Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0901 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - SEPTEMBER 1 , 1998 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Campbell called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. 11. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Fernandez led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sonia Campbell, Chairperson George Fernandez Cindy Finerty Sabby Jonathan Members Absent: Paul Beaty Staff Present: Phil Drell Martin Alvarez Bob Hargreaves Tonya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the August 18, 1998 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the August 18, 1998 meeting minutes as submitted. Motion carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Fernandez abstained). V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent August 27, 1998 City Council actions. He explained that the Palm Desert Town Center was presented to Council, but unfortunately the applicant didn't present their photo study. One homeowner that spoke had concerns that could have been addressed in that photo study and there was a little confusion created as a result. He also noted that the applicants did more refinement to the theater architecture but unfortunately took their plans with them, so he didn't have them to show to the MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 Commission. He said that the Council conceptually approved the various components of the plan but had the same concerns which were expressed by the Commission relative to the architecture. He said the applicants have done some remodels to two other malls they own, one in La Jolla and one in Fashion Valley both of which involved installation of theaters and the construction of a parking deck, and there might be a field trip planned. He said there might be a field trip organized to look at those. Mr. Drell said if the Commission was interested in a field trip if and when it occurs staff would keep them informed. Chairperson Campbell asked if staff would let them know when it was scheduled; Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Jonathan said he would like to be kept informed. Commissioner Jonathan asked if part of the architectural modification was to the exterior theater wall. Mr. Drell replied that the picture that was shown to the Commission was refined a little bit. Unfortunately, they didn't leave one with him so he could see it carefully but he had asked them to get him copies. He explained to the applicants that they should leave copies with staff so that staff and the public could look at them afterwards. Chairperson Campbell noted that they also lowered the height from 70 feet to 66 feet. Mr. Drell said that at one portion it went as low as 64 feet. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was any concern shown at the Council level with regards to security. Mr. Drell replied no. He believed the main solution to that was bringing the entrance to the theaters inside the mall. He said he hoped the Hahn people took the Planning Commission's comments to heart in general just as an expression of the general public's perception of what is going on there. Chairperson Campbell asked if Council went into closed session. Mr. Drell said no and explained that they were still working on the deal points on the agreement. As far as he was aware, no discussion took place in closed session. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR None. i 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he/she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. CUP 98-12 - VALERIE DRISCOLL, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to establish a 415 square foot massage establishment located at 73-280 #105 Highway 111 . Mr. Alvarez explained that the subject property is located on the north side of Highway 1 1 1 approximately 400 feet east of San Marcos. He clarified that the applicant was requesting a 425 square foot massage establishment. He noted that the subject building has a total of 36 parking spaces, eight of which were located along the frontage road in front of the building and 28 were located in the rear in an off street parking lot. The establishment would have two employees and would operate from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., seven days a week. Based on the two employees and two clients, this use could create a parking demand of four or five parking spaces. This unit was currently allocated two parking spaces which would leave a deficiency of two or three. Staff visited the site on several occasions and found adequate parking to support this deficiency. He noted that there was a letter before Commission submitted by Mrs. Matson, a resident directly to the rear of the building on San Benito. Her main concern was that this use be licensed and regulated and staff assured this would be done. He noted that the applicant had to secure a business license and a massage establishment permit before beginning operations. Also before Commission were copies of Mrs. Driscoll's massage permit licenses in other cities, including the city of Palm Desert, and her various certifications and hours of instruction. Based on the land use compatibility with the adjacent properties, staff felt this use would not impact the parking and recommended approval, subject to the conditions and a minor correction to the draft resolution which would change the square footage from 415 to 425. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Jonathan asked about the hours of operation limitations and if they were normally included in the conditions of approval. Mr. Drell said not necessarily and not unless they had a specific concern. Commissioner 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 Jonathan said he understood the staff report to say that the business would operate from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. only. Mr. Alvarez said that was correct. Those were the hours the applicant indicated. Mr. Drell said the applicant was planning on it but didn't believe if she was planning to give a massage at 8:00 a.m. or 10:00 p.m. staff would have a governmental interest in saying she couldn't do that. Commissioner Jonathan said he wasn't so much concerned about early morning operation, but he didn't see the need for a legitimate massage parlor, which this was, to operate much past 9:00 p.m. He said he could address that with staff at a later time. Also, he asked if staff wanted to modify condition number 6 of the resolution to say 425 square feet. Mr. Alvarez concurred. Chairperson Campbell asked if there were any other massage parlors open after 9:00 p.m. Mr. Alvarez said he couldn't recall the exact hours of operation, but he could find out. Chairperson Campbell didn't believe they were open after 9:00 p.m. and thought they closed even earlier. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MS. VALERIE DRISCOLL, 32-350 Aurora Vista Road in Cathedral City, stated she was present to answer any questions. Chairperson Campbell asked she had anything she wanted to add to staff's report regarding her application. Ms. Driscoll said she felt the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. were convenient hours for most clients. Chairperson Campbell asked if she had any concern with those hours being placed as a condition of approval. Ms. Driscoll replied no. Commissioner Jonathan suggested they make the condition 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. to give the applicant ample time. Ms. Driscoll said she didn't plan to be there after 9:00 p.m. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 Commission indicated that the applicant wouldn't have to operate from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., but would go ahead and set those hours as a condition of approval. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1891 , approving CUP 98-12, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 4-0. B. Case No. CUP 98-13 - ROBERT M. MAHER, DDS INC., Applicant `.. Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a 2,137 square foot dental office at 73-640 El Paseo. Mr. Alvarez explained that the request was for a 2,137 square foot dental office fronting on Presidents' Plaza West just east of Larkspur Lane. He noted that the new parking standard for medical and dental offices was six spaces per 1 ,000 square feet of use. Where a typical 2,100 square foot dental office with four operating rooms would produce a parking demand of 12 spaces, this was based on having two dentists, two hygienists and three employees, coupled with a potential of five patients which would create a demand for 12 parking spaces. The proposed plan showed four operating rooms and the expanded statement of use was attached to the Commission's staff report. That statement indicated that the dentist would operate a low intensity cosmetic dentistry office with a maximum of five employees. With five employees staff could see a potential parking demand of nine spaces. That would include one dentist, one hygienist and two clerical employees with a potential for a part time employee as indicated in the statement of use. Treating three patients at once with one in the waiting room would produce a parking demand of nine spaces. Based on the intensity of the use described in the letter, the tenant would have adequate parking as it is allocated nine r.. parking spaces within Presidents' Plaza West. Based on that expanded 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 statement of use and on the proposed conditions, staff recommended approval. Chairperson Campbell asked if in the future more than nine parking spaces were needed for this use if the commission could make it a condition that they park in The Gardens parking structure and if extra parking spaces were available there. Mr. Alvarez stated that staff didn't foresee a parking problem. Mr. Drell said that if a problem develops, they would audit this operation and if it was determined to be a problem, they could say the applicant was in violation of the conditional use permit. Chairperson Campbell noted that even though the dentist has a hygienist, he didn't have an assistant who actually does the assisting. That would be another employee. Mr. Drell noted that the way the applicant described his use he could only serve a certain number of patients efficiently. Cosmetic dentistry didn't usually have the volume that a general practice does. That was the basis for the recommendation. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. DR. BOB MAHER stated he was currently living in Napa at 3080 Coombsville Road and that he would be moving here shortly and hoped to open this practice. He said he wasn't interested in having a retirement practice per se, but he wasn't by any means going to open a big practice. He had done that and over the years he limited himself to cosmetic dentistry which was low volume. He expected to be treating one patient at a time personally and the hygienist would be treating one patient at a time. He couldn't foresee a large volume of patients and the concept was very high quality with a high level of service and that meant one on one treatment and a low volume. Chairperson Campbell asked if Dr. Maher considered crowns and bridges ore removable prosthesis or endo as cosmetic surgery. Dr. Maher said he didn't do root canal treatment; it would be veneers, crowns, tooth coloring, and natural looking restorations. Chairperson Campbell asked if Dr. Maher planned on having an assistant. Dr. Maher concurred. He explained his plan was to start with