Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1001 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - OCTOBER 1 , 1985 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED HARING DRIVE iF ■ if M N % ■ M !f N if if M M • if ■ ff iF M M k R M A iF i Y if M k M ff ■ ■ k k if if NO STUDY SESSION WAS HELD PRIOR TO THE MEETING. I . CALL TO ORDER Chairman Crites called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mr. Diaz lead in the pledge of allegiance. III . ROLL CALL Members Present: Buford Crites, Chairman Bob Downs Richard Erwood Jim Richards Ralph Wood Members Absent: None Staff Present: Ray Diaz Dave Erwin Joe Gaugush Stan Sawa Phil Drell Phil Joy Tonya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Approval of the minutes from September 17, 1985. Commissioner Erwood stated that the Chairman had recommended he be chairman of the development agreement committee, not height committee as noted on page 12. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, to approve the minutes of September 17, 1985, as amended. Carried 5-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Diaz gave a summary of council action as it pertained to the planning commission at the city .council meeting of September 26, 1985. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER I , 1985 VI . CONSENT CALENDAR NONE. VII . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case No. CUP 85-4 - EXTENDED LEARNING TECHNIQUES, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit and negative declaration of environmental impact to allow construction and operation of a private school (k through 12th grade, 290 students max. ) (preschool , 100 children max. ) in the PR-5 zone located on 4. 75 acres on the south side of Hov 1 ey 1_ane , approximately 1600 feet west of Portola Avenue. (Modified number of students. ) Mr. Diaz explained that the applicant wished to continue the case and staff recommended that if the case was continued, the case be readvertised. He explained that staff had received numerous calls regarding the issue and recommended taking public testimony. Commissioner Wood appreciated the fact that while the people have come to speak to the commission, the commission had not received any Ord plans and were not familiar with the proposed project.. Commissioner Richards felt that public testimony could not be taken without knowing what was proposed. Chairman Crites noted that public testimony had its highest and best impact when given after the applicant's testimony. Mr. Diaz explained that a new notice of public hearing would go out if continued six months. Chairman Crites opened the public testimony to receive any testimony or petitions regarding any problems being faced. Mr. Kenneth Mounce, 343 San Remo, spoke on behalf of himself and other residents and indicated that he had submitted a petition noting the main objection to the use of the property as a junior and senior high school . He thought students would interfere with the quiet use of their property. He noted that only two people received notice and wished to submit a larger list. 2 Now MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1 , 1985 Mr. George Lever, 41-955 Lavare Court, stated that the Board of Directors of the Casa Blanca Homeowners Association ( 134 members) unanimously voted to oppose the granting of said permit to construct the school . He also had petitions from 28 neighbors voicing their opinion that the school should not be permitted. Mr. Diaz stated that every name on the petitions would be sent a notice. Commissioner Richards explained that a form could be obtained from staff that asks who is being represented, how many members were being represented, etc. , so that the commission would know exactly who was being represented. Chairman Crites asked if anyone else wished to speak on the matter. There being no one, he asked if there was a motion to continue the matter. Moved by Commissioner Richards to continue the case. Moved by Commissioner Downs to instruct staff to prepare a resolution of denial based on the testimony and letters received and the `..� extension. Seconded by Commissioner Erwood. Commissioner Richards asked for a point of order. He noted that he had never denied a project that he had never seen. He did not mind hearing public testimony but felt that it was premature. Commissioner Erwood noted that commission has a two continuance rule. Commissioner Richards stated that a denial could be made on the basis of exhausted rules of extension, but from a standpoint of not having heard exactly what the project entailed, he could not deny it. Commissioner Wood felt that it was not being fair to the applicant and questioned if the findings could be made to do this. Commissioner Erwood stated that if we do have the rule of two extension, it could be denied and asked what the justification was for deviating from that policy. Chairman Crites stated that a denial based on public testimony heard would be illadvised and would set a bad precedent without having heard a presentation from the applicant, and indicated he would vote 3 rr.► MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1 , 1985 against a motion with that rationale and requested further discussion on the lack of a need for further continuance. Mr. Diaz explained that a two continuance rule was implemented for the purpose of preventing a case from being continually continued. He noted that the continuance was for six months, but indicated that if denied, the applicant could reapply in six months. Mr. Sawa explained that the applicant was requesting continuance because some technical problems had occurred and the applicant had difficulty in deciding on how to proceed. He noted that one major problem was the amount of parking being provided and discussion was underway regarding the possibility of a rode amendment. Commissioner Richards stated that he would like to hear Commissioner Down's reason for denying the matter. Downs indicated that he was against continuing the matter for another six months. Chairman Crites also felt the two continuance rule was a good rule. Commissioner Wood asked for a repeat of the motion. Chairman Crites indicated that there had been a motion and second to deny the application with the rationale that the applicant has had two extensions of time and made no further progress, and that since six months was in effect a reapplication, commission would be just reaffirming their policy of two time extensions. r/ Mr. Diaz stated that the motion would be to instruct staff to prepare a resolution of denial . Carried 5-0. