Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0201 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - FEBRUARY l, 1994 7 :00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE ... ,� * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I . CALL TO ORDER Chairman Spiegel called the meeting to order at 7 : 02 p.m. II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Beaty led in the pledge of allegiance. III . ROLL CALL Members Present: Bob Spiegel, Chairman Paul Beaty Sabby Jonathan Members Absent: Carol Whitlock Staff Present: Ray Diaz Jeff Winklepleck Bob Hargreaves Dick Folkers Tonya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: "' Consideration of the January 4, 1994 meeting minutes . Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the January 4, 1994 meeting minutes as submitted. Carried 3-0 . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION: Mr. Diaz summarized pertinent January 13 and 27, 1994 city council actions . VI . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 93-17 - ALFRED VOLLENWEIDER, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to create two parcels from four deed parcels on Abronia Trail . Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 3-0 . � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 1994 VII . PUBLIC HEARINGS r A. Case Nos . PM 27895, VAR 93-6, ADJ 93-10 - EUGENE AND MARGARET KAY, Applicants Request for approval of a tentative parcel map, a setback variance and a lot width adjustment to subdivide a 2 . 7 acre site into three lots at 73-020 Homestead Road in the R-1 10,000 zone. Mr. Winklepleck indicated that it was the intent of the applicant to maintain ownership of parcels two and three and to donate parcel one to the Living Desert. The variance request was for an existing carport which connected the buildings on the proposed lots one and two--the property line as proposed would split the carport, creating a zero lot line side yard setback for those lots . The R-1 10,000 zone required an eight foot interior side yard setback. Staff felt that this request would not be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood. The lot width adjustment was required because lot one had an overall width of 85 feet at center point, however west of it was a 100 to 110 foot area. This would be a reduction of five feet as defined by code. Staff recommended approval of the proposal . � Commissioner Jonathan asked if the existing building on parcel one was also being donated and the possible use; Mr. Winklepleck concurred that the building was being donated and would be for single family use. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the driveway used by parcel two would be from the far south and with the variance for the carport connecting lots one and two, he didn't see where the carport was; Chairman Spiegel clarified that it was along Alamo; he noted that at that point Homestead was not really a road, but a driveway. Commissioner Jonathan questioned that since there were no lot lines there, why the applicant wanted to lay the lot lines down at a place where a variance would be required. Mr. Winklepleck replied that any where the lot line was placed would split the buildings and they felt the carport was the most logical place. Chairman Spiegel noted that there were additional buildings not shown on the plan; Mr. Winklepleck concurred that there was a building on parcel two; parcel three was vacant and future use would be a single family house. Commissioner Jonathan asked what kind of buildings were there; Mr. Winklepleck indicated it was a bungalow-type building. 2 rr MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 1994 �" Chairman Spiegel o ened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. JOE SONEJI, the civil engineer at 74-140 E1 Paseo in Palm Desert, agreed with the staff report. He said the main purpose of the parcel map was so that Mrs. Kay could donate parcel one to the Living Desert. He noted that Mrs . Kay (the property owner) and Ms . Sausman ( f rom the Living Desert) were present. He thanked Mr. Winklepleck and Mr. Gaugush for their help in the preparation of the application. Chairman Spiegel noted that the parcel was being divided into three; he asked what the Living Desert planned to do with parcel one. Mr. Sone ji said it was his understanding that they would use it for housing for the volunteers or employee housing. Chairman Spiegel asked what would happen to parcels two and three. Mr. Soneji indicated that parcel two Mrs . Kay would own """ and might sell parcel three for someone to build a single family residence; right now they did not know. Chairman Spiegel asked if parcel three was a single family home, would the driveway be from Bel Air or Homestead. Mr. Soneji replied Bel Air. Commissioner Jonathan noted that there was a letter submitted from Carl Howard expressing concern about development that might occur on the property other than a single family residence. He asked if there was cause for those concerns or if there were plans for development of that nature. Mr. Soneji replied there were no plans for immediate construction and only a single family residence could be built on parcel three because the zoning didn' t allow anything other than a single family use. Chairman Spiegel asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MS. KAREN SAUSMAN, Director of the Living Desert at 47- 900 Portola Avenue, stated that the Living Desert would .�. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 1994 be the recipient of the gift of property at the corner "■'r of Bel Air and Alamo. As Mr. Soneji indicated, they were planning to use the property for intern housing. They have a lot of requests from graduate students that would like to come and learn the craft of conservation and housing them in exchange for the work was part of what they hoped to do. The rest of the property that would be in the parcel that Living Desert would receive was all in native vegetation and would remain that way and they might use some of that property to continue to grow native plant material to test it for landscape purposes . That was their intended use. They had no funds to try to add any structures to that property. She indicated that the structure was a triplex and that was how they would use it. MR. CLAUDE BLACK, owner of the empty parcel across the street from the property in question at the corner of Alamo and Bel Air asked if there was a height limit and how many people would be housed in the triplex. He said he was very concerned about the height limit and noted that in some areas two story homes were being built. Chairman Spiegel noted that they would be required to adhere to city code; Mr. Winklepleck stated that in this case the � only building that would be done would be on parcel three, which was opposite of Mr. Black' s property; it was zoned R-1 which limited the building to single story at a maximum of 18 feet from grade. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the triplex was an existing structure on the corner of Bel Air and Alamo. Mr. Winklepleck concurred and stated that nothing would be done to the existing structures to expand them. Chairman Spiegel asked Ms . Sausman how many people would be living in the triplex; Ms . Sausman said they anticipate one or two interns to use the facility--they would come and go and a lot of times the building would probably be empty. She noted that Mrs . Kay would be living on parcel two and they would not do anything to disturb her or the other neighbors . Chairman Spiegel closed the public testimony and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Jonathan said he had no problem with the request. Commissioner Beaty concurred and stated he would move for approval. ', 4 � �! MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 1994 ""' Chairman Spiegel said that he lived on Bel Air, but not within 300 feet of the proposal, and indicated the only concern he had, and he had been familiar with the Living Desert for many years and respected the operation and Ms . Sausman, but he would not like to see that structure turned into a low cost housing situation. This property was there long before there was a City of Palm Desert and at one time there were a few other units in the area that were destroyed by fire. He noted that the structure was not built the way the rest of the area had been built because it was there first and working with the existing building, it might be possible to crowd a lot of people into a triplex and that would be disconcerting to the neighbors. He also agreed that the height limit was important. Mr. Diaz stated that the current zoning ordinance would not permit expansion of the triplex; it was a legal nonconforming use. Any new construction would have to meet the current R-1 regulations which have a maximum height of 18 feet; 15 feet was approved at the staff level--15 to 18 feet went to architectural commission for approval . Ms . Sausman spoke up from the audience and stated that there would not be a noticeable change in the use of the �""' property and they would be a sensitive neighbor. Action: Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 3-0 . Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1636, approving PM 27895, VAR 93-6 and ADJ 93-10, subject to conditions . Carried 3-0 . B. Case No. ZOA 94-1 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for amendment to Sections 25 . 04 .240, 25 . 14 .020, 25 . 16 . 020, 25 . 18 . 020, 25 .20 . 020, 25 .22 . 020, and 25 .24 . 020 of the Municipal Code and adding sections 25. 04 . 307, 25 . 14 . 035, 25 . 15 . 023, 25 . 15 . 025, 25 . 16 . 035, 25 . 18 .035, 25 .20 . 035, 25 .22 . 035, 25 .24 . 027, and 25 . 72 . 015 and Chapter 25 .72A to the Municipal Code, regarding day nurseries and family day care homes . � 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 1994 Mr. Diaz stated that this was a zoning ordinance amendment to `r establish a large family day care permit procedure. The hearing after this ordinance was for a conditional use permit and they should not confuse the two. The State of California years ago established the number six for residential care facilities . What was happening was that cities throughout the state were requiring a conditional use permit for residential care facilities that would include day care centers, rehabilitation centers, halfway houses, etc. Noting that these types of facilities were necessary in residential areas, the State of California said that as long as these uses were to house six people or less, it would be consistent with the single family residential zone and that no additional requirements could be placed on these facilities that would not normally be placed on the R-1 zone. Now the State of California amended that regulation as it related to day care centers and defined large family day care centers as taking care of more than six, but less than 13 and a requirement that the family must reside there because one problem that was happening was that people were buying single family residential units, not living in them, and using them for day care centers without having to go through a hearing process . The state determined that they would have to live there, one of the children had to be theirs, and there would be a hearing permit procedure, but the hearing permit � procedure was meaningless because of the limitations placed on city staffs in terms of conditions that could be placed on the facilities if the neighbors had concerns . He would have preferred the state to amend the number six to 12 . The ordinance was before the commission and they might hear testimony that certain parts of it are inconsistent with state law; staff ' s recommendation was that this matter be passed along to city council and that those inconsistencies, if there were inconsistencies, be investigated by the city attorney. He said there was one situation now with an individual running a large day care center and concerns had been voiced by one person in the neighborhood about that facility. Those people have their right to a hearing and this situation had been going on for many months . Some of the key features of this ordinance was the definition of family day care home on page 2 of the ordinance, which specified seven to 12 children per day. The reason for emphasizing the per day was because one problem they had was they felt the state legislation specified 12 children at any one time, which could mean a constant traffic flow. As far as staff was concerned the reason the state passed this legislation was because these uses were consistent with single family residential uses, which meant single family �i 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 1994 '""' traffic patterns . Therefore, the seven to 12 per day should be the limitation. There could be 12 kids on Monday, a different 12 kids on Tuesday, and staff did not have a problem with that--the problem was with 12 kids from 8 : 00 a.m. to 12 :00 p.m. and another 12 kids from 