Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0906 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY - SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Tschopp called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Lopez led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Dave Tschopp, Chairperson Jim Lopez, Vice Chairperson Sonia Campbell Cindy Finerty ••• Sabby Jonathan Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Tony Bagato, Assistant Planner Ryan Stendell, Assistant Planner Phil Joy, Associate Transportation Planner Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Request for consideration of the August 16, 2005 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the August 16, 2005 meeting minutes. Motion carried 4-0- 0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained). MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6. 2005 No V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent August 25, 2005 City Council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 05-01 -STONEBRIDGE DEVELOPMENT, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to adjust lot lines for Lots 57 and 58 within Tract 29468 located within the Stonebridge Development, more particularly described as APN 626-140-046 (105 Romanza Lane). Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. Vlll. 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 Nos. GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-02, PP 05-12 and PM 33837 - TAYLOR WOODROW, INC., Applicant Request for recommendation to the City Council to approve a general plan amendment, change of zone, precise plan of design, parcel map and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for an 810-unit residential project (660 condominium units and 150 apartment units) on 79.6 acres at the northeast corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Gerald Ford Drive, 76-000 Frank Sinatra Drive (the existing Emerald Desert RV Park property). r 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 ... Mr. Drell explained that staff was recommending continuance on the request of the applicant, partly at the suggestion of the Commission to see a video presentation of similar projects. He said they actually hired a professional videographer to put one together. Also, there were some other concerns raised by staff that they were addressing. The request was for a continuance to October 18, 2005. Chairperson Tschopp opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. There was no response. Chairperson Tschopp asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MR. RONALD BENHAM, 38-350 Sweetwater in Palm Desert, addressed the Commission. He stated that they were right around the corner from this development and it was a very high density development. He said a number of them were concerned about what it would mean to the neighborhood around there. They weren't sent any notices that this was even under consideration until maybe two or three people in their development got this notice. So they came to see if they could get a better understanding of what it is and what it would really mean to them. They all have homes in there, valuable ..► homes. They have traffic issues already on Eldorado and now if they dump 800 cars to 1,600 cars on the street they will have some real problems. So they were here to see if they could get more information on this project. Mr. Drell stated that if they would come by the office tomorrow staff would share the information they currently have, although the applicant was putting together a more illustrative presentation. He said staff could probably give him a CD when it's available. Mr. Smith said that if there were people present tonight, he could meet with them in another room. He brought plans with him, so if people wanted to have an early look at it, he was prepared to go over it with people in the Community Services Conference Room. Chairperson Tschopp reiterated for the audience that the applicant requested an extension, so if people had questions, Mr. Smith offered to meet with them privately to show them what staff had preliminarily and then the case would actually be heard on October 18 if that was the Commission's action. ... 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 .r MR. DON PLOTE, 75-820 McLachlan Circle in Avondale addressed the Commission. He noted that it said on the legal notice that it was published in the Desert Sun on August 25, but he kept the newspaper of August 25 and he couldn't find it. He couldn't find that it was ever published in the Desert Sun. The only thing they ever found was a few individuals in Avondale who received this flyer/notice. He asked if someone could show him that it was published; he would be happy to see it. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that might be something that Mr. Smith could address. He asked Mr. Drell if they had the homeowner's association on the mailing list for the public notice purposes. Mr. Drell said typically, since there was usually common property within the 300 feet. Commissioner Jonathan asked Mr. Plote to confirm with Mr. Smith that the association itself was on the mailing list, then they could also distribute the notice to anyone that was greater than 300 feet away. Mr. Drell also noted that staff was going to renotice for the October meeting. Mr. Plote said he appreciated it and thanked Commissioner Jonathan. ..r Chairperson Tschopp said it might also behoove staff to also make sure it was published on that date and if it wasn't, find out the reason. MS. BETTY SCHAEFFER, 38-330 Tandika, addressed the Commission. She stated that she was happy they would get more information on this, but she had two things she wanted to bring up. One general and one very