Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0306 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - MARCH 6, 1984 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE * � � * * � � * * � � * * � � * * * � � * � * � � � * * � � � * � A STUDY SESSION WAS HELD PRIOR TO 7HE MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER CONFERENCE ROOM, AT 6:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER �"" Chairman Wood called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Erwood III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Commissioner Crites Commissioner powns Commissioner Erwood Commissioner Richards Chairman Wood Others Present: Ramon Diaz Stan Sawa Barry McClellan Phil 7oy Linda Russell IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 21, 1984 Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to approve the minutes as submitted. Carried unanimously 5-0. � V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION - NONE VI. CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case Nos. TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 (Amendment ��1) - SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES AND SUN-RAY ENGINEERING, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to a previously approved conditional use permit and tentative tract map to allow the creation of 39 single family lots in the PR-7, D and PR-7, H zones located in Ironwood Country Club on the south side of Mariposa Drive, at the easterly end of Poinciana Place. Mr. Sawa reviewed the staff report and pointed out the revisions made to the plan since the last public hearing on the map which included deletion of one residential lot on "B" Street and the existing tees would not be relocated. A letter received by Mr. loseph Gibbs, attorney, expressed concern that the legal noticing procedures were improper. Other letters received in OPPOSITION: Ironwood Owners Association VIII, J. Weber, William McGregor, Alan Talt, Dr. and Mrs. Kunelis, Mr. and Mrs. McArthur. In FAVOR: Mr. and Mrs. John Bowen, F.M. Stevenson. Staff recommended approval of the revised amendment. W,,,, Mr. Diaz also noted that a letter called "llth Hour Report" had been distributed at the meeting from the Board of Directors of the Association expressing satisfaction with the revised proposal. (Note: Association was not identified at this time). Chairman Wood asked if the commission had any questions of staff. Commissioner Crites asked staff if the people purchasing property were aware of the settlement made in 1972. Mr. Sawa replied that the White Sheet showed what was to be developed at the time, which included the number of maximum units and also indicated area Q as developable. (Note: The White Sheet is a real estate report given to each purchaser of a unit). MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 6, 1984 Chairman Wood in referring to Mr. Gibbs objection to the legal notifications noted that the city attorney indicated the procedures used were proper. Commissioner Richards, in referring to a letter received by Mr. and Mrs. McArthur, asked if the topography map shown was the same as the original shown at the time people were purchasing property, and if the elevations were the same. Mr. Sawa replied that the lots were rough graded then as they are shown today and there would be no substantial difference in the grade. Mr. and Mrs. McArthur �rr�rli stated in their letter that they were told at the time they purchased their lot they would have a view, but now as it appears to be graded they will not. Commissioner Richards also felt that there would not be a substantial difference in the grade as presented by staff. Chairman Wood instructed staff to contact Mr. and Mrs. Arthur of these findings. Commissioner powns asked if the topography map shown and the elevations were the actual grading to be done. Mr. Sawa replied that at this point it is conceptual but staff would make sure that there would not be a substantial change in elevations. Mr. McClellan stated that the pad grades (grading plan) are being reviewed and could be shown to commission after approval. Chairman Wood opened the public hearing and asked the applicant if he wished to make a presentation. MR. LARRY SPICER, 49-200 Mariposa Dr., identified the llth hour report as being sent by Association No. 7 which includes the homes on Quercus Lane and Poinciana, (Mr. Consentino is president of association). He explained how the property south of the 16th Fairway was acquired through the Coachella Valley Water District. He concurred not to relocate the 16th tee and to delete lot 40, the nearest lot to the development; these were previous concerns expressed by homeowners. Mr. Spicer had prepared ; graphics showing how far the nearest proposed home is from existing �i development. MR. LEONARD CZARNOWSKI, President of Sun-Ray Engineering, 131 West Green St., Pasadena, explained that this land had always had a severe drainage problem. They were requested to study the problem and provide a remedy. He explained how they arrived at the calculations for a 350-year storm and how they would be providing 1%z ft. to 3 ft. freeboards. He believed they have eliminated any potential flooding problems. He showed on the map how the grading would take place noting also that it should not present a problem. Mr. Diaz noted that there was some concern expressed regarding the velocity of water. Mr. Czarnowski explained that the velocity would be reduced and the waters would be more confined in terms of depth (maximum depth being 4y2 