Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0722 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 22, 1974 MIDDLE SCHOOL - 8: 20 P.-M. I . CALL TO ORDER II . ROLL CALL Present : Commissioners: JEAN BENSON, JIM McPHERSON, CHUCK ASTON, NOEL BRUSH, HENRY CLARK Absent : Commissioners: NONE Others Present : City Manager - Harvey L. Hurlburt Director of Environmental Services - Paul Williams City Attorney - Dave Erwin Planning Assistant - Sam Freed III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairman Clark asked if there were any changes to be made in the minutes. Commissioner Benson stated that on page 3, para- graph 3, should be amended to read, "Commissioner Benson made the motion, and Commissioner Brush seconded the motion" , regarding Deep Canyon Building permits. City Attorney Dave Erwin stated that on page 2, line 3 of paragraph 8, the words drainage facilities should be added after the words, of the. Approval of the minutes as amended was moved by Commis- sioner Aston, seconded by Commissioner Brush and unanimously �.. carried. IV. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. To consider the establishment of a Specific Plan for the commercial area of the City of Palm Desert . Chairman Clark reopened the public hearing on the considera- tion of the Specific Plan. The Commissioner directed that the following comments of Mr. Joe Benes, President of the Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce, given at the previous City Council meeting, should be placed in the minutes : "Mr. Joe Benes, 74-582 Fairway Drive, representing the Chamber of Commerce , submitted a letter from the Chamber stating that implementation of the one-way street plan for the frontage avenues is premature; recommending that im- mediate steps be taken to secure traffic signals at Deep Canyon Road and San Luis Rey on Highway 111; that stops be required before crossing the frontage avenues where streets cross Highway 111; and recommending that no further action be taken on the adoption of the precise plan for the commercial area until the newly appointed Planning Commission has had the opportunity to study it . " In terms of procedure for the hearing, City Manager Hurlburt indicated that the Planning Commission had received addi- tional letters on the Specific Plan which would be reported on by Mr. Williams. He stated that then Mr. Terrance McCarty, repres- entative of Stone & Youngberg, would speak on increment tax finan- cing and then Larry Morrison, of Wilsey & Ham would like to dis- cuss cost of the Specific Plan. The hearing would then be opened for citizen input . City Manager Hurlburt stated, in reading the letters re- ceived, there seemed to be some misunderstanding about what the hearing is on. It is not on the General Plan. The General Plan is under study and won' t be finished for five to six months. This hearing is on the Specific Plan for the commercial area of the City. Paul Williams summarized a letter from Mr. Frank Purcell , 389 Crestview, Palm Springs, regarding a parcel at the corner of 44th Avenue and Highway 111. The letter indicated that there were plans for home improvement center on the site which is in conflict wr with what is shown in the Plan. Mr. Williams summarized a letter from John J. Cody, Archi- tect , 73-960 Highway 111, Palm Desert , regarding property (24 acres) north of Avenue 44 which is bi-sected by Highway 111 . Mr. Cody expressed the opinion that he should be allowed leeway on the uses rather than be restricted as indicated by the Specific Plan to hotel, motels and restaurants. Regarding the regional center pro- posal, Mr. Cody wrote that some other location may be more desir- able. Finally, he expressed concurrance with Mr. Martin and Mr. Ritter' s statements at the last hearing on the one-way traffic system and tram which were that they were unworkable, would cause more congestion and accidents. Mr. Williams then summarized a letter from Lyman Martin, protesting the one-way street plan. He wrote the problem would be better alleviated by traffic signals and replacement of the stop bars. Mr. Williams then read a letter from Larry Hendon, of the University of Redlands. Mr. Hendon wrote of a concern of the proposed land use for the Desert Garden Square, it is now shown as residential and should be shown as commercial zoning. Mr. Williams summarized a letter from Mrs. Eleanor Segall , owner of J. & E Automotive, 73-758 De Anza Way, Palm Desert , which protests the one-way traffic system along the frontage roads, and indicates that traffic signals and stop sign would be more ap- propriate. Mr. Williams indicated receipt of a letter from Mrs. Elizabeth Macafee regarding the elimination of parking in the area of her gallery. She discussed the proposed one-way traffic system and indicated that the tram would be more appropriate on Alessandro. Mr. Williams then presented a letter from Harry Schmitz regarding the Desert Mart project . He wrote that his project should be shown on the Specific Plan and feels there is a conflict between Desert Mart proposal and the Specific Plan. He recommended that 1) the Planning Commission adopt the Specific Plan with the Desert Mart as proposed or 2) adopt the Specific Plan as an urban design element to the General Plan. Mr. Williams then introduced a petition of protest , signed by 183 persons, protesting the one-way street plan on the frontage roads. Chairman Clark asked City Manager Hurlburt if the speed limit had been legally reduced to 40 miles per hour on Highway 111. @W City Manager Hurlburt replied in the affirmative, stating that this speed limit extends from El Paseo to El Paseo along Highway 111. Mr. Williams presented one more letter from the concerned citizens of Palm Desert , relating to approval of the Specific Plan being conducted now when most of the people are out of town on va- -2- cation. Said letter had been referred to the Planning Commission by the City Council. City Manager Hurlburt stated that a discussion on the economic phase of the plan would now be presented. Chairman Clark asked who would speak on economics. City Manager Hurlburt introduced Mr. Terrance McCarty, Finance Consultant of the firm of Stone & Youngberg, San Francis- co, California. City Manager Hurlburt indicated that Mr. McCarty' s firm had submitted a proposal. They propose to investigate and pro- vide financial analysis of the Specific Plan. They would investi- gate the beneficial methods of financing and alternatives such as the cost of financing, legal ramifications and to make recommenda- tions as to the best method of financing. Mr. McCarty explained there are a number of types of fin- ancing to investigate. He went on to explain the various aspects of financing the proposed public improvements as shown in the Specific Plan. He then presented a tentative schedule which would have to be followed if the tax incremental method of financing was utilized. He described in detail the various steps that would have to be followed to create a redevelopment area. Chairman Clark asked if there were any questions from the Commission on possible financing. City Manager Hurlburt stated at the last hearing many people were disturbed by how the financing was going to be accom- plished. He stated that Mr. McCarty would be there the rest of the evening for people to ask questions. Chairman Clark indicated that tax increment financing was a chance to pay for developments within the commercial area. It would be paid for out of funds which would otherwise go to the county. City Manager Hurlburt indicated that now Mr. Larry Morrison would review the cost of the program to establish a re- development plan. Mr. Larry Morrison presented a letter to recap the costs of establishing increment financing. He then identified poten- tial sources of funding. One of the major sources of financing was tax increment financing. However, all methods of financing merit study and careful assessment . He then went over the elements of the redevelopment procedure. He believes that Highway 111 does have problems, circulation hazards, drainage, etc. He went on to list 6 components of the program; 1) the need for legal service, 2) document preparation, 3) cost and preliminary financial pro- jections, 4) the cost of plan refinement , 5) financial analysis provided by Stone & Youngberg, 6) bond council to review the le- gality and economic components. The total cost estimate was in- dicated as being in a range of $38-46, 000. He stated that the cost of these studies could be financed through the tax increment flow. He recommended that the Planning Commission request that the coun- cil should undertake the redevelopment program. Chairman Clark stated that through tax incremental fin- ancing approximately $2 million could be financed at no additional cost to any taxpayer. The city could finance a considerable amount of improvements without finding another way of financing. Commissioner McPherson stated we can adopt the agency and freeze the tax base, is that true, or must we approve the re- development plan? Mr. McCarty said that the city must approve a redevelop- ment plan. Chairman Clark asked how late could the plan be adopted. -3- Mr. McCarty stated by the end of August , 1975. Commissioner McPherson asked if we don' t adopt the plan by December 31, 1974, do we lose a year' s income? Chairman Clark pointed out only one year ' s income would be lost but the tax base would be frozen as of March, 1974. No further comments by Mr. Morrison, Chairman Clark called for a 10-minute break at 9:40 P.M. The meeting was called back to order at 9: 50 P.M. `.. Chairman Clark asked if anyone from the audience wished to speak on elements of the Specific Plan. Mr. Don Shayler, 74-280 Old Prospectors Trail, Palm Desert , spoke representing Ahmanson & Company, and commended the council for developing the Specific Plan. He requested