specific. In general, they've watched the growth of the Coachella Valley for 30 years and felt very fortunate to live where they do. They were very convinced that Palm Desert is the most forward looking and thoughtfully planned community here. And they were very pleased to see that the zoning commission had come up with a general plan, which she recalled was published in the paper, and it seemed the proper way to do this. Where they have lived before, she said she knew that if a community had a thoughtfully worked out plan and started destroying bits of it every time a developer comes in, it is a disaster in the end. So she would certainly want this to be looked at very carefully in that regard. The second thing was a specific thing that was touched on by the gentleman that spoke and that is they are delighted that the university 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6. 2005 two is part of Palm Desert. It is a great addition to the community, but the university plus all the development that is planned now to the west would create quite a lot of traffic, and if they add 810 units immediately to the east of the university, that little area, which they drive a lot, was going to be quite impossible. And that had to be considered very specifically for that area. They were all happy to look at the plans. They got no notice of it and had to find out about this from a neighbor. Regardless of the details of the plan, they would like those two things kept in mind when it is considered. She thanked them. There was no one else wishing to speak. Chairperson Tschopp left the public hearing open noting that staff came forth with a recommendation to continue this to the meeting of October 18, 2005 and asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, by minute motion continuing Case Nos. GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-02, PP 05-12 and PM 33837 to October 18, 2005. Motion carried 5-0. r.. B. Case No. CUP 05-06 - HOLLY A. NELSON, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a massage establishment in a 2,800 square foot retail/ commercial suite located at 73-111 Country Club Drive, Suite B-1 and B-2. Mr. Stendell reviewed the staff report and recommended approval, subject to the conditions contained in the draft resolution. Commissioner Jonathan heard that the old Albertson's center under the C.B. Richard Ellis drawing as indicated was under negotiation. He asked if it really was under negotiation. Mr. Drell said it was either under negotiation or very close to contract with a specialty market. He said it would be smaller. They wouldn't take the entire square footage of Albertson's, but they should have a good announcement coming in the future. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 Commissioner Jonathan asked if the specialty market was in the nature of something they had heard about before. Mr. Drell said it was a different one, but one that they would recognize. Commissioner Lopez asked if that 47,000 square feet would be cut in half and used for some other purpose, or if it was all under this one potential owner. He was asking for clarification when staff said it would be a reduced sized, but partitioned. Mr. Drell said in the 45,000 square foot Albertson's space, the new market they hoped was coming in would only take 35,000 of it, so there would be another tenant of some sort which would take the balance of the Albertson's space. Commissioner Lopez noted that potentially that tenant could be a restaurant. Mr. Drell said staff didn't know. Once the new major tenant is back in and the center is back on its feet, then they could start re-evaluating like they normally do to see what the parking situation is there and determine the best mix. But right now any tenant in the center was potentially a positive thing since it is so desperate. But again, hopefully it would be back on its feet with a new store hopefully being in there by next fall. Commissioner Campbell said her question was also going to be regarding that, but the owner of the shopping center was aware that the restaurant won't be available for him because it was being taken away. Mr. Stendell stated that he did speak directly with the owner regarding that and his main concern was having enough to fill the one tenant space that had been vacated, the Philly Cheese Steak place. As long as he had enough to refill that space, he understood this would be deducted from that and staff would definitely give them an ample chance to review this. Commissioner Campbell noted that Papa Dan's was still there. Mr. Stendell concurred. Chairperson Tschopp asked if the owner was aware that this was a massage parlor that was going in and considered if it would be compatible with the proposed shopping center. Mr. Stendell said yes. Chairperson Tschopp opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MS. HOLLY NELSON, 37675 Peacock Circle in Rancho Mirage addressed the Commission. She said she was the applicant for the massage clinic. She said they don't call it a massage parlor, they call 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 it a massage clinic. She explained that she was in the travel industry for 25 years with United Airlines and after 2001 and all the things that happened, she decided to take a new turn and was looking for an opportunity and found this new idea. It grew out of Portland out of the health club industry. Their founder, John Leanesio, was in the health club industry and he took the basic membership model used in a health club and decided to apply it to massage. The three tenants they look for are professional, affordable and convenient. They hire nothing but licensed and insured massage therapists so they always have very professional persons and staff working in their