Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0902 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - SEPTEMBER 2, 1997 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER Council CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ferguson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Fernandez led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jim Ferguson, Chairperson Paul Beaty Sonia Campbell George Fernandez Sabby Jonathan Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell Dave Erwin Tonya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the August 19, 1997 meeting minutes. Action: Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the August 19, 1997 minutes by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. V. SUMMARY OF Council ACTION: Mr. Drell summarized pertinent August 28, 1997 City Council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 97-15 - TERRA NOVA CONSTRUCTION, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow lot line adjustments along Minaret Way within Oasis Country Club. `w MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 1997 Vold B. Case No. PMW 97-23 - PAUL A. KERN, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustments for Lots 60 and 62 within Silver Spur Ranch. C. Case No. PMW 97-26 - BIGHORN DEVELOPMENT, L.P., Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment for Lot 22, Tract No. 26068 and Lot "A", Tract 27301 within Bighorn Golf Club. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case No. PM 27136 - RONALD F. CORN AND LINDA G. CORN, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map splitting an existing 18,354 square foot lot into two 9,177 square foot lots located on the east side of McLachlin Circle in Avondale Country Club. .� Mr. Drell informed Commission that the applicant was requesting a continuance to December 2, 1997. Chairperson Ferguson o eQ ned the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. MR. LARRY KELFER, 75-631 McLachlin Circle in Avondale Golf Club, stated that they have been dealing with this issue for five and a half years. He didn't know why another continuance was needed. Three months ago the Corns requested a six-month continuance and he could see no reason why another continuance should be granted. The issue was old and the homeowners on McLachlin Circle are against splitting the lot. Their Board of Directors wrote to the Planning Commission in opposition to splitting the lot. They therefore (and he represented all the homeowners) requested that a continuance not be granted and the issue be taken care of by the Commission because it has gone on for so long. He said there wasn't much he could add that he hadn't already said at previous meetings and he, along with the homeowners of McLachlin Circle, requested that the Commission deny the continuance and that this issue be put to bed because the Board was against it, the homeowners on McLachlin Circle were against it, and if Mr. Corn and Mrs. Corn feel that they are waiting for more people to come 2 `� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 1997 back to Avondale so that they can get a petition the way Mr. Keifer has gotten a petition, from those people who are neighbors, friends or golf partners, etc., those people didn't live on McLachlin and might not live near a large lot and therefore they weren't affected the way the residents of McLachlin felt they were being effected. It was stated by Mr. Steve Smith at the last meeting that the average sized lot on McLachlin is 16,000 square feet. They have homes that average from 3,100 to 7,500 square feet and he knew that Commissioner Campbell has visited McLachlin Circle and has seen some of the beautiful homes there. Mr. Gazecki was just completing his 4,000 square foot home and Ms. Scavatta lives on McLachlin and bought a large lot and she would also build a large home on another street. Mr. Keifer said that he noticed that in the past month Mr. Corn had a sign put up on his lot that the lot was for sale. Mr. Keifer felt that was a facade. He said he appreciated the Commission giving him the time and recognition to the McLachlin homeowners. MR. DAVE BRYSON, 38-916 Tandika Trail, stated that he is the President of Homeowners Association. He said that Mr. Corn indicated to them that he has plans and intentions to build and develop the two lots, but he hasn't presented anything to them. This has been going on for six months. The Board of Directors felt that they needed some commitments and direction from him on what he intends to do because he would be splitting a large lot in a very obtuse angled direction. Without any indication or commitment, �... they were reluctant to approve or go along with the request. Therefore, he was dragging them on and on and this was the third time he personally has been at a Commission meeting and Mr. Corn didn't even show up - he just wrote a letter asking for an extension and made no case. They felt this should be denied and if the Corns could come to the Board with reasonable plans that were acceptable to the neighbors and the community, then they would be very happy to reopen the case. Until then, they felt this should be put to bed and put back in the Board's lap, where it should have been in the first place. His first communication with Mr. Corn was to ask him why he didn't come to the Board before he went to the City. Mr. Corn told him that he had been to the City and "to hell with you people we're going to do it anyway". Mr. Bryson didn't feel that was the attitude they should have and he asked him to please give the Board the opportunity to discuss this within their own community and get it out of the City's hands until an appropriate time. Chairperson Ferguson stated that this matter first came to the Commission on May 23, 1997 and the Board referred this matter to their Executive Board. On May 28, 1997 the Commission received correspondence that Avondale's CC&Rs didn't prohibit what Mr. Corn was proposing. He asked if the Avondale's Board had met, considered, and voted on Mr. Corn's proposal since that time. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 1997 3 Mr. Bryson replied yes. The result was that Mr. Corn's request didn't technically violate any of their parameters or development. However, with the unanimous objection of the people who live in the immediate area, they didn't recommend that this be granted because he hasn't presented any plans, provided no definition and nothing concrete on when he would do it, and what exactly he planned to do. This was a nebulous situation and they didn't know what he would do with those lots. They felt he should present plans and time frames when he will complete his plans, then they could say yes or no. If it was acceptable to them, then they would bring it to the City in the proper way. Chairperson Ferguson asked how often the Board meets. Mr. Bryson replied once a month during the season. They met at the end of June. Chairperson Ferguson asked when their next meeting would be held. Mr. Bryson replied the last Tuesday of this month. Chairperson Ferguson asked if it was fair to say they have never seen Mr. Corn's proposal and have just gotten notice of it by virtue of the Planning Commission's notice mailed to his residence. mild Mr. Bryson said they saw a diagram with a standard drawing of a tract type home on one of the lots, nothing on the second lot, and were verbally told that Mr. Corn would build this kind of house on one lot. When Mr. Corn was asked what he would build on the pie-shaped lot, Mr. Corn replied that it hadn't been determined yet. They asked Mr. Corn why he couldn't give them some definitive information as to why he wants to do this and what he would do with it and got no response. Since the June meeting when Planning Commission advised him that he needed to communicate more with the homeowners he had not done that. Mr. Bryson thought that it was Commissioner Beaty who said there were telephones, faxes and the mail and asked why Mr. Corn couldn't present plans to the Board and homeowners in three months and get it done. Mr. Bryson said that to his knowledge Mr. Corn had not contacted anyone who lives in the immediate area and knew for a fact that Mr. Corn had not contacted a single board member since the June meeting. Chairperson Ferguson pointed out that it was not uncommon for people over the summer to be unable or unwilling to talk to homeowner associations because typically a lot of the residents were not there and a lot of homeowner association meetings didn't occur over the summer. If the Planning Commission drew a line or picked a date when the Commission wanted him to either submit his plans or withdraw his proposal, the preference would be that the homeowners association 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 1997 have an opportunity to pass on it. He asked if that would be acceptable to Mr. Bryson. If the Commission picked a drop dead date for Mr. Corn to either present his plans, if he had them reviewed by the homeowners association that would be the Commission's preference, and if he hasn't they would take that into consideration and it would be disposed of once and for all. Mr. Bryson said he would prefer that Mr. Corn submit his plans to the homeowners association prior to presenting them to the City. That way they could get all of the input from the people involved and bring the Commission an approved proposal which they could make a judgement on. Chairperson Ferguson said that would be his personal preference. He stated that it was the generally the Commission's preference to have homeowner associations review planning developments within their associations. The Commission couldn't require Mr. Corn to submit his proposal to them, but the Commission could let Mr. Corn know that it was the Commission's preference and they would take that into consideration at a date certain when this whole matter would be disposed of once and for all. He asked Mr. Bryson if that would be acceptable. Mr. Bryson concurred. Commissioner Campbell asked if Mr. Bryson would mind having this continued `' to December 2 if the homeowners association saw Mr. Corn's plans prior to that meeting date. Mr. Bryson said that if that was a drop dead date that would be acceptable. He concurred that he just wanted finality on this matter. