Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1207 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - DECEMBER 7, 1982 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Downs III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Commissioner Crites Commissioner Downs Commissioner Kryder Commissioner Richards Chairman Wood Staff Present: Ramon Diaz Stan Sawa Phil Drell Steve Smith Phil Joy Linda Russell Al Cablay Doug Phillips IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 16, 1982 Chairman Wood approved the minutes as submitted. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Diaz reviewed the actions of the Council for the meeting of December 2, 1982. Now VI. CONSENT CALENDAR All matters listed on the consent calendar are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless members of the planning commission or audience request specific items be removed from the consent calendar for separate discussion and action. A. DP 03-79, TT 14805, and 183 MF - KAUL CONSTRUCTION CO. - Request for approval of an one year time extension of a development plan, tentative tract, and design review case for a 36 unit condominium project on the south side of Country Club Drive, approximately 245 feet east of Sagewood Drive. B. CUP 07-81 and 232 MF, GILANO DEVELOPMENT CORP. - Request for approval of an one year time extension of a conditional use permit and design review case for a 13 unit condominium project on Ryway Place, 250 feet north of Grapevine Street. C. DP 08-81, JDF FINANCIAL CORP. - Request for approval of an one year time extension of a development plan for a 168 unit condotel on the south side of Highway 111, approximately 300 feet east of Shadow Hills Road. Rec: Approve as presented. Moved by Commissioner Crites, seconded by Commissioner Downs, to approve the WNW consent calendar items as presented. Carried unanimously 5-0. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case Nos. GPA 03-82, C/Z 08-82 and ZOA 11-82 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Consideration of a general plan amendment, change of zone, zoning ordinance amendment, and Negative MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 1982 Declaration of Environmental Impact, involving hillside development standards for property generally located between the Palm Valley Storm Channel and western city limits. Mr. Drell reviewed the changes to the proposed ordinance as a result of the previous hearing. He described a new development option which permitted increased density for larger sites or combination of parcels submitted under one development plan if at least ten acres are located in the preferred development area as shown on the zoning map. The object of this option was to encourage hillside property owners to merge their acreage and discourage development in the higher hillside areas. It was noted that the Palm Desert Property Owners Association submitted a letter to the planning commission recommending rejection of any changes to hillside development standards. Staff recommended approval of a general plan amendment, change of zone, and zoning ordinance amendment. Chairman Wood explained that based on the advice of the city attorney, Commissioner Crites would abstain from discussion and vote. Chairman Wood opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this matter. MRS. ALEXIS NEWBRANDER, 46-260 Cottage Lane, Palm Desert, commended staff for their efforts. She described the hillsides in Palm Springs and Rancho Mirage as overbuilt, and feared the same would occur here. She urged approval of the proposed plan and amendments. MRS. MARIAN HENDERSON, 73-595 Pinyon Street, Palm Desert, president of Desert Beautiful, felt that the protection of the hills is invaluable and recommended that no changes be made until further study is made. MR. GEORGE SMITH, representing the Palm Desert Presbyterian Church, stated that they have been concerned with this matter for a long time. The specific concerns were density, right-of-way and maintenance of roads, and bridges. He felt the new option was a "gerrymander" method to encourage development. He also felt that all these concerns should be studied further. MR. WILLIAM PRAY, 73-385 Joshua, Palm Desert, concurred that this matter needed further study. MR. HANK CLARK, 73-183 Willow, stated there were many concerns expressed and added that he was not aware of the proposed changes to the general plan. He felt that the concerns were obvious: scaring of the hillside and channel; tremendous expense to build a bridge; water and sewer; maintenance of roads; and, vandalism. He requested denial at this time. Commssioner Richards stated that many people present were not at the previous hearings and asked staff to reiterate the problems and purpose of this hearing. Mr. Diaz explained that the proposed general plan amendment called for lowering the residential densities set forth in the 1979 Palm Valley Channel Specific Plan. He stated that the present zoning regulations were inconsistent with the current plan and that such an inconsistency was in violation of the state law. The inconsistency occurs because present hillside development regulations preclude the development of densities set forth in the Palm Valley Channel Specific Plan. Mr. Diaz then stated that earlier this year, at a joint meeting of the council and commission, the options to correct this inconsistency were identified; either revise the plan or the ordinance. Because the current plan was based on inaccurate data and the densities set forth were unacceptable, staff was instructed to prepare a new plan and a committee composed of councilmen and commissioners was created. Mr. Diaz concluded that prior to the first public