Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0305 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - MARCH 5, 1991 • 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE � * � � * � � � � * * � � � * � � � � � * � � � � I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Whitlock called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner powns led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Carol Whitlock, Chairperson Bob Downs Rick Erwood Sabby Jonathan Jim Richards Members Absent: None Staff Present: Ray D1.az Steve Smith , Kandy Allen Gregg Holtz Phil Drell Tonya Monroe Jeff Winklepleck �, IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration for approval the February 19, 1991 meeting minutes. Action• Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, approving the minutes as submitted. Carried 4-0-1 ( Commissioner powns abstairied) . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Diaz summarized pertinent February 28, 1991 council action. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. TT 23940 - ROBERT VARNER, Applicant Request for approval of a first, one-year time extens.ion for a tentative tract map at the nortliwest corner of Hovley Lane and E1 Dorado Drive. � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 1991 B. Case No. PP 89-9 - BERNARD DEBONNE, Applicant � Request for approval of a first, one-year time extension for a precise plan located on the north side of Highway 111 at the east city limit. Action: Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Richards, approving the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 5-0. VII. PUHLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. CUP 91-1 - SHADOW MOUNTAIN GOLF CLUB, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow associated golf club management office use in a single family residence adjacent to the Shadow Mountain Golf Club, 73-720 Ironwood. Mr. Winklepleck reviewed the history of the project, outlined the salient points of the staff report and recommended approval . ,�,; Chairperson Whitlock �ened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. HARRY ARMSTRONG, 46-225 Burroweed Lane, described the use and hours proposed and felt that it would be less of a problem than a family with children. He asked for approval . Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MR. LEWIS CLARK, 72-790 Somera, a member of the Shadow Mountain Golf Club, felt it would be an asset to the neigtiborYiood because of loc�� noise and traffic. Ne indicated that traffic would be only between 8:00 a.m. and 5 : 00 p.m, with no evening activities. MS. VICKIF BROWN, 45-876 San Luis Rey, member of the Shadow Manor Homeowners Association, stated that she was opposed to the proposal for three main reasons. The home was built as a single family residence and should remain 2 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSIUN MARCH 5, 1991 . that way; all the homes around it were single family dwellings; arid it would have a�i unfavorable effect on the � value of surrounding properties. She indicated that she had letters from three other homeowners in the Shadow Manor Homeowners Association, two of which had already said tt�ey didn' t oppose it but had retracted that. Commissioner Richards asked Ms. Brown if the office had controlled hours and days and could not change the exterior character, and if parking were restricted if she would be opposed. Ms. Brown replied that there was some feeling that the property owner had not been maintaining the quality of his property. She was opposed to the uses listed and thought there was a contradiction of having board meetings and only having two parking spaces. Commissioner Richards indicated that members at most board meetings would probably arrive in golf carts or live in the area. He felt tYie use was innocuous and the maintenance would be assured by the country club and if it were not outwardly changed and uses were 8:00 to 5 :00 Monday through Friday, it would be compatible. � Ms. Brown was still opposed and stated that if the commission allowed a business in this residential area, she wondered what else would be allowed. Mr. Diaz reviea�ed the conditional use permit process and indicated that the country club ancillary use could be made compatible with the conditions limiting the hours of operation, number of employees, and activities. Mr. Diaz indicated there could also be a condition added that the property be maintained in the manner that it is at the present time and if at any time any of the conditions are violated or the use becomes a nuisance, the conditional use permit could be terminated. Ms. Brown asked about the procedure to file a nuisance and Mr. Diaz responded that any complaint would be placed with the department of community development and a public hearing would be conducted. Commissioner Richards felt the proposed use would be good neighbors. Mr. Armstrong clarified that the board meetings would be the third Thursday of every month and there would be one employee/bookkeeper. 3 �....� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLArINING COMMISSIUN MARCH 5, 1991 Ms. Brown reiterated that if therP was a problem it would be subject to the planning cammission investigating as ,,,,�r to whether the permit would be revoked. She informed commission that the last time this permit was applied for the applicants threatened the adj acent homes with eminent domain, which did not create a good relationship and she felt the applicant wanted to take over all of the seven homes. MR. RICK BROWN, 45-876 San Luis Rey, was also opposed to the conditional use because this was a single family area and told commission that major improvements were being made to the homes, including new kitchens, and felt that if an office use were allowed they would not do similar improvements and it would devalue the property of the other residents. Commissioner Jonathan asked about the possibility of sequestering the building with a wall and making it a part of the golf course development. Mr. Drell indicated there was a problem with the entrance and stated that visually the house would not change. Commissioner Richards stated that he was looking for 1 ) the assurance that mai_ntenance and visual appearance of the �' building would be maintained, and 2 ) he didn' t want to see a large sign put up. Mr. Armstrong stated that they did not need a sign and felt that in the last four months the appearance had been greatly improved with flowers and greenery and they intended to keep it that way. He also indicated that a six foot wall could be built around the property. Commissioner Richards felt this was a nice neighborhood adjoining a golf course and felt that the applicant' s intentions were good. Mr. Brown informed commission that there were three property owriers that had put in excess of $50, 000 into improving their property and felt that a family would be a better use and would make a difference to their property values. He also felt a six foot wall would destroy the value of their hocnes. Mr. Armstrong assured Mr. Brown that these premises compare with any in the neighborhood as to upkeep and 4 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSIQN MARCH 5�, 1991 landscaping and regarding the issue of parking, he stated that at the last board rneeting, everyone showed up in �` golf carts. He stated that they would be a good neighbor. Chairperson Whitlock closed the public hearing. Commissioner Erwood did not feel that anything had changed since the last request and there was stili neighbor opposition. Chairperson Whitlock indicated that no one was present from the Shadow Mountain Golf Club last time to explain their use for the home. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he had the same concerns as Commissioner Erwood. He did not feel the quality of usage was compatible. Action• Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Chairperson Whitlock, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 3-2 ( Commissioners Erwood and Jonathan voted no) . Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Chairperson � Whitlock, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1496, approving CUP 91-1 subject to conditions. Carried 3-2 (Commissioners Erwood and Jonathan voted no) . Mr. Diaz noted that this action was final unless appealed to ' the city council within 15 days. ' ; B. Case No. CUP 91-3 - DR. BRUCE BAUMANN, Applicant i Request for approval of a conditional use � permit to allow construction of a family ; fun park including two 18 hole miniature golf courses, a bumper boat pond, a 9 lane j batting cage, and an office/arcade/snack ; building on � 2. 2 acre site at the corner � of Painters Path and Fred Waring Drive. i Mr. Winklepleck outlined the salient points of the staff report and recomcr�ended approval . He clarified that there would be a kitcheri for the snack shop. � � 5 � I +� � � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMIaSION MARCH 5, 1991 Chairperson Whitlock o ened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. „� MR. RICK HOLDEN, 44-267 Monterey, informed commission that it would be more of a microwave-type snack shop serving hot dogs, popcorn and cokes. He stated that they would be starting construction as soon as possible. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal; there was no one and the public testimony was closed. Action• Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Richards, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-U. Moved by Commissioner Joriathan, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1497, approving CUP 91-3 subject to conditions. Carried 5-0. C. Case No. PP 91-1 - MLA INVESTMENTS, Applicants Request for �pproval of a preci_se plan of desigii a�id negative declaration of � environmental impact to allow construction of a 40, 000 square foot mixed use commercial complex in the C-1 zone on the south side of Highway 111 at the city' s western boundary. Mr. Smith outlined the salient points of the staff report and recommended approval . Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. CHARLES MARTIN, 40-840 Thunderbird Road in Rancho Mirage, informed commission that he was present to answer any quest.ioris. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyorie wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal; there was not one and the public testimony was closed. 