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, instructing staff to prepare a resolution of denial . Carried 5-0. B. Continued Case Nos. GPA 85-4 AND C/Z 85-3 - BIRTCHER/DUNHAM, Applicant Request for approval of a general plan land use element change from medium density residential (5-7 du/acre) to core area commercial and a change of zone from PR-6 (planned residential , six dwelling units per acre) to C-1 (general commercial ) for approximately 10.3 acres and a negative declaration of environmental impact for land bounded by El Paseo, Shadow Mountain Drive, San Pablo Avenue, and Larkspur Lane. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1 , 1985 r.► Mr. Diaz explained that because of the complexity involved, this case should be continued to November 5, 1985. Chairman Crites asked if this was the second continuance. Mr. Diaz concurred. Chairman Crites reiterated that the matter was not in a position to be heard and applicant was requesting continuance to a date certain because of concerns that could be resolved. Commissioner Richards indicated that the commission committed a couple of members to study this. He felt this was a unique problem with unique circumstances and stated that the commission had a great concern because this was in the heart of the city. He suggested abiding by the decision of the joint committee when it's received and indicated the commission should move for a continuance awaiting the report of the committee. Mr. Diaz explained that the concerns of continuing the case for an extended period of time. He stated that the applicant could indicate when issues of concern could be worked out. Chairman Crites opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. CURT DUNHAM, stated that a 30 day extension would be timely. Mr. Dunham asked if the matter would go to council if it was approved. Mr. Diaz stated that the change of zone and general plan amendment would go to council . Mr. Dunham indicated that he could be ready in 30 days and noted that he intends to go to neighbors when something is ready. Mr . John Baker, 73520 Joshua Tree Street , explained that he felt there would be no objection to a continuance of 30 days. He requested that notices be resent. Mr Diaz concurred. Chairman Crites asked for a motion. Action: Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to continue this case to November 5, 1985. Carried 5-0. Mr. Diaz asked how many residents were here for Item #E regarding the Palma Village rezoning. He explained that staff was recommending a continuance because the request for a rezone to office professional , and office professional criteria was under consideration. He suggested suspending the 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1 , 1985 agenda. Commission concurred and Chairman Crites suspended the order of the agenda. E. Case No. C/Z 85-8 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of changes of zone implementing the Palma Village Specific Plan from R-3 (4) , one unit per 4,000 square feet and R-1 to a dual designation of R-3, one unit per 2, 500 square feet and OP, office professional for the first two lots on the north side of Alessandro Drive between San Carlos and Portola Avenue and a change from R-1 to R-2 for the triangular block bounded by Portola Avenue and San Jacinto Avenue. Mr. Diaz explained that the criteria for development in office professional was changing. He suggested that anyone wanting to develop in that zone should contact staff. He explained that staff had all the maps in the office. Commissioner Richards indicated that the committee had a constructive meeting regarding the office professional zoning and felt it was 3 premature to discussion this matter until the changes have been implemented and urged commission to continue this case. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, continuing C/Z 85-8 to November 5, 1985. Carried 5-0. C. Continued Case Nos. GPA 85-5 AND C/Z 85-5 ARTHUR BAILEY, Applicant Request for approval of a general plan amendment from park to medium density residential , 5-7 dwelling units per acre, a change of zone from open space to PR-7 (planned residential , 7 dwelling units per acre) , development agreement, and a negative declaration of environmental impact for 58 acres located on the south side of Hovley Lane, between Portola Avenue and Eclectic Street. i 6 T MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 1985 Mr. Sawa reviewed the staff report and explained that the open space committee of the year 2000 had met on September 9. After the committee's discussion, the committee (6 members) unanimously voted to confirm their original recommendation that the site be developed in a natural park-type facility and asked that the city consider purchasing the property. Staff felt this was a policy decision and indicated commission should instruct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution. Commissioner Richards was perplexed because after reviewing the history of the case, the city should have acquired the property from the previous owner, Mr. Gibbs. He did not understand why staff had failed to acquire the property. Mr. Diaz explained that while the property owner stated he would dedicate the land to the city, after his approval to service industrial he did not want to give the property to the city and the city could not require it as a condition of approval . Mr. Diaz indicated that in late 1980-81 , he offered Mr. Gibb a ten year irrevocable offer. The property owner never executed that option. It could not be conditioned and the city did not get the property. Commissioner Richards explained that the land was not in the city at time of incorporation and that the applicant had applied for service industrial zoning with the county and was denied. He noted �..