Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutChaparral Homeowners Association - Signalization Fees (0,2 _09,2_ atili CITY OF PALM DESERT /ok, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT REQUEST: Reimbursement of Signalization Fees to Chaparral Homeowners Association for the proposed traffic signal at Portola Avenue and the ChaparralNenezia gates SUBMITTED BY: Mark Greenwood, City Engineer DATE: September 25, 2003 CONTENTS: Correspondence Vicinity Map Recommendation: By Minute Motion; decline the request for reimbursement of$40,000.00 in Signalization Fees by the Chaparral Homeowners Association for the proposed traffic signal at Portola Avenue and the ChaparralNenezia gates. Executive Summary: The Chaparral Homeowners Association has requested reimbursement of $40,000.00 in signalization funds for its obligation of the proposed signal on Portola Avenue at the ChaparralNenezia gates. Chaparral is requesting the reimbursement because it has committed itself to share the cost of the signalization that the City required of the project across the street (Venezia). The developer of the Chaparral Country Club paid $31,250.00 in signalization fees when the project was developed in the late 1970's to early 1980's. During deliberations for the Venezia project, the developer (GHA Paloma) stated to the City Council that his project would fully fund the signal in question (see attached minutes). Also, at no time has City staff requested or required any financial participation in the signal by the Chaparral Association. The signalization fees levied were for general signal construction needs throughout the city, arising from the increased traffic from the Chaparral development, not specifically for the project's gated entry. Those funds have long since been expanded, and residents of the Chaparral Country Club have enjoyed their use throughout the city for quite some time. The signalization fund does not contain a surplus, and in fact, does not have enough funds to support the current city's needs. Staff Report Reimbursement of Signalization Fees Page 2of2 September 25, 2003 Therefore staff recommends denial of the request for reimbursement of $40,000.00 in Signalization Fees by the Chaparral Homeowners Association for the proposed traffic signal at Portola Avenue and the Chaparral/Venezia gates. Submitted By: Mark Gree wood, P.E. City Engineer Approval: Ill/ I� ACM fur D-vel•, - -nt Services v' , nc, Dire•)•r City Manager CITY COUNCILTION: APPROVED DENIED RECEIVED OTHER MEETING. AT 'd'D AYES:I fI e , ISO') NOES: NI ABSENT: ABSTAIN: VERIFIED BY:—n< ITNYA H:tword tiles\Chaparral Signal Reimbursement Staff Report doc Original on File itli.) City Clerk's Office 4110 S PETERS & FREEDMAN, L.L.P. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 74-075 EL PASEO, SUITE C-4 PALM DESERT, CA 92260 Tel:(760)773-4463 Tel:(760)773-2626 Fax:(760)773-0919 a*l 41101114444,4 a mail@hoalaw.com 0**TO M4V11.4 www.hoalaw.com *i11*444* 00kt* ENCINITAS OFFICE 01001 191 CALLE MAGDALENA ill►WINO MO* SUITE 220 411.- _i iii41011 f*t ENCINITAS,CA 92024 041l$• I & is Tel:(760)436-3441 0 44014 l Fax:(760)436-3442 4000011 June 24, 2003 David J. Erwin, Esq. BEST BEST & KRIEGER, LLP 74-760 Hwy. 111, Ste. 200 Indian Wells, CA 92210 Re: Chaparral Association/Signalization Cost Sharing P �" Our File No. 1052 Dear Mr. Erwin: Thank you for your letter dated June 5, 2003. I would suggest that we mediate or arbitrate this matter. I appreciate your conclusion that the Association was not"strong armed." I believe any trier of fact will agree the threat was i f the Association did not agree,the entire project would be prohibited from taking a direct left turn. Ivy way of this kiwi, the Board wishes to be placed on the City Counsel Agenda to address this issue. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, PETERS & FREEDMAN, L.L.P. David M. Peters, Esq. DMP\tmf cc: Board of Directors G:\1\1052\DMP\Ltrs\Erwin 1.wpd • • BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS RIVERSIDE LAWYERS SAN DIEGO (909) 686-1450 74-760 HIGHWAY III. SUITE 200 (619) 525-1300 INDIAN WELLS. CALIFORNIA 92210 ONTARIO (760) 568 261 t ORANGE COUNTY (909) 989-8584 (760) 340-6698 FAX (949) 263-2600 BBKLAW.COM SACRAMENTO (916) 325-4000 DAVID J. ERWIN DJERWIN Q@BBKLAW.COM June 5, 2003 VIA FAX: 760-773-0919 David M. Peters Peters & Freedman, LLP 74-075 El Paseo, Suite C-4 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: Chaparral Association/Signalization Cost Sharing Dear Mr. Peters: I received your letter dated May 21, 2003 addressed to the City of Palm Desert regarding the Chaparral Association Signalization Cost Sharing. It is not known to me