one employee who could be both front office and an assistant. With seeing 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 w only one patient at a time, he felt one person could do both of those things to begin with and he would anticipate one staying in front, one being an assistant and a part time person. Chairperson Campbell asked if that same assistant would be taking the x-rays. Dr. Maher concurred. Chairperson Campbell noted that in the plans Dr. Maher also included a lab and asked if he planned on doing his own lab work on the premises. Dr. Maher replied no, it was only for minor things. Laboratory work would be by mail order. Chairperson Campbell asked if Dr. Maher would be doing his own adjustments. Dr. Maher concurred. Chairperson Campbell asked if Dr. Maher would be doing any surgery of any OEM kind himself. Dr. Maher replied no. He said he would refer specialties to the specialists, the oral surgeons and periodontists, and he would limit himself to the cosmetic procedures. Chairperson Campbell asked for clarification that he would be limiting himself to three days a week. Dr. Maher stated that he teaches cosmetic dentistry several days a month. He felt that if he could get himself busy three days a week he would be happy. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Campbell asked for commission comments. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would not oppose the parking exception, but felt the new requirement made sense. This particular use perhaps warranted an exception, but it could really turn on a dime. The doctor now might see empty space, hire someone else or someone else could sub rent and 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 there would now be a lapse and instead of five employees there were now six or seven, all operating rooms were being used so there were four patients and there were people who came to drop them off and they could very easily be up above the requirement of 12. His point was that while he wouldn't oppose the exception here, he felt the new requirement under the ordinance made sense and hoped the commission didn't see too many exceptions to it in the future. Chairperson Campbell noted that if there is a problem they could call it back. Mr. Drell explained that was why there was a conditional use permit process. Commissioner Jonathan agreed and felt that in theory that works, although he didn't recall any time during his years of service on the commission where they have gone in on a conditional use permit and said there was a parking problem and they were going to revoke the permit. He knew that ability was there--he was just saying that was a fall back position and in the future he felt they would be better off not creating too many exceptions. Obviously good minds had thought about this requirement and normal use would require the six spaces per 1 ,000 square feet of use as the new parking standard and he was in agreement with that requirement and hopefully in most cases they would be able to stick with it. Commissioner Fernandez stated that he had no problems with the project and was in favor of it. Chairperson Campbell stated that she also was in favor and asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1892, approving CUP 98-13, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0. C. Continued Case Nos. GPA 98-4, C/Z 98-5 and PP 98-10 - 3 D PARTNERSHIP, Applicant Request for approval of a general plan amendment and change of zone from low density residential (PR-5) planned residential five dwelling units per acre to office professional (O.P.), a precise i plan of design allowing up to 87,750 square feet of office 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 professional use and negative declaration of environmental impact as it pertains thereto for 8.02 acres at the northwest corner of Portola Avenue and Frank Sinatra Drive. Mr. Drell noted that on August 4, 1998 this hearing was continued to allow the applicant to meet with the neighbors at the Kaufman and Broad project. The issues that were brought up by the commission included the appropriateness of the land use as a professional office use at that corner of the intersection of an arterial and major thoroughfare and the appropriateness of the architecture and whether it was compatible with the residential character of the neighborhood. Apparently a meeting took place. As well, a petition was generated from the neighborhood renewing and reiterating its opposition to the project signed by 76 residents representing 57 properties. The applicant indicated that they are willing to address the architecture if they get some encouragement that the land use was acceptable if the architecture was acceptable. There was also an issue of grade. Most of the buildings were toward the west of the property and the ones closest to the residents were single story. There was a question as to whether elevated grades exaggerated their height. He said the pad elevation of the nearest building was at 279 feet. The elevation of the nearest neighboring house was 279.4 so it was actually a slightly lower pad height than the residence nearest it. The parking lot sloped up slightly to 281 . He didn't feel that issue was significant. Staff continued to maintain that long term property at the intersection of major thoroughfares and arterials is appropriate to be developed with compatible professional office development. Staff agreed with Commission comments from August 4 that the design of this project would look more appropriate on Highway 1 1 1 than it does on Frank Sinatra. He noted that the Commission had several options. If the Commission was not prepared to support the land use change regardless of the architecture, then the Commission should have staff prepare a resolution of denial and not encourage