12 : 00 p.m. to 3 : 00 p.m. and another 12 kids from 3 : 00 p.m. to 5 : 30 p.m. That would mean 72 vehicle trips per day in the R-1 area. They also limited the hours of operation from Mondays through Fridays from 6 : 00 a.m. to 7 : 00 p.m. The outdoor play should read before 9 : 00 a.m. or after 5 :30 p.m. The reason they were limiting it to Monday through Friday was because it was in a residential area; the purpose of the day care facilities and ordinances was to provide day care in a single family residential area. But the city could not have a conditional use permit for seven to 12, therefore they would be limiting the hours of operation to Monday through Friday. The hearing process was spelled out--it would be before the commission and from staff's standpoint, day care facilities are needed and the concern was not for the provision of day care facilities, but with the folks in the neighborhoods having the right to determine what was going on in their neighborhood and having some say. Staff recommended that commission adopt a resolution recommending to city council approval of the ordinance. i.. Commissioner Jonathan noted that on page 8 item E was to read before 9 : 00 a.m. and after 5 : 30 p.m. ; Mr. Diaz concurred. Chairman Spiegel indicated that Mr. Diaz went through the definition on page 2 and it said that for periods of less than 24 hours per day, yet when going to page 8 under E it said 6 : 00 a.m. to 7 : 00 p.m. , which was considerably less than 24 hours . Mr. Diaz concurred and stated that the commission could expand the hours if they wanted. Chairman Spiegel asked if the commission could limit what the state said; Mr. Diaz replied yes, noting that there would be some testimony that there is a disagreement under E that the state may limit it to 23 hours . In other words, the city would have to allow 23 hours . Chairman Spiegel noted that on page 10 under Violation, Public Nuisance and Misdemeanor, it stated that operation of a large family day care home pursuant to this chapter was a privilege, not a right. He asked if that was from the city or the state. Mr. Diaz replied the city. Mr. Diaz indicated the importance of the conditional use permit provision; with this permit, the commission could not look at the required findings for a conditional use permit; this was a totally separate permit and anything over 12 required a conditional use permit and a hearing would be held. Chairman Spiegel asked if someone were to come along in an R-1 area ... 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 1994 and want to open up a day care center for 12 children or '� less, if it would come before the planning commission; Mr. Diaz said that the hearing process was spelled out and he believed it would. If it was a hearing before him as the zoning administrator and he rejected it, it would come to the planning commission on an appeal of his decision. He said he would go through it. He clarified that as part of that hearing he could require the use permit to be reviewed by the planning commission at a public hearing. The way that would probably be implemented was if there was a hearing before the zoning administrator and a large number of people were objecting and the concerns could not be resolved, the matter would go before the commission. Otherwise, he could approve it as zoning administrator. Chairman Spiegel said he agreed with Commissioner Jonathan and noted there had been four or five facilities proposed in the last few years . Mr. Diaz said there were probably at the present time half a dozen large family day care centers with between seven and 12 operating within the city and they would be notified to come in for a permit . Commissioner Jonathan noted that the public notice under the procedure that was being recommended was only to homes within a 100 foot radius of the proposed large family day care; he � said that would barely be one or two houses . Mr. Diaz said �' that if commission wished to expand that, they could. He indicated that it could be increased to 300 feet which was the standard noticing. Chairman Spiegel opened the public testimony and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MS. DORIS MECHANICK, 45-935 Pawnee Road in Indian Wells, Coachella Valley Child Care Coordinator, the professional who helps the cities write these ordinances . She said that this was the first time she had seen Palm Desert' s ordinance and asked for a continuance. She felt this needed to be researched and some education done because of the semantics . What they were talking about was family child care homes . These were homes in which women, and their husbands in some cases, were earning a living taking care of children. The City of Palm Desert, as all the other nine cities in the area, have the child care homes by right under six. Child care homes, and it was not a center but a home, , was licensed differently than a center and they are � licensed from six to 12 and the family still resided in 8 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 1994 ""' the home and the mother was taking care of children other than their own. They didn' t have to have their own child in the home. There were a lot of things that were different than state licensing required. The home could be open for 23 hours. One of the things that was beneficial to child care homes was that it was in a small environment and children did well, particularly babies, in a small environment home and she did not see a problem if nurses in the evening couldn't get help for their children and being able to go a family child care home where the child was going to sleep, not play outside at night. The way the families earned their living was to have children, only 12 at a time, but there was a traffic problem that could be alleviated if they looked into it. There could only be 12, but if they had 12 from 7 : 00 a.m. to 3 :00 p.m. and the parent picks up the child, they could have another 12 . Most didn't--they had a few in the evening and a few on the weekends . Child care centers were not open on the weekends or in the evenings, so family child care homes were very important for the working parent who works at supermarkets, hotels, and hospitals . Since most were unaware that there were 12 large family child care homes in Palm Desert other than the one that was a problem, ""' she felt they would want to look at this and be a family friendly community where more large family child care homes would be encouraged where the play areas were in the