► that the city indicated it might be possible for a service industrial zone in Palm Desert and a trade-off occurred, but the city never got the land. Commissioner Wood asked for and received clarification regarding the recommendation of staff. Chairman Crites opened public_ testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. JOHN CRISTE, 983 E. Tahquitz-McCallum Way, Palm Springs, explained that he provided a detailed site plan for a retirement country club community. He noted that at the last meeting there was extensive discussion regarding open space and how it related to the subject property. He stated that he had requested to meet with the 2000 committee, but when he arrived they had already adjourned and would not meet with him or the neighbors involved. He indicated that the dunes were stabilized and would not offer the dune park potential as visualized in the city's general plan. He felt the viability of the offered project from an economic point of view was one the city could be 7 %NW MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 1985 proud of. He expressed his desire to proceed and suggested the city adopted a plan to secure land in the city for a parks. MR. JOHN CRELLIS, Portola Country Club, submitted a petition of 92 names in favor of development of the property because of the problems from blowing sand and bike riders. He indicated support of the development as proposed. Commissioner Richards asked if he would be in favor of a development of lesser intensity and asked if he would be in favor of a certain type of development over another. Mr. Crellis did not feel they should show support for the gentleman or company, but indicated that what had been seen or something similar would be desirable because it would be in line with Portola Country Club facilities. Commissioner Wood noted that there were 92 signatures and asked what percentage that was of Portola Country Club residents. Mr. Crellis indicated that it was roughly one fifth. MR. SANDY BAUM, 45-800 DEEP CANYON, stated that he was not for or against project, but felt that all parks should be located where they can be used by the public. He didn't feel the residents in the adjacent areas would be using it and noted its closeness to the middle school park and suggested providing more parks in an area where more people could enjoy them. MR. RON GREGORY, 74301 , member of open space committee, explained the intent of the committee. He stated that this park is centrally located when looking at entire boundary of city. He indicated that north of country club will be developed some day and could be used by everyone in city. He noted that some people look at park development in a short sighted way. He indicated that the committee was not necessarily in favor of a sand dunes park, but any type of grass park. He felt that if properly handled, Portola Country Club homeowners would not object. Commissioner Wood asked if the committee had any advisement regarding maintaining a park. Mr. Gregory suggested the purchase by the city of nearby or adjacent land for a park, but felt there was a good opportunity in that area if the land in question could be purchased. Chairman Crites closed the public testimony. Commissioner Richards expressed disagreement with the open space committee regarding expenditures and maintenance. He felt the s 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1 , 1985 comments from Mr . Gregory regarding centrally located park was enlightening. He stated that he still had concerns regarding the property because the city was told unequivocably that if the city would grant service industrial zoning, the land owner would dedicate the land in some manner to the city and he felt very hard pressed to change the zoning from open space. He stated that he would vote against the project as long as he was a commission member and reconxnended denial . Mr . Criste asked to address the commission for a rebuttal . Commissioner Richards spoke against reopening the public testimony. Commissioner Erwood spoke in favor of letting the applicant to address the commission . Commissioner Wood concurred with Commissioner Erwood. Commissioner Downs voted to deny it. Chairman Crites indicated that the rule of the chair was to let the applicant address the commission. Commissioner Richards withdrew his denial . Chairman Crites reopened the public testimony. MR. CRISTE explained that the site of the proposed park if built on the scale as proposed park is one that large enough for a quarter of a million people and he felt it would create traffic_ problems in a critical circulation area. He indicated that a park would be next to major commercial and industrial and two relatively low residential areas. He felt that the city could buy the property, issue bonds, or some other action to secure the park property. Commissioner Wood agreed with the philosophy of Commissioner Richards and asked the counsel if the owner is free to develop that land as zoned. He indicated that the main concern was for the city to develop the park and indicated there was no evidence that the city plans to do anything with the land in the near future. He asked if the city had a program to develop it in a reasonable amount of time and felt that without that he could not vote against the project. Commissioner Wood stated that it was not economically feasible for the owner to develop the parcel as it is currently zoned. He suggested that statements pro and con be outlined for the council . Commissioner Richards stated that before the commission was a change of zone. He noted that the applicant could build a great number of projects in the zone. Commissioner Richards felt this should go before the council , but indicated that the commission was not prohibiting the developer in anyway from developing as currently zoned. He recommended denial of the change of zone and general plan. 9 low MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 1985 Chairman Crites agreed with Commissioner Richards regarding the past history of the land, and stated that he has seen very few cities that +r have been plagued by an overabundance of parks, and indicated that in terms of the proposed, there was no pressing need for this