the applicant to spend any more money on the design. If the Commission felt the land use was potentially acceptable, by minute motion the commission could make that indication to the applicant and see if that was enough to encourage him to go ahead and redo the architecture. The alternative was to pass it along to the Council with a stipulation that the second reading not be granted on the change of zone until a precise plan and full architecture is approved so that the zone change wouldn't occur until the architectural design was approved. He doubted that would be successful and thought this project, if it was going to be approved with the proposed land use, would have to be accompanied by architecture and site design which made everyone agree that whether or not 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 the land use is appropriate, the project looked great. He asked for any questions. There were none. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. DICK BAXLEY, representing 3 D Partnership, informed commission that they did have a meeting with the homeowners and about 20 people attended. The residents had a number of concerns. They were able to address a good number of them specifically. They would be willing to provide a greenbelt to insulate the property. They would be willing to put up a row or two of trees. They would be willing to move the trash enclosures as far away as permitted by code and fire codes. They would even be willing to eliminate a building nearest K & B so that issue was no longer a problem. They would be willing to completely redo the architecture and the site plan and layout. While those were major concerns, he didn't believe those were their overriding concerns. He thought their overriding concerns were the use, if approved, and the impact of that approval on future development in the neighborhood. He couldn't address that concern that was beyond his ability to resolve. He noted that this site was unique. There were some extremely high Southern California Edison power lines that run all the way down Portola and then turn west at Frank Sinatra and head over to the K & B development. One of the City's requirements to develop any property within the Portola frontage was to underground the distribution lines. That doubled the cost of the value of this property and they get nothing in return because those very high lines are very expensive to underground so they pay a lot of money to underground the lines and they haven't helped the eyesore an iota. That was an unfortunate fact, but that was the way it is. He said they came up with the concept of offices on this property to try and resolve some of those costs and help the owners out who were in a difficult situation here. They hoped the commission would understand these things and approve their use. Mr. Drell noted that the other issue that he probably should have covered in his staff report was the domino theory of land use in that an approval of a professional office use on this corner would then be duplicated down the street. Typically every land use zone had a line drawn and the justification for the proposed office use on this corner was specifically due to its proximity to the intersection. There was no precedent or compelling reason why this 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 r.. should extend beyond that area. Again, they have not done that in the past in areas like this and there was no justification for extending the use down the street. He didn't believe that was a valid criticism against this project. Chairperson Campbell noted that at their last meeting Commissioner Beaty asked if the subject property was the same size as the remaining properties to the north. Mr. Drell said that the answer was that it was narrower because it has a 55-foot dedication for the half street of Frank Sinatra on it. He thought those parcels were typically 330 feet wide and this one was about 280 feet wide, plus by virtue of the fact that they require, even of a residential project, additional setbacks off the street. They don't typically allow perimeter walls to be on the property line. They require at least 20 feet or an additional eight feet of setback before a wall to allow for 20 feet of landscaping and a sidewalk. Effectively it was another eight feet narrower in terms of developable area. Chairperson Campbell asked if he knew how many homes were in the K & B development. Mr. Baxley said there were 160 proposed. Chairperson Campbell asked how many acres that included. Mr. Drell said around 39 since they had the same 55 feet of dedication off their 40-acre piece. r Commissioner Jonathan noted that in a couple of letters that were submitted there were some comments about strip malls. He asked if the change of zone was strictly for office professional use. Mr. Baxley said that was correct and they had no intention of anything like a strip mall. Commissioner Jonathan asked what type of tenants he could foresee for this development. Mr. Baxley replied doctors, attorneys, dentists, real estate brokers, insurance brokers and that type of low impact professional office use. Chairperson Campbell noted that the public hearing was still open and asked for a show of hands of those that signed the petition and/or sent letters to the Commission. (The majority of those in the audience raised their hands.) Chairperson Campbell indicated that since they signed the petition, those comments before the commission were on record and if they had anything else to add that the Commission should know, they could go ahead and speak to the commission. She asked anyone who was in FAVOR of the proposal to 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 address the commission. There was no one. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to address the commission in OPPOSITION. MS. JANET MENELLY, 37-589 Hollister Drive in Palm Desert, stated that when she went to purchase a home in Kaufman and Broad she and her husband had searched all over the valley for a home and she asked the people specifically what it was zoned for and they said residential. She and her husband had no desire to live next door to any professional office. They would be happy if the dentists and doctors owned homes next to them. That would be lovely and most welcome. However, they wanted to live in a neighborhood that has homes and families. She felt very disappointed in having to come down to City Hall after responsibly checking ahead of time to make sure that the area was zoned for residential and that they were happy to live with. Had they known this issue would arise they wouldn't have purchased in Palm Desert and she was extremely disappointed and she hoped the commission would take their concerns into consideration because she didn't want to live next to a professional office building. E Chairperson Campbell asked how long they have lived there. Ms. Menelly said three months. Chairperson Campbell noted that a request to speak card was filled out by Brian Tornsby and asked him to come forward. MR. BRIAN TORNSBY, 37-736 Colebridge Street, stated that they closed escrow on their house in September of last year and they have been part time residents in the desert area since about 1990 and spent maybe 40 of the 52 weekends down here. He also spent a lot of time in rooms like this since he worked for local government for more than 30 years. With that background, when they decided they were going to retire and move here he looked closely where they were going to go. He and his wife looked for about two years. He made a determination in April of last year that he would retire by the end of calendar year 1997 and so they decided to move. He learned a few things working for local government and in dealing with Planning and Public Works Departments and that they didn't want to buy in certain areas. They didn't want to buy in areas where there are speed bumps because that meant there was a speeding problem there. If they were an older 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 couple they didn't want to be around schools either or next to a fire house even though it might help insurance rates a little. They did some careful checking and he checked the general plan for Palm Desert, La Quinta, and Bermuda Dunes. His wife liked the layout of the house they bought in Kaufman and Broad better than any of the other ones. He said he went to Mr. Baxley's meeting. He felt Mr. Baxley did a very fine job and that it looked like a quality project. He didn't like the architecture or the diversity. He would rather see uniformity and quite frankly he didn't like the project where it was. If it was the only alternative they had, he would say it was probably better than other alternatives, but that wasn't really the reason he came here. He also felt staff did a good job on the staff report. He has written staff reports and board letters for 30 years. Staff objectively presented what they had. That didn't take care of the subjective concerns of the residents. They bought in an area they were assured was a residential area and they really didn't want it compromised by any sort of project that is not residential in the area. There were concerns about the timeshares and he felt that the people with the timeshares did a fine job in their presentation, too. He didn't have a problem with the timeshare. He did have a problem with offices and what happens when they are closed. He has a problem with who was going to be there when they are closed. He felt it compromised the residential aspect of the neighborhood and he respectfully requested that the Commission deny the zone change. MR. RICHARD KASOFSKY, 37-729 Hollister Drive, stated that he wanted to present to Commission the original signatures on the petition plus 19 more, totaling 104 residents of the Kaufman and Broad development. (He did so.) He said he read the original application they received that said that the arterial and major destination for Portola was going to have major traffic and that was why they wouldn't consider it a good place for residential. In his logic, if they put office professional there, they would encourage more traffic. If they knew an area was going to be a high traffic area, why promote more cars to that area. He had other concerns that were expressed in letters and on the petition. He asked that the Commission deny the change of zone. MR. IGNACIO HERNANDEZ, 37-675 Driscoll in Palm Desert, stated that he and his wife just got married about one year and two months ago r.. and they looked all over the desert for a home. Kaufman and Broad 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 assured them that this area was residential only. The City also assured them. This was their first home and they have lived there eight months. He was really upset that something like this was going to go up next to their neighborhood. He suggested they build a park. He was totally against it and hoped the Commission agreed. MR. BRIAN RALPH stated that they just recently moved in two days ago and he has three children and he would like to see the development of a residential community in that area with schools and the other infrastructure related to a residential area. MS. WANDA WARDEN, 37-676 Driscoll, stated that she has been there eight months and like everyone else was told they would be totally residential. She is a single female who works all hours and she didn't want to come home and think someone was lurking behind an office building, workers who work late or janitorial people. The lighting would destroy their atmosphere. Everything was against