clinics. It is affordable because of the membership model that makes it less expensive than a normal massage in a spa and they make it convenient in that they have a lot of massage therapy rooms, nine or ten massage therapy rooms, and they are open 88 hours a week. So there was lots of time available for working folks to come in after work, mothers, fathers, etc. She believed they were on the leading edge of revolutionizing this industry. What they were offering is people who normally get a massage for a treat when they are on vacation in a spa resort and they will now have the opportunity to have regular massages. They believed that regular massage has wonderful health and wellness benefits. For those who,have had massages, they knew exactly what she was speaking of. Those that hadn't, they could give her this permit and come on down and she would prove it to them. Also present were Alarea Giansante, the Director of Real Estate from Massage Envy Limited Corporate Headquarters in Phoenix, and her Regional Director, Chris Binkley, the Regional Director of the Inland Empire, so he's responsible for Riverside County and San Bernardino County and he came over from Murrietta. The corporation right now has 45 open clinics to date in 17 states and by the end of the year they would be at almost 100 open clinics. They have 148 franchises already awarded and they've only been in business four years. So it is just starting up and it's really booming and would be a great thing. She asked if they had any questions for her. Commissioner Lopez asked if the applicant read the conditions of approval and was satisfied with them. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 V Ms. Nelson said yes. Mr. Stendell clarified that Condition No. 3, to make it consistent with the staff report, limited the use to nine massage rooms. Ms. Nelson would like to have it changed to ten, which would be consistent with the numbers they were speaking about and would give her the flexibility to have that tenth room. So if Commission agreed, Condition No. 3 should be changed to reflect ten rooms. Commissioner Jonathan asked where the tenth therapy room would be located. Mr. Stendell noted that their site plan is a work in progress. The other rooms would get smaller. There was a revised site plan he could display if they wanted to look at it which actually showed 11 rooms, but they thought it was too much and backed down to ten. They would still retain the quiet room and all the amenities they needed to add for their facility. Chairperson Tschopp asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this matter. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Tschopp asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Finerty thought it was a great concept and knew the cost of massages elsewhere. She hoped it worked. Commissioner Campbell stated that if it looked like the pictures, this was very impressive compared to others that have previously been approved. She was in favor of approving it. There were no other comments and Chairperson Tschopp asked for a motion. Commissioner Campbell made the motion to approve with the amendment to Condition No. 3 to allow ten rooms. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2349, approving Case No. CUP 05-06, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carved 5-0. 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6 2005 C. Case No. PP 05-13 -SPYDER BUSINESS CENTER LLC, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design to allow the construction of five industrial office buildings totaling 68,198 square feet on a vacant parcel of land located at 73-770 Dinah Shore Drive. Commissioner Jonathan advised that he would be abstaining from this matter. He owned property farther than 500 feet from the subject property, but in an abundance of caution and to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, he would be abstaining from discussion and voting on this matter. He left the room. Mr. Stendell reviewed the staff report. He distributed a model and color board for the project and recommended approval of PP 05-13, subject to the conditions as outlined in the draft resolution. Commissioner Campbell noted that in the response from the Riverside County Fire Department, it said that building four lacks access and a ,r, breezeway, or some kind of access was needed to meet the access code. She asked for clarification. Mr. Stendell explained that the revised plan has the breezeway about halfway through for buildings four and five, so that condition was already met. The initial plan didn't include them. Commissioner Lopez asked if there was any consideration to have a three- way stop at that intersection at the entrance on Dinah Shore. Mr. Stendell said there had been some talk about it, but didn't know how much was with the Public Works Department. Their contention was there was to be no left- hand turn out of there due to the fact that Council discussed that and they didn't want left-hand turns coming out of projects. However, since there is an intersection there, it might make some sense. But that would be something that the Public Works Department would want to look into. Mr. Drell indicated that when all the improvements are in, Public Works could study the traffic patterns as they develop and if it is warranted, they could make adjustments. Looking at the development going on right now and at this particular project, Commissioner Lopez asked if there was a time line to evaluate the traffic to assess the need for a stop sign or stop light. Mr. Drell said they would observe and count cars. It depended on volume. Typically they haven't moved to limit those sorts of movements until there are six lanes and very tow 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 