back. She also objected to the time frame because in the summer it was very warm here and children could not play before 7 :00 a.m. , but workers could drill in the streets before 7 : 00 a.m. , so allowing children to play before 9 : 00 a.m. should be all right. If there was only three or four in the evening, they should also be allowed to play outside. There were a lot of things she felt needed to be looked at and she wanted to work with her staf f, the city, and the city attorney to go through the process as they had done in other cities . She knew the city attorney worked with the City of Indio and their ordinance was friendlier. She said she knew the ordinance needed to be passed and knew the case at hand, but believed these needed to be looked over so that they could take care of the night service workers . She did not feel there was a need for a conditional use permit to ask the whole neighborhood if it was all right. She wanted it opened for discussion and then a continuance. She was afraid the way the ordinance was written now would anger the child care community and rather than having bad press, they should go back and look at it ...�. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 1994 with staff and legal counsel to reach a conclusion that '� was more friendly to the provider and the homeowners around that provider. She felt the city should consider grandfathering the other providers in because they had been good neighbors and the difference between a family child care home and a child care center needed to be looked at. Chairman Spiegel asked if Ms . Mechanick had an opportunity to discuss this with the planning department or anyone else; Ms . Mechanick replied no. Commissioner Jonathan asked Ms . Mechanick to describe her professional position. Ms . Mechanick explained that she was the child care coordinator for the Coachella Valley (Riverside County Office of Education) and her background was child development for 30 years . She teaches child development at the college and she was president of a corporation of that franchise child care centers, a center director, and worked with family child care homes as a program specialist. Commissioner Jonathan asked if she was working right now for the county to promote child care facilities in the Coachella Valley; she said that was correct and she worked with the City of Indio on their ordinance and the City of La Quinta. Commissioner Jonathan asked if she � found this ordinance to be restrictive; Ms . Mechanick said yes . Commissioner Jonathan asked if she was notified of this proposal; Ms . Mechanick said she had talked about the case with Mr. Diaz, but did not know this was going before council until she came to speak in behalf and in favor of the next agenda item. Chairman Spiegel asked if all cities in the Coachella Valley would be having such an ordinance (i .e. Indian Wells) . Ms. Mechanick said she did not believe there were any family child care homes in Indian Wells, but if there were they would have to have an ordinance. Mr. Diaz stated that it was not a matter of the cities needing an ordinance because they have such facilities . By law they have to have an ordinance to allow such facilities . He did not know what the neighbors to the east or west were doing, but they had to adopt some kind of an ordinance by state law. Chairman Spiegel closed the public testimony. Mr. Diaz said that the city did have a complaint against one facility, that was correct, but the fact that the city had not had any complaints against the others did not mean that 10 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 1994 ''�" everyone in the neighborhood was happy with them. If they were, then there wouldn't be any problems at the hearing. There could be a situation where a neighbor says, "how can they do this?" and the operator says they are allowed to by state law and if you read the state law it looks like they can. If there is no problem, then the neighbors have the right to be heard. He felt these facilities were necessary, but did not want to sneak them in. As far as the number of children on any one day and allowing traffic in and out, if a person lived in a single family neighborhood in a cul-de- sac and kids were picked up at 11 : 00 p.m. or 12 : 00 a.m. every night of every day or dropped off and playing at 7 :00 a.m. could be a problem. In response to the example of the street repair going on, he noted that once the street was repaired the activity was done; once they allowed the permit it would go on forever. All he was saying was that the folks in those neighborhoods should have a chance to address the concerns they might have as far as these facilities are concerned. He felt hospitals should provide facilities for nurses and other that work at hospitals, the reason they didn't was not because they didn't have the room, but was because they did not want to and they should provide those for their employees. Hotels should also provide these facilities . The next resort hotel coming into Palm Desert would be required """ to provide them. Day care centers were going into other commercial facilities that were being developed, so employers had an obligation. His concern was that folks that lived in single family neighborhoods who would not have any problem with kids being dropped off in the morning and picked up at 6 : 00 p.m. or 7 : 00 p.m. it was a single family area would be disturbed once it was opened up to 11 : 30 p.m. or 23 hours per day, which was getting away from the single family area. All he was saying was that there should be a hearing and a process . He recommended that the ordinance go on to the city council and a meeting could be held with Ms . Mechanick and the city attorney to discuss her concerns . If there are significant changes and differences, this would come back to the planning commission. From staff 's standpoint, he wanted the ordinance to be as strict as possible. He suggested passing this onto council with the concern of inconsistencies brought up and they would be addressed at the council meeting. The matter would be sent back to the commission for comment if there were significant changes . He did not believe they were incorrect and they had the right to have this ordinance the way it is . Commissioner Jonathan asked with this ordinance if anyone could go into any residential neighborhood if they were in ..