why she moved there. She said she loved where she was and didn't want to move. She has moved twice because of commercial areas and she didn't want to do it again. MR. MICHAEL MCAULIFFE, 37-707 Colebridge Street, informed commission that he has lived in the Kaufman and Broad development a little over a year now. He clearly disapproved of the zoning change. Aside from the architecture it was unclear to him why this location was picked for this type of project. He gave a brief description of the neighborhood. To the south of them is Palm Desert Greens. They have a 5,000 foot wall that extends from Monterey almost to Portola that is six feet high with absolutely no streetscape development on that side. To the west they conceded to Marriott in the development of their timeshare resort which given the nature of the project was an acceptable but unrelated relationship with the type of neighborhood they are trying to create. The people that would be using the Marriott development were temporary. They come here for vacation. They do not live here. Kaufman and Broad residents were citizens so they would not have any contact or relations with these people. This limits them to the development to the north and to the east. With the development of the proposed project at the corner that began to limit any chance of their being integrated into a larger neighborhood very similar to south Palm Desert. He pointed out gated communities which although were ' .r� 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 residential, they were inward focused. The people of Kaufman and Broad, which he believed was one of their strong points, was that they do not support a gated community. They don't have a homeowner's association. They are part of the public. They don't live behind closed doors. Based on the zoning surrounding their property, they have the potential for additional growth of a similar nature. He believed the zoning term for this kind of development was spot development. This kind of development was an anomaly related to the other types of development in the area. He pointed out the nearest location of office commercial. What he couldn't understand was the location on the proposed corner. The main arterial streets are Monterey, with an intersection to 1-10 and the dumbbell relationship with Palm Desert and then there was Cook Street with a similar relationship. Portola dead ended at Gerald Ford. He thought this was a "bizarre" location for this type of development. He wasn't sure who these people would serve. They seemed like a satellite and there wouldn't be any relationship as a neighbor to them. He said his biggest concern was that the project, if it proceeded, could fail and it would sit vacant and there was an enormous amount of unoccupied office space currently throughout the valley. His greater concern was that if it was an enormous success, because then it would set a precedent for future development of a similar type in this area. Doing that would magnify the problem that this type of problem would create. MR. RANDY VORSTER, 37-680 Colebridge Street, said he wanted to reaffirm a couple of things that were mentioned earlier. He disapproved of the whole idea and didn't even want to approach or have any concern about what the building would look like. That had no bearing on what was important to him. What was important was how the property was utilized as it is zoned now to create a community to the north. They know what other cities look like that have spot development. He pointed out areas that were zoned, but not developed, as residential. If they started putting in office professional right there, they would not be able to branch out to those other developments and they would be the "odd ball" on that street. They would have resort property to the west, they would have a professional office to the east, and a big wall that lined everything to the south. He felt that was an inappropriate way to build the future of Palm Desert. He felt this city has a vision and this project did not fit that vision. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 ti MS. LISA BERKLEY, a brand new homeowner in Kaufman and Broad, said she just found out about this at 6:00 p.m. when she arrived at her front door to see if GTE had installed her phones. She asked the Commission to bear with her if she asked questions that had already been asked. She asked if this project were approved if it constituted spot zoning. She also stated that if this happened, not only with the lighting, trash and the possibility of the building sitting vacant, causing more traffic and those things in an environment in which they were all told by the Kaufman and Broad people would be residential and they were all trying to raise their families. Her concern was what would be next. A 7-1 1 on the other corner open 24 hours. They could just get a situation with people driving in and out buying their happy meals or whatever that went in there and there would be robberies, vandalism, graffiti or any of those things. She was opposed to the proposed project and said she worked very hard to try and accommodate herself and her daughter with a home. She worked several years to save up this money and she was absolutely opposed to being next to the proposed project. i MS. GWEN SCHROEDER, 37-789 Emerson Drive, said she didn't know what the benefit was and had never seen such a big to do with Kaufman and Broad and the land around them. She said she would hate to see the proposed project take off and do well because she worked in a hospital and knew the potential of these medical plazas, especially if all the traffic came down Frank Sinatra from the doctors and patients. It would be a nightmare. It was a nightmare just to know someone would think about putting this next to homes. Down