that con- sideration of this plan be delayed and a separate traffic commis- sion be formed, with three responsibilities; 1) to review the in- formation generated by the CAC and Wilsey & Ham, 2) to recommend steps to alleviate immediate traffic problems, 3) to prepare and initiate a long-range program for correcting any traffic problems that exist. Regarding the land use maps, he indicated some reserva- tions. He thought that along E1 Paseo, the stripping or mixing of land uses is not in the best interest . He recommended that both sides of E1 Paseo be designated as commercial . He doubts the compatibility of the proposed uses. He suggested that there may be other uses that may be compatible along the highway. Lastly, he recommended the formation of another Citi- zens Committee who would prepare considerations of the Specific Plan, would take more time to propose it to the committee. Mr. Frank Purcell, 380 Crestview, Palm Springs, spoke about the property he owns north of 44th Avenue, west of Joshua Tree and east of Highway 111. He stated that this property got its commercial zoning about 12 years ago. The use he wanted the property for was commercial in order to construct a retail building materials center. Now his alternative was limited by the Specific Plan which would cause the loss of his proposed use. He had bought the property for the home improvement use not for the use shown on the Specific Plan. His options now appear to be to sell his property or to hold it for speculation. He stated that he was not a speculator. In the area of planning, there is no perfect plan. The use that he bought the property for is a logical use, is not what is in the Specific Plan. His building would be for a Home Building Center. It would conform to the existing standards in the area. He requested he be allowed to protect his investment and retain that use. Mr. Dick Coffin, 73-700 E1 Paseo, Palm Desert , commented about Mr. McCarty' s talk regarding the planned funding for this project . He felt that it ' s a little bit of a misnomer to say it is not costing the taxpayer any money. Money has to come from somewhere. The tax rate would be changed to pick up that additional funding. He felt we have to admit taxes are going to have to increase to pay for redevelopment . Regarding the total plan, he felt it needed more study. He was against the one-way law plan, he felt it needed more study. He was against the one-way circulation. There are parking problems along El Paseo and High- way 111 in front of the stores. These should be solved by limit- ing parking time to say one hour. Cars are there now from 7: 00 A.M. to 6: 00 P.M. If parking were limited, people could park and leave. Do not eliminate parking altogether, this would kill business. The Board of Realtors would like more time. The Planning Commission should postpone any definitive action at this -4- time. The Board of Realtors would like to hire some people to study the plan. Chairman Clark asked how much time he is asking for. Mr. Coffin replied he thought they needed 30 days at least . Commissioner McPherson said Mr. Coffin' s idea was com- mendable the city has placed a moratorium on commercial develop- ment until the Specific Plan was adopted. Is Mr. Coffin agree- able to extend the moratorium. tow Mr. Coffin replied yes, a 30-60 day moratorium is better than rushing into something. Commissioner McPherson said he just wanted to hear him say it . Mr. Gary Murphy, 42-705 Iowa Street , Palm Desert , spoke regarding the one-way street system. His business depends on construction so the moratorium affects him also. However, his business would suffer a lot more with one-way streets. He indi- cated that he owned the Auto Part Sales on Highway 111. He stated a little more thought should go into the plan . He is against this part of the plan until we find another way to do it . Chairman Clark stated that Wilsey & Ham would address some of the misconceptions later in the evening. Mrs. Eleanor Segall asked about traffic problems. She asked would access to her business be limited to Portola. Mr. Cook, of Wilsey & Ham, stated with a signal at El Paseo and Portola you would be able to get through across High- way 111. Mrs. Segall asked about the traffic on the frontage road. Mr. Cook stated; 1) there would be installation of traffic signals at various intersections where there are none now - specifically at San Luis Rey and El Paseo, and another at Portola and at San Pablo. Traffic still would be able to go the entire way along the frontage roads. If congestion resulted, then the channelization could be installed. Chairman Clark asked if anyone else wished to address the commission. Being none, he then asked if the commission had any questions. Commissioner Brush asked about Mr. Harry Schmitz' s suggestion that we do not adopt the Specific Plan but to trans- form it into a urban design element . What would happen if we did that? City