type of project . He stated that. Mr. Gregory's comments were well taken regarding looking to the future and the 2000 committee's recommendation , although he could sympathize with adjacent homeowners. Mr . Diaz indicated that the commission has a right to deny the request. He stated that it would go to council if called up or appealed. Commissioner Wood asked for the findings for denial . Mr. Diaz indicated that: 1 ) There was no necessity for change of zone or the project as described to warrant a general plan amendment and change of zone; 2) The city's need for open space warrants retention of present designation; 3) Problems associated with site can and will be resolved by matters other than a change of zone; 4) More problems associated with rezoning and amendment of the general plan than would be resolved by the rezoning of the general plan designation; 5) Recommendation by the year 2000 open space committee. Chairman Crites asked if those were potential findings. Commission concurred. Commissioner Wood asked counsel what the situation would be if findings were made that were not discussed. Mr. Erwin indicated that the findings stated by Mr. Diaz were commented on by the commission. He stated that as long as there is a finding that will support the conclusion that is all that is necessary. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, instructing staff to prepare a resolution of denial . Carried 4-1 (Commissioner Wood voted no. ) A FIVE MINUTE RECESS WAS CALLED AT THIS TIME. D. Case Nos. PP 85-28 and PM 20894 - BIRTCHER/DUNHAM, Applicant Request for approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact, precise plan of design and parcel map to allow six restaurants containing 40,000 square feet of floor area total and a three story hotel containing 120 rooms on 8.8 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1 , 1985 VOW acres in the PC (4) (planned resort commercial ) zone located on land bounded by Highway III , Fred Waring Drive, and the Palm Valley Storm Channel . Mr. Sawa reviewed the staff report and recommended approval . Commissioner Wood asked for and received clarification regarding the three stories being allowed by code. Mr. Diaz added the condition of "The applicant shall contribute a reasonable assessment for expansion of the bridge at Highway III and the Palm Valley Channel ." He explained that he would be trying to assess vacant property owners on both sides of the street. He indicated that the applicant may wish to address that issue. Commissioner Richards asked about the sum received from Mr. Hahn. Mr. Diaz indicated that an amount was bonded for and noted that the city was seeking federal help through the state to the lower cost, but felt the condition was warranted. Commissioner Richards noted that at the last meeting regarding the Carver project, that while the applicant expressed a willingness to join an assessment district, if the majority of the owners involved wished not to join, the assessment will not happen. He asked if Mr. ..., Diaz was asking him to join an assessment district or just to be prepared to contribute a reasonable sum. Mr. Diaz replied contributing a reasonable sum. Commissioner Richards indicated that Mr. Hahn contributed $350,000. Mr. Diaz concurred. Commissioner Richards felt that was a large amount and expressed concern for the applicant because the condition is a last minute proposal and the applicant would not know the cost involved without knowing some formula. Mr. Diaz indicated that his experience with applicant was that he has been reasonable in the past in contributing to public improvements. Chairman Crites asked about the access onto Highway III being right turn in and out with no median break. Staff concurred. Chairman Crites asked regarding page 5, item #14 under public works conditions regarding the installation of half median, which option of how/when will the median would be installed would be utilized. Mr. Diaz explained that installation would probably have to wait because of the right-of-way for the acreage on the other side. Chairman Crites noted that the cultural committee recommended that on issues on large developments that the city propose and collect a "1% 11 %or MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1 , 1985 fee for development of public art." He felt this applied especially to this development because it was classed a "show place", and would generate traffic, and its general location. He asked staff if there was a way to impose that condition pending the meeting with council and the potential establishment of that fee. Mr. Diaz felt that it still required a great deal of discussion regarding arts in public_ places and indicated that developers of larger projects would be encouraged to place works of art in their projects and offset some of the cost with a reduction in landscaping as well as a 1% contribution. He indicated that at the present time the development in question should stand on its own and that once that is established Mr. Dunham and other developers would contribute afterwards. He didn't believe commission should impose it at this time. RON GREGORY, 73-960 Highway III , Palm Desert, explained that one aspect of the project was to create a restaurant park. He showed the commission the location of the restaurants. He noted that 20% is landscaped in the center of the development. He indicated that he would maximum berming to help disguise parked cars. He stated that Bob's Big Boy family style and Sorrentino's restaurants would be constructed. He noted that Sorrentino's would provide three meals for the hotel . He felt there would be a depth of landscape created by the installation of the putting green and the par course for exercise. He indicated there would be a heavy use of parking lot trees. Chairman Crites asked Mr. Gregory what made this project distinctive. Mr. Gregory felt the amount of landscaped area because it greatly exceeded the amount required. BILL JOHNSON, 73-330 E1 Paseo, outlined the changes made from the previous plan. He indicated that in order to break up the monotony of three story, each floor had its own distinct shape: bottom floor has garden area, second floor utilizes a pot shelf to add depth to the window ledge, and the third floor has a balcony with a sliding glass door. He indicated that the Porte cochere extends across the driveway to bring the scale down to about a one and a half story to break up the look and keep a pleasant mass to it and to keep a look of two story. Commissioner Wood asked if the architectural commission had taken an active role in the design of the project. Mr. Johnson indicated that it was a 2000 committee and had not gone before the architectural commission. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 1985 Chairman Crites expressed approval of the third floor balcony area being broken up by vines and asked Mr. Johnson if it was only on the plans to make them more pleasant looking. Mr. Johnson replied that it was being discussed, but that there were several issues involved regarding the depth of soil because the vines need to be deep enough so sun does not burn them and also indicated that pots on the balcony had been discussed. Mr. Johnson stated that this concern would be addressed in some way. SANDY BAUM, member of commercial subcommittee, read the recommendation expressing approval of improvement in hotel design and indicated that the hotel incorporates minimum standards and was consistent with goals of 2000 committee. Chairman Crites felt the letter was helpful because it meets the standards required on the form by staff and tells the commission who was involved and why they approved of the project. MR. CURT DUNHAM, applicant, noted the proposed was far superior than the previous proposal . He expressed concern regarding the 1% fee for art. Chairman Crites asked him informally if he would contribute 11. of public projects if the city comes forth with a policy saying that we +r.v wish to encourage projects of art to encourage visitors and traffic, if it appears reasonable and sound, if he would consider contributing to it. Mr. Dunham asked if the art would be on the site. Chairman Crites replied yes. Chairman Crites indicated that a committee had shown a number of facilities that utilized a similar program and it had proven successful for the developer and successful for the city by drawing visitors. He requested that Mr. Dunham keep this in mind for participation. Mr. Dunham replied that he would consider it. Mr. Dunham indicated that his other concern was regarding the bridge. Mr. Diaz explained that the applicant should cooperate in the establishment of a method of contribution for the expansion of the bridge at Highway ill . He felt that rather than delay all development, the city was looking at a per acreage basis. Mr. Dunham asked if the fee would be something like a drainage fee? Mr. Diaz replied that he did not know an amount, but asked that the applicant agree to join an assessment. district. Commissioner Richards indicated that in an assessment district the developer has a right to vote against it if it is unreasonable. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 1985 J 7 He explained that the city had asked Mr. Hahn for a substantial amount because of the traffic flow generated by that project. He felt the projects would be enhanced and felt the assessment was the only way to go about it at the present time. Commission asked if Mr. Dunham would agree to a reasonable amount for the expansion for the bridge at Highway 111 and channel . Mr. Dunham agreed. Commissioner Downs noted that this was similar to what the people on Cook were agreeing to. Commissioner Wood noted that assessment district's usually originate from property owners agreeing to join. He asked the city attorney what kind of assessment district this would be. Mr. Erwin indicated that an assessment district is based on the work to be done and noted that it was unusual for government agencies to start the process. Chairman Crites closed the public testimony and asked for a motion. Commissioner Richards thanked all the committees and persons involved in helping to create a better project. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Wood, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Wood, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1087, approving PP 85-28, subject to conditions. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Wood, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1088, approving PM 20894, subject to conditions. F. Case No. ZOA 85-6 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for consideration of a proposed amendment to the Palm Desert Municipal Code to permit timeshare project in the PR zone. Mr. Diaz explained that the proposed ordinance would permit timeshare projects in the PR zone subject to a conditional use permit. He indicated that the ordinance would establish that timeshares could 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1 , 1985 be created if all development standards of PR zones were met, including density, unit size, parking, ground coverage, and open space requirements, as well as be a total timeshare development. Mr. Diaz indicated they would be fee ownership and CC&R's must be approved by City of Palm Desert. He stated that timeshares would be occupied 80-90% of the time and that all standards are based on 100% occupancy. Staff contacted other cities and outlined the responses from them. Staff recommended approval subject to guidelines as set forth. Commissioner Downs asked why Palm Springs was not contacted. Mr. Diaz indicated that the commission asked him not to. Commissioner Downs asked about the bed tax. Mr. Diaz explained that the City of Palm Springs was fighting the possible exclusion of timeshare developments from bed tax and indicated they have been successful . Commissioner Downs indicated they had won on existing ones and that on any future projects they would not collect from. Mr. Erwin indicated that the courts were going to restrict collection on transient occupancy tax on fee ownership type and that collection on past tax is still under litigation. He noted that present legislation would go into effect in January, 1986, and clarified that fee ownership meant it was occupied by the owner. Commissioner Richards explained that he had not been involved with "VW previous