The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSR - TT 35271 & 35272 - PD Greens Assoc - G.Befeld Resolution No. 07-65 �--�--� CITY OF PALM DESERT � � DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT '� , . STAFF REPORT REQUEST: Consideration of an appeal of a Planning Commission action approving two (2) tentative tract maps to subdivide 7.58 acres into 331 lots. Subject property is located at 73-750 Country Club Drive. (APN's: 620-272-014, 620-261-050, 620-251-039, 620-241-027, 620- 094-026, 620-082-035, 620-131-031, 620-141-001 and 620-151-034) SUBMITTED BY: Ryan Stendelt, Associate Planner ME�� Q�� f-/,3 - (�'� � Department of Community Develo ent COMTlNUED TO�_ - ll- G� APPLICANT: Palm Desert Greens Association [] pAS.SEO TO 2ND READlNG 73-750 Country Club Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 * Continued the public hearing to t e mee in APPELLANT: Gerhard Befeld of October 11 , 2007, with staff and a sub- 73-450 Country Club Drive committee of Councilmembers Finerty and Spiegel CA 92260 to work with the Applicant and Appellant Palm Desert, in the meantime to work out an agreemant for the wall/landscaping issue. CASE NO: TT 35271 & 35272 DATE: September 13, 2007 CONNTENTS: A. Draft Resolution B. Legal notice C. Appeal form D. Counry Conditions of Approval Tract No. 4115 E. Plans and Exhibits I. RECOMMENDATION: That the Ciry Council reaffirm the action of the Planning Commission, approving two (2) tentative tract maps to subdivide 7.58 acres into 331 lots, dated July 3, 2007. STAFF REPORT CASE NO. TPM 35271 & 35272 SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 PAGE2of5 II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Reaffirmation of the Planning Commission decision dated July 3, 2007 would allow 7.58 acres of perimeter open space to be divided into 331 individual lots. If approved, Palm Desert Greens will attempt to sell each portion of land to the existing adjacent property owners within the country club to increase the size of their lots. This subdivision will not result in any increase in density and in most cases will remain usable open space as a part of the owner's rear yard. III. BACKGROUND: A. Planning Commission: At its meeting of March 6, 2007, the Planning Commission reviewed this matter for the first time. The neighbor to the south (Suncrest Country Club) appeared at that time and suggested that this would be an opportune time to address an aging landscaped hedge between the two properties, and that a wall or some other means of screening be required as a condition to the subdivision. After hearing testimony from both the applicant and the adjacent landowner, the Planning Commission granted a continuance to allow the neighbors time to try and reach an agreement. After a series of continuances, the Planning Commission reviewed this matter at its meeting of July 3, 2007. Staff indicated that neither parry had reached an agreement on the landscaping hedge or the possibility of sharing the cost of a wall. It was the opinion of the Ciry Attorney at that time that there was no reasonable nexus between the subdivision of land and the requirement for screening between two (2) properties. The appellant, Mr. Befeld of Suncrest Country Club, stated he believed there was a condition on the original approval of Palm Desert Greens Country Club that required them to maintain a landscape buffer. Staff, along with the Ciry Attorney, agreed that the original file would be located for Palm Desert Greens from the County, and Staff would research that condition. The City Attorney commented that if there were a condition for screening, the subdivision could still occur, but the condition would pass to the individual property owners. The Commission asked that staff follow up on the original conditions for Palm Desert Greens and approved the project as presented, (motion carried 4-1 Commissioner Schmidt voting no). G�Pianrnng�Ryan S�entleii�Wad Data�TT3527t82_C C_RPT DOC n L STAFF REPORT CASE NO. TPM 35271 & 35272 SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 PAG E 3 of 5 B. Tract No. 4115 Approved September 1970 County records indicate that the original approval for the Palm Desert Greens Country Club was dated September 29, 1970. The original approval was conditioned to provide a six (6) foot concrete block wall along Country Club Drive and a six (6) foot chain link fence around all other boundaries. Palm Desert Greens was developed in phases with several tract maps associated. It appears the area bordering Suncrest was approved by Tract 4181 in December of 1970. The County records only indicate the conditions for the original project, and do not have any further conditions of approval for any subsequent maps, including Tract 4181. The only indication of a requirement for screening or fencing is in the approved map where it calis out the perimeter fot as `fencing and landscaping.' C. Adjacent Zoning and Land use: North: Planned Residential-5 (Marriott Shadow Ridge) South: Planned Residential-5 (Villa Portofino) East: Planned Residential-5 (Portola C.C. & Desert Willow) West: City of Rancho Mirage IV. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP/ANALYSIS: The proposed tentative tract map would subdivide 7.58 acres of perimeter open space into 331 lots that could be sold back to individual property owners within Palm Desert Greens Country Club. Staff hoped that the original files from the County would clarify the history of development. Unfortunately, the only conditions of approval that were found on the project were related to Tract 4115, which seems to be the original mass approval for the project. However, the subject appeal is looks at a subsequent Tract (TT 4181) with no conditions on file. The map (TT 4181) does indicate the perimeter lot as `fencing and landscaping', which is subjective. There is an existing six (6) foot fence on the property line between Suncrest Country Club and Palm Desert Greens, and existing landscaping remains in place. With the absence of applicable conditions from the Counry, staff concurs with the City Attorney that there is no nexus between the subdivision of land and any requirement for a wall or screening. Staff is still encouraging both property owners to continue negotiations in an attempt to find a solution that serves both parties. G�Piann�ng�Ryan StenOeinWo�tl Data�TT3527t82_C C_RPT DOC q J STAFF REPORT CASE NO. TPM 35271 & 35272 SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 PAGE4of5 V. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. • The proposed tract maps are consistent with the Planned Residential land use designafion and the City's General Plan. 2. That the design or improvements of the proposed tract map are consistent with the applicable general and specific plans. • The tract maps meet all zoning ordinance requirements and are consistent with the General Plan. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. • The site is physically suitable for this type of development. 4. That the site is physically suitable for Planned Residential Development. • This property is suitable for planned residential development as it is a part of an existing mobile home park. The subdivision does not result in a change of use or density. 5. That the design of tract map or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantia!!y and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. • The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantial and avoidable injury to fish, wildlife or their habitat. 6. That the design of the parcel or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. • The design of the tract map is consistent with a/l provisions of the zoning ordinance. Any development on the proposed parcel is subject to applicab/e City deve/opment standards and the California Uniform Building Code. G�Piann�ng�Ryan Stentleu�Wortl Data�T73527182_.0 C._RPT DOC � STAFF REPORT CASE NO. TPM 35271 & 35272 SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 PAGE5of5 7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. • Subdivision improvements will not conflict with any pub/ic easements. VI. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This application is a Class 5 (minor alteration in land use {imitations} categorical exemption for the purposes of CEQA and no further documentation is necessary. Prepared by: CITY C�UAICIL RCTION: APPRO'�1Fll DENIEI7 RECbIVED OT�iER�f-��—� �Q K-E r) '�. ---- YAN ENDELL MEBTI'NG D�TE /U �- I/- 0�7 Associate Planner Ar��`�= --- IV'J�S' --------- - .____ Reviewed and roved�� `��I�' -----------_._�__ - AB�TAIN• i"-� VERIFI�D B3't �?�/ - - ------ ',,/�'��, � �� Originai on File wi City C�erk's o��ice �._, LAURI AY N *City Council acknowledged the Applicant's Director of ommu ' Development withdrawal of the request; no action taken. H ER CROY ACM, Devel ment Services CARLOS OR A Ciry Manager G:\Planning\Ryan Stentlell\Wad Data\TT35271&2_C.C._RPT.DOC C :J