Manager Hurlburt said that Mr. Morrison would re- spond to that . Mr. Morrison said that a specific plan is a sub-area. The area is different , the whole approach is different . He does not see how the plan could be transformed into such an element concompassing the total city. He responded to some of the use- ful information that the people made. He emphasized, the city is not at that point in time of changing the actual zoning. Even- tually we will have to bring you zoning maps in conformation with your Specific Plan. There could be procedures built in the zoning process providing for cases where there is a hardship involved. Looking at Mr. Schmitz' s precise development , I see some problems. Regarding the entrances from backs of buildings, he felt that it would be necessary to redistribute the parking to create some -5- environment for pedestrians, shoppers, etc. The consultant had tried to build values into the Specific Plan. Chairman Clark asked if there were any other questions from the staff. Commissioner Benson asked Mr. Morrison about Mr. Purcell ' s problem. She asked if it was reverted back to what its use was, could other residential areas be changed back to commercial uses? Mr. Morrison stated that the commercial area is more than conceptual. However, if there is a hardship involved, they cer- tainly should override something as abstract as trying to maintain total purity. With regard to changing the residential uses , the concept is not to put houses right on Highway 111 . The idea is to buffer noises with mounding and landscaping. We' re looking at the start of a ten-year planning process. There may be many changes. Chairman Clark asked if there were any other questions from the staff. He stated that Mr. Morrison brought out that this is a specific plan that has considerable flexibility. Whenever a new approach is brought up, people, before they understand it , can explain why it won' t work. To comprehend what is being offered, the existing parking is unmanageable, there is a lack of ability to potential customers to go from one store to another in a car. People could walk, not take their car. This is what we had hoped would be developed. The Realty Board and the Chamber of Commerce want to get beyond the point of saying it ' s wrong and come up with specific recommendations . Chairman Clark asked if there were any other questions from the audience and staff . Does the commission have any facts that they want to bring to light . He stated he was surprised to hear the Ahmanson Company was raising questions. Ahmanson Company, a couple of weeks ago, complimented the city on the plan and said it was appreciated. He asked what the commission thought or did they have any comments. %NW Commissioner Benson stated the plan should be studied further, more time to review it . Each time we see something dif- ferent about it . Commissioner Brush stated he was willing to accept the Specific Plan with the provision that we honor the request for additional time on the traffic element and made such a motion which died due to the lack of a second. Mr. Morrison stated that on the matter of traffic - the one-way system is working in Pasadena. The reason for consider- ing the one-way system is because there are a lot of accidents with the present system. Retaining the frontage roads was to maintain the "village quality" . Eliminating circulation from the plan is not appropriate. Land use and circulation have to work together. The best course is to try to identify the problem and resolve it . Commissioner Brush asked if we accept the plan, do we have to put in channelization and have to improve Alessandro. Mr. Cook replies no, the channelization may never be need- ed. However you should improve Alessandro and the parking lots on the north side. taw Chairman Clark asked about Portola Avenue and the north frontage road (Sunshine Restaurant ) directly west . He asked how to get there going north. Such questions bothered him and the people. Mr. Cook stated that the area you' re talking about would be accessible from Alessandro. -6- Commissioner McPherson stated that the first thing we should do is a public relations job to tell the people what is being eliminated and what is being added. Mr. Coffin stated he would like to understand the thing. Could we have a meeting with Wilsey & Ham and tell them our ideas and thoughts and some of the problems. The true problems of the traffic have not been understood by Wilsey & Ham. Mr. Cook said if the plan is adopted and established with one-way streets, you still would be able to come in and make a left turn to get into the particular buildings. He suggested .. that the program be established then watch to see what happens. Commissioner McPherson asked what happens if we adopt this plan and the Realty Board or Chamber of Commerce comes up with something better, could we scrap the plan. Chairman Clark asked if what we are approving can all be