timeshare discussion and commented that three cities surveyed have not had much experience. He expressed opposition to the philosophy of timeshare from beginning and felt that the tremendous abuses involved were in the area of sales of timeshares. He noted that recently the Commissioner of Real Estate of California became involved in overseeing these procedures, but indicated that he has only had grief and agony in that type of procedure. Mr. Erwin indicated that the old shadow mountain was the only timeshare in the city and existed prior to adoption of the previous ordinance. Commissioner Richards noted the difficulty in changing method of ownership and noted timeshare developments were allowed in PR 5 and 7 type of ownership. He noted that the usage would change somewhat and stated that if he had a development next to him that went timeshare he would feel that it was against his rights. Chairman Crites echoed the concern regarding staff report regarding cities surveyed. He felt there was a need to know more about how it is working in the valley and current standards of timeshare relating to selling, as well as opposition to living near one. He indicated that some people rent their units in condominium for less than one week and felt that if it was required of condominium units as well , 15 %N.r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 1985 it would greatly improve on what exists now in condominium developments. He indicated that with a total timeshare development, neighbors would at least know what they were moving in next to. He questioned the economics and the negative impacts on neighboring developments. Commissioner Wood indicated that new legislation had been adopted and noted that in 1971 all timeshare operations were put under the subdivision map act of the department of real estate. He explained that prior to that there were problems and as a result they received bad publicity. He noted that the feedback he had gotten over the years from Watt Industries at the tennis club has been successful . He explained that his club was adjacent to Shadow Mountain Tennis Club and indicated they had a reciprocal agreement and only hears favorable comments. He noted that management and how timeshare is established is very important. He stated that his experience while serving on State Condominium Committee for the Department of Real Estate and people coming before them with successful timeshares all over the state should have been alluded to by Mr. Diaz in the staff report. Mr. Diaz replied that lack of time had to do with that and noted that in terms of whether timeshares have been successful in impacts to other cities and people not being cheated does not mean it will be successful in Palm Desert. He indicated that the city was trying to establish standards and a process to look at a case by case basis and evaluate them and control those developments to city satisfaction. Commissioner Wood stated that when the committee sat down preparing the timeshare ordinance (noting that timeshares could not be outlawed per say) findings had to be made. Mr. Erwin concurred that was basically correct. Commissioner Wood expressed approval for a good timeshare operation and felt there was a place in the market for them, but they have to meet certain criteria and wanted to hear public testimony. Commissioner Richards commented regarding success of timeshares, and noted that those which have not complied with various taxes took up 10 pages in the Desert Sun. He questioned who was successful- the developer or the would be vacationer. Commissioner Downs commented that he thought there was a committee established headed by Mr. Bernie Solomon to study timeshares. Commissioner Wood indicated that he had served on it and stated that Mr. Diaz had outlined the strict regulations. Mr. Diaz indicated 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 1985 that the committee recommended it be allowed in PR zone, but was Now excluded at the time of adoption. Chairman Crites noted that nothing in the proposal that allows or does not allow the retroactive conversion of a project that has been developed in a zone timeshare and asked if the omission was intentional . Mr. Diaz concurred. Chairman Crites asked if the adoption would allow or deny an existing development to convert to timeshare. Mr. Erwin replied that potentially they could if they comply with all conditions through a conditional use permit. Chairman Crites requested that this issue be made clear if it is adopted and existing developments should not be allowed to convert. Mr. Diaz asked the counsel if the commission could deny a project from conversion based solely on the basis of being an existing development. Mr. Erwin replied no. Chairman Crites indicated that he would like that to be made clear in this. Mr. Erwin clarified that with the conditional use process it would give developments the opportunity for conversion. Commissioner Richards felt that failing condominium developments a.. (Desert Falls) would be prime targets to changing to timeshare. Commissioner Wood replied that they have other criteria to meet. Chairman Crites stated that any project developed under PR zone would already meet the standards. Commissioner Wood clarified that Desert. Falls would not meet the standards because the units have already been sold and are not 100% packaged. Chairman Crites opened public testimony. MR. KEITH ANDERSON, 41-201 Portola Avenue - Desert Wolf Lodge, explained that he has a decision to make and added that since looking at the option of timeshare, he was in favor of it and stated that his partner is a very strong banker and they are in a very strong position and it would not be changed to timeshare to bail out his project. He noted that the city now approves timeshare in the city in PC zones. He read an article from the National Timeshare Magazine that indicated that San Diego approved a timeshare arrangement to revitalize the beach area. The areas where he found trouble was in sales or with developers. He stated that sales people were selling 50 units instead of one and noted that management has come very strong because the laws are more stringent now. Timeshares are a great 17 ra.► MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 1985 way for people to get in a home. He took his project with all the amenities and felt that if it was sold for timeshare it would be successful . He indicated that he had some buyers that would go 100% timeshare. He explained that his project sits on Portola and noted that only two projects (Chaparrel and Wolf Lodge) were on Portola. He stated that his project does not face Monterey and would not affect any single project. He explained that he had run some totals based on the original 1981 report and noted he would add 2.41. ($2.8 million) to city income. He stated that the normal timeshare buyer is an average of 50 years old and that income ranges from $40,000-$70,000. He thought this was a good way to go as long as he provide the management. He stated that he contacted a firm in Newport. Beach that has worked with timeshares and Mr. Greg Wyler would address the commission. Commissioner Wood asked about the management. Mr. Anderson clarified that they would provide an on-site manager and utilize on-site computers. MR. GREG WYLER, 4000 McArthur Boulevard - Newport Beach, explained that he has a lot of experience in developing timeshare use projects and state projects in and out of the state and country. We are dealing with a very mature industry now. He outlined what requirement the Department of Real Estate "No looks at and the characteristics for protection of the buyer. He felt there were adequate reserves bonded so that the assessments will be paid even if they are vacant and to insure that the common facilities are completed. He noted that presently the Department of Real Estate requires all advertisements to go through them and that economically the timeshare is limited to people owning an interest and felt an owner would take better care of the unit. Commissioner Richards indicated that he did not like resale aspects because they are virtually nonexistent. He felt there was a need for some type of resale capability. He stated that the developer still has an interest in unsold units, and purchaser has a limited ability to recapture investment, and noted that the philosophy of inflation has proven not to exist. He indicated that the main reason of not allowing timeshare in PC (4) zone originally was because if it did not work out it was in a hotel zone. In the PR zone, if the city had a situation such as Desert Falls, if the units were sold back then they could be changed to timeshare. He felt that the issue of the quality of management was indeterminate because there 18 k MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 1985 was no way for the commission to know the quality of the management Now being provided. Mr. Greg Wyler agreed, but indicated that if the money is there, there would be good management provided and the Department of Real Estate has a management agreement. Commissioner Richards stated that they don't have the ability to close the doors, they have the ability to take legal steps and stop certain practices. He felt the commission was being misled just because of the involvement of the state there are still problems. Mr. Anderson explained that an association management is the same as a condominium management. Timeshare has exact same management. Commissioner Richards indicated that if he wanted he could sell a condominium at any time. Mr. Anderson felt the turnover in timeshare was equally as great. Commissioner Richards disagreed. Mr. Anderson explained that he visited 12 different timeshare developments that showed a great deal of resale and noted that timeshares have continually grown. He stated that he would not go that direction if he did not feel it was justified. Chairman Crites stated that the commission has a responsibility to make sure that a project is bonded and does not fall apart and a vow responsibility that if it does, the upkeep on the outside is kept up. He questioned that if state does require bonding for physical upkeep and bonding for completion of project, should the commission have a say in assessing whether the person wishing to buy in the project has made a poor choice. Commissioner Richards concurred, but indicated the one difference was the type of ownership, and it does not operate like we are common owners. He felt there were a lot of different things involved and that maybe we have no right at all to discuss this, but since the commission has got into this discussion on limitations on timeshares in our city, commission must decide if we like it and concerns about whether the developer would be able to make it. He questioned the ability of the commission to limit the zones in which they are built. He maintained that commission has yet to see one in the city. In the PC zone the commercial area is effected. Commissioner Wood spoke regarding resale and indicated that. Commissioner Richards statements were right on the basis of earlier years, but noted that legislation has changed. He indicated that some are not being maintained but noted that even if they are having difficulty with their sales they are not an eyesore. It does set as 19 `r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 1985 an original project. When adopting the ordinance commission was concerned with the location. He asked Mr. Wyler if he was involved in a timeshare now with regard to resale. Mr. Wyler indicated that it was hard to anticipate what market conditions will be. Commissioner Wood asked if he would be putting the subdivision package together for the department of real estate. Mr. Wyler indicated that he was Mr. Anderson's attorney and would assume that would do that. Commissioner Erwood recalled that at one study session a case was brought up that involved department of real estate enforcing their regulations and had indicated that in regard to that specific case they did a poor job of policing the actions of his client to get him in his final position and the investigation was so poor that they could not press criminal charges in the end. He felt the report glosses over negative aspects and felt the commission did not have enough experience in this area. Thought that it was significant that it was permitted in resort