HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/15/1999 - STAFF REPORTS (24) DATE: December 15, 1999
TO: City Council
FROM: Director of Planning&Building
CASE NO.5.995-PD 79-APPLICATION BY JERRY EPSTEIN FORA RETROACTIVE
TIME EXTENSION FOR AN APPROVED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR
A 12 LOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION LOCATED EAST OF
BOGERT TRAIL AND NORTH OF ANDREAS HILLS DRIVE,UR ZONE SECTION 36.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council approve a retroactive 12-month time extension for a Planned
Development District (PD) for a 12-lot single family residential subdivision, located
approximately 500 feet east of Bogert Trail and north of Andreas Hills Drive subject to all
previously approved conditions. With the time extension,the Planned Development District
would expire on December 15, 2000.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant,Jerry Epstein,is requesting atime extension of the final PD for a 12-lot single
family residential subdivision on approximately 12.5 acres ofland located approximately 500
feet east of Bogert Trail and north of Andreas hills Drive. Section 9403,00 H of the Zoning
Ordinance allows for time extensions with good cause.
This hillside development includes 12 single family lots and one common lot. Of the 12.5
acres,less than 4 acres will be used as part of the individual single family lots and the private
cul-de-sac street. The remainder of the hillside project will remain as open space and
recreation. Each single family lot will require reviewwithregardto grading,landscaping and
building architecture. The original conditions of approval for the project included a
requirement for a slope restoration and landscape plan, which shall be submitted with the
precise grading plan for the roadway,and public dedication of the hillside areas.
The City Council originally approved the preliminary PD and certified the Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) of February 4, 1981. Tentative Tract Map 17470 was concurrently
approved with the preliminary PD. The final PD plans were approved by the Planning
Commission on February 3, 1982. The City Council approved a two-year time extension
which expired in January of 1985,and subsequently approved a retroactive time extension,
which expired on July 5, 1990. On April 19, 1995,the City Council approved another one-
year retroactive time extension,which expired on April 19, 1996. The final tract map for the
project was approved by the City Council in 1985 and the has since been recorded with the
County of Riverside.
The applicant is requesting a retroactive 12-month time extension for the final PD, which
would reactivate this PD. The proposed time extension will not only account for the period
of time that has elapsed since the last time extension,but allow the applicant an additional
year(until December 15,2000)to commence the project. The project has not yet begun due
to the state of the economy over the past few years,but with the recent improvement in the
economy, the project is again valid. Additional time would be needed to prepare the
necessary documents to obtain permits,hence the request for the 12-month time extension.
On December 1, 1999,the City Council approved the subdivision improvement agreement
for the project.
a3_�
d 30 4,WP �
Staff has reviewed this project and previously approved conditions and is in support of this
request for a time extension subject to the previously approved conditions, amended as
follows:
1. That ConditionNo.7 from Resolution No. 13676,which states"That final approval
oftennis courts adjacentto the main wash be subjectto complete hydrological studies
to be submitted with Final Development Plans"be deleted. The tennis court was
shown encroaching into the main wash and determined to in an unsafe and flood
prone location and an amenity of this size and shape could not be plotted in the open
space area.
In addition, the Engineering Division has conducted an extensive review of the required
grading and drainage plans and related soils and geological studies and determined that the
originally required gumute channel treatment for the main drainage channel will not be
required since no construction is now contemplated in the main channel area The deletion
of the gunnite channel will have a positive aesthetic impact in the area. No other significant
changes have occurred in relation to the Zoning Ordinance and its impact to the proposed
final PD since this project was originally approved in 1981.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
On March 10, 1999,the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the
retroactive one-year time extension as presented, subject to the original conditions of
approval for the project. The time extension was originally scheduled for City Council
Consideration on April 7, 1999 and continued to May 5, 1999 at the request of the
developer's representative. At the May 51 meeting, the applicant requested the item be
removed from the agenda to allow the applicant to work with staff to resolve issues related
to the gumute channel and tennis courts referenced in the staff report.
— PA.U�tI2- -,,
DOUGLA . EVANS,Director
Planning&M Buildingg
�
CR� 'ty Manage �A �;
r �r�1�a1ED
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Letter from Applicant
3 Planning Commission Minutes dated March 10, 1999
4. Resolution
��. 0 • �_-• . •.