feet). Mr. McClellan stated that he had reviewed the data Mr. Czarnowski provided and concurred that the velocity and depth would be reduced by widening the drainage path. Commissioner Richards asked Mr. Czarnowski to point out the path of drainage and its potential flood hazard effects to the green and specifically what is the elevation from the drainage channel to the green. Mr. Czarnowski responded that ;; from the top of the projected water it would be approximately 7yz feet. He also noted that the flood hazard map indicates that they are bypassing the green which eliminates any adverse effects. �' Commissioner Richards noted that since the "llth Hour Report" stated no opposition to this plan it was very important to know exactly who it came from. Commissioner powns asked Mr. Spicer if salespeople, to his knowledge, informed the purchasers that no development would occur in Section Q. Mr. Spicer replied that he had no knowledge of what the salespeople informed the purchasers but -2- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 6, 1984 Ironwood does inform the salespeople of their projections in the future. Commissioner Crites, in referring to that issue, pointed out that what the purchasers say they were told by salespeople may or may not be true, but without some type of evidence is unclear. Mr. Spicer explained that salesmen are instructed not to speculate. Commissioner Crites then asked if the salespeople knew that the property on the south side of the channel was not at that time owned by Ironwood. Mr. Spicer replied that he did not know what the salespeople did or � did not know. Chairman Wood pointed out that presently there had not been any evidence presented to commission that they (purchasers) were told there would not be any development on the south side of the channel. Chairman Wood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR. There being none, he asked if anyone present wished to speak in OPPOSITION. MR. JOE GIBBS, 43-621 Vanda Circle, represented some residents of Ironwood Country Club, and requested a continuance for an opportunity to present evidence of concerns regarding severe drainage problems and potential flood hazard. He also noted legal notices were not properly sent. He sited that in May of 1972 a CUP was approved by the county and that CUP provided that no development was to occur south of the wash (Section Q). Each owner of Ironwood was handed a Subdivision Report which referred to that CUP 1382. In September of 1972 a lawsuit resulted in allowing Ironwood Country Club to develop in Section Q. 1'he White Sheet stated that Section Q would be developed in accordance with the master plan. The master plan in turn designated that area to have zero density. He stressed the importance of a continuance. It was noted that Mr. Gibbs, who is an attorney at 801 East Tahquitz-McCallum Way, Palm Springs, was retained by Mr. Lockwood Haight, who lives at Ironwood ;�,,, Country Club. Commissioner Erwood asked why the homeowners couldn't raise and address the issues at the present time rather than continuing the public hearing. Mr. Gibbs replied that they need the opportunity to contact consultants and engineers for the flood hazard concerns. Commissioner Richards felt that the drainage and flood concerns could be addressed by Mr. McClellan, director of public works. He added that the engineer that Ironwood would employ, the statements made by Mr. McClellan three meetings ago, and the direction of both Bechtal and the water district should not be questioned in regards to drainage and public safety and finds it to be the weakest of all arguments for a continuance. Chairman Wood felt that since there had been two public hearings already another continuance was not needed. Commission requested Mr. Diaz to respond to the concerns and issues at this time. Mr. Diaz responded to Mr. Gibbs statements: 1) Notification - The ordinance does require that all names listed on the assessor's rolls be notified. He explained that when there was a Mr. and Mrs. - the Mr. was notified. 2) Continuation - This matter had been continued for 30 days already. 3) Environmental Impact Report was prepared by County of Riverside on the original CUP; the original lawsuit brought about by the Concerned Citizens of Palm Desert was brought against �. Riverside County Board of Supervisors and the Silver Spur Homeowners Association through John C. McCarthy 4) Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact - the original EIR covers all potential environmental impacts and in terms of drainage and flood requirements, they are handled under the review process. 5) On the issue of the particular map that was shown - the lawsuit naming the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, filed after the original approval, was the original map as Exhibit "A". The lawsuit was dismissed after an agreement was reached calling for lower densities and less height. 