hearing a general meeting was held and property owners inside the planning area and within three feet were notified; in addition, numerous press releases were made during the entire -2- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 1982 planning process. Mr. Drell reviewed the differences in density between the previously adopted and the proposed plans. At this time Chairman Wood called for testimony from property owners in the hillside area who wished to speak. MR. GEORGE FOX, Chicago, owner of 97 acres, stated he has been working to create a proper development in that area for many years. He stated that in 1979 he was told that he could construct 350 unit hotel. He further stated that his proposed density is the same as he originally was down-zoned to in 1979, and now he is being told that the city made a mistake. He felt he could develop a major project on his 97 acres that would enhance the area. He emphasized that he would save the site aesthetically and opposed the proposed plan. MR. TOM ESSON, engineer, 940 Villa Road, Palm Springs, spoke on behalf of the 97 acres owned by Mr. Fox. He presented a drawing of a slope analysis and explained the different impacts proposed developments might have on the hills. He also reviewed Mr. Fox's 1979 proposal. MR. ALAN PERRIER, attorney for Mr. Fox, explained how the property was zoned in 1969, 1979, and under the present proposal. He felt that it was a mistake to adopt an ordinance that would preclude the development of a hotel. In reviewing minutes of hearings in 1979 for the specific plan, he felt thorough study was made and much time was spent, therefore, the plan should be implemented. He suggested implementation of the 1979 specific plan, elimination of roads on 35% slope, and upper hillside properties to meet same standards as the 5 acre parcels. MR. JAMES PAUL, owner of 4 acre parcels, felt cheated because he has been restricted to develop and stated that Mr. Fox's desires should be more responsive. He also felt that his view of the valley floor had been destroyed by developments in the flat lands. MR. JEFFREY PAUL, felt that Commissioner Crites should reconsider his withdrawal in this matter. He stated that people in the flat lands do not want to see any development. MS. ELAINE BRODNEX BROERMAN, Pasadena, resented that her opportunity to develop on her property has been taken away. She stated that she has been a long time property owner and feels she has a right to develop. Chairman Wood closed the public hearing and asked staff to address the concerns expressed. Mr. Diaz responded to the concerns and issues raised during the public testimony portion of the public hearing. In response to Mr. Smith, he stated that the option to encourage lot consolidation was an attempt to try and locate hillside development to lower hillside areas and minimize the impact on higher slopes. He equated this type of option with existing planned residential zones which permit higher densities as a method of encouraging better development. He further stated that bridges across the channel were part of the present flood control program, and any bridges in addition to those being built as part of that program, would have to be as a result of an assessment district composed of affected property owners. He concluded that streets in the area would be private and not maintained by the city; the density of the area immediately east of the church was 3 units per acre which was lower than similar property on the west side of the channel. In response to the question of access, Mr. Diaz replied that the bridges which vow channel. part of the present Palm Desert Redevelopment Plan would resolve that problem. In response to comments made by Mr. Fox and his representatives, Mr. Diaz stated that the proposed action was not a down-zoning. Under current regulations which were in effect since 1975 the total number of units that could be developed in the area owned by Mr. Fox was 3 to 5; the proposed regulations would permit nearly 60 units. Mr. Diaz further stated that while the 1979 plan called for higher densities than those proposed under the current plan the zoning regulations were never revised and higher densities never existed; -3- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 1982 and the council had chosen not to implement those densities. Regarding the question of hotel development, Mr. Diaz stated that the committee reviewing the plan had considered permitting hotels with a density equal to regular residential density, or in this case a 60 unit hotel. In response to Mr. Paul and Ms. Broerman, Mr. Diaz commented that the new proposals were not taking away development rights. The public hearing was opened in order to give the audience a chance for rebuttal. Mr. Fox stated that the people in the homestead area have been given an ultimatum and owners on upper hillside have been denied development. The public hearing was closed and a 10 minute recess called at 8:43 p.m. -- The meeting reconvened at 8:55 p.m. Chairman Wood asked for comments from the commission. Commissioner Richards explained to the public that they are trying to do some honest planning. He disagreed with staff relative to Mr. Fox's property; he felt it was down-zoned as proposed and was inclined to separate this property from the others. He added that staff had done a good and thorough analysis in studying the matter. Commissioner Wood concluded with a statement that the commission had a very difficult job in making a decision and as a result not everyone would be happy with it. Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 830, recommending to the City Council to rescind the Palm Valley Area Specific Plan, and adoption of of The West Hills Specific Plan (GPA 03-82) and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact be approved. Carried 3-0-2 (Commissioners Crites and Richards abstained). Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, to adopt findings and Planning Commission Resolution No. 831, recommending approval of a Change of Zone (C/Z 08-82) from R-E 1-3 d.u./5 acres D,H; PR-1 D,H; PR-2 D,H; PR-3 D,H; and O.S. to H-PR D and O.S. to C-1, and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for property between the Palm Valley Channel and the western city limits. Carried 3-0-2 (Commissioners Crites and Richards abstained). Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 832, recommending approval to the City Council of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 11-82, creating the H-PR Hillside Planned Residential District, Chapter 25.25 and deleting the "H" Hillside Development Overlay District Chapter 25.52 and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. Carried 3-0-2 (Commissioners Crites and Richards abstained). VIII. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS - NONE IX. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS A. 173 C - LYNDALE MANOR - Request for approval to record an agreement in lieu of undergrounding existing utility poles in the C-1, S.P. zone located at the northwest corner of San Carlos Drive and North Palm Desert Drive. Mr. Sawa reviewed the staff report and explained that the applicant was requesting to be a part of any future undergrounding district in lieu of the required undergrounding now. It was noted that the pole would have to be relocated if it's in the alley area, which is to be paved. Staff recommended approval. MR. PAUL HENRY, representative, was present to answer any questions the commission might have. Moved by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner Crites, to approve the -4- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 1982 request. Carried unanimously 5-0. B. PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT - Request for adoption of a resolution finding the Redevelopment Project conforming to the General Plan and transmitting its report and recommendation to the Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Ortega explained that when this property was transferred to the project area within City of Palm Desert an agreement was made between both cities. The agreement called for a reversion of the property when the City of Indian Wells formed a redevelopment agency. In order to return the area in question an amendment to the Palm Desert Redevelopment Plan was necessary. Prior to approving such a revision council needed a determination from the commission that such an amendment was consistent with the Palm Desert General Plan. Legal procedures have to be adhered to and therefore the matter was before the planning commission. Commissioner Richards felt that problems would arise in terms of the revenue source and suggested a hold harmless letter be obtained from bond counsel. Commissioner Kryder suggested that action should be taken now with the agreement that a hold harmless letter be obtained. Commissioner Crites felt that maybe this should be continued until a legally constituted redevelopment agency were formed in Indian Wells. Mr. Ortega explained that the bonds repayment would not come from increment enerated from this area. The increment from this area would, however, be used to repay 2.5 million in expenses and costs not covered by the bonds issued for the Palm Valley Channel construction. MR. DAVE SHEY, representative for City of Indian Wells, stated that a legal Redevelopment Agency has been formed since July. He explained the agreements made between the cities when this property was transferred to the project area within the City of Palm Desert. He further noted that $2'/i million was to be given to the City of Palm Desert towards the Palm Valley Channel whether the property was within the project area of Indian Wells or Palm Desert. Chairman Wood asked Mr. Shey what security did the City of Palm Desert have on the $2%z million promised. Mr. Shey indicated that he understood the commission's concerns and why they would want those concerns clarified prior to taking action. He concluded that he would like to see this proceed as quickly as possible. Chairman Wood stated that there were many questions unanswered and felt there should be clarification before taking any action and asked Mr. Diaz to state those concerns which had been raised. Mr. Diaz indicated that implementation of the flood control project was the reason the commission made a determination that the Palm Desert Redevelopment Plan was consistent with the city's general plan; that any amendment to the plan must not impact the implementation of the project. He continued that among the questions raised during the council's study session were: Shouldn't all legal challenges to the Indian Wells agency be cleared before transferring the area? What would be the impact on the increment flow if the territory were transferred and the Indian Wells Redevelopment Agency successfully challenged in the courts? Vow Moved by Commissioner Crites, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to continue this matter to the meeting of December 21, 1982, 2:00 p.m. for further study and clarification. Carried 3-2 (Commissioners Kryder and Downs voting NAY). X. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE -5- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 1982 XI. COMMENTS - NONE XII. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Wood adjourned the meeting at 9:40 P.M. At N A. DIAZ, Sec r ATTEST: ary RALPH B. WOOD, Chairman /Ir writ -6-