Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0504 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMI5SION MEETING TL1E S DAY - MAY 4, 19 9 3 7 :00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE .r * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I • CALL TO ORDER Chairman Spiegel called the meeting to order at 7 : 00 p.m. II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Beaty led in the pledge of allegiance. III . ROLL CALL Members Present: Bob Spiegel, Chairman Paul Beaty Diane Cox Sabby Jonathan Carol Whitlock Members Absent: None Staff Present : Jeff Winklepleck Joe Gaugush Bob Hargreaves Tonya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: r... Consideration of the April 6 , 1993 meeting minutes . Action• Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the April 6, 1993 meeting minutes as submitted. Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained) . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Winklepleck summarized pertinent items from the April 6 and 22 , 1993 city council meetinqs . VI . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 93-1 - CHARLES KOLLER for PHILIP AND EVELYN MARKS, Applicants Request for approval an adjustment of a property 1 ine between Mr. and Mrs . Marks property and the golf course. � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4, 1993 B. Case No. PP 89-9 - ROBERT H. RICCIARDI for BERNARD � DEBONNE, Applicant Request for approval of a third one-year time extension for a mixed use restaurant/off project located on the north side of Highway 111 at the eastern city limit . Commissioner Whitlock requested that the items be voted on separately. Commission concurred. Action: A. Moved by Commissioner Whifi.lock, seconded by Commissioner Cox, approving PMW 93-1 by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . B. Commissioner Whitlock noted that in the past the planning commission "frowned" on second year time extensions, but due to the economic times and lack of funding, it was easier to approve second year time extension requests . The third year extension per the correspondence provided seemed to be based on the need to fulfill a requirement that the City of Palm Desert imposed. She asked why it was taking more than two years to fulfill a requirement the city made and also questioned if this really was just a three to four month °1� delay they were asking for and not twelve months . Commissioner Whitlock noted that the request was not because of economics, but an easement requirement. Mr. Gaugush stated that in a general sense, part of the problem involved the fact that the condition required an access easement through property that was in the City of Indian Wells . The owner of the property was having difficulty with the City of Indian Wells and getting certain project approvals for what he wanted to do with his property. This was compounded by the fact that the City of Indian Wells felt that property was an excellent site for affordable housing and a number of factors relative to that came into the picture. It wasn' t just a situation where the applicant could get the easement. There were a number of players and political issues going on with requiring that easement. Reading the letters, Mr. Schmid had apparently received approvals to do certain things on his property and it appeared that he would now be able to work with Mr. Debonne and get the easement situation squared away. 2 �.r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4, 1993 +• Commissioner Whitlock stated that she was disappointed that someone was not present representing the applicant, but would not hold them up. Chairman Spiegel agreed and suggested a six month extension instead of one year. Commissioner Jonathan concurred. He noted that the first approval was for one year, the first extension was two years, the second extension was three years, so when this extension was up, three years would have lapsed. He said that he was getting to the point where he would like to see the project again before agreeing to a further delay. He would agree with the six months, but after that he would like to see the project again. Chairman Spiegel agreed because the new commission members had not seen the project . Action: B. Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Cox, approving a six month time extension for PP 89-9 by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . `.. VII . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. PM 27777 - CALLIE COATES AND CELIA CHRISTMAN, Applicants Request for approval of a tentative parcel map to clarify the ownership of existing residences at 73-780 Buckboard Trail in the R-2 8, 000 ( 8) zone. Mr. Winklepleck stated that in April of 1986 planning commission granted approval of 14 parcel maps which created legal parcels in the Birdie Way/Buckboard Trail area. The units were sold by deed in the early 1960 ' s, although there were two units on each lot. This caused hardship for owners trying to sell or refinance their units . The purpose of the parcel map was to create two legal parcels to avoid those problems and give the owners vested rights should the units be destroyed. This parcel map clarified an existing situation and he felt no requirements should be placed on the parcel map. Mr. Winklepleck recommended approval of the parcel map without conditions . .... 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4, 1993 Chairman Spiegel asked how many parcels like this were still �.�p in existence. Mr. Winklepleck replied approximately three or four in that area. Chairman Spiegel asked if the city should try and get those straightened out . Mr. Gaugush noted that this went back to the mid 1980 ' s . In an effort to assist a number of property owners which were experiencing problems selling their units the city worked with those owners to create these parcel maps identifying two specific lots where there was one with a duplex sitting on it. With the initial approval of the tentative map packages there were 14 approved tentatively. Of those 14 six or eight went through the complete process of recording the final parcel maps and getting that taken care of . The city was not actively soliciting these property owners to do this, but handled it on a basis of when it came up. He noted that it had been a number of years since the city had seen one and was addressing it on a lot by lot basis . Chairman Spiegel opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. JOHN CURTIS, Kicak & Associates at 41-555 Cook Street in Palm Desert. He said he was the civil engineer for the project . He felt that staff had made the basic presentation and was present to answer any ,� questions . There were no questions . Chairman Spiegel noted there was no one else present to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPO5ITION and closed the public testimony. Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting the findings as presented by staff . Carried 5-0 . Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1617 , approving PM 27777 . Carried 5-0 . VIII . MISCELLANEOUS None. IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. 4 r'�►' MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4, 1993 .r X. COMMENTS Commissioner Jonathan noted that he had two brief points to bring up: 1) a while back commission asked staff to get someone from the sheriff ' s department to let the commission know what was being done about gang and graffiti control because that was a concern of various residents when projects came before them. He asked if the commission was still on line to hear about that. Mr. Winklepleck stated that staff was in contact with the sheriff ' s department and as soon as a report was received, it would be brought to the commission. 2 ) Commissioner Jonathan stated that as a commissioner he felt some responsibility to make sure the council was aware that the pace was very slow and that someone should be looking at down-sizing, like most corporations were doing. He asked if that was something that had been addressed by council or if down-sizing had already taken place. Mr. Winklepleck asked for clarification as to down-sizing of what. Commissioner Jonathan replied the planning department, and permit and processing compliance departments . Mr. Winklepleck indicated that no down-sizing had taken place and noted that the planning department had not up-sized since the mid 1970 ' s . Commissioner Jonathan stated that he did not know if it was appropriate or not and that was not his point. +� Mr. Winklepleck noted that there was a study that came out a couple of months ago which compared the different cities and showed what the number of workers were versus the number of residents . Palm Desert fell in the middle and was in the range of one worker per 250 residents compared to Palm Springs which was at one worker to about 80 or 90 residents . Commissioner Jonathan stated that it could be perfectly fine at where it is, but on the other hand staff could be leaner and meaner than those other cities because at the same staffing level if they were able to handle a much larger volume of construction, maybe there was room for cost cutting. He noted that it was not their job to determine this, bu� his only concern was to at least inform the council members of the level of activity and let them consider the staff size. Mr. Winklepleck said that they were aware of that and noted that the new annexations and potential annexations had to be considered and until that happened he did not think council would be considering any down-sizing along those lines . Commissioner Jonathan asked if council had specifically addressed that. Mr. Winklepleck did not think that they had. He indicated that at the recent budget retreat and every year during budget sessions staff levels were discussed, but was not aware of anything specific being done. ... 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4, 1993 XI . ADJOURNMENT r■/ Moved by Commissioner Cox, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, adjourning the meeting to May 18, 1993 by minute mo ' on. Carried 5-0 . The meeting was adjourned 7 : 15 p.m. • �:7/�� • RAMON A. DIAZ , ec ary ATTEST: / � ROBERT A. SPIE , rman Palm Desert Planni g Commission /tm urrr 6 �'