high volumes. They didn't know who would be using this and wanted to see how it would be used. They start looking at the volumes when they reach a certain ratio to capacity and start making those decisions. Commissioner Lopez asked if there was an anticipated speed limit. Mr. Drell thought 35 or 45 mph. Mr. Joy said that as Dinah Shore Drive in that area develops, they would have traffic signals at Gateway Drive west of this project and also at 35th Avenue, a little to the east of it. Mr. Drell said there would be things that would inherently create breaks in the flow. There was a reticence to put in traffic control devices when they aren't necessary because when people are forced to stop when there's absolutely no traffic there, it tends to reduce the legitimacy. They want to only have to do it when it is necessary. Commissioner Lopez said that having driven that area a couple of times, he was concerned that there is the opportunity for left turns while other parcels remain vacant. There being no other questions for staff, Chairperson Tschopp opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. .r MR. JIM SUMMERS, 471 Old Newport Boulevard in Newport Beach addressed the Commission. He stated that he was present to answer any questions. He said they were just discussing the left-turn out. They were given a condition of approximately one to two years. The only thing he would suggest would be to add "as needed" instead of putting a time frame on it. And if it would help anyone, they would have no problem putting a stop sign exiting their property, but they probably wouldn't need it for a while until more buildings get built along there. But they would have no problem putting that on there if that would help. He asked for any questions. Chairperson Tschopp asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project. MR. TOM NOBLE, 74-075 El Paseo, Suite A-3, addressed the Commission. He said he really liked the project and it really fit in with what they planned in the project. He and his partners developed the overall project and sold the property to Mr. Summers, so they were interested in what went on in the overall development. He liked the r 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6. 2005 project and said it was what they envisioned. Specifically, he was concerned about Public Works Condition No. 18 when he saw it. It was pretty much as Mr. Summers said. He didn't think the approximately one to two year designation was really called for. It seemed to him that there might be a need to restrict that left-turn at some time, but there may not be. With the types of uses they have, he didn't think they would generate a lot of traffic and didn't think this street would be loaded up to a point where restricting left-turns was going to be necessary for a long, long time, if ever. So he would suggest possibly rewording it to say in the future as may be needed. Mr. Drell stated that he didn't know why this was a condition on this project at all. This is a public street. The City could modify a public street whenever it wants. It should not be a condition on this project. In theory, if there was a change, they would have to have another hearing. But as a public street, since the applicant wasn't being required to do the work, it wasn't a requirement on the project, and he didn't see why it was a condition because it wasn't relevant to this project. It could be a comment in. a letter to the applicant saying that this might happen in the future, but it was not a low condition of the project, so he wasn't sure why it was even included. Mr. Joy thought that in the original comments, this was not a condition, but part of other comments. Something to make the applicant aware that this could take place. Mr. Drell concurred. It is a potential forewarning, but should be deleted and shown on the record that the applicant is aware of the potential, in the future, of the left turn being restricted. Mr. Noble said he was concerned about the traffic flow through the whole project. He thought Mr. Drell said it much better and agreed with his comments. He thanked them. Chairperson Tschopp closed the public hearing and asked for Commission comments. Action: Commissioner Campbell stated that she would move for approval. She liked the architecture and colors. Seeing the buildings going up from the freeway, she thought they were outstanding and this would be one of them. She moved for approval removing Public Works Condition No. 18. Commissioner Finerty seconded the motion. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6. 2005 Commissioner Lopez concurred. He thought the project would fit perfectly into what was to be developed into that area and didn't have a problem with Condition No. 18. He thought there needed to be some type of monitoring of traffic at that intersection in the future, but would leave it up to Public Works. Chairperson Tschopp was very much in favor of the project, but shared Commissioner Lopez's concerns on the number of cars coming out from the development needing to go out onto Spyder Circle to make a U-turn which seemed to be very ineffectual as far as that whole drive and how it would develop in the future, but he was in favor of the project. He was trusting Public Works to do their job on maintaining the free flow of traffic on the street. He noted that a motion was made and seconded and called for the vote. Motion carried 4-0-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained). It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2350, approving Case No. PP 05-13, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 4-0-0- 1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained.) moo COMMISSIONER JONATHAN REJOINED THE MEETING. Mr. Summers came forward