O� >
\7j qF
-R
2 _ �
WR1•e ;r . sal
dry ry 1 i C I TA � r:
f.s
iii I C N D •I A I) I :e .I •.
• M `Y • Y I
fill n ., ;• :•C '-;�•� ,�` :,�• �;!•.
14
I •LOT'�a
COMMON AREA
S�Q
��¢.. Af
i1 ��•s:�• o�
lot
fF'
.
p
O
C ITY OF PALM SPRINGS
CASE NO. Cosy ti6:'S-9 r pCXI CT..�F�J APPROVED BY PLAN. COMM. DATE
APPLICANT • z:._ Ell ./J. stein APPROVED BY COUNCIL DATE
REMARKS Sectiony36 ORD. NO. RESOL. NO.
• a 3-�- 3
op
SELZER, EALY, HEMPHILL & BLASDEL, LLP
A2Ea'n1= WMWUASff=rA TMxNr
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PAUL T.SO= 0W MGNWAI n1'SUnFK
W.CURTEAu MNCNOMAAGE.L' UMANU WX
EYD.YPEW fiz Pfi= UX W ONE(a#)22-12W
DUNE C ALUM PAG MME(6M U2.n."
March 20,1997
Mr. Doug Evans
City of Palm Springs
P.O. Box 2743
Palm Springs, California 92263
Re: Case No. 5.995-PD-79
Dear Mr. Evans:
This office represents Mr. Jerry Epstein. Mr. Epstein is the managing partner of Palm
Canyon Ranch, the general partnership that owns the property covered by PD-79. On behalf of
Mr. Epstein, request is hereby made for an extension of the PD approval. Due to the depressed
real estate economy in Southern California in recent years, additional time is required to develop
the project.
Please coma me with any questions or comments you might have. Your assistance in
this matter is appreciated.
Very truly yoour�s,
V" &'p
W. Curt Ealy
Selzer, Ealy, Hemphill &Blasdel
WCE/jld
� H
Planning Commission Minutes
March 10, 1999- Page 10
Tahquitz Canyon Visitors Center-Corrt'd
Commissioner Klatchko stated his dissenting vote was due to the fact that he did
not feel the roadway shoul necessarily be paved, Chairman Mills stated that his
dissenting vote was du o the fad that he would like to see a more natural look,
loosening up the pa ng area, and does not want to see buses parked on Mesquite
Avenue.
sssss
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS:
CASE Zle
79- pplication byJERRY EPSTEIN for a retroactive time extension of a 12-lot
si residential subdivision located east of Bogert Trail and north of Andreas
ve, UR Zone, Section 36
Steve Hayes stated that approval of this application would provide a retroactive time
extension to April 7, 2000, that subject property is a 12-1/2 acre site located at the
southeastern comer of the Andreas Hills area; that the Planned Development(PD)was
approved by the City Council in 1981,with final PD plans approved by the Planning
Commission in 1982; that the applicant requested the extension due to the recent
upswing in the economy; that there have been no substantial changes to the zoning
ordinance since original approval; and staff recommends approval of this request.
Planner responded to Commissioners questions and stated that approximately 8 acres
of the site are reserved for open space,with each lot being approximately 1/3 acre,of
irregular shape due to the topographic conditions and open space considerations,that
the original conditions of approval would remain in effect,that the project is consistent
with current codes and policies; that there have been several time extensions since
original approval; that a tentative tract map was filed and recorded as a final map
several year; ago, and that with recommendations it can be forwarded to the City
Council for final approval.
Director stated that this is an engineered final subdivision,with all improvement plans
and final map recorded;that this is an unusual situation in that with the final recorded
map they could proceed selling real estate;that the PD was the tool to deal with other
neighborhood issues and lot sizes, that a buildable area was defined, and the actual
roadway and utilities would be the only initial construction.
a3�-.�
Planning Commission Minutes
March 10, 1999- Page 11
Case 5.995-PD79-Jerry Epstein-Corrt'd (w�/
Curt Ealy, attorney, representative for the applicant, stated that they are in agreement
with the recommendations of staff and appreciate their efforts.
WS/C (Matthews/Raya; 6 - 0; Jurasky absent) to approve the retro-active time
extension to April 71 2000.