why any sharing agreement was entered into between Chaparral and the developer but I find nothing in the approvals of that project that would impose any financial commitment for signalization on behalf of Chaparral. The City did not impose any requirement on Chaparral to participate in that project. The cost of the signal was imposed upon the developer, GI-IA Paloma Group LLC. Previous funds coming from the Chaparral development, went into the traffic signalization fund. That fund has long since been expended. I specifically dispute your comment that "the City is strong-arming Chaparrel into contributing more funds". The City has had nothing to do with Chaparral agreeing to commit more funds and, in fact, their responsibility had long ago been fulfilled. Sin rely, avi J. twin of BES BEST & KRIEGER LLP DJE:alr Enclosure cc: Mark Greenwood Carlos Ortega RMPUB\DJE\217895 LIlY I • . 73 510.*FRED WARING DRI rw . 4" ' PALM DESERT, cALIF0RNI A92260—{ 78 at . L: 760 346-06t ,1rt �K e-„ *n 1 3 r +i ' FAX 760 341-7098 5 Ii�► info®palm-de:ert.org { fice - PogRx_A UI A-Mici2►gL- January 14, 2003 Mr. John Ballje, President Chaparral Association 75061 Mediterranean, Suite B P.O. Box 12920 Palm Desert, CA 92255 SUBJECT: REIMBURSEMENT OF SIGNALIZATION FEES Dear Mr. Ballje: In response to your letter of January 2, 2003, as explained in our previous letter, each development pays a relatively small signalization fee for signals throughout the city. These funds are used at any of the 65 traffic signals in the city, and Chaparral residents have enjoyed the benefit provided by collection and expenditure of signal fees for approximately 20 years. Because our signalization fee is small, the signal fund has no reserves. Further, the City has had a policy for several years, requiring private communities to pay their fair share for new traffic signals at gated entries. Therefore we can not grant your request to contribute funding for the proposed signal. Please contact me if there are any questions. MARK GR EN 00D, P.E. ENGINEERING MANAGER cc: Joseph S. Gaugush, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer \mgreenwood\wpdocs1Chaparral Signal Fee Re,mbursement Letter 2 wpd w C�ruuuoulrKwruu . It oa '4 Cha arral Association ?` ^ r� T ' '14.0�ic �A Soto CITE �'is S. FYI • w. cr;ry January 6, 2003 Mark Greenwood City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 Dear Mr. Greenwood, I am in receipt of your letter of December 20, 2002, needless to say, I am disappointed in your decision to disapprove reimbursement of the "Signalization Funds" deposited some 20 years ago by Chaparral Country Club. These funds were deposited in good faith with the City of Palm Desert in anticipation that they would be available when and if needed. That need is now. possible service to MyBoard is charged with the fiduciaryresponsibility of providingthe bestmy P Y a community at costs commensurate with the best value for the money. These responsibilitiesinclude: 1. Safety and security of all its members, both internal and external. 2. Provide an attractive environment to insure maximum property value for the benefit of its members and the overall Palm Desert Community. 3. Preserve reserve funds required to insure the future restoration and preservation of all assets. 4. Provide operating funds for current expenses, keeping them within the bounds of good budgeting and current costs of living which are continually growing. These goals are the same for the City as we all attempt to stay within reasonable boundaries. Now to the crux of the concern. In accordance with California State regulation, we cannot expend "Reserve Funds" for new capital equipment. This would include the likes of a traffic signal. Such funds would have to come from our "Operating Budget" which is already overstrained. The other source of money is, of course, a special assessment. This is already becoming necessary because of the skyrocketing insurance and electrical costs. The argument that the Signalization Fund was spent years ago does not seem to be a valid argument for not having the funds available now, since many developments have been added in the past 22 years, presumably all having contributed to the fund. Accordingly, we believe there should be funds available for reimbursement from the large surplus in your cash reserves. 