6 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSIUN MARCH 5, 1991 Action: Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, �" approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1498, approving PP 91-1 subject to conditions. Carried 5-0. A FIVE MINUTE RECESS WAS CALLED AT 9 : 12 P.M. D. Case Nos. GPA 91-1 and C/Z 91-1 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to the Palm Desert General Plan to cover the property south of Country Club Drive to Fred Waring Drive west of Washington Street to the existing city limit and to prezone the subject area for the purpose of facilitating annexation of the area to the City of Palm Desert and approve a negative declaration of environmental impact pertaining thereto. Mr. Smith explained that the proposal was to establish the general plan in the area and to prezone it for annexation � purposes. As indicated in the legal notice, it was the city' s intent to prezone the area as closely to the existing county zoning as possible, which was possible for most of the area. He noted that the Sunrise property in Section 11, bounded by Country Club, Oasis, 42nd, and E1 Dorado was annexed into the city on January 24, 1991 . On February 28 council directed staff to proceed with the annexation of the area north of Country Club, from Avondale Country Club east to Washington Street. The 1600 +/- acres represerited the remainder of the city' s eastern sphere of influence and a portion between Fred Waring and 42nd Avenue was added by LAFCO approximately 1 to 1 1/2 years ago. Until that time the sphere ended at 42nd Avenue. He stated that the proponents in that sphere amendment for the area south of 42nd Avenue were a large contingent in the Palm Desert Country Club, and he had a petition from them signed by 621 residents in that area in support of this annexation effort. As outlined in the staff report, Mr. Smith indicated that the intent was to confirm the county land use designations and establish similar zones. The gated country clubs, The Resorter, Oasis, Desert Breezes, and Woodhaven would be designated residential low density 3-5 dwelling units per acre and be prezoned at PR-4, four units 7 �r,. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 1991 per acre. Single family areas, Palm Desert Country Club and Whitehawk would be designated low density residential and ,,,,� zoned R-1 and Palm Desert Country Club would be R-1 9, 000. He stated that the Palm Desert Golf Course would be zoned open space to assure that it would recnain that use. In the PR zoning on the country clubs, the density was controlled by the gross acreage and was not a problem, but where there were single family homes on the golf course and their densities were controlled by themselves, he vaanted to insure that the golf course would continue as a golf course. The Palm Desert Shopping Center on Washington Street, as well as the extreme southwest corner of Washington and Country Club, were proposed for the PC-2 zone and designated ttie same in the general plan. He noted these were existing commercial areas. Golden Sun Estates on Washington Street, a proposal was for R-1-M, Palm Desert' s residential mobile home zoning similar to Portola Country Club where there was manufactured housing on individual lots. He indicated there was a series of apartment projects in the area and they would be zoned R-3 and designated high density residential 17-18 dwelling units per acre. He informed commissi_on that ther.e were still areas of controversy arid tiad received corresporidence from Mr. and Mrs. Cook, Dick Blanpeed, Gorden Vanderworker, Richard Oliphant, as well as several telephone calls and meetings. He reviewed the issues raised and his responses as follows: 1 ) what would happen to the property tax? Palm Desert does not have property er.r� tax and there wouldn' t be a change as a result of the annexation. Palm Desert has a per lot emergency services tax that was voted on by Palm Desert residents nine or ten years ago: on a single family home $48 per year; condos, apartments, mobile homes S36 per year; and vacant land S24 per year. He stated that this service was to provide an upgraded level of police and fire service and no charge paramedic services. A concern was raised that the rental programs in some of the country club communities might be impacted; Mr. Smith stated that they would not, indicating there were several on-going rental programs at Monterey and other country clubs in the city. He stated that the city would collect transient occupancy tax from those operations. The trash service contract was with Palm Desert Disposal and existing contracts irz the annexation area could continue up to five years and after that they would have to come under the city' s contract in effect at that time. Sewer and water would continue to be provided by Coachella Valley Water District; schools would continue to be provided by Desert Sands Unified School District; cable television would be Palmer Cable Vision per a city contract--one gentleman had asked if the city monitored this service, which Palm Desert does, and in the 8 �rirr MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 1991 past the city had considered various options on that and if � tYiere were inpui;, the staf'f lia_i_�,c>ri Czrlos Ortega should be contacted and tie would make those views known to the cable company. He indicated that one acre lots partially developed/partially vacant comprised the Robin Road, Delaware, and Mountain View area. Robin Road was paved with curbs and gutters and a series of recently constructed homes on it. Mountain View and Delaware were unpaved, original dirt roads and in front of some of the homes there was gravel or crushed rock which individuals had installed. He indicated this area was mostly newer large homes, with walls and the residences were very nice, while the streets and grading left a lot to be desired, though some of the residents would prefer to keep it that way. Mr. Blanpeeds ' letter indicated that many of the properties in this area were 1 . 