and said he just wanted to thank staff. He said they were very helpful in getting this done for them. D. Case No. GPA 05-01 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to the City's General Plan Land Use Element to remove Office Professional (C-OP) from 14 lots on the west side of Portola Avenue between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza Way. Mr. Bagato read the staff report. He noted that letters were received from Ming Lowe, Donald Smith, Mr. and Mrs. Gustavo Diaz, Doug and Anne Walker, Ramona and Gary Fletcher, Nina and Rodney McDonald, Marge and George Ezmerlian, Cecile and Art Felix, and Kammie Tavares. He said that most of the letters addressed concerns that had been raised in the past. A few of the neighbors were actually okay with Office Professional, but were 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 opposed to any commercial development, and expressed concerns with impacts into the adjacent streets. Commissioner Jonathan congratulated Mr. Bagato on a thorough and comprehensive report. He said it was actually quite good. He did have a couple of questions. The ultimate staff recommendation was to recommend to City Council for them to reaffirm the current Office Professional/Medium Density land use designation and initiate a change of zone from R-1 to Office Professional / R-2. He asked if Mr. Bagato could provide clarification. If the land use designation included a medium density residential component, he asked why the zoning would be an R-2 designation for residential. Mr. Bagato explained that the R-1 wouldn't permit the density that Medium Density would allow. Commissioner Jonathan concluded that the R-2 would allow the Medium Density 4-10 units per acre. Mr. Bagato concurred. Regarding the O.P. designation that staff was recommending for Portola, Commissioner Jonathan asked if it was similar to the Palma Village Plan which was cited in the staff report in that it would allow the adjacent lots to be used for parking in conjunction with office professional. Mr. Bagato said no. On Fred Waring and on Monterey, Commissioner Jonathan noted that has proven to be very effective in terms of a buffer. That includes a building, parking, a six-foot wall, and then 20 feet of landscaping, and then residential. It was kind of a natural buffer that declines in intensity. He asked if that was considered as part of the staff recommendation. Mr. Bagato said that in this area they were only looking at smaller scale office buildings when the discussion took place. They were really just trying to address the properties on Portola and that was not looked at. Commissioner Lopez noted that one of the considerations was open space and asked for a little more information as to what that would look like. He asked if it would be similar to Fred Waring as far as setbacks to the wall, the height of the wall, etc. Mr. Bagato explained that the lots on Fred Waring varied from 35 to 45 feet after the street was widened, so the lots were pretty narrow and limited the amount of development that could be done there in the future. On these lots after the widening there would be somewhere between 70 to 140 feet left, which provided significant land for development. So the walls would be much further back from the street and there would be more landscaping. However, given the location next to a major thoroughfare, vow 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6. 2005 staff didn't believe that this kind of park would be compatible for recreational use such as basketball facilities. It wasn't large enough for that. They also didn't want to have children necessarily playing these kinds of activities next to Portola. So it would be similar to Baja Park, but twice the size, and the wall would probably be eight feet, which was typical for sound walls. He didn't know if they could go higher. But the wall would be farther back from the street and the landscaping increased. There were no potential design ideas yet. Depending on what happened here, there could be in the future. Chairperson Tschopp asked if it was Public Works' opinion that the widening of the street would have to be done at some point in time given the volume of traffic increasing. Mr. Bagato said their opinion is they would like to do it right now if they could, whether the road width increased or not. That was what the engineers told him. Chairperson Tschopp asked about the timing for something like this. Mr. Bagato said it wasn't within the five-year time frame, but this conceptual plan was kind of what they were going with to hopefully schedule it down the road, but he didn't know the timing of the widening. He just knew it was not within the five-year planning phase, but realistically, if they had the means and the ability to do it, they would love to do it now. ..r Chairperson Tschopp indicated that some of the drawings Mr. Bagato gave them showed what the road would look like after widening, and it pretty much eliminated some of the homes and it took out a decent portion of everyone elses lots, and so forth. He asked if Mr. Bagato could expand on that. If nothing was done, these people were going to be impacted tremendously. He assumed nothing being done was not an option, something had to be done, so how else would they go about it if the street wasn't widened? Mr. Bagato asked for him to repeat his question. Chairperson Tschopp noted that the drawings showed that a significant portion of people's property would be taken. Mr. Bagato said that was correct. Chairperson Tschopp said it also showed most of the homes along that stretch being impacted severely. Given that the street, in the opinion of Public Works and staff that it has to be widened at some point in time, he asked what the alternative would be