� 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 1994 compliance with the standards set forth in the ordinance, 'r' they must be granted the right to operate a large home day care facility; Mr. Diaz said that the way the state ordinance was written, yes . There was virtually no way it could be denied. That was the reason for the limitations regarding hours of operation, the playing hours, and picking up of children. Commissioner Jonathan felt this was in conflict with the city' s own land use designation in the zoning ordinance, the definition of residential, and this was carrying on a commercial activity. Mr. Diaz agreed that it was in conflict, but the State of California said that this was consistent with the R-1 zone and cities are "out of luck" . When the number was six he supported that ordinance, but when going from seven to 12 and 12 at any one time and traffic in and out, that was a different situation. It was not consistent with the residential use. It did not mean it shouldn't go in there, but that it should require a conditional use permit and the neighbors should voice their concerns and what they would like to see or not see. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he was very family oriented and he was concerned about child care in our community, but this was the wrong way to go about it. He was in favor of child care, but responsible child care. He felt people bought their homes in neighborhoods and had the right to � expect normal kinds of neighborhoods rather than a commercial activity next door or across the street from them. He was reluctant to send the ordinance along without comment. He would want to send it to council with: 1) the recommendation that the noticing requirement be expanded from 100 feet to at least 300 feet, if not more; 2) he saw that once the facility was allowed, it made sense to allow an earlier play time rather than before 9 : 00 a.m. ; and 3) he would urge the council to find a way to get around this . He wanted to find a more responsible way of encouraging and developing child care in our community, but not at the cost of infringing on residentially zoned and used parts of our city. Chairman Spiegel agreed with Commissioner Jonathan; he wondered whether the child care center at COD was open 23 hours per day to take care of children for nurses and people that worked in the hotel industry. He knew it was a teaching kind of function over there, but it was a day care center and to his knowledge it was not open in the evenings . Ms . Mechanick said sometimes they were depending on student needs . Chairman Spiegel felt it would be wrong to get away from the conditional use permit process for any kind of facility that was going into an R-1 area that was designated ', 12 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 1994 "� for single family homes because it was not really a single family home any more and because it took away the opportunity of the neighbors to become involved if a problem developed. He agreed with Commissioner Jonathan. He asked for a motion. Mr. Diaz stated that commission could revise the notice area to 300 feet and the play times to not before 7 : 00 a.m. or after 5 : 30 p.m. Commissioner Jonathan asked that staff also pass along an encouragement to council to see a way to at least mitigate the negative impact this could have on existing and future residential developments and neighborhoods . Mr. Diaz said that would be reflected in the minutes and the council would get a copy. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the findings as presented by staff . Carried 3-0 . Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1637, recommending to city council approval of ZOA 94-1 as amended. Carried 3-0 . � C. Case No. CUP 93-10 - DANA AND MELISSA CARNES, Applicant Request for approval of a children' s day care center for service up to 30 children at 74-015 Aster Drive in the R- 1 zone. Mr. Winklepleck stated that some items from the previous case would apply to this request. This family day care center would provide up to 30 children between the ages of 3 and 5 at any one time. Included was a pamphlet given to staff from the facility that explained how they operated. The hours of operation would be between 9 : 00 a.m. and 4 :00 p.m. The applicant provided staff a list of neighbors that had no objection to this center. Staff used the applicable conditions from the previous case including the hours of operation. He added a condition that the day care facility would be limited to a maximum of 30 children at any one time. Staff recommended approval and noted that no negative phone calls or letters had been received. Chairman Spiegel asked for clarification that this was different because this was 30 children, not 12, and would � 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 1994 only be used for day care--the applicants would not live in �' the building. Mr. Winklepleck concurred. Commissioner Beaty asked for clarification that this would allow 30 children at any one time; Mr. Winklepleck concurred and indicated that all the children had to be between the ages of 3 and 5 . He said that the hours were consistent with the previous case, but recommended having the play hours of not before 9 : 00 a.m. or after 5 : 30 p.m. Mr. Diaz recommended that the ages be between 3 and 6 . Commissioner Jonathan asked if the 3 to 5 came from the applicant' s own brochure; staff concurred. Chairman Spiegel opened the public testimony and asked the applicants to address the commission. MR. AND MRS. CARNES, 43-550 Palmilla Street in Palm Desert. Mrs . Carnes stated that she and her family had been residents of Palm Desert for 10 years . Before moving to Palm Desert, they lived in Indio for 10 years . They moved to Palm Desert in hope of finding a quality 5chool district for their three children. All the schools were within walking distance and they felt their educational dreams for their own children had been fulfilled. As for her teaching background, she had been � in and out of the teaching world for 12 years, starting when their oldest son was 2 1/2 years old. At first she worked in the classroom as a volunteer, which turned into a teaching position. Six months later she was enrolled at the College of the Desert taking the courses to complete her early childhood certificate. For a year and a half she had been running a large family day care servicing 12 children in her own home from the hours of 9 : 00 a.m. to 12 : 00 p.m. In September of 1992 her doors opened with five children enrolled. By May she had full enrollment with a waiting list. In September of 