1 acre lots and they moved there to be able to do more than occupy the residence as more than a single family home; hobbies, storage, businesses, etc. Hobbies and small business offices would not be a problem under the single family zoning anticipated in the area in that they qualify under the home occupation definition. Larger businesses, storage of equipment, vehicles and material were not legal under the county; they just didn' t enforce their ordinance. Mr. Smith indicated that some area residents present would be asking for the creation of a new zoning category to permit this residential use blended with small � business uses, which could be considered. The city' s proposal to that issue was that on the general plan it could be designated a study area and during that study the street issues, drainage issues, and non-conforming use issues would be considered. In the meantime the uses would continue to exist in a state of suspended animation. The study was envisioned to begin shortly after annexation. He indicated that it did not give those property owners any long term assurance that they would be permitted that type of use. Another concern was several of the vacant properties along Washington Street. The owners expressed concern with the proposed prezoning; they felt the county would grant them higher land uses and he indicated that he drove by a piece of property that Palm Desert Vaould zone R-3 and it had a sign saying it was planned for office professional . He stated that it might be a more appropriate land use, but the goal going into the annexation was to give everyone what they had under the county, which was R-3 . Another property owned by Mr. Hill, who owns three parcels, two of which were on the R-3 side of the li.rie, and one on the R-1 side of the line. Mr. Smith indicated that Mr. Hill would be requesting R-3 zoning for that R-1 parcel . 9 � MINUZ'ES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 1991 , Mr. Diaz asked what the study area would be prezoned and Mr. Smith clarified that the study area would extend along ;,,,,� Washington and include the residential area west to Warner on Delaware, Mountain View, and Robin Road and the vacant piece ' immediate north of Desert Breezes. He stated that the front i portion of that site would be prezoned R-3 and the rear portion R-1 9, 000, which was what it had under the county. Mr. Smith also noted that one other amendment to the zoning would be made to the extreme east end of Desert Breezes, shown as R-3, and should be PR-4 and was developed as part of the country club out to Washington Street, with the exception of a 2 acre site at the corner of Fred Waring and Washington , Street, which was still vacant and walled off from the remainder of that site. He informed commission that approximately 4200 legal notices were sent and staff recommended approval of the prezoning and the general plan amendment. ' Commissioner Rictiards asked staff what the pros and cons were � for a resident to come into Palm Desert. Mr. Smith stated � that the pros would be the upgraded level of police and fire service and the paramedic service. The con to that would be that it would cost between S24 and $48 a year. Another pro would be that people drove four or five miles to get to the civic center; if they are in the county they start out with county planning in Indio and end up having to drive to +�' Riverside. Further hearings by Palm Desert would be held in the council chamber. Commissioner Richards indicated that the city was in a neutral position in this matter and there was no specific economic benefits, and perhaps some economic costs. Mr. Diaz stated that the city' s annexation policy/philosophy was that they would not actively seek areas for annexation, however, would welcome areas that wished to become part of the Palm Desert family. He indicated that it was not Palm Desert ' s desire to divide established communities, but would welcome them and if they did not want to come in, fine. However, in terms of costs and financial impact on the city, it was knocen about the Palm Desert Country Club area that there were some infrastructure repairs that would need to be done and one thing necessary if annexation proceeded would be a fiscal imp�ct analysis and they were looking at the possibility of different tools available to repair the str_eets where necessary, curbs and gutters, and looking at overall area in terms of fiscal impact--the would have to wait for the analysis to come in and it could be plus or minus. Bottom line has not been the city' s philosophy of whether or not we would bring an area in, however we have to be cognizant of our economic situation to insure everyone was 10 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 1991 . treated equally when they come into Palm Desert and continue to provide the levels of service Palm Desert naw has. �r.r+ Commissioner Richards felt most impacts were to developers of vacant property. He indicated that Palm Desert was probably tougher on some of the standards and were generally more consistent as to enforcement of requirements, so if he owned property he might want to stay county; however, on the other side, developers enjoyed doing business in Palm Desert because standards were ensured, value created, and developers found that the finished product enhanced their marketability visa vie other communities. Commissioner powns concurred, but felt that Palm