75061 Mediterranean, Suite B, Palm Desert, CA (760) 346-9000 P.O. Box 12920, Palm Desert, CA 92255 Fax(760)346-9997 ems ` A. Chaparral o n ' ers s �}+� is a g ood 4 Wien r o ., Y' , ,- } �{:#) ► i1 8 - maintain our own sfreets, collect garbage and'provide safety.and security jt is believed t�att e ityq r can well afford to provide safety to our citizens and to assist us in our $50,000.00 pledge o he r a developer of the property across the street from Chaparral. If this letter is not sufficient to prompt the action required, we can do whatever you recommend necessary to appeal your decision. Very Truly Yours, ...... .N....z_41,1)7;,_ E. Jo Ballje Board President Chaparral Association cc Jim Ferguson Jean Benson P. Drell _ ......�..... . CITY Of P �1 DESERT 73-510 FRED WARING DRI PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 :r`•'. /� t' TEL: 760 346-06I I FAX: 760 34r-7o98 Li info@palm-descrr.org /br .A (fl f-Pr?-RP,L December 20, 2002 Mr. John Ballje, President Chaparral Association 75061 Mediterranean, Suite B P.O. Box 12920 Palm Desert, CA 92255 SUBJECT: REIMBURSEMENT OF SIGNALIZATION FEES Dear Mr. Ballje: We have reviewed your request for reimbursement of signalization fees collected during development of Chaparral Country Club. These fees were collected to offset the general increase in traffic resulting from the development, and the resulting need for traffic signals at various locations, not specifically for the proposed signal at Portola Avenue and the Chaparral driveway. Those funds have already been expended on traffic signal improvements throughout the city and are unavailable for the proposed signal. Therefore, the request must be declined. Please contact me if there are any questions. A MARK GR ENWOOD, P.E. ENGINEERING MANAGER cc: Joseph S. Gaugush, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer H:4ngreen oodlwpdocslChaparral Signal Fee Reimbursernentwpd w �..�NUM Mr(Ml1Snn1 • Chaparral Association CEIVED DEC 1 3 :CO: December 9, 2002 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Attn: Mark Greenwood, Engineering Manager Subject: Chaparral Country Club-Traffic Signal Gentlemen: It appears that the housing project, "Venezia", on Portola Avenue opposite Chaparral Country Club is on schedule and that construction will soon begin. As you know, the builder, GHA Paloma Group, with the cooperation of Chaparral Country Club has agreed to absorb the cost of the new traffic signal at the intersection of the two properties, approximately $150,000. It has been brought to our attention that Chaparral Country Club, circa 1978, contributed a "Signalization Fee" to the City of Palm Desert in the amount of$50.00 each for 625 units, a total of $31,250.00. These monies have been available to the City for some 22 years and have earned some simple interest, perhaps 1% or more. It is our request to now be reimbursed some $40,000.00, which could be applied to our obligation of$50,000.00 toward the cost of the new traffic signal. An early reply to this request would be appreciated. Very truly yours, E. Joh allje, Presi ent cc: P. Drell 75061 Mediterranean, Suite B, Palm Desert, CA (760) 346-9000 P.O. Box 12920, Palm Desert, CA 92255 Fax(760) 346-9997 MINUTES EGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 14, 200 NOTE: At thi e, Councilman Crites moved to add an item to the A.- •a regarding a Habitat for Huma •roject. Motion was seconded by Ferguso d carried by a 4-0 vote, with Councilman . •iegel ABSENT. CONSIDERATI• SF REQUEST FO' EET AND LANE CLOSURES FOR HABITAT FS ' HUMANI HOUSE CONSTRUCTION ON GOLETA AVENUE. Mayor Pro-Tem Ben • reques -. hat the City provide the Habitat with $1,000 for food f• e workers who •e working on the project. Councilman Cri - - moved to, by Minute Motion, aut• . ed: 1) Closure of Goleta Avenue cul-de-sa adjacent to Portola Avenue; 2) closure o oleta Court between Fred Waring I ' - and Goleta Avenue; 3) closure of the northbou ight-turn lane on Portola Av- e/Fred Waring Drive;4)use of the City-owned lots on Goleta -nue at Deep Cany. *rive; 5) provide funds in the amount of $1,000 for food and refre •.ents for ev- tone who will be working on the project, all on Saturday, December 7, 2002,fr. -.30 ..m. until the house is completed that day. Motion was seconded by Ferguson and Carrie• by a 4-0 vote, with Councilman Spiegel ABSENT. B. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF PROVISIONS OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF PLANNING CONDITION NO. 9 OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2160 AS IT RELATES TO TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 30738 (GHA Paloma Group, LLC, Applicant/Appellant). Associate Planner Francisco Urbina reviewed the staff report , noting that when the Planning Commission approved the Applicant's 94-lot subdivision on October 1, 2002, it did not have the benefit of seeing full-color elevations or a plotting plan for the tract. The Commission,therefore, approved the tract map with the standard R-1 Zone development standards. The purpose of tonight=s appeal was to amend Planning Commission Condition of Approval #9 with respect to front yard setbacks, maximum height limits, and combined side yard setbacks. He said the project site was zoned PR (Planned Residential), and the Zoning Ordinance allowed averaging of front yard setbacks by up to 25% as long as there is a 20-foot minimum front yard average setback maintained. The applicant=s tract map did comply with that. With respect to the 20-foot height limit being requested by the applicant,that is also not an issue given that the Applicant's designs have hip roofs, and only a small portion of those hip roofs would extend above the 18-foot typical height limit found in the R-1 Zone. In addition, the PR Zone had a maximum height limit of 24 feet specified. With regard to reduction of combined side yards from 14 feet to 12 feet, this would only apply to 16 of the 94 lots that have a width of 70 feet. The applicant is requesting reduction to 12 feet and 13 feet to accommodate his models to meet market demand. He noted that 24 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 14, 2002 Architectural Review Commission had reviewed the plotting plan for the subject map and the proposed models and gave preliminary approval. He said the intent of the PR Zone was to allow flexibility in development standards by encouraging innovative and imaginative design. He said staff believed that the superior architecture of the proposed homes, the variety of color palettes, varied setbacks to enhance the streetscapes, and the Applicant's desire to have flexibility in meeting market demands for plotting certain models on certain lots justified the Applicant's appeal. Staff recommended that Council waive further reading and Resolution No. 02-147 granting the appeal and amending Planning Commission No.2160 Condition of Approval No. 9 as it relates to Tentative Tract Map No. 30738, which will amend the required side yard setbacks from 14 feet combined to 12 feet combined for 16 lots, amending the 20-foot front yard setbacks to 20-foot average with a 16-foot minimum, and increasing the maximum allowable height from 18 feet to 20 feet. Councilman Crites asked if staff was suggesting that if the Planning Commission had seen this, it might have acted differently, and Mr. Urbina agreed. Councilman Crites asked why staff was not recommending that the matter be returned to the Planning Commission. Mr. Urbina said he felt the applicant would probably not want to be delayed by having to wait for another Planning Commission meeting if the Council can grant his appeal tonight. Councilman Crites asked whether this set of appeals resulted in any units that are larger in square feet. Mr. Urbina responded that there would be no change to the floor plan square footage for any of the models. He added that there were only 16 lots affected by the combined side yard setback request. He noted that the applicant was entitled to apply for a maximum of 5.0 dwelling units per acre based on zoning and the General Plan; however, his density with this project was substantially below that at 3.2 dwelling units per acre with 9,000 square-foot minimum lots. Mayor Kelly declared the public hearing open and invited testimony in FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to this request. MR. MARIO GONZALES, Applicant and developer of the property, 28-561 Avenida Deosa, Cathedral City. He said the most important thing was that they did not want to compromise any type of quality or sacrifice any type of issues in order to have this appeal granted. He added that it was most important to maintain strong curb appeal. Although they had not been able to provide the Planning Commission with the proper documents normally submitted, they had subsequently gone to the Architectural Review Commission, which had been able to review all of the documents and had then endorsed the project. 25 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 14, 2002 Councilman Ferguson asked if the applicant would have any problem making sure the Planning Commission concurred with the Architectural Review Commission on the new information. Mr. Gonzales responded that his organization had just purchased the property and had just taken ownership approximately a week ago. Although this was a timing issue for them, he said they were always willing to work with all levels of the City. Councilman Ferguson said it was a timing issue for him as well. He said when the majority of the Planning Commission says no to something and then Architectural Review Commission overturns them on the basis of new information, and he does not