1993, they reopened their doors with full enrollment and a waiting list. She found the need and want so great that by January she was offering two sessions . The first session from 9 :00 a.m. to 12 :00 p.m. and the second session from 1:00 p.m. to 4 :00 p.m. She felt that as a community they could work together in offering quality education starting with their preschool children. As they all knew, the best years for learning were the preschool years . Mr. Carnes said that about two years ago he built an addition onto their home and added a bathroom and small kitchenette to accommodate the large ' family day care trying to isolate it from their living �r�rl 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 1994 "`� conditions . Melissa and her aides work with children from ages 3 to 5 offering them a variety of educational subjects such as dancing--at the end of the year last year the dance class performed at the McCallum Theater for their parents and the community. Some of the other lessons they were taught were Spanish, computer labs, field trips, and had guest speakers . The shelves were lined with montessori base centers that give the children a hands on experience. Arts and crafts were done on a daily basis and since they were so busy around the house, it had taken over the house as much as they tried to isolate it to the room that was built on. They had been looking for an area suitable for a center and finally found a place that was fairly local to their own home as well as to the surrounding schools. It was enclosed by three streets, which meant there was one neighbor right next door. The trauma the children go through adapting to school could be softened by an in- home environment. Being so close to Lincoln School, the children could be easily escorted to and from kindergarten for before and after school care. They talked to the principal at Lincoln School and told her of their plans and her response was that the community always needed quality day care centers . The home they "' selected on Aster and Desert Star had a lot of essentials required by state licensing, such as a third bathroom. The number of 30 children was picked working with state licensing as to how many would be allowed in the size of the dwelling they were looking at. There had to be a ratio of space inside a classroom area versus so much space outside for play area per child. In looking at the home on Aster, they took this into consideration. Being so close to their own home and to Lincoln School, they could offer the service to their neighbors as well as to the community. They met with the neighbors around the home on Aster, talked to all of them personally before filing the application to find out if there was any negative response. They invited them over to their home to see how the business was run, although they did not have a response from anyone to come to their home. Everyone they talked to were in support of their proposal . There were several renters around the perimeter that were interested in what they were doing because they had young children. A large portion of the enrollment were local neighbors within walking distance to their home. That was one thing they were looking at when looking at a large family day care was to service the neighborhood. If children are r... 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 1994 dropped off with a friend to be watched for a period of � time and there is money exchanged, then it becomes a business . As a business they would have to be licensed by state licensing and would work with them to ensure everything met their code. For the fire department, certain restrictions had to be taken care of prior to opening as a large family day care. They were subject to random unannounced inspections by the state at any time. If there were any complaints, they were mandated to come out and investigate the complaint that was filed. Chairman Spiegel asked for clarification that right now the applicant was operating a day care center in their home; Mr. Carnes replied that it was not a center, but a large family day care. Chairman Spiegel asked if what they were proposing was to buy this home and turn it into a large day care center that would have up to 30 children; Mr. Carnes concurred. Chairman Spiegel asked if this had been looked at by the Riverside County Fire Department; Mr. Carnes said not as yet; right now they were going through the process of getting land use permits as well as licensing. They submitted their application to licensing and were in the process of three phases that were taking place in licensing. They had done the first one; the second was called a face to face where � they would meet with their licensing agent; the third one would be where the licensing agent would come out and review the site prior to opening. In the meantime they would have to have approval from the fire department and the building department. Chairman Spiegel asked how many teachers there would be; Mr. Carnes said there was a state mandated ratio on how many children could be under a licensed teacher or provider, which was 15 . Mrs . Carnes said there would be two teachers and two helpers with an aide, plus she was using ROP students from the college. Chairman Spiegel noted that they mentioned kindergarten students that would come to the facility until their parents picked them up and asked if they were included in the 30; Mr. Carnes replied yes, the state said there could only be 30 children on the premises at one time. If one left, then one could replace them. Commissioner Jonathan said it sounded that anywhere between 4-6 or 8 adults would be present at any one time, which said 4-6 or 8 cars at any one time. He asked where the cars would be parked. Mr. Carnes explained that there was a horseshoe driveway in the front that was 12 feet wide and he planned to add an additional parking space on Aster Street, which would bring them from the side entrance into the backyard area at 16 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 1994 ""' 20 feet wide, which would accommodate two more vehicles . Commissioner Jonathan noted that there was a garage in the driveway on the Desert Star side, so there was some parking there. Mr. Carnes noted that it was a two car garage 20 feet by 30 feet. Commissioner Jonathan asked if it was the applicant's objective to keep the horseshoe driveway open; Mr. Carnes replied that they would like to keep it open to be able to bring the children in and drop them off. He said