Desert processed applications quicker than the county, although being more restrictive. Commissioner Jonathan asked for and received clarification as to what the commission was being asked to vote on. Mr. Smith explained that commission was being asked to vote on land use issues through the general plan as well as the proposed prezoning which was indicated as staff ' s best effort to transfer existing county land use established for the area and areas that staff received input on prior to this hearing was , proposed on the general plan as a study area to be completed shortly after annexation. He indicated that additional public ' hearings would then be held similar to previous specific plans and the city generally went with what the community wanted in � those study areas. He stated that we were trying to establish the existing county land use designations for the area; once that was in place and a fiscal impact report received and a council resolution adopted to proceed; then they would apply to the Local Agency Formation Commission. They then typically hold a hearing four to six months after application was made. Hopefully at that hearing they would approve the application and considering it was an inhabited annexation, they would then direct council to hold one last hearing to hear from any opposition. If the opposition was from 25� or more of the registered voters in the area or of the assessed value in the area, then the matter would have to go to an election. If the opposition at that time was greater than 50$, then that would stop the annexatior�. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the pros and cons expressed by area r�sidents would impact what they were voting on and Mr. Smith replied that the opponents to the annexation would probably like to see commission not act on the prezoning so the application would not proceed. So in that respect the opinion on annexation would impact on commission' s decision. 11 •rw MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMI�SION MARCH 5, 1991 Mr. Diaz stated that regarding ac-tivi_ties that are on-going in the area but were not legal under the county at the present � time--there would not be any change and when the area was annexed, the city would have to enforce its ordinances on a complaint basis. Commissioner Richards asked for an example of that type of use; Mr. Diaz indicated that if someone in the study area was conducting an automotive repair business, no matter if it was called a hobby, it was a business and whereas the county had not closed them down, that use was not permitted under the county zoning, but was never stopped and would not be a legal non-conforming use in the city, but would be an illegal non-conforming use and non-enforcement of the codes does not mean the use could continue. He noted that when the Cook Street area was annexed there were quite a few activities occurring that needed to be stopped, and it was worked out. He wanted people to understand that while they might be doing something in the county, it was not necessarily legal in the county. Chairperson Whitlock o�ened the public hearing and asked for comments in FAVOR and OPPOSITION to the proposal . MR. JACK FORNEY, 42-240 Kansas in Palm Desert Country Club, stated that he had three questions. He stated that he was a member of the architectural committee for the Palm Desert Country Club Association and while they have �i certain CC&R' s in their area that differ from Palm Desert, would the city enforce their CC&R' s. Mr. Diaz replied no, stating that the city could not enforce their CC&R ' s, but the city cooperates with them and any applications coming in for approval would be sent to the homeowners association for approval . However if someone insisted on a permit, the city would have to give them a permit. Specific zoning regulations/overlays could be adopted depending on what they were, which could help. Mr. Forney stated that they tiave dedicated county roads and many residents have golf carts and the only way to get to the club was on county roads/public thoroughfares. He as)c�d i f tlizt wotzicl b� a F�r.oblem iri the city. Mr. Diaz indicated that was a problem in the county; golf carts were not allowed on public streets in the state of California and Palm Desert has special legislation sponsored by Palm Desert and under study to allow the use of golf carts on the streets. Right now anyoiie using a golf cart on a public thoroughfare could be ticketed. He indicated that 12 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING CO�MISSION MARCH 5, 1991 there was a committee studying this in Palm Desert and if any city received this legislation, Palm Desert would probably be �"" first, because Palm Desert was the only city authorized to study it. Mr. Forney asked what formula was used for police protection in the city. Commissioner Erwood stated that in general terms the contract was a certain number of deputies patrolling 24 hours per day. Mr. Diaz indicated that he did not know the specific number. Mr. Forney asked if additional patrol cars would be added by this annexation. Mr. Diaz replied yes, that additional patrol cars would be necessary. Commissioner Richards noted that the city had just completed the sheriff ' s station adjacent to the civic center, which would be a great benefit to the whole city by putting police protection closer and if at some future time it was necessary, the building could house Palm Desert' s own police