changed in a month or two. Mr. Morrison said we do not want a plan so set in concrete . This is really not adopting a zoning map, it is providing some definite guidelines to be kept in mind when reviewing projects. Commissioner Benson asked if we adopt the plan is it up to us when we want to start the one-way street system. Will suf- ficient time be allowed for other alternatives to come in for study. Mr. Morrison stated that the option is either one-way street, or two-way street , there are no three-way streets yet . Chairman Clark stated that there is concern in the com- mission and among real estate owners. However, we recognize we are not gaining any parking with the prototype. He felt we should be assured comfortable and adequate parking will result so no store would lose business because somebody couldn ' t find a parking space. Mr. Morrison indicated that the commission should adopt guidelines, then decide what mechanism should be used throughout . Commissioner McPherson stated regarding one-way traffic on frontage roads, there is truly a problem. If we don' t take steps to solve the problem, the business is going to be lost far faster than going to one-way streets or some other solution. Chairman Clark stated two organizations have offered to make studies and report . He asked would we be locking ourselves in by adopting the plan so that we couldn' t take advantage if they came up with an idea. Commissioner Benson asked when would the council be hearing this? How much time would these organizations have before the first public hearing. City Manager Hurlburt stated, if approved this evening, the council hearing would be either August 8th or 22nd. Chairman Clark stated the August 22nd date would provide r.r adequate time for Realty Board and Chamber of Commerce to come up with recommendations. Commissioner Aston moved and Commissioner Benson seconded a motion to forward the Specific Plan to the City Council for ap- proval with the condition that the public hearing be set for Aug- ust 22nd. Chairman Clark stated that Commissioner Aston has made a motion to approve the Specific Plan for the commercial area and -7- asked the Council to set the public hearing on August 22. Chairman Clark stated there are a lot of things about this we question about the plan and wondered if it was usable by staff. City Manager Hurlburt indicated that the plan gives us stronger guidelines to evaluate development but you can change it any time you want . Mr. Morrison stated that if you do not feel the plan is something more than "It ' s all we got" , then don' t adopt it. Chairman Clark wanted to know do we have adequate park- ing, can people visit more than one store in the block, do we have to shut off some parking on the frontage road which made it easy to shop. He hoped the plan gave enough guidelines to staff for them to evaluate future projects. It ' s questions like these that worry me and the rest of the Commission. The Realty Board says they want to get involved. He hoped that if we pass the plan tonight , the Planning Commission is not just getting a lip service. Chairman Clark stated motion has been made and seconded to approve the Specific Plan for the commercial district . The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES : BENSON, McPHERSON, BRUSH, ASTON, CLARK NOES : NONE B. Case No. 8MF - H. Thorson - Request for Plot Plan Approval to permit construction of 66 carports for the Desert Garden Apartments located at 45-278 Deep Canyon Road. Chairman Clark asked whether the staff had any comment . Ww Mr. Williams described the project , and indicated that any approval should have the condition that curb and gutter be required. He stated that the proposed metal carports were not the type of carport development that had been acceptable to the Commission in the past since the carports were not enclosed on two sides and did not have storage areas. Ed Power, 45-278 Deep Canyon Road, Palm Desert , repre- senting the applicant , explained the request and objected strongly to the requirement of curb and gutter. A lengthy discussion then occurred by the Commission regarding whether curb and gutter should be required. It was also brought out that the proposed carports were not of substantial construction and that the Com- mission had denied the same carports previously. After additional discussion, Commissioner McPherson moved, Commissioner Brush seconded that the carports be approved subject to staff conditions. The motion was unanimously carried. Mr. Power expressed his strong displeasure to the re- quirement of the curb and gutter. VI . OLD BUSINESS - None to` VII . NEW BUSINESS - None VIII . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None IX. COMMENTS - None X, ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned 11 :45 P.M. -8- Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 1974 Kathleen C. Widmar, Secretary ATTEST: vow HERRIf B. CL M YOR tir... ftw -9-