have Minutes in his report so he can read what the PlanningCommission concerns were to tell whether or not theywere met, he felt it would be a slap in the face to the Planning Commission for the Council to agree with the Architectural Review Commission without at least • allowing the Planning Commission have the same benefit as Architectural Review. Councilman Crites said his first reaction was to deny this because what he sees are taller buildings and shrinking yards. He said it often seemed to be that, in the name of architecture, things get bigger, yards get smaller, and open space diminishes. Mr. Gonzales noted that they had also accommodated several issues in respect to the stacking issue for the school district. He said they had lost some property against their northern boundary at the south side of Hovley; in addition, at the corner of Portola and Hovley, they had provided a deceleration lane which would hopefully help mitigate some of the problems experiencing at the school in that location. They had also solved some issues with the Chaparral Country Club people in putting a signal light out front, which had been a real issue with Them, and the developer would be absorbing 100% of that cost. He said he did not really want this matter sent 'MR toPtanrrllrlg Commission if the Council could approve it now. Councilman Ferguson said that everything he had seen so far looked good, the staff recommendation made perfect sense, and the developer was really seeking to meet the needs of all the folks. Yet he wondered why three Planning Commissioners voted against the project, and he did not have the Minutes of that meeting so that he could read why they did so. He said he felt it would be an easy thing for the developer to go back and make his presentation to the Planning Commission. Mr. Drell said the significant delay that would normally occur would be because the public hearing would have to be re-noticed. If, as part of this 26 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 14, 2002 action,the Council would delegate back to the Planning Commission without hearing, the matter could probably be placed on the next Agenda for consideration, and the next meeting was on Tuesday. If the Planning Commission approves the project,the matter is over; however, if it denies the project, the developer could come back to the Council at the next meeting. With no further testimony offered, Mayor Kelly declared the public hearing closed. Councilman Ferguson moved to, by Minute Motion, refer the appeal back to the Planning Commission for final disposition, subject to appeal process available to the Appellant, if necessary. Motion was seconded by Crites and carried by a 3-0 vote, with Mayor Pro-Tem Benson and Councilman Spiegel ABSENT. C. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL TO A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN O• DESIGN/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, INCLUDING A PARKING LOT, F A 2,000 SQUARE FOOT CHURCH FACILITY ON THE NORTH SI► OF ALESSANDRO DRIVE BETWEEN SAN JOSE AND SAN -CINTO AVENUE, 73-900 ALESSANDRO DRIVE Case No. PP/CUP 02-07 Amendment#1 (PathfinderCommu► of the Risen grist Church, Applicant) (Robert King, Appellant). Mr. D . reviewed the staff report in detail, noting tha is matter was before the City . ncil previously and was referred back • 'lanning Commission to try to resol 'ssues with the neighbors. 0 • issue was location of the building on the • -, and there was objection • e possible evening activities that would be dist •ing. The applicant h. • moved the building, it would be set back as a residen. • would be, and t• • impact of the building would be no different than if a house as there, • d the activity area would now be on Alessandro. To address th- -co • ssue,the applicant secured a long-term lease of two parcels to the ea '4 which they have now produced a parking lot to provide 100%of their or, a --required parking on-site. He said there was some direction from e Plann • Commission that the parking area directly adjacent to the •sidence not be 'lized at night and only be utilized on Sunday. Staff's •gestion was to elimi . - that parking altogether since there was plenty - parking on the street to re. • e those four spaces, and that could pro. .ce a significant buffer between t parking lot and those residences. Counc' an Crites and Mayor Kelly asked if a cul-de-sa ould now be incl ed since there is now this additional parking. Mr. Drell re- 'ended that t► e would now be room to construct a cul-de-sac. Councilman es said e City had indicated it would do that for the neighbors, and he felt - City should follow through with that. 27