if they left it status quo. Mr. Bagato said that the only alternative if it was never widened was to leave it as it is, but traffic would continue to increase either way, which would impact the properties. Mr. Drell indicated that there were four lanes now and it became a priority issue. In reality the greater problem was north of Fred Waring. No 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 Basically it is an arterial up until Fred Waring, so the goal would be six lanes up to that point. Since they didn't think they would ever get more than four lanes south, there had to be ways to get people right and left. So in that diagram, the bigger problem is the free right they put in because all it takes is two cars stopped at the signal and it didn't work. So in terms of the higher priority, it was getting that southbound right to work to improve the efficiency of that intersection. Mr. Drell thought the issue south of Fred Waring was that although it's substandard and isn't ideal, they could probably live with it. Again, he thought what happened on Fred Waring was a good example. They had discussions like this in the early 1990's for Fred Waring trying to think how to solve that problem. And then they put it off for ten years and they eventually had to bite the bullet and did what they had to do. Kind of what was inherent in the general plan process was not to look two years or five years down the road, but to look to the end game and say okay, if they were going to encourage people to invest in this part of the city, they needed to tell them what the long-term goal is. Again, he thought it was a mistake what happened to those people on Fred Waring over those ten years. They were left in limbo not knowing. There was this thing hanging over their heads, not knowing when it would fall. So that was the purpose of the general plan, to come up with a land use and it wouldn't matter if it fell or not. If the land use was compatible with what they project today and 20 years from now, then let the market decide when the change should occur, which is like what they did on Fred Waring west of San Pablo. They said let the market decide when the residential should change to office, but unless they allow for office, the market couldn't operate. Back to the traffic issue, they could probably limp along with what they have their right now. In ten years they might think differently. Chairperson Tschopp opened the public hearing. He noted that he had Request to Speak cards, some of which he believed were to speak toward an earlier issue. He said he would go through the cards first and if he missed anyone, he would ask for anyone else who wished to speak to step forward. He asked for anyone who wished to speak in FAVOR to step forward. Mr. Drell said there was such a range of options that anyone could probably talk. Chairperson Tschopp noted that there were blue cards that were very much in opposition. Mr. Drell said opposition to what. The item on the agenda is the elimination of the O.P. designation. They were not recommending it, but that was the item on the agenda. So favoring the elimination of the O.P. on ..r 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 the agenda, they were speaking in favor of the agenda item. Just because staff had a disagreement, that didn't change what the agenda item is. Chairperson Tschopp thanked him for clarifying that. He said what they would do is read the blue cards and start with those people first and then everyone else would be invited to speak. Beginning with the first name, he invited Mr. Angle to speak. MR. THOMAS ANGLE, 44-454 San Jose Street, addressed the Commission. He said that the back of his property faces the back of the property that is on Portola. His back bedroom is 12 feet from the fence. He has a swimming pool that extends there which is on that property. He has a bathroom which is next to the master bedroom which has a window facing that property. If they were to allow buildings, commercial buildings, 18 feet tall that would be on the street looking toward his house, the back of his house and all that property would be open to view by anybody that would be in those buildings. Also, the traffic coming in in the morning or traffic going out in the evening would be like him living next to a parking lot. It would go on .. and on and on. When he bought that property in 1977, the house was already built. He understood it was started in 1946 and finished in 1950. He had no conception or wasn't given any hint that there would be high-rise office buildings overlooking his property. If they allow that, according to the experts he talked to and he has a half-acre piece, the value of his property would be lessened by between $300,000 and $400,000. That was something to consider. So what he was asking of them was to not allow office buildings that would be looking back into his property. Keep them single story just like his house. Any taller and he's living next to a parking lot. He thanked them. MS. MING C. LOWE stated that she owns the corner of Portola and Catalina at 73-985 Catalina Way. She said they just did all of this with City Council and didn't quite understand what they were up to doing it again. She had pictures on a board that she made up for the last time to show their neighborhood. It is a historical neighborhood in Palm Desert, it's a low profile neighborhood and it's flanked by schools at either end. A lot of the traffic was from parents picking up their children from school. She noticed on Fairway, and a little parallel i 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6. 