the street there were signs with land for sale with better views. They weren't next to people living with kids playing. She said she has lived there now almost two years and was disappointed that it was even being considered. She said she was really shocked and hoped that the Commission would consider that these are families and people that have worked hard for where they want to live for the next 20 or 30 years. She hoped the project would be denied. MR. JACK SPOLINSKI, 37-772 Hollister Drive, said that if the Commission wanted to keep happy people in Palm Desert, these people were really sincere and emotional about this project and he has met some wonderful people already in that community and would like to 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 keep it going and see some happy faces. That was what they were all here for, they wanted to be happy in the community of Palm Desert. MS. DENISE KAULKIN, 37-729 Hollister, stated that she has been a Palm Desert resident about 19 years and she has seen a lot of changes, some good and some bad. She remembered when there was no Town Center or Desert Crossing, etc. She grew up in the south end of Palm Desert up Highway 74 and the area was completely residential. It was an absolutely wonderful place to grow up in. She and her fiance want to live and raise their children in a place absolutely devoted to residential. They looked at the last area of Palm Desert to be developed for new homes. It was like a little island out there within the perfect desert sands with promises of family and community bond and promises of residential around it. Perhaps a resort was on slate, but the way resorts are built out here she felt it was like living next to a paradise, so that was not a problem. What was a problem was the proposed project this evening. A problem of broken promises. She felt a serious look at the motives behind why the City would want to change the zoning should be deeply investigated. She said there was a reason why this `w area was zoned residential and if there was some reason why it wasn't a good place to build homes, then why build Kaufman and Broad Palm Desert. She urged the commission to look at the bigger picture than just a few acres on Frank Sinatra. She urged the commission to look at the families and lives that would be affected by this venture. They didn't need another Fred Waring cluster of businesses and homes. She asked that they keep the community free from pop up businesses and keep their futures bright. MR. ROSS WHITLEY, 37-731 Driscoll Street, stated that they were all echoing the same thing but he wanted to impart a little information. He was not from the desert and grew up in San Diego. He grew up in San Diego when San Diego was the size of Palm Desert and he saw what happened to San Diego and that was why he left. He has seen what happens to residential areas when professional and industry uses move into the area. Maybe not right next door, but he has worked in those areas and the things it brings along was not pretty. It would ruin a neighborhood and he has a brand new family and he wanted to raise his family in a neighborhood in which he grew up. That neighborhood was destroyed that way. He wanted the Commission to think about what they are feeling in seeing this happen to them. He didn't think the 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 .ri Commission would want it to happen to them and they didn't want it to happen. MR. RICHARD FRICKLE, 37-761 Emerson Drive, stated that many good points had been made why the Commission should deny this zoning change. A couple which he personally had experience with had not come up with so he wanted to add them. He knew of many situations where a person buys a home in a subdivision and they leave a corner cut out and all of a sudden someone comes along and wants to put in a business establishment on it and they put up a high wall, but no matter how high that wall is, when cars pull in that parking lot, especially on hot days, the odors and gasoline fumes permeate into the adjoining residences. He didn't think anyone wanted that. He didn't and has been in that subdivision for over a year. He could empathize with these people at every turn. Secondly, he has known developers and came from the Visalia area and knew the developers in that area, and if there was some ground available for development and someone wanted to put in a significantly sized subdivision, they frequently would ' not buy near a business. They wanted to stay back and have some space between them or they just wouldn't buy it at all. As a result they could wind up with some property sitting there that isn't occupied for a number of years and he felt that changing this to something like businesses or professional use right now was absolutely the wrong thing to do looking downstream as to what the land potential has. Chairperson Campbell asked if Mr. Baxley wished to offer rebuttal comments. Mr. Baxley said it was a land use issue and was a difficult decision. The residents have legitimate concerns and he would abide by the Commission's decision. Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Finerty commended everyone for taking such an interest in their community. That was what it took to get things done. In her view there was no compelling reason to change the zone, but there was a compelling reason not to change the zone and it was the residents' interest and dedication to their community. She was opposed to the project. 