CASE 20.145 (County Referral)-Application by ENRON WIND DEVEL ENT CORP. for
the installation of 25,750 KW series wind turbines on approxi ly 600 awes of land
located south of Interstate 10,west of Snow Creek Road an ighway 111, Section 8
and 17, T3S, R3E, SBBM.
Steve Hayes, Planner, presented the detailed sta report and aerial photograph,
described the area and surrounding properties, stated that the application is for
installation of 25 new 750 kW wind turbines, feet high, similar to those recently
installed on the south side of Interstate 10 10); that applicant is also requesting
rezoning from R-R (rural residential) to W (wind energy),that the project is located
inthe northwestcomerof theCity's sph f-influence,and with the City's annexation
study in the early 1990's this area given a recommendation of W (watercourse)
due to potential flooding,with limi areas out of the flood plain designated L-2 (low
residential);that these sections re included in the City's wind overlay district; that
the project meets the City's is setback requirements from both Highway 111 and
1-10,with the nearest turbin n the easterly row located over 2/3 miles from Highway
111,and the northemm rbines located more than 1/4 mile south of 1-10;that the
City's current zoning t limit is 200 feet, and these turbines are 300 feet high,
however noting that t Commission recently approved wind turbines up to 296 feet
and staffs recem cation to allow these would not be inconsistent with Planning
Commission's al) Is of other WECS; that fewer, larger turbines are required to
produce the rgy, thereby creating less visual pollution; and staff recommends
forwarding ments to the Riverside County Planning Commission accepting the
proposal.
Di r stated that the community of Snow Creek has consistently tried to prevent
win turbines from encroaching into this flood plain area in front of Snow Creek, and
ex some of residents of this area to appear before the Riverside County Planning
Commission to express concerns.
RESOLUTION NO. 19714
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PROPOSED
RETROACTIVE ONE(1)YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR
CASE NO.5.995(PD 79), A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT FOR A 12-LOT SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION LOCATED EAST OF
BOGERT TRAIL AND NORTH OF ANDREAS HILLS
DRIVE,U-R ZONE, SECTION 36.
WHEREAS, the City has received a request from Jerry Epstein for a 12-month time
extension for a final Planned Development District(PD)for Case No. 5.995 (PD 79)for a
12-lot single family residential subdivision(with a common lot)to be located approximately
500 feet east of Bogert Trail and north of Andreas Hills Drive; and
WHEREAS,with a 12-month time extension,the final Planned Development District would
expire on December 15, 2000 (one year after City Council adoption of the time extension
request); and
WHEREAS,the City Council approved the Preliminary PD and certified the Environmental
Impact Report(EIR)on February 4, 1981;and
WHEREAS, the City Council originally approved the final PD on February 3, 1982, and
subsequent time extensions,the latest which expired on April 19, 1996;and
WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting an additional year to prepare the necessary
documents to obtain building permits and to determine the financial and economic feasibility
of the project, and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission considered the applicant's time extension request for
the project at its duly noticed meeting held on March 10, 1999;and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval(6-0, 1
absent)of the proposed one-year retroactive time extension; and
WHEREAS, the City Council independently considered the applicant's time extension
request for the project at its duly noticed meeting held on December 15, 1999;and
WHEREAS, the City Council has independently and carefully reviewed all evidence
provided including the staff report dated December 15, 1999 and all other written and oral
testimony, and finds the project, subject to the original conditions of approval, consistent
with the requirements of the ordinances of the City and with State law.
a3- b
Reso 19714
Page 2 A �A, 1 '
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council ofthe City ofPalm Springs, D
California,after considering the evidence provided at the meeting does hereby approve a 12-
month time extension for Case No. 5.995 -PD-79 to reactivate said application, extending
its approval to December 15, 2000, for property herein described, subject to the original
conditions of approval,modified as follows:
1. Condition No. 7 from Resolution No. 13676,which states "That final approval of
tennis courts adjacent to the main wash be subject to complete hydrological studies
to be submitted with Final Development Plans"shall be deleted.
ADOPTED this 15day of Dec.1999.
AYES: Members Hodges, Jones, Oden, Reller-Spurgin, Mayor Kleindienst
NOES: None
ABSENT. None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS,CALIFORNIA
By
City Clerk City Manager
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: