The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0225 CITY OF PALM DESERT PLANNI'_VG COriMISSION MEF.TIP?G FEBRUARY 25 , 1974 I . CAI,L TO ORDER � The meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Clark at 7 : 07 P .M. on February 25 , 1974 at the Palm Desert Middle SchooZ . II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIA?vTCE The Pledge of Allegiance iaas led by Commissioner McPherson . III . ROLL CALL PRESEVT: Commissioners JEAN BENSOrt; .TAMES ricPHFRSON ; Chairman HENRY CLAP.K ��S�._�� : Commissioners CHUCK A5TON and NOEL BRUSFi Others Present : City_ Manager - I;. R. Asmus City Attorney - David Erwin County Planner - Jerry Dupree Commiss�oner Brush entered the meeting at 7 : 0$ P .M. IG. APPROVAL OF MINUTES � 1. The -^inutes of the regular meeting of the Planning Cor�mission on February 11 , 1974 were a.pproved as submitted . V . r�TRITTEN LOMrfUNICATIONS - None VI . �'LTBLIC i�ARINGS l . CUP-11-73-PD James Brown (continued from 1/21/74) {Intiolves amendment to original CUP to allow construction of a sc�Yimming �ool on property �estroyed by fire in December 1973) Conrissioner McPherson moved , Commissioner Benson s�conded that this hearing be continued to March 11 , 1974 . �fation carried unanimously . 2. CLP-04-73 Durco Construction Co . (5 units around common recreation area , SE corner Ocotillo Dr. & Tumbleweed lane) 3 . CUP-OS-73 Durco Construction Co . (8 units around co�mon recreation area N side of Shadow Mt . Dr . , E of San Luis Rey) �""" 4 . CUP-06-73 Durco Construction Co . (6 unirs around common recreation area , S side of Shadow Mt . Dr . , 1/4 mile F of Tumbleweed Lane) 5 . CUP-07-73 Durco Construction Co . (20 units on S lots around common recreation area between Ocotillo Dr. & Frontage Rd . , N o£ Verba Santa Dr . ) Commissioner McPherson moved , Commissioner Benson seconded that CUP-04-73 , 05-73 , 06-73 , and 07-73 be continued until riarch I1 , 1974 for applicant to furnish additional necessary information . Motion carried unanimously. 6. CUP-17-74-PD Lazlo Sandor , �ultiple family dwelling project , E of Sierra Vista Dr . , N of Rancho Grande �r.i By letter dated February 11 , 1974 , applicant had requested withdrawal of the application at t�is time . Comm2s�zoner Brush moved , Commissioner seconded that this application be withdrawn . Motion carried unanimously . VII . OLD BUSINESS 1 . Planning Commission determination of "reasonable value" of destroyed 16-unit apartment structure on Candlewood as per Section 1a . 8 of Zoning Ordinance re: James Brown Attorney Erwin presented a written report in which =� analyzed the riew contract proposals offered by the =��icant , Mr . Brown, to reconstruct the destroyed 16-unit a��ents on Candlewood. The report defined four problem _-__: , (1) the electrical contract proposal as originally _,____`� included specific items of �aork n�t included in the ____ =��=zact proposal ; (2) The original contract for plumbing i��-�__� �tems not specifically covered in the new contract � �=�:� ____�; (3) The old contract provided for installation ccs�_ �= aII glass while the new contract :i3;'id not 'but a . adute��-_� ��s been provided indicating that B & G Con�st�uction wQ��_ �o =�e installation without cost ; (4� '1°tie old c,ont;rac.t- �ro-a-:__� �or grading , forming , etc . , while the new contract� di� =_ � s��cifically include that work . 1ne City Attorney indicated that by the applicant ' s ��_ �-s� `ioures , a conservative value of the structure would c� ��' , 271 . 62 and that again, according to applicant ' s own _� __=:s �he cost of reconstruction based on his latest figures _s v=J2 , 609 .36 , which represents a reconstruction cost of 77 . 6� �= tze estirsated value. The attorney further pointed out that t�e applicant was claiming a $1 , 50� credit against the fi1�2 , 609 . 36 reconstruction figure for masonry work still useabl.e on the site but included in the total rsasonry figure and a 56 , 000 lumher credit for carports. The attorney concluded by indicating that the Planning Commission should make the determination of value and cost and advise the contractor of this action . Commissioner Benson brought to the Commission ' s attention that the three referenced carports were no longer standing and apparently had been moved from the property . Applicant P�rown indicated that the structures had been vandalized and su►-jected to wind damage and in order to eliminate a hazard , they l�ad be.en �"" der�olished . Chairman Clark stated that it was his understanding that the Planning Commission ' s responsibility required tf�em to make a determination of the reasonable value of the structure at the time of this destruction and that this determination should only be made on the basis of facts that the Commission has before it . 2 2/25/74 Mr. Emanuel Kopstein, speaking in behalf of Mr . Brown, stated that the $132 , 609. 36 figure by the City Attorney ' s own statement is a very conservative figure and that if the County were making the determination they would use the standard per square foot evaluation used in the issuance of building permits . Based on this formula the estimated value of the structure would be considerably higher. The City Attorney advised that the Commission had been furnished what the applicant felt was a true �+ representation of value at the time of destruction and the Com- mission was free to use those figures , Considerable discussion followed regarding the difference in the original contract costs for the various subcontractors as compared to the latest proposals furnished by the applicant . It was pointed out that the new contract amount for electrical work, for example , was approximately 30% below the original contract amount for the same work, while other subcontractors varied from 20% to 45% lower . The City Manager advised the Commission in his judgment L'ne nost representative reasonable value of the structure `at the tine of its destruction was the actual contract costs that �ere i�volved in the construction of the building and while an oider, �o�-conforming structure similarly destroyed by fire ==�� r�sult in a determination of value by using the Building ��ar��at formula, this method did not seem appropriate in Y=�� t�� 2aCtS . i�air�aa Clark again reminded the Commission that the �c��_ssion was to base their decision upon the facts presented aLu �? �as s��ewhat concerned over the uncertainty as to what s�o�'_� and s'�ould not be allowed as a credit against the cost to r2construct the units . i�r It was ��ved by Commissioner Benson and seconded by Com- missioner Br�sh that the City Attorney be directed to restudy the question �f allowable credits against the reconstruction cost figure a�d report back to the Commission at an adjourned regular meet'_ng ot the Planning Commission to be held Thursday, Fe�ruary 28 , I974 immediately following the City Council meeting . t';IZ .�+EW BL'S i�tESS l . PP-i061-PD - Addition to Sacred Heart Church , Deea Canyon & 44th Co��issioner McPherson moved , Commissioner Brush seconc� ed that this plot plan be approved subject to Staff co*�ditions . Motion carried unanimously . 2 . PP-1062-PD - Single family dwelling at 72-610 Pitahaya Commissioner Brush moved , Commissioner PicPherson seconded that this plot plan be approved subject to Staff conditions . Motion carried unanimously . , 3 . Consideration of establishing Planning Commission study sessions � Commissioner McPherson moved , Commissioner Benson seconded that a Planning Commission study session be held the Wednesday preceding the '�ionday Planning Commission meetings at 7 : 30 A.M. at Sandy ' s Restaurant , that no decisions shall be made , and that the sessions are open to the public . Motion carried unanimously. 3 2/25/74 4 . Commissioner Brush moved , Commissioner Benson seconded and motion carried that Tentative Tract 4606 (Corsican Villas) be brought on the agenda . This matter concerns tennis courts . A short , pre- liminary presentation was given by the City Manager so the Commission would have prior information when the project is officially on the agenda on March 11 , 1974 for plot plan �,,,, approval without hearing . IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr . Ed Peck spoke concerning the Corsican Villa tennis project on behalf of the Silver Spur Ranch Association , saying they wished to impose certain restrictions to which the developer had agreed to . The Chairman asked him to submit the restrictions in writing. IX- COMrIENTS BY COMMISSIONERS - None �. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner McPherson moved , Commissioner Brush seconded LuaL the meeting be adjourned to Thursday , February 28 , 1974 , :�l�owing the City Council meeting. Motion carried , and meeting `��ourned at 8 : 25 P .M. t �: � L � 'Z�• Mary Pa ' ter, Secretary •-�----_ � ==--_ - - �--, ,; ,-, �, i� _ _�.. ,� �e�-- �_--�, :Sayor _ � '�. �� i�rr 4 2/25/74