6) The White Sheet did indicate development -3- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 6, 1984 would occur in Section Q. Commissioner Richards asked for a clarification in regards to the White Sheet, that all references go back to 1972 show no change from the fact that area Q, from the original document, was to be undeveloped. Mr. Diaz stated that the agreement referred to a revised Exhibit A of CUP 1382 which the city does not have a copy of the final map. Commissioner Erwood felt that since the ordinance does state that all names listed '� on the assessor's rolls should be notified then all should be included. He believed this was a matter of misinterpretation and could be easily corrected in the future but also felt proper notice should be remailed for this case. Commission agreed that review of the notification procedures was necessary and to discuss this matter with staff at a later time of the meeting. MR. PHILIP CRACKO, representing Chuck Franz who is property owner in Ironwood, felt that the real argument was that the residents are angry and hurt because they felt mislead. Their property values would drop if they lose the view they were promised. He feels they have a foundation for a lawsuit but that is not what they want. They just want more time to look into the concerns expressed and requested a continuance for 60 days. MR. E.C. MALONE, of San Diego, also Ironwood property owner, showed on the map where he lives at Ironwood and stated that it was right outside the 300 foot radius but lived within the 300 foot area of the proposed grading. He stated that the original map showed Section Q as no development and they (purchasers) were told this. They also paid high priced premiums for those homes with a view. In terms of the "llth Hour Report", being an absentee owner he asked if the board of directors had a meeting, did they take a vote, is it in the minutes, etc. He felt there were many questions that needed to be answered and also requested a continuance. He was not � aware of this matter until tonight -- He did not receive notification. He � concluded that the golf course was leased through the Coachella Valley Water District and would like to see a copy of the lease agreement. Commissioner powns asked Mr. Diaz if Mr. Malone should have been notified. Mr. Diaz explained that if grading was part of the project, yes. Commissioner Crites asked Mr. Diaz to respond to the issue raised by Mr. Malone that the tentative tract of the original CUP can only be amended by a legislative act vs. lawsuit. Mr. Diaz explained that a direct legislative act is not necessary and in this case the lawsuit was dismissed (through settlement) and the action stopped there. The file received from the county was incomplete. A settlement reached reflected changes in terms of height, density and developable area. Commissioner Crites asked if anyone did anything to change what was being shown to them on the map. Mr. Diaz replied yes because all the development that has taken place and approved by the city and tracts approved by county, were approved in accordance with the agreement. But in the case of the CUP he did not know. Commissioner Erwood asked if this agreement was recorded. Mr. Diaz stated that it was signed but did not know if it was recorded. MR. LOCKWOOD HAIGHT, 73-634 Poinciana, also stated that he was told by a salesperson that no development was to occur south of the wash at the time he purchased his home and the settlement agreement stated this also. He indicated that assuming that he had not believed the salespersons about rt development in Section Q, he would have looked at the the White Sheet � (Report) which would have referred him to the CUP, and the CUP had no evidence that building was to occur. The settlement agreement states: "A portion of subject property in which a maximum allowable 2500 dwelling units may be constructed, shall be increased from 362 acres to 468 acres. The additional acreage shall consist of the following: 58.8 hillside acres in Block Q on said map-- dwelling units shall not be -4- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 6, 1984 constructed on each portion thereof where grading of the building pad or access would be visible from real property adjacent to the subject property." He felt the lawsuit results needed to be addressed further and therefore asked for a continuance. MR. DICK WILLARD, 73-477 Irontree, read a letter he wrote to the commission which stated that nothing was said to him at the time he """� purchased his home regarding filling the lots on the east side of Mariposa 10 feet above street grade, which will now block his entire view of the golf co�rse. He also paid a premium price for the view. He confirmed Mr. McArthur's concerns and Mr. Antinelle, who is presently in Washington but owns a home and is a neighbor of Mr. Willard is also very concerned. He is not against development as long as they do not fill those lots. (lot 9 specifically). He estimated an 8 foot difference between the original grade and new pad grades. Mr. Czarnowski was called to explain what lots are being filled and how high. Mr. Czarnowski explained that lots 9, and 17 were partially being filled but the difference would be minimal (1 foot). He further explained that in lot 9's case, the finished pad in the center of the lot was about the same as existing. Because the lot near the easterly property line drops away to where proposed "C" Street meets Mariposa, there will be fill required on the easterly side to keep the lot pad level. MR. LARRY SPICER, in answer to the concerns of drainage stated that grading would be downstream. In regards to the request for more time because of subdivision standard requirements, he cannot see what else can be done. Sales office presentation maps only show historical and current development and development can change as long as it meets all zoning requirements. CUP approved by county was properly amended. Definition of adjacent property refers to adjacent property in the Silver Spur Ranch area and lots cannot be seen from that property. It would be a severe �"" hardship if continued. CHAIRMAN WOOD CALLED A 5 MINUTE RECESS -- THE