that in the front of the house there was a patio area which they would like to use as a reception area. It had been a practice for the teachers to go out and meet the children and greet them at the car, which helped break them from their mothers . Chairman Spiegel noted that many of the children lived nearby and could walk back and forth. Mrs . Carnes said that parents had to sign children in and out or their name had to be on their pick up list. Mr. Carnes indicated that the state required a pick up list and the names of the parents had to be available at any time that they might request them. He said there was a sign up sheet when people came in and when they came back, if it was not cleared prior to that then the children would not be released. Chairman Spiegel asked if having the age up to six years old would be beneficial; Mrs . '"" Carnes replied yes, because they would like to service Lincoln School for day care after morning kindergarten and day care before afternoon kindergarten. Chairman Spiegel asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MS. DORIS MECHANICK, 35-845 Pawnee Road in Indian Wells, said that she had known the Carnes for two years and had watched a wonderful family child care home be an educational center and haven for the children they were caring for and she was in favor of this child care program as a center close to the schools and in an area that was safe and not infringing on all the neighbors . She felt the location was perfect for a neighborhood child care center. MS. CHRIS LYMAN, 72-833 White Drive, stated that she drove to get to the Carnes because it was a great place. She met Melissa in 1989 and she was her first child's teacher and she was now teaching her son. Her kids love and respect her and she was a very loving and caring person. Melissa had many insights to help Moms and Dads find out about their children. Melissa pointed out that .... 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 1994 her daughter had a crossed eye and she was still being '� treated for that. Her son was having some problems and they discovered that he had an attention deficit and she did not think it would have been possible to come to that determination without Melissa' s insight . She felt that Melissa was an invaluable addition to her child' s education and she would recommend her to anyone she knew. MS. MARCY STORM, 43-551 Palmilla Circle, stated that she had been the Carnes neighbor for eight years and Melissa was also her daughter' s first preschool teacher when she was three years old. Her daughter was now in second grade and had benefited from Melissa' s love of learning. She tried to take her son out of the preschool because of monetary difficulties, but he cried all night and said that he had to go back so he could dance and play. She said it was more than a day care, it was a serious preschool and the children were learning all their fine skills and motor skills . She said she also had her one year old on her waiting list. MS. MARCIA CORENMAN, 73-335 Desert Rose in Palm Desert, said she was a recent transfer from northern California, the San Ramon Valley. She came searching for a home and � schools last spring. She found there was good quality education and she visited every school in the valley and interviewed every director of preschools and the principals of all the schools in Palm Desert before she decided where they would buy their home. She was relieved when she ran into Melissa Carnes because she had not found one facility which she felt was appropriate in a price range that she could afford. They gave a quality education program; she was not looking for day care because she was a stay at home mother and her purpose was to raise her children the best she could. She was looking for a quality preschool environment where her children' s lives could be enriched. Her daughter was three and her life had been greatly enriched. Her son was at Washington School and was nine years old and just the other day he said that Melissa and Dana were neat people and he really liked them. She felt that Melissa provided a good program and was the best one here. She hoped the city would give them an opportunity to continue to grow and the students would benefit from it. 18 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 1994 MS. SANDRA OLIVER, 43-121 Balsam in Palm Desert, stated that her son Daniel had known Melissa for about three ` years. He went to her school last year and blossomed. He learned computer, he went to the McCallum Theater and danced, he learned some Spanish, and he came home adding and subtracting. He goes to Lincoln School during the day, but when she opened up the 1 : 00 p.m. to 4 : 00 p.m. session, she enrolled him because he was not getting the proper education that she thought he got the previous year. MS. BETH AINSWORTH stated that she lived next door to the Carnes for three years and she had a daughter that was a student at Lincoln. When Melissa opened up her preschool to the afternoon children, she enrolled her daughter. Crystal was the youngest of four children and the other children attended Head Start in Palm Springs, which was a good program. Melissa made Crystal want to go to her preschool and forget the kindergarten at the public school all together. She encouraged the commission to approve the proposal and suggested that they go by and check out the facility if they had any doubts . MS. KAREN DOBBINS, 40-432 Periwinkle Court in Palm Desert, stated that she also had a three year old at ` Morning Star. She was the youngest of three children; she had a 14 year old and an 11 year old who had attended school in the valley. Her three year old was on a waiting list for another preschool since she was born because it was difficult to get children into a good preschool and when she was two years oid, she decided to interview others because someone had told her about Melissa. She saw Melissa' s facility and sat in a class with Melissa with her child and when she was there, she realized that this was the place she needed to be. Her children had also been at other private schools . She discovered that her child was labeled a difficult child with a strong temperament and she learned that she probably would not have done well in as large a school as she had planned on attending. Melissa talked to her about her temperament and they worked together with her and her pediatrician and her daughter was doing fabulous now. She did not feel this was something that would have