force. Mr. Forney stated that two pros were local control and not having to drive to Riverside and to have the � enforcement of the illegal uses that the county was not enforcing at this time. Mr. Smith informed commission that one or two sheriffs would be added and with the homes in the north area, there would be enough homes to support a paramedic squad at the Portola/Country Club fire station if the annexation proceeded. MS. CINDY FINERTY, 43-592 Via Batalona, on the board of directors at Desert Breezes, informed commission that she would prefer to belong to the city of Palm Desert as opposed to being under Riverside County control and felt government worked best when functioning at a local level . Upgraded level of police and fire protection would be welcome and would appreciate the consistency and toughness o f Pal�n Deser t s tanclards . MR. IRA GARSON, owner of property on Washington and Delaware, stated that it was zoned R-3 and clarified that the county provides that R-3 under certain conditions could put up a professional building. He received December 13, 1990 an approval from the county for this building. He asked if the construction of the building 13 � MINUTES � PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMIaSION MARCH 5, 1991 were delayed because of economir. viabilities, and the property were to be annexed prior to construction, would �,,,,�r he have difficulty with Palm Desert. He felt the land usage zonings should be investigated carefully to comprehend all the aspects of the county zonings. He also asked if he were to build prior to annexation if the city would be difficult about the usage at that time. Mr. Smith stated that Palm Desert would recognize the county approval, assuming it were final when annexation took place and it would run as long as it was good under the county and Palm Desert would also look at any time extensions after becoming part of the city, with no guarantee that the time extension would be granted, but it would be reviewed. If the building was constructed or under construction when the annexation took place, Palm Desert would accept the county approval and the use. Mr. Garson asked how long it would take for the annexation to occur if everything went positively. Mr. Smith indicated that tie would anticipate a hearing at LAFCO in January next year if everything was fairly straight forward and an added 60 days for the actual physical annexation. �r.r� MR. JEFFRY PLACE, 77-776 Mountain View, stated that was part of the possible study area mentioned. He stated that he moved there ten years ago and he and his wife moved there because they thought it was a nice rural area because of the one acre lot sizes. MR. HAL DURCHIN, 43-595 Calle Las Brisas in Desert Breezes, stated that he was in support of the annexation and all their residents support the annexation. MS. PATRICIA OSBORN, building a home at 77-805 Delaware Street, stated that she wanted the area to remain rural and informed commission that she had horses and wanted to know about the proposed R-1 9, 000 zoning. Mr. Smith indicated that R-1 9, U00 zoning did not permit horses, but if the area was left one acre lots, which he felt was the city' s intention, then ttirough the study it would likely be zoned rural estate lots, which was one acre lots that would permit horses. Commissioner Richards clarified that it was not Palm Desert ' s intention to change their way of life, but hopefully improve it. He stated that if horses 14 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 1991 were there now, hbrses would remain. Mr. Diaz indicated that as far as the horses were concerned, the RE zone mentioned by "�"' Mr. Smith could be prezoned and indicated horses were a legal non-conforming use. He stated that one problem with having horses was that if the surrounding area developed into smaller lots, then there could be health code problems as far as distance from windows. Commissioner Richards suggested that these residents get together and discuss their unique or special purposes to evaluate their goals. Mr. Diaz felt that this use would not pose any problems. MR. RICHARD CLARK, 74-425 Goleta and owner of property at 77-590 Mountain View. He stated that 62$ of the people in tYie area boucided by Warner Trail, Robin Road, Delaware and Washington had a meeting. He indicated they were trying to figure out what to do. He felt they were in a unique area that had direct access into Washington Street and l . l acres of which 62% of the property owners were opposed to the annexation because of the small businesses and horses in the area. He stated that the residents like the dirt road because it keeps traffic down. He felt that if the roads were paved they would become through streets and result in raceways. He submitted a petition and stated that he would be willing to work with the city as to a study zone, but they were concerned about workshops on the properties and he �""' enjoyed working on his trucks in his shop and planned to build a house in the front eventually. Others had guest buildings in the back and it would be hard under any existing zoning that they could fit in and be legal . He suggested a special zone to allow them as a community to work in a study zone to resolve their problems. He indicated that the street could be cul-de-sacced to eliminate traffic and there were existing drainage problems they needed help with. Commissioner powns asked how many lots there were and Mr. Clark replied 81 one acre parcels, not counting the ones on Washington and Warner Trail . Chairperson Whitlock asked for and received clarification that 6?