MEETING RECONVENED AT 9:44 P.M. Chairman Wood closed the public hearing and asked for comments from the commission. Commissioner Erwood felt that legal notices needed to be sent properly, a clarification on the settlement agreement was necessary, and the 10 foot fill which will obstruct some views needed to be justified. He favored a continuance. Commissioner Richards also felt there were too many legal and moral iss�es that needed to be cleared up, specifically the grade elevations for lots 8, 9 and 17. He felt that Mr. Spicer had done a good job on his proposal but some of the concerns expressed tonight had to be resolved before going further on this. He also did not feel the issue of notification should be brought up again since the matter would be clarified with staff. He was in favor of continuance. Chairman Wood felt that property owners had a right to build on their property and a thorough job had been done by staff. He believed that the drainage problem had been resolved. He did not believe a continuance was necessary. Commissioner Crites explained that there were very serious issues that needed to � be resolved and therefore was also in favor of a continuance. Commissioner powns felt that residents along the drainage path needed to be properly notified of the proposed project and therefore also was in favor of a continuance. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner powns, to continue this matter to April 3, 1984, to give the residents an opportunity to study the -5- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 6, 1984 proposal further and staff will send out legal notices again. Carried 4-0-1 (Wood abstained). Mr. Diaz noted that staff will attempt to resolve the issues resulting from tonight. Proper notification would be sent out again. Commissioner powns assured that the drainage requirements would be met by � Bechtal Corporation and should not be an issue at the next meeting. � B. Case No. PP 84-2 - BOB SANDIFER, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact to allow construction of an 8648 sq.ft. industrial building in a service industrial zone located at the southwest corner of Mediterranean and Beacon Hill. Mr. Joy reviewed the staff report and noted an addition to conditions of approval. Add a condition of approval to read: "Reciprocal driveway easement (twelve feet wide) to be deeded on the west property line prior to grading permit issuance." Chairman Wood o ened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. The applicant was not present. Chairman Wood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being none, the public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Crites, seconded by Commissioner Richards, approving findings as recommended by staff. Carried unanimously 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Crites, seconded by Commissioner powns, to adopt � Planning Commission Resolution No. 937, approving PP 84-2, subject to conditions � as amended. Carried unanimously 5-0 C. Case No. PP 84-1 and PMW 84-1 - WILLIAM Vf/ILSON, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design, parcel map waiver and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact to allow construction of a 10,000 sq.ft. building in a service industrial zone located at the northwest corner of Mediterranean and St. Charles Place. Mr. Joy reviewed the staff report and noted a change in conditions of approval: Delete Condition No. 15. Chairman Wood o ened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. MR. GARY KNUTSON, 67-950 Grand View Avenue, Cathedral City, concurred with findings of staff and was present to answer any questions the commission might have. Chairman Wood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being none, the public hearing was closed. � � Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner powns, to approve ,� the findings as recommended by staff. Carried unanimously 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner powns, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 938, approving PP 74-1 and PMW 84-1, subject to conditions. Carried unanimously 5-0. -6- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 6, 1984 IX. MISCELLANEOUS I1'EMS A. Determination of use for land in PC (4) (Resort Commercial) zone for Hoames Pool property. (Oral Report) Rec: Review and determine acceptability. � Commission discussed and instructed staff to relate their concerns to city council (i.e. traffic, zoning, potential use) with a recommendation not to allow the use. B. Consideration of Initiation to amend zoning ordinance pertaining to wall heights in residential front yards and as used in conjunction with retaining walls. Rec: Direct staff to set public hearing. Staff was instructed to proceed with amendment on this matter. X. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS MR. JOHN HANCOCK, 74-280 Catalina Way, asked for a clarification on Miscellaneous Item A. XI. COMMENTS There was discussion regarding the legal notice procedures and commission concurred that staff should send out a notice to each owner listed. � Commissioner Crites asked for an update on the Date Palm Preserve Committee. He also asked for the status on the "Buyer Protection Packet". Commissioner Erwood asked for the status on the car wash landscape screening. XII. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Crites, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, to adjourn the meeting at 10:25 p.m. � � � ON A. DIAZ, ecretary ATTEST: � /e?��c�c:��:./ RALPH B. WOOD, Chairman /lr ��.. -7-