Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1217 MIwUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING lUESD#V - DECEM0ER 17, 19S5 � 2:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WmRING DRIVE NO STUDY SESSION WAS HEKD PRIOR TO THF MEETING. %. CALL TO ORDER Vice Chairman Erwood called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Downs lead in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Richard Erwood, Vice Chairman Bob Downs Jim Richards Ralph Wood (arrived at 2:20 p.m. ) Members Absent: Buford Crites � . Staff Present: Steve Smith Ww Doug Phillips Greg Holtz Phil Drell Stan Sawa Tonya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of minutes from December 3, 1985, Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Wood, approving the minutes as submitted. Carried 3-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Smith gave a summary of council actions from its December 12, 1985 meeting. VI. CONSENT CAILENDAR � A. Case Nm's. PP 84-46 & 245 C - B0RD54 #A4 DER BOOM, Applicant MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 1985 Approval of a one year extension for a precise plan of design and architectural approval to allow construction of a 10,800 square foot industrial building in the S. I. S.P. zone on the west side of St. Charles Place, approximately 145 feet north of Mediterranean. B. Case No's. PP 13-83, TT 19575 AND 247 MF - JDM E0ART, Applicant Approval of a one year extension of time for a 5 unit residential condominium project on the east side of San Rafael south of Catalina Way. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, approving the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 3-0. VIl. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case No. Pp 05-37, 0IANE 8TEWNRT, Applicant Approval of a negative declaration of environ- mental impact and precise plan of design to allow construction of a 10, 750 square foot commercial building on .6 acres in the C-1 zone (general commercial district) located on the south side of El Paseo, approximately 225 feet west of Sage Lane. Mr. 5awa stated that the applicant verbally wished to withdraw the application at this time. Vice Chairman Erwood asked if anyone wished to speak regarding this matter. There being no one, the commission accepted the withdrawal. Action: Case was withdrawn by applicant. B. Case No. CUP 09-78 (Amend #1) MANCUSO, Applicant Conditional Use Permit amendment to allow expansion of an approved building pad, elimin- ation of 22 - 90 degree parking spaces and 2 MIKTES PALM DESERT F1ANNIN6 COMMISSION DECEMBER 177 1985 � substitution of 22 parallel parking spaces to allow construction of a two story building including a 7, 880 square font restaurant and 8,006 square feet of office space located within Palms to Pines Village at +he southeast corner of El Paseo and Monterey. Mr, Drell reviewed the request and recommended approval with the addition of a condition relating to submittal of a valet parking plan that would not restrict any parking spaces in that lot. Vice Chairman Erwood gpenled the public testimony and asked tne applicant to address the commission. MR. MANCUSO, 72-281 Highway 111, stated that the parking spaces deleted were advantageous to the fire department and indicated no opposition to the added condition. Vice Chairman Erwood asked if any present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed. MR. SANDY 8AUM, 45-800 Deep Canyon, noted that the commission received a letter from Westfield Corp. (his client) in favor of � the proposed d recommended approval . � e propos an e . MR, ROBERT PITCHFORD, architect' spoke in favor of the proposed and asked if the commission had any questions. Commissioner Richards asked for and received clarification regarding the glare of the headlights. Mr. Pitchford noted that the site is triangular with parking surrounding it and zndicateo that the additional space would utilize landscaping to enhance the project. Vice Chairman Erwood Qgsed the public testimony. Commissioner Richards commented that if the restaurant were refurbished into another successful development, parking would be tight , but noted that there would be a change in the superblock wnich could present some changes in the parking in the future. Commissioner Richards received clarification that the project would be 100% office space and in operation between 11:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. - 11:00 p.m. Adj a nw.. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, ` 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION QECEMBER 17, 1985 adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Wood abstained due to arrival in middle of discussion. ) Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1106, approving CUP 09-78 (Amend #1 ) as described in the staff report. Carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Wood abstained due to arrival in middle of discussion. ) C. Case No. PP 85-38 - 0AWN/GKL0EV III PARTNERSHIP, Applicant Approval of a negative declaration of environ- mental impact and precise plan of design for a 204, 300 square foot retail commercial shopping center and 250 room plus 24 casitas destination resort hotel on a 32 acre parcel at the southwest corner of Highway 111 and Fred Waring Drive. Mr. Smith reviewed the staff report and