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone else wished to speak to the application. There was no one. Mr. Erwin indicated that if it was the Commission's intent to continue this matter, the public hearing should be left open. Commissioner Campbell noted that if the hearing was left open the residents would not have to be renoticed. Chairperson Ferguson thought that the residents would be renoticed, it just wouldn't be republished in the newspaper. Commissioner Campbell stated that she was in favor of continuing the matter to December 2, but that would be the drop dead date and a decision would be made at that time. Commissioner Jonathan said he would normally be in complete concurrence, but this matter has been around for more than five years. When it came before Commission in May, it was continued and when it came back again the applicant requested a continuance for six months. At that time he pressed the homeowners about why they were objecting to that and there were strong objections. They struck a compromise that basically said the drop dead date was 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 1997 t j three months, not the six months he wanted and that was a compromise. The homeowners wanted it to go away, the applicant wanted six months, and Commission gave them three months to work it out, come back and give the Commission a resolution, or the Commission would look at staff's recommendation for denial. He felt the drop dead date was here. He didn't see a point in continuing this matter if the applicant didn't care enough to be here. The Commission bent over backwards for him already. He recommended denying the request for continuance. Commissioner Fernandez concurred with Commissioner Jonathan. He felt the issue needed to be resolved. Commissioner Beaty said he probably should agree with Commissioner Jonathan, but he would defer to the letter from the applicant where Mr. Corn states that he has spoken with some people and makes a commitment that he would meet with some people during the Thanksgiving vacation to discuss the project and he would be in favor of the December 2 deadline. Chairperson Ferguson noted that Mr. Corn was not present. Mr. Corn asked for six months in June, which Mr. Corn believed was a reasonable time estimate. The Commission gave him three months. Now he was asking for another three months. Chairperson Ferguson stated that he was not in favor of December 2 because it seemed like Mr. Corn just disregarded the Commission's direction in June, although he wanted Mr. Corn to have an opportunity to meet with the Board when it meets again and he would like Mr. Corn to submit his plans, but at this point it was time for Mr. Corn to start adhering to the Commission's deadlines as opposed to his own. He didn't want to confuse things, but he would be in favor of giving Mr. Corn a 30-day extension, requiring him to be before the homeowners at their meeting during the third week of September, be back before Commission the first week of October. If he wasn't before the Commission with plans ready to move forward or have a very good reason why not, at least he would have been served ample notice and if he doesn't show up then, he would be more than willing to deny his request, but didn't want to do so in his absence tonight. He was unwilling to give the applicant a continuance to December 2. Commissioner Campbell agreed with the October 7 date and made a motion to continue this case to that meeting. Commissioner Jonathan said that he wanted the applicant to be firmly aware that, in his opinion, the Commission has bent over more than backwards and it was most definitely in his mind a drop dead date in a sense that if the applicant in his judgement doesn't demonstrate sufficient effort to resolve the matter with the homeowners and with the Board or show sufficient effort to even attend the Planning Commission meeting or in some other effective manner communicate with the Commission, then he would be inclined to follow staff's initial recommendation. Commissioner Jonathan seconded the motion. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 1997 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, by minute motion, continued PM 27136 to October 7, 1997 and directed the applicants to present plans to the homeowners association at their September meeting. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Beaty voted no). B. Continued Case Nos. PP 97-8, VAR 97-1, DA 97-3 - 0. MICHAEL HOMME, Applicant Request for approval of a Precise Plan of Design for a 12,500 square foot, single story professional office/medical building, Development Agreement permitting up to 2,000 square feet of limited general commercial uses and parking reduction, and Setback Variance for said building on the north side of Fred Waring Drive between Monterey Avenue and Acacia Drive. Mr. Drell stated that at the last City Council meeting they discussed this concept to get some sort of assessment of their feelings, especially with what happened with the Muro application at the same site. He felt Council was sympathetic, they would like to see a project there but were unwilling to support the commercial use on the corner. They directed staff to figure out what sort of financial incentive the City might be willing to provide the applicant to make the project pencil out with solely the office use. In the next month he hoped something like that would be put together. The Council didn't say a definite no, they said they would like to first see what money could buy. Chairperson Ferguson opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to address this matter. MR. MIKE HOMME, the applicant, stated that he was present to answer any questions. Mr. Drell asked if Mr. Homme could do enough of an analysis in two weeks, although he felt this dialogue needed to be continued with the City Council and that could still take a month to accomplish that. Mr. Homme said that he could try and have that information within a week or so. Mr. Drell said if Mr. Homme felt there would be something productive to talk about with Commission in two weeks that was okay. Mr. Homme explained that he did have a little bit of a problem because he has a relationship with the existing tenant that runs out in November. This was contingent upon some resolution. He would make an effort to get back with information as quickly as possible. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 1997 's Chairperson Ferguson asked if staff was getting preapproval from the Council on this project. Mr. Drell replied no, but explained that when the Commission voted to approve the Muro project as a conditional use, it was denied at Council 5-0 on the basis that the use was not a specific listed use as permitted or listed in the zone and he was admonished to be extremely conservative and literal in interpreting the permitted uses in the O.P. zone. Staff got a direction from Council not to stray from the listed uses. This application was straying in a much more extreme sense than the Muro application was straying. Therefore, he thought they were looking for some sort of guidance from Council because of their previous direction to him and through him to the Commission on how the O.P. zone should be interpreted, especially on this property. Commissioner Jonathan stated that in terms of any financial arrangements that would be part of the development agreement and asked if they needed time for Council to address that issue. Mr. Drell said that would probably be through assistance from the Redevelopment Agency. Theoretically, if after two weeks Mr. Homme said there was a price that would make this project pencil out, the action of the Commission would be to approve the project and precise plan as designed as per the permitted uses in the O.P. zone. Commissioner Jonathan said without reference or consideration of financial aspects. Mr. Drell concurred. He said it would then be up to the Council and Redevelopment Agency to put a financial package together that would allow him to build the project. From a zoning point of view given that he was not asking for conditional uses, the Commission could approve the precise plan and the variances, which he believed were justified, but no development agreement. Commissioner Jonathan asked if that was putting the cart before the horse. Mr. Drell felt there would be some value in waiting, which was why he was suggesting the October 7 meeting date. If for some reason Mr. Homme came back and said it wouldn't make sense and would cost $200,000 and the Council felt that was too steep, perhaps the Council might think about that, listen to some of the neighbors and say that maybe a nice coffee shop there would be an asset to the neighborhood. It was up to the Commission and to a certain degree up to the applicant. Commissioner Jonathan thought that maybe that aspect needed to be resolved before coming to the Commission. Mr. Homme said he would really like to make an effort to do a really good job in the proper manner, so he was willing to wait to handle it in the right way. Chairperson Ferguson felt that was the million-dollar question, what the right way was. In his view the Commission is an independent, objective advisory body to advise the City Council on what they think. If the City Council disagrees with them, fine. He said he could interpret the Council's 5-0 vote on Muro in the same way as Mr. Drell and if they don't like what he has to say about it, they will take it under advisement. He would just as soon get the development, review it, and if the Commission feels it is appropriate, let the Council know. If they disagree with that, fine. Mr. Drell asked if Commission wanted to direct the 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 1997 City Attorney to prepare a development agreement permitting commercial use. Chairperson Ferguson stated that he would like to see Mr. Homme's proposal. Mr. Erwin said that proposal would include with it a development agreement and he could have that in two weeks if Commission wanted. Chairperson Ferguson asked Mr. Homme what he would prefer. Mr. Homme said he would like to do it the right way and he was not sure what that was. Chairperson Ferguson said that in his view the right way to proceed was for the Commission to consider his project and make a recommendation to City Council. Commissioner Jonathan asked if consideration of the project would include a development agreement. Mr. Erwin said that it should. Commissioner Jonathan felt that was where they ran into a problem because the development agreement would have to incorporate any financial incentives. Mr. Erwin explained that financial considerations would be considered by the Redevelopment Agency and would be a separate agreement. Commissioner Jonathan asked if in the past it was referenced in the development agreement. Mr. Erwin replied sometimes, but not always. It didn't have to be. Mr. Drell said that was one of the complications, and again the Commission could leave it as a condition that the applicant has to fulfill and unless the Commission was willing to grant the parking reduction as well, the existence of a commercial use triggers a parking deficiency which would require the Redevelopment Agency's cooperation to alleviate. The Commission could just condition the project that they somehow locate 12 additional parking spaces and it was up to the applicant to find them. There were ways that the Commission could proceed and make a recommendation to Council. Commissioner Jonathan asked if tha Council directed Mr. Drell on this matter in terms of how they wanted the Commission to proceed. Mr. Drell said his recommendation would be to not approve the development agreement use exception, but the Commission was free to approve whatever they feel is appropriate. Commissioner Jonathan meant in terms of whether the Council wanted the Commission to continue this to allow them to address some of the issues before the Commission further considers the project. He asked if Council gave staff guidance in that regard. Mr. Drell replied no. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he was inclined to agree with Chairperson Ferguson. It was generally his preference to not consider financial aspects if they could avoid doing so. They could address the application and let the applicant work out the other aspects directly with staff and Council. That was fine with him. Chairperson Ferguson said he was going to quote Commissioner Jonathan to take a look at the use. The concept that the applicant could somehow buy a parking variance was repugnant to him. He thought that sometimes it was their proper role to consider finances, but there was a gray area with development agreements. As he recalled, Mr. Oliphant wanted relief from having to put in a right-hand turn pocket into a solid block wall and those were the types of things that they should consider. Mr. Homme has a proposal that he thinks will work. Chairperson Ferguson felt the Commission could evaluate the parking and other aspects of it and approve the land use aspects �... 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 1997 and if the Council wanted to try and negotiate with him based on the Commission's recommendation, so be it. He didn't see a reason to hold it up to see what the Council wants or doesn't want. He didn't think the Commission would be performing their function if they did. He also wanted to hear what Mr. Homme had to say and if that required the City Attorney to prepare a development agreement according to what Mr. Homme would like to do, so be it. Commissioner Campbell asked if Mr. Homme would like to have a continuance for one month. Mr. Homme replied that he was ready now. Chairperson Ferguson said that the Commission needed a development agreement first. He suggested that the Commission receive the entire package including the development agreement on October 7 and then they would review the land use aspects of it. Mr. Homme said he would be happy to cooperate. Commissioner Beaty said that the reason stated for the continuance was that staff didn't have enough time to resolve issues. He asked if two weeks or one month was enough time to resolve all the issues. Mr. Drell asked Mr. Erwin if two weeks was enough time to prepare a development agreement. Mr. Erwin said he could have one done. Whether it was acceptable to Mr. Homme or not was subject to question, but that was part of the development agreement process anyway. It seemed to be modified all the way down to the point of the Council action and then later, too. He would have something for the Commission to review. Chairperson Ferguson asked if Mr. Homme would like it continued to September 16 or October 7. Mr. Homme said that September 16 was fine with him. He has been ready for a few months. It was important from his perspective to know if this is an acceptable idea to make this property work and if it wasn't, he would understand that. He was more than willing and ready anytime so the 16th would be great. Commissioner Beaty stated that he would move to continue this matter to September 16, 1997. Chairperson Ferguson noted that the public hearing would remain open. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, continuing PP 97-8, VAR 97-1 and DA 97-3 to September 16, 1997 by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. 10 r.ri MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 1997 X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) B. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (September 2, 1997) Chairperson Ferguson said the committee discussed a number of items. The committee recommended to Council that they approve a 30,000 square foot clubhouse with a banquet room capable of holding 100 people for events to be held for Palm Desert residents. The approximate cost was $6 million, which was $1 million over the preliminary budget, but that was made up in other budget savings. There was a summary of benefits for the Council's consideration of construction of a south golf course. One question that was raised many times was how Palm Desert would benefit by having another golf course now. The short answer was $21 million which is the projected net present value of benefits to the City as a result of it fulfilling its obligations to Intrawest Resort Ownership Club timeshares by delivering the golf course by November 1 . United Properties would be delivering a proposal for a 300-room hotel at the convention site on the pad. There was still the primary hotel site which could accommodate 500 rooms which the City would also consider. The Desert Willow Master Plan which was drafter three to four years ago was currently being reevaluated by the committee. C. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) E. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) F. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (August 20, 1997) Chairperson Ferguson said ZORC considered the Home Occupation Ordinance again. The committee instructed staff to make certain revisions and come back to them in terms of what is acceptable and what isn't acceptable home occupation licensed uses within the city of Palm Desert. He explained that home occupations were for people who work out of their homes. XI. COMMENTS None. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 1997 't XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:37 p.m. / PHILIP DRELL, ecretary TTEST: J MES C F GUSON, Chairperson Im Dese anning Commission /tm 3 12 ..