ordinarily been available to them in a regular type preschool that serviced a larger amount of children. The reason Melissa' s was so special was because she had that one to one relationship with 19 r... MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 1994 the children and knew a lot about the children. It was "'r not a day care center where children were having their diapers changed and being dropped off late at night. This was a serious preschool and the children were learning; her three year old could count to 30, she knew her abc 's and the things she could do was phenomenal in comparison to other children in other centers . There were also spanish classes and dance classes and Melissa offered a high quality preschool facility. Chairman Spiegel closed the public testimony. Commissioner Jonathan said he was impressed and did not see a problem with access . He felt this was a good location for this facility, it was surrounded by three streets, the adjacent neighbors were in support and with the added condition of no more than 30 children ages 3 to 6, he would be move for approval . Commissioner Beaty concurred. He said his only concern would be the traffic and 30 noisy children because the current neighbor might not always live there, but if that was being controlled and staff was satisfied with the traffic and the parking, then he would vote in favor. � Chairman Spiegel noted that condition no. 7 was that the day care facility would be reviewed in six months by staff so that the city knew everything was acceptable from the neighbors standpoint and the school 's standpoint. Mr. Diaz stated that he would like to send the minutes of this hearing with the previous case to show the council that when the operators contact the neighbors and do their homework, everyone present was not saying no. Just because there were hearings did not mean everything would be denied. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner , Beaty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried ', 3-0 . ' Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner ', Beaty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1638, ', approving CUP 93-10, subject to conditions as amended. ' VIII . MISCELLANEOUS None. � 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 1994 r.. IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. X. COMMENTS 1 . Commissioner Jonathan expressed concern about the sewage treatment plant off Cook Street between Fred Waring and Sheryl . He met with Tom Levy at CVWD and he indicated that they were equally concerned about the odor issue and they had put in $1 million of improvements and he offered to take commission on a tour of that facility. He told Mr. Levy that he would bring that offer to the commission. Commissioner Jonathan said he would like to take that tour and if anyone else was interested, he would go ahead and schedule it and inform them of the time. He felt there was an odor problem out there that effected the quality of life. He said there was some willingness to be cooperative expressed at that meeting. He noted that he works off Sheryl and liked to open his door when weather permits, but he was also concerned because there was a number of schools in close proximity ""' to the treatment facility as well as a lot of residences . Chairman Spiegel asked if there had been any complaints from the residents . Commissioner Jonathan did not know if the city had received any, but anyone he talked to in the area from the business community was fully aware of the problem. He said that he had called up CVWD and got the standard response that it was the Salton Sea. Mr. Diaz advised that if the commission chose to visit the treatment plant as a commission, then a special meeting would have to be called because of the Brown Act. Commissioner Jonathan asked if he could work with the staff to set that up; Mr. Diaz said yes . Commissioner Beaty said that he has toured the plant before. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that they had stepped up the level of activity at the treatment plant from trucks that emptied septic tanks and Mr. Levy did recognize that there was a problem of odor leakage from the trucks into the facility. Part of the improvements they had made were vacuums that would take the odor and suck it up. Commissioner Beaty said that he lived close to the plant out by the Carlotta and he had never experienced a problem, though he had smelled it when going through the wash. +..► 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 1994 2 . Chairman Spiegel noted that there was an announcement ""� for the Planners Institute in San Diego from March 9-11, 1994, and he encouraged the commission to attend. 3 . Chairman Spiegel noted that the rumor was getting stronger that Saks Fifth Avenue was locating in Palm Desert and he understood that San Pablo was being studied for widening because Councilman Crites felt that E1 Paseo could not take the traffic. He asked for a status report. Mr. Diaz stated that the city was talking to three different groups that want to develop that Sun Lodge site and they all indicated they have talked with Saks Fifth Avenue. He felt that if Saks did not come to Palm Desert they would probably leave the valley. There was a request for proposals being prepared by the redevelopment agency because development assistance was being requested by all of the developers because part of the project was to provide additional public parking for E1 Paseo. As part of that proposal there was a requirement that $100,000 be put up and the city would probably have some indication within four to six weeks . He said the commission had already gone through the hearing process approving a 167 ,000 square foot center. If Saks came in, apparently what Saks brings was Saks and that was it, like most majors . � There would be a request to increase the square footage to approximately 200,000 square feet to take care of Saks and to bring in other retailers . The reason that caused a problem was because additional parking would have to be provided. They would probably know in four to six weeks if they have something done. The issue of whether to expand San Pablo and widen it would have to be solved. XI . ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Co issioner Beaty, adjourning the meeting to Feb ary 15, 199 . Carried 3-0 . The meeting was adjourned a .46 p. � F�ih�1�7? • RAMON A. DIAZ, Se� ry ATTEST: � �. � ROBERT A. SPIEGE an Palm Desert Plannin Commission /tm � 22