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 `ow Commissioner Jonathan informed the audience that they were not misled by Kaufman and Broad or by the City with regard to the General Plan or to the zoning. If nothing else, they have learned through this process that any property owner is entitled to ask for a change of zone and that is within their rights. There were no ulterior motives here or intentional misleading of anyone. It was just a normal part of the process. He wanted to thank everyone for showing up, including the applicant. He knew Mr. Baxley was fighting an uphill battle and it took some courage for him to be at the meeting and he appreciated that as well. The isolated use of the property for office professional had it come in before anything else would have made some sense. He could see where it could have been a central location particularly for medical use with proximity to some of the major medical centers and could be justified. However, it didn't come in first and when it comes in second and there are already existing uses, then they did have to listen to the people that were there first. The arguments he heard against the change of zone were very compelling to him. He did not come here tonight with a decision in his mind. He wanted to hear what people had to say and their reasons for either being in favor of opposition. He had been persuaded by the residents today. They were there looking for a residential type of environment and he thought `.. an office professional use would threaten that environment. He was also opposed to the change of zone. Commissioner Fernandez also thanked everyone for being at the meeting. He said this was the kind of support the Commission needed to take action and do what they have to do as Planning Commissioners. Like one resident said, what would happen if they built a Circle K there. First of all, individuals could apply for certain permits and it was the Commission's job to listen to the community. Like Mr. Spolinski said, it was about being happy and having happy faces and that was what the city of Palm Desert was all about, about family. He felt a project like the one proposed should be located on Washington Street, Highway 1 1 1 , or Fred Waring and that was where they wanted it. Therefore, he was against the project. Chairperson Campbell concurred with the other commissioners. She felt the area was zoned appropriately. Mr. Baxley interrupted and respectfully requested the withdrawal of their application. 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 t Mr. Drell stated that the commission's action was complete and there was no reason for any further debate. Commissioner Jonathan informed the audience that if they had a chance to get to know Mr. Baxley, he was a good neighbor to have and he appreciated him being at the meeting. Action: None. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. UPDATE ON STATUS OF THE PALM DESERT TOWN CENTER REMODEL PROJECT Mr. Drell indicated that his comments under Summary of Council Action described what had occurred since the last Planning Commission meeting. Action: None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) B. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) E. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (August 26, 1998) Chairperson Campbell indicated they discussed allowing RV's to be parked in front yards or side yards. They actually discussed an ordinance to prohibit parking or storing anywhere in a residential area. Staff consulted with the Emerald RV Park and they had quite a few wild 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 spaces that cost between $40 to $75 a month to store the vehicles. At the next meeting they wanted to have some of the RV owners attend their meeting so that they could give them some insight about what they really need or if they could go ahead and tell them more about them. They would be having that meeting in October. Commissioner Jonathan requested that ZORC also look at the possibility of modifying the ordinance so that an appeal by a homeowner did not have to come before the Planning Commission, but could maybe go through staff. He requested that ZORC advise them of the best way. Chairperson Campbell stated that they were trying to do away with it so that it didn't come before the Commission at all. They would prohibit it. Commissioner Jonathan suggested perhaps an ad hoc committee like Rent Review. Chairperson Campbell said they also discussed some areas like new construction of homes, if when someone buys a home they would know that the home right next door to them would be allowed to have an RV in their yard and that would be difficult to do. Also, she felt that if they could afford to have an RV they could afford to pay $40 a month to store it. Commissioner Jonathan said if none were going to be allowed that would be academic, but if RV storage was going to be allowed under certain circumstances, then they would be facing exception requests. If that was going to continue, he would like ZORC to look at an alternative appeal process that didn't come to Planning Commission. He felt that was a misuse of this particular resource. Chairperson Campbell said they discussed if there was enough room to park an RV in the side yard, but noted the neighbor would still be looking at the RV. Mr. Drell noted that a fundamental problem was that they have ten foot RV's and six foot walls. Chairperson Campbell said they discussed the ones that compressed until they were flat. X1. COMMENTS Commissioner Finerty announced that she would be on vacation and would miss the next meeting. She requested that Commissioner Beaty be notified if there was a Desert Willow meeting and indicated that Chairperson Campbell was the alternate. rr.. 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 .n/ XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Chairperson Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. The meeting was adjourned at 8:23 p.m. PHILIP DRELL Secret2g ._ ATTEST: )-21 SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson City of Palm Desert, California /tm x 22