commercial and still doesn't have any experience. He felt that city should not expand on this type of use based on the lack of experience commission has had and because of the failure to really look into the depth of the issue - looking at negative issues as well as positive which were not emphasized in the report. Chairman Crites asked if Commissioner Erwood be amenable to being a member of committee to look at valley cities to gather data on these issues. Commissioner Erwood concurred. Commissioner Wood expressed displeasure with the comments regarding the department of real estate not enforcing their regulations and doing their job. He stated there are successful subdivisions throughout the state and indicated that California leads the nation in property development. He objected to the overall sentiment that there are no successful timeshare operations - there are successful timeshare developments and he noted that Commissioner Downs owns three of them. Chairman Crites explained that we have defacto timeshare developments in PR zones now because of condominium projects. He indicated that the bonding issues appear to take care of some of the concerns, but wanted answers about where is it that one draws the line to project the citizens and letting them make their own economic decisions. Commissioner Downs stated that the only issue before the commission now was the allowance of timeshares in PR zones. He noted that the Department of Real Estate does require bonds to cover the first year 20 mod MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 1985 of maintenance, and first year of this and that, or until units are ""' sold out up to 75-807.. He indicated the question was whether to allow timeshare in PR zone, rest is handled by state. He noted that city has a conditional use process in which to get the information on whether it will be a viable project on the market. Chairman Crites asked if the bonding was only for one year. Commissioner Downs replied yes or until 80-85% sold out. Homeowners association takes over after that - same rule as condominium projects which look very nice. PR zoning is what was before the commission. Commissioner Richards stated that the only reason timeshare was allowed in the past was because commission was assured that the occupancy tax was legal and that the city would receive it; was of prime importance. Action: Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Downs, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 3-2 (Commissioners Erwood and Richards voting no. ) Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Downs, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1089, recommending ZOA 85-6 to the City council . Carried 3-2 (Commissioners Erwood and Richards voting no. ) Vlll . MISCELLANEOUS A. ATTACHED C.V.W.D. PIPELINE PROJECT LIST Mr . Diaz explained that a minute motion was required indicating compliance with the proposed pipeline list to the city's adopted general plan. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, finding the project list consistent with the city's adopted general plan. Carried 5-0. B. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION Mr. Diaz indicated that the planning commission should not criticize the architectural commission. 21 rr.. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1 , 1985 Commission indicated they were not criticizing them. Commission questioned the review of the architectural commission being after the planning commission hearings. Mr. Diaz indicated that the reason for the review after the public hearing was because the commission reviews the site plan which could alter building designs. He noted that in 1981 the number of members for the architectural commission was changed from seven to five because they could not get a quorum. He stated that the architectural commission reports directly to the city council . Chairman Crites indicated that any issues regarding the architectural commission would be discussed at the joint meeting. IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS MR. RICHARD BARNEL, Assembly of God church, indicated that they had finally moved to Palm Desert and request permission for the church to temporarily meet at 44-850 Las Palmas, #C in the Morley building seven-office complex behind jet copy. He wanted to begin services on October 6, while looking for a permanent location. Chairman Crites asked for a staff recommendation. Mr. Diaz explained that there were some concerns regarding "store front churches" in commercial areas , but could be approved temporarily as long as there are not parking problems. Mr. Barnel indicated the services would be Sunday mornings, evenings and Wednesday evenings. Commissioner Richards noted that similar uses had been approved in the past. Mr. Diaz asked if three months would be a sufficient amount of time to relocate. Mr. Barnel indicated that at the present location there would be a limit on the growth of membership for that small of a location. He explained that he contacted the community center for use of their building, but it was not available. Mr. Diaz felt this should be checked out with the fire marshal . Chairman Crites indicated that the granting of the temporary approval for three months would be for Sunday morning and evening and 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1 , 1985 r Wednesday evening services upon approval by the fire marshal or upon receiving any complaints. Commissioner Wood asked how long they planned to occupy the building. Mr. Barnel replied until they have 25 members. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, granting temporary oral permission for church services at 44-850 Las Palmas #C. Carried 4-0-I (Commissioner Wood abstained. ) MR. SANDY BAUM, 45-800 Deep Canyon Drive, informed the commission that the longevity of the 2000 committee would cease to exist at the next meeting. He also indicated that he had sold timeshare units in the past and he understood the commissions concern. He noted that some problems had been resolved. X. COMMENTS NONE. XI . ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourn d at 10:54 p.m RAMON A. DIAZ, Secret ATTEST: UFOR9-£RITES, Chairman /tm 23