2005 low street to Portola, that it was blocked off so that people couldn't go around faster to go up the street and she noticed that Fairway has been slowed way down. So her suggestion would be some way to leave things the way they are but slow it down. The vacant property that the City owns, she didn't see why it would cost millions of dollars to put in a couple of desert rocks and a couple of plants and make a nice little path for people to kind of sit and take it easy and still have a neighborhood feeling and a feeling of Palm Desert when they are driving up and down the street. She showed the colored map that was attached to her first letter. She didn't know if they were given copies. Chairperson Tschopp confirmed that they received her letter with the attachment. Ms. Lowe said at that time the issue was McFadden's building. But this was the same issue. It is all residential. She didn't understand the point of putting in offices in the middle of a neighborhood. The other thing is how many cars come in and out. The count didn't matter. There were children walking up and down the street and people walking up and down the street. She asked if they had a cross walk person standing at each driveway for each of these office professionals for children and the few cars that were coming in and out. She said she thought there was a requirement for an eight-car parking lot or a certain amount of parking for each office professional. So they weren't just talking about buildings, but parking lots. That wasn't a neighborhood thing and at night these things are unattended and she didn't think parking lots had a very good reputation for what goes on in them. But her thought was to keep in mind that there are schools on either end of Portola. The City has really helped certain neighborhoods by slowing them down and putting signs up like Fairway, no through traffic, and she didn't know why they would start in the middle of a neighborhood with office buildings here. It didn't make sense. Also, with the plan of street widening, her property is on a corner, so she would lose her front yard and her back yard and what's left? And if they take away all the neighborhoods, what would they have? Some kind of strip malls or something like that? She was really really against 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 5 j it and didn't know what the point was. She asked if it was revenue for the two vacant lots that the City owns. Would the City like office professional so they could build some office buildings and get some revenue from those two vacant lots they own? She didn't understand their motivation for starting in the middle of a neighborhood. She noted the City's lots were sort of in the middle between De Anza and Fred Waring, right in the middle. They weren't talking about doing this down here where they said would connect to the freeway. She counted houses and stopped counting, but from Fred Waring down there are houses and people living there. Another thing was that houses were being built. Recently. McFadden's property was just bought and the people were very happy and they were moving their daughter into this house. They didn't have a problem buying it and were calling it their hacienda and were looking forward to a nice future there. Another house was being built just a little further up. So that was her opinion. MR. DOUG WALKER addressed the Commission. He said he and his l wife own property at 44-326 San Jose Avenue. He really thought he .. was coming here this evening to commend the Planning Commission members and the City Council for following up on some previous decisions, both at the Commission level and at the City Council meeting, one of them back in February with a recommendation to go back to R-1. Hopefully he would still be able to feel that way at the end of this session this evening. He said he and his wife wrote a letter and the Commission would probably be able to see that they wrote it before they saw the agenda. What they saw was a legal notice of the meeting indicating there would be a public hearing to consider the amendment to the plan to remove office professional from the lots and they assumed return of those to the R-1 designation. So the letter they wrote was based on the legal notice they received and there was no indication in that notice that there had been staff recommendations developed that somehow ran totally counter to this proposal. He was more then a bit concerned and disappointed that staff didn't somewhere along the line try to notify and involve some of the concerned citizens that live in the area who have been to previous meetings and who he thought had in a very professional fashion responded to the proposals and aw 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 provided input to both Planning Commission and City Council. But he looked at the agenda and said wow, what a change from what they thought was being recommended. In the past, as he thought had already been mentioned, Planning Commission and the City Council both voted unanimously against Mr. McFadden's requests and proposal for office professional building to be sited on Portola and Catalina. And then there was another proposal from the Fords that was rejected by the City Council. He didn't recall what the vote and recommendation was at the Planning Commission. But during meetings at both the Planning Commission and City Council, he thought people heard a number of comments and concerns that were expressed by residents of the Palma Village area about reasons and rationale for maintaining the R-1 designation in that location. They included a number of issues, and he didn't want to go back through all of those, but certainly there was concern about high density. Maybe he wasn't well informed in terms of engineering and traffic flow, but it seemed to him that if there was already a traffic problem, and there would be a growing traffic problem on Portola, how