_0 of those property owners were opposed to arinexati_orl. Mr. Clar.k stated that there were 81 lots arld they had 4U so���ething owners. He stated that after staff ' s presentation and public testimony some might have a different opinion on the annexation. They just didn' t want city goverriment "forced down their throats" and to tell them they couldn' t keep their motor homes parked behind their lots, though they tried to screeri them, but with one acre parcels most people wanted to use the property for more than 15 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 1991 just one home. Mr. Diaz stated that was the reason for the study area and if_ the majority wanted something specific that � present ordinances would not allow, a special ordinance could be written to establish a new zone, as long as they were only impacting themselves. He warned Mr. Clark that the dirt roads might be an issue the city had no control over because of the PM10 dust control issues through the South Coast Air Quality District, and whether in the city or county the roads might be paved and the traffic issues could be handled. Mr. Clark stated that he could not ask for more than that and he would be happy to work with the city. Commissioner Richards indicated that if a legitimate commercial business were being run, not just a hobby or something to do part time but something with trucks coming in and out or a product was being made with smoke going into the air, after everyone got into the room not everyone might agree with the use. He stated that a use like an on-going commercial activity could be a problem. Mr. Clark informed commission that the area was unique that way because there were no signs and all the businesses were of a service type industry or construction related that did not take place on the premises and was more a place to have a telephone and a small worksYiop ar_ound back and possibly live on the property to add protection, but no heavy industry. �; MR. BILL VIEZEY, 42-900 Massachusetts Court in Palm Desert Couritry Club, stated that he owned the property for 15 years and was a former mernber of the Palm Desert Country Club Association. He stated that he whole- heartedly supported the annexation of the area into Palm Desert. He felt that urbanization had surrounded their area with businesses, apartment complexes, and schools and was in favor of not havirig to drive to Riverside to be heard, even if a small tax would be incurred for services. �Ie noted that the tax dollars would flow into the general. funds of Palm Desert when annexation occurred instead of Riverside County and they would become voters. He spoke for Mr. Joe Mann who Yiad pursued the annexation with LAFCO in support. MR. LARRY JOHNSON, 1408 So. Ritchey in Santa Ana, stated that he owned property at the northwest corner of Dudley and Washington. He felt that he had ariother circumstance that was not normal . The pr_operty was approximately 39, 000 gross feet and 31 , 000 buildable net footage after an additional 30 feet of Dudley was improved at his 16 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 1991 expense under the county, as well as Washington Street improvement. Mr. Johnson indicated that there was no ""�' right of entry on Washington, only on Dudley and was zoned R-3 and had the right to go to neighborhood professional zoning, which was less restrictive than city standards. He stated that the buffer zone, if he were included and he was asking to be included in the commercial zone that was proposed for all the property north of his property to 42nd Street, including the Palm Desert Shopping Center, Don O' s Restaurant, which his property abuts to, was a 105 foot depth on the northerly section and to try to develop this as an apartment project wouldn' t be proper use or good planning or financially feasible for 8-12 units squeezed on that lot facing Washington with no type of parking walled off such as the property on the south. There were no buildings or wouldn' t be any buildings within 100 feet of Dudley to the south because they have a parking lot walled off with double parking front to rear and center ingress/egress, which created a buffer zone with street width that was approxirnately 160 feet from any existing residential unit. He felt th�t was a better buffer zone than to stop the commercial zone at the end of a block and leaving a small st�ip of land. He felt the proposal was down zoning his property and would not be practical financially, but would be better to have a pleasant "�"'` neighborhood commercial type of use and that was his request. He stated that if it were put into a study zone, he felt it might be beneficial to others in the area, but it wouldn' t help his property because it was the only property within 1000 feet that could be developed in a commercial type of use, which was the only use for this property. He stated that the county accepted the fact that this property would be used for commercial purposes and had been about 85� of the way through with a general plan and plot plan amendment for a Bank of Palm Springs, but the deal fell through. He indicated that this parcel was part of the redevelopment district also and it was put in that district because it would be developed as a commercial use. He felt that commission should direct staff to put this