Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0203 PALM DESERT PLANI`IING COP�IISSION FEBP.UARY 3 , 1975 PALZ�7 DESEP.T r1IDDLE SCHOOL I . CALL TO ORDER The regular meetina of the Palm Desert Plannin� Commission was called to order by the Chairman at 7 : 10 P.M. on February 3 , 1975 at the Palm Desert P�Iiddle School. � II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III . ROLL CALL Present : Commissioners : GEORGE BERKEY; ED PZULLINS ; WILLIAM SEIDLER; P�IP,F.Y KAY VAN DE MARF:; S . ROY tiaILSON Absent : rlone Others Present : Paul Williams - Director of Environmental Services Jeff Paterson - City Attorney Representative Freeman P.ader - Associate Planner Sam Freed - Assistant Planner Bill Garrett � Bill Reynolds - tailsey u Ham P.epresentatives IV. APPROVAL OF rZIP1UTES Chairman Seidler, taith consensus from the Commissioners , indicated the minutes could not be approved at this time and should be taken up by the Staff for correction prior to the `�"" next scheduled meeting for subsequent approval. The Staff concurred. V. tiJRITTEN COP��UNICATIONS Mr. Williar.ls brouaht to the attention of the Cor.unission, correspondence from the Coachella Valley County tiaater District and recommended the correspondence be received and filed. The Commission concurred. VI . OLD BUSI�IESS A. Mr. Williams stated that the determination of boundaries for the proposed Redevelopment Project Area No . 1 would be a continued item at this meeting. He then introduced representatives from ti�ilsey & Ham, Inc . who were there to �;ive a presentation on their study of the surve� area, Project Area No. 1 Mr. Garrett summarized the study of the survey area, as selected by the City Council . He stated that the basic problems found were within the Core Area. Mr. Garrett then gave a detailed explanation of the particular problems observed within the Core Area. He went on to explain that the develop- ment potential within the project area for the most part , �"" included areas to the west part of the City which were presently undeveloped. Both residential and commercial development could occur within those areas of the City within the near future. These developments could be used to fund the redevelopment of the area in order to make redevelopr.lent economically feasible. Iie then outlined the proposed area. In summation, Mr. Garrett pointed out several major factors necessary for considering the feasibility of this program. He indicated the fact that within this project area were the entry ways to the City, both on the east and the west ; which when developed, may strongly influence the image of the City of Palm Desert. He then informed the Commission that initial cost estimates of various programs to be undertaken would likely use up most of the monies available to the Agency. Therefore, he proposed a limitation of the project area and presented a diagram with proposed boundaries . The project area would be known as Project Area Number One. � There being no further comments , P4r. ti,lilliams wanted it clearly pointed out that the single purpose of the establish- ment of this project area was to utilize the Tax Increment Financin� Method to develop public improvements that are con- sidered necessary in this area. This would not be an attempt to go with a full blown Federal Redevelopment Program which would entail the consolidation of parcels and the demolition of buildings . With regards to the proposed Planning Commission Resolution No. 32 , Mr . L,7illiams explained that the resolution consisted primarily of two parts : l. A map of the proposed Project Area No. 1 2 . Exhibit A - a narrative that describes the project area boundaries in a very general term. Chairman Seidler said the deliberation this evenin, '�' was to decide on the boundaries of this particular project, which is the first project that the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency will pursue. He said it should also be noted that this is a vehicle for providing funds for improving those problems that we have in the Core Area. The redevelotiment funds , themselves , may not be enough money to completely change everything the way we would imagine it to be changed in the future, but it was a starting point to capture those dollars which would otherwise not be available. Commissioner Mullins moved, Commissioner Wilson seconded a motion for approval of Planning Commission Resolu- tion No. 31 , selecting a project area for the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency, approvin� the boundaries for the Project Area No. l . The motion was unanimously carried. VII . NEti� BUSINESS A. Mr . Rader read a detailed Staff Report outlining chan�es referred back to the Planning Commission for concurrence of chan�es to the General Plan as adopted by the City Council . Draft Resolution No . 32 was prepared for review and approval reflecting, those changes as noted by P'Ir. Rader . After review of these changes , the Staff made the �"' following recommendations : l. To not concur with change ;�1, a change was not necessary with re�ards to the wording . 2 . To concur with changes a�2 through ��6 , with a modification of change �k2. 2 In reference to change ��l, the general consensus of the Commission was that the true purpose of the change was to define "regional" and they felt that this should be done without adding the ambiguous words "mini" and "sub-regional" . In reference to changes �r2-��6, the �eneral consensus was that the changes would be appropriate. Commissi�r�er Berkey moved, Commissioner Mullins seconded the motion that the Commission approve Planning Com- mission Resolution =,'r32 reflecting the six chan�es with two revisions . The motion was unanimously carried. �• B. Mr. Williams suggested review by the Commission of the proposed schedule of Planning Activities and the Zoning Ordinance. A total of 6 Study Sessions would be held to review and revise the draft of the proposed Zoning Ordinance. He noted that the Citizens Advisory Committee would also be reviewing and giving input at the same time. Chairman Seidler explained that these Study Sessions should be on an informal basis , with discussion specifically related only to those items in accordance with the schedule for each meeting . He felt that this would be an excellent opportunity for exchan�e between the Staff, Commission, and citizens who wished to participate. In summary, Chairman Seidler commended the Staff for a good job done organizing and settin� up items for review before final approval of the preliminary draft Zoning Ordinance. There was full concurrence by the Commission with the schedule as presented by the Staff. VIII . ORAL COMrNrdICATIONS - None IX. COMMENTS � A. City Staff - Mr . L�ill�iams added that each month Staff would update the schedule to reflect any changes which may occur and distribute to the Commission B. City Attorney - None C. Planning Commission - Pdone X. ADJOURNP�NT Commissioner Mullins moved, Commissioner Berkey seconded the motion that the meeting be adjourned until the first Study Session scheduled for February 10 , 1975. The motion was unanir.lously carried and the meeting was adjourned at 7 : 45 p .m. `. J��_._ � �j r t ! c�}� � _� ����: �� �,,,_._�s P UL A. WIL IAMS , Secretary ATTEST: � � � W LLIA1�7 SEI LER, CHAIRMAN 3