROM PC( 4 ) RESORT COMMERCIAL TO O. P . OFFICE PROFESSIONAL ( 640-031-001) . ALSO REQUESTED IS A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM RESORT COMMERCIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ( 640-031- 006 THRU 010 , 640-031-015 THRU 019 ) AND FROM RESORT COMMERCIAL TO OFFICE PROFESSIONAL ( 640-031- 001 ) . THESE PARCELS ARE LOCATED WEST OF JOSHUA ROAD BETWEEN CACTUS DRIVE AND PARK VIEW DRIVE . CASE NOS . GPA 95-1 , C/Z 95-1 WHEREAS , the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 2nd day of May, 1995 , hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a request by WILLIAM J. COX and the CITY OF PALM DESERT for approval of the above; nts f WHEREAS , said application has r Implementation of the complied with the 1California the "City of Palm Desert Proceduredirec that th e tor of somm Y Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No . 80-89 , " in wile not hvr unit development has determined that the project a significant adverse impact anon d the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared; WHEREAS , at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments , if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission did find the following facts to justify their actions , as described below: 1 . The land use resulting from e land change u of zone would be compatible with adjacentproposed s . 2 . The density resulting from the change of zone would be compatible with densities permitted in the adjacent areas . 3 . The proposed change fzone Plan would s beam compatible d with the adopted Palm Desert General NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, as follows : 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case . 2 . That the planning commission does hereby recommend approval to the city council of GPA 95-1 attached hereto as Exhibit "A" , C/Z 95-1 attached hereto as Exhibit "B" , and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact attached hereto as Exhibit "C" . PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1689 APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm PASSED, 1995 , by the Desert Planning Commission, held on this 2nd day of ny, following vote, to wit: AYES : BEATY, FERNANDEZ , WHITLOCK, JONATHAN NOES : CAMPBELL ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE SRBBY JONA AN, Chairperson ATTEST: • RAM N A. DIAZ , c ary City of Palm Deser , California 2 EK RESORT COMMERC TOE MEDIUM DENSITY R DENTIAL s= RESORT COMMERCIAL TO OFFICE PROFESSIONAL ma i v -- V U 1 R i 1 ' t 1 1 , L_____ - \ i ..._. , 1 1 t1ll — . ......... IF. .- I. .1. — PiR.-7 ; P.R. TE :��. _--- • PAC.-C3) �fAcTy0/, 3_ P. R. - 22 - 4--r lii§�— AHD S.P. ;,,,_1-1��: .C.—14 r YAMZ_AMITA k • -J \` FRED wARING r"—A 011---te IIII:.. �, P.C.-(3) 0110 � S.P. iii...l FINE ./ 1114zzi kvi, 6 P Vetoes 1 L:l Oft I 4414.1t‘ ,-AX t6 (- T,1/4 CITY OF PALM DESERT Case No. GPA 95-1 <:,---71, ' GEN. PLAN AMEND. K'-iu ce✓ , 1- J »- I I v I KEY _, [ i , ..... PC(4) to O.P. ff.f:::: PC(4) to R- 1 - - i - ' . } Ems goo I I.P.R. -� � ���. Pi R.—7 : PiC.—C3) i 1 m3- P .TR22 S.P��`�.i�� --IR A H D l .C.—�� `YANZANIT --- � `\_ FRED WARING r■�r , �+ �, P.C.-(3) jaratzi1 � S.P. FIRE I /Mie ellializiroi yll>‘% P STATION C Witaa6 i A .zt, ,, , ;r--- ,le '!'t i �7,, CITY OF PALM DESERT Case No.C/Z 95-1 '- . ' . © M© n © CL �1 6 ChE. RD-, � �. a PLANNING COMMISSION RESC____'ION NO. 1689 EXHIBIT C Pursuant to Title 14 , Division 6 , Article 7 , Section 15083 , of the California Administrative Code. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NOS : C/Z 95-1, GPA 95-1 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: William J. Cox City of Palm Desert P .O. Box 967 Palm Desert, CA 92261 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: A change of zone 6 from PC(4 ) ) reusort commercial to single family residential (parcels 640-031-015 thru 019 ) and from PC( 4) resort commercial to O.P. office professional ( 640-031-001) . Also requested is a general plan amendment 6 thru from resort commercial to 019 ) and from resort mediumdensity residential 3 to Ooffice O10 , 640 031 015 thru are located west of Joshua professional ( 640-031-001) . These parcels Road between Cactus Drive and Park View Drive. City of Palm The Director of the Department of Community that the described project, Desert, California, has found will not have of the Initial Study a significant effect on the environment. A copy ofe thist finding.Stu has been attached to document theincluded supportinn the project to avoid Mitigation measures , if any, potentially significant effects , may also be found attached. grev6L7/)40 • Ma 2 1995 RAMON A. DIAZ DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUN Y DEVELOPMENT 5