parcel into the commercial zone. Mr. Smith responded that his response was that the proposal for the study area would include his property, as well as the other areas and was something that could be considered, but the goal in this process was to give people exactly what they had under the county and while he had an argument for a 17 �irw MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSIUN MARCH 5, 1991 different land use, perhaps the appropriate use would not be a neighborhood commercial, but office professional because of ' Palm Desert ' s differing standards. He indicated that it was � something that could be reviewed. Commissioner Richards stated that he did not want to make any changes at this time, but felt it should be placed into the study zone. MR. CARL BERG, 42-905 Texas Avenue in Palm Desert Country Club, stated that he was chairman of the County Service Area 26 and he asked what would happen to the county service area after annexation. He was in the process of getting street sweeping paid for by the homeowners and installing 21 new street lights paid by the county service area and asked what would happen to those improvements. Mr. Diaz stated that it wouldn' t change it and informed Mr. Berg that the services currently offered by the city was street sweeping at no additional cos t, but street lights would come under a lighting assessment district which would remain the same and paid by the residents. The annexed area would be entitled to whatever services were currently provided in Palm Desert, but additional services could be taxed or fees paid as Mr. Berg indicated. Mr. Berg asked how often the city ,,,� sweeps and Mr. Holtz stated that it would be every two weeks for residential areas and more often for business areas. MR. RAY HILL, 42-333 Washington, stated that he hand delivered a letter to the city manager' s office. He expressed a concern that a half acre of his property was R-1 and historically, when he purchased his property in 1975 there had been a rezoning in the county for an apartment complex which included all of that area, as well as the apartments and the location of Don O' s Restaurant. He stated that the subdivision to the west of the property was contiguous and there were apartments and condos to the north of the R-1 . He wished that commission would consider that further. Chairperson Whitlock closed the public testimony. Commissioner Richards stated that a place that had been called Palm Desert Country Club should be in Palm Desert and welcomed them into the city. He assured the ones with concerns that the city was positively creative when dealing with issues and was in favor of the annexation. 18 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 1991 Commissioner Erwood stated that he also was in favor of the annexation and told the residents that owried horses that the �"` city had established a trails committee to discuss goals for hiking, biking and horse trails and asked them for input for the trails committee. He also welcomed them to the city. Action: Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0-1 ( Commissioner Jonathan abstained) . Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1499, recommending approval of C/Z 91-1 to city council . Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained) . Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained) . Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1500, recommending approval of GPA 91-1 to city council . Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained) . �VIII. MISCELLANEOUS A. Westinghouse Casita Units Mr. Diaz explained that this item was for informational purposes only. He indicated that Westinghouse would be building casita units instead of single family detached dwellings as originally proposed. Commission concurred. He stated that no commission action was required. B. Refreshment Center at Palms to Pines Chevron/Convenience Store Determination Mr, Diaz reviewed the previous remodel approval and indicated that it was commission' s intent to allow a small area for customer sales. He stated that the applicant was proposing to put in some soda pop and snack machines for customer convenience and felt this was consistent with the intent of the original approval . He also noted that there would be no signs allowed. 19 ��.+► MINUTES ` PALM DESERT PLANNING COMDIISSION MARCH 5, 1991 Commission unanimously concurred. No action was required. � IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. X. COMMENTS l . Commissioner powns commented that the annexation hearing went well . 2. Commissioner Richards indicated that he had occasion to visit the ARCO station recently and reminded commission and staff that when ARCO was approved, the restrooms were to be for public use. He said that when he was there, no public use was allowed. He requested that staff investigate this. Mr. Diaz stated that he would call Mr. Yamasaki. 3. Commissioner Richards, commission and staff discussed the county property up in the Cahuilla Hills area south of the city arid access restrictions that were being imposed by the county and possible future problems to the city wrrr because of the stormwater channel construction. XI. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner_ Downs, seconded by Chairperson Whitlock, adjourning the meeting. Carried 5-0. The meeting adj urned at 9 :35 p.m. . G�� • RAMON A. DIAZ, e ary ATTEST: ��2��(1����r��t������("�CL.J CAROL WHITLOCK, Chairperson /tm 20 