outlined the concerns of staff. In conclusion, Mr. Smith suggested that if the commission wished to approve the precise plan, possible revisions would be the access to and from Fred Waring to the site and the inclusion of the Hoams Pool site to the development, as well as a traffic analysis, or continue to study the possibility of a department store on the site. Mr. Smith stated that if the commission were to approve the *moo precise plan, that the following condition be added per Chairman Crites: that the applicant agree to participate in a "Art in Public Places" program, and also that the applicant pay $1977.37 as its share in the preparation of the BSI Study of July, 1985. Commissioner Richards noted that this was a key parcel and stated that the committee formed to study that area was looking for planned residential/resort type of a project and the proposed was mainly commercial. Vice Chairman Erwood ppe[p the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. BOB GOLDEY felt that economic wise the property required a commercial/resort development and stated that he would like to see Mervyn's in the center. Commissioner Richards explained the history of the parcel and felt that there was plenty of retail already in the city and asked about Mervyn's interest in the project. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEM0ER 17, 1985 � � Mr. Goldey stated that he had the option on the property prior to knowing about Mervyn's being turned down. He felt that the property met all retail criteria and that the project would be viable with or without Mervyn's. Commissioner Wood noted citizen sensitivity to development in that area regarding traffic and caliber of department store' Mr. Goldey replied that the Carma-Sandling, the present owner, had filled him in on the history of the property, but he felt it was worth a try. Vice Chairman Erwood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR� or OPPOSITION to the proposed. There being no one, the public testimony was closed. Commissioner Richards stated that PC (4) overlay should be kept as the appropriate usage. He stated that he would move to instruct staff to prepare a resolution of denial with the findings being all concerns of staff and the usage remaining the same. He felt the applicant had not provided enough information to make any change or further determination to the present zone. � Action: w�o Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Wood, directing staff to prepare a resolution of denial with the appropriate findings to be presented January 7, 1985. Carried 4-0. Mr. Ed Benson, Sandpiper, commended the commission on this action. 0. Case No. ZOA 85-6 TIMESHARE AMENDMENT Referral from City Council for review and comment on ordinance changes and negative declaration of environ- mental impact with mitigation. Mr. Drell explained that this item was before the city council on the 12th, where changes were made and referred back to the commission for review and recommendation. He discussed with the commission the changes that the council had made. Vice Chairman Erwood gopIed the public testimony and asked if anyone present with to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed changes. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 0ECEMBER 17, 1985 MR. J7M LiOBLAND, Board of Realtors, read a letter of the board - passing a resolution recommending that timeshares in the City of Palm Desert be allowed in commercial zones as the ordinance now allows. He spoke against any deceptive or misleading activities that adversely affect the buyer or seller of real property. Timeshare sales have been known to be quite unorthodox and misleading' He stated that the association recognizes and supports the importance and value to the consumer of being professionally represented by realtors in a real property transaction. He did not know of any sellers of timeshares that belong to organized real estate. Basically, as members of the California Association of Realtors, the board shall continue to strive for excellence in all their professional responsibilities. They reaffirm the public's basic right to acquire and enjoy real property. They will continue to seek a flexible, objectively-oriented balance between real property interests, service, future economic growth, and general well being of the broadest segment of our state society. He also spoke for the developer of Lago de Palmas, Don Durant, who said he would not want to be next to some "cheap timeshare project. " Mr. L]obland quoted from another source who felt that timeshares were an " ill-conceived idea to dump distressed properties that are coming back to haunt many communities that have already allowed them. Mark my word that you will rue the day that timeshares are allowed in Palm Desert. They should be eliminated in every way possible. " MS. RUTH GRISWOLD, Chairman of the Condominium Committee of the Board of Realtors in 1980-81. She stated that she had received a letter from Vacation Paradise Properties asking if people would like to own a timeshare in Chaparral Country Club at a tenth of what it would cost to purchase it on your own. She stated that Chaparral Country Club knew nothing about it. The condominium committee looked into it and sent out letters to all condominiums in the area suggesting that they look at there CC&R's to protect themselves. She used the timeshares in Hawaii/Maui as an example of empty condominiums that don't sell. MR. MELV7N GORDON, 72-944 Joshua Tree, expressed concern over the economic impact this type of ownership would have on the community and felt timeshares would create future slums and management problems. Two-week visitors do not have the same interests as the permanent residents. He felt the Palm Desert Property Owners Association looked to the improvement of the community and felt timeshare ownership should be kept to a bare minimum and should be in the areas designated so that the 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECENBER 17, 1985 / ' k limited availability will not have a wide impact all over the community. He suggested that the $150 fee might be inadequate to provide recompense for the full economic impact that this type of ownership might have and asked commission to consider doubling the amount. MR. PAUL MURPHY, 509 Sandpiper, related some of his experience as a resort owner with timeshares. He explained that two resorts in Oregon converted four units to timeshare and their board's main concern was with the fee. He stated that it turned into a disaster. He noted that two units were sold, the other two were foreclosed on. He stated that when two-thirds of the people stopped paying, the resort did not receive their fees, the phone bills, the electricity charges, or maintenance charges. He explained they were now suing each individual owner of the two units. The estimate from his attorney was that it would cost between $30,000-$50,000, and while they will end up owning the units, it will be $50,000 and two years later. Mr. Murphy outlined his line of business in the automobile industry and the committees he served on and stated that on television the previous night he saw someone advertising timeshares in Big Bear who was banned from the auto industry in � the State of Washington. He indicated that he was approached � to attend a local timeshare meeting. He stated that he went to Woo the meeting and saw a movie that showed vacations in Hawaii, the Alps, Colorado, Palm Springs, and his resort in Oregon, which he knew was locked by court order. He was shown a catalog and stated that you never see the inside of a condominium and are attempted to be sold on locking in the price of a motel/hotel room for the rest of their lives and an easy payment program. The closer asked Mr. Murphy which credit cards he had and told him that he could pay the $68,000 on one credit card then use the other credit card to pay the first one, which could he done back and forth for two years. He expressed concern for the number of foreclosures in the Desert Sun. He felt that the maintenance bond would not take care of the units in a foreclosure situation. He indicated that timeshares could not be given away in the states of Oregon and Washington. He stated that it could he one of the most costly things that could ever hit the City of Palm Desert if it was allowed to happen. MR. WILL TAM TFNNESON TIT, 73-318 .Juniper, stated that the City of Palm Desert was spending thousands of dollars to advertise Palm Desert throughout affluent communities in an effort to attract people to this area who will represent the best elements in the country. He stated that we have been trying to promote ' MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION [ECEMBER 17, 1985 the old spot image in this area. He felt that timeshares detract from the image and as the director representing the Palm Desert Property Owners stated that they are totally opposed to timeshare in any of the residential zoned areas and felt that further restrictions should be placed on timeshare in the hotel areas where timeshares are permitted. MR. ED BENSON, 1106 Sandpiper, agreed with everyone who spoke previously. Vice Chairman Erwood closed. the public testimony. After a lengthy discussion between the commission and the city attorney, commission determined that timeshares should not be allowed in PR zones by reversing their previous recommendation to the city council, as well as recommending approval of the negative declaration of environmental impact and approval of all the requirements proposed for timeshare in the PR zone including the maintenance bond, mitigation fee and unit limit to be applied to timeshare generally, regardless of zone. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Wood, in approval of the eight provisions that were under section 0 25. 1O0.035. Carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, recommending to council deletion of the underlined part regarding PR zones. Carried 3-1 (Commissioner Wood voting no. ) ViID. MISCELLANEOUS Mr. Holtz gave a brief background regarding letters received from Ms. Williams. IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NONE. X. COMMENTS Commission discussed the letter received from Mr. and Mrs. Robert A. King, legal notification, and public testimony - oral and written. 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 1985 XI, ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Wood, adjourning the meeting. Carried 3-1 (Commissioner Clowns voted no. ) The meeting was adjourned at 4:28 p.m. RAMON A. DIAZ, Serr �1 ATTEST: All ! L 'RICNARD ERWOOO, Vice Chairman WOW /tm twow