would that help if they added office professional or medium density residences which would cause increased need for ingress and egress of vehicles rather than going the other direction and reducing the problem? They mentioned a number of traffic issues, including child safety in terms of getting out of the Palma Village area and moving down Portola. It would seem that the increase in traffic and driveways would increase some risks and problems there. There were discussions of building height and he thought this group, thank you, agreed that two- story buildings, at least at prior meetings, was something that was really not fitting with the current residential nature of that neighborhood. And then, as had already been explained very nicely, there were privacy issues for folks that have property immediately behind the homes on Portola and there were other issues. As he recalled looking back at a copy of the agenda from February 10, at that time the City Council voted to direct the staff to initiate a general plan amendment that would remove the office professional land use on Portola as indicated on the legal notice and on the 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6. 2005 .r agenda. That was approved, he believed 4-1, and he was hoping they could truly trust what has happened at previous meetings to be continued by both the Planning Commission, as well as the City Council. The suggestion that had already been made, and he didn't know what the overall cost factor would be, but where there is open space, this was certainly not the first time this idea had come up to use in that area. If there needed to be a widening of Portola, use that space or the open space that exists for some type of park area that people can use for walking and access and be away from the immediate curb by the street. If Portola was widened, where would there be room for office professional or two-story buildings without having them immediately in their back yards? That was already an issue and it would be an increased issue if the staffs recommendations were followed. He couldn't do anything other than just to strongly urge this Commission to proceed in line with their previous actions and the previous City Council actions and approve the recommendation to make the area along Portola, Fred Waring to De Anza, officially R-1. He said he appreciated their consideration. MRS.ANNE WALKER, 74-539 Monte Verde Way, said they've owned the property on San Jose since being built in 1975. They were the original owners. It's right in back of the comer of Portola and Catalina. She couldn't believe they were here. She said it seemed like they have been fighting this battle and fighting this battle and once they thought they had resolution, here it came again. She disagreed with Mr. Bagato about the property values decreasing. If they did comps with the real estate agent, they would find that they have continued to increase. Mr. McFadden, when they denied his O.P. zoning, wanted to build his two-story building behind them at the comer of Catalina and Portola. He was able to sell that property as an R-1 and if they would drive by that property, those people are putting a lot of money into it and it was really looking good. It was painted, there were bushes, they started a wall, and they have a fancy mail box. Those properties aren't going down hill, they are going up hill. He sold his property that he had for less than a year and made a big profit. He I �■II 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 env made a profit selling it as R-1 on Portola. So some of those assumptions are incorrect. She was worried about the two-story aspect that Mr. Angle also mentioned because her daughter and son-in-law live in that home. They just spent $50,000 redoing that home they own on San Jose and they didn't want people looking in the backyard. That would ruin the whole single family dwelling atmosphere. So she was really against two-story, whatever use it was. She said she would like some certainty. The Planning Commission denied Mr. McFadden his O.P. zoning. It went to the City Council and they unanimously denied that zoning and that building. The same thing happened with the Fords. Their property on Portola, even though the City Council said it was a beautiful property, said it couldn't be a better fit for a single family look, but they denied unanimously changing the zoning from R-1 to O.P. If she could read from the minutes from the February 10 City Council meeting, the City Council voted 4-1 to "initiate proceedings for a general plan amendment removing the Office Professional land use on Portola Avenue between Fred Waring and De Anza Way." They asked the Planning Commission to remove that. That is what the City Council asked of them and they would only hope that the Planning Commission would follow their lead. They would really appreciate it. She thanked them. Chairperson Tschopp asked if anyone else wished to speak regarding this matter. MS. JEAN MARTIN, 44-276 San Jose Avenue in Palm Desert, addressed the Commission. She said they have been working on this since 1999 opposing any change of zoning in that area. She has lived in that house since 1960. She raised her son there, had her mother with her, etc., as many residents did. And some of their kids now own the property and are raising their children. This has always been family oriented and they wanted to keep it that way. She thanked them. MS. RAMONA FLETCHER, 73-969 Olive Court in Palm Desert, said that they came tonight to thank them very much for hearing them one more time and bringing this back to R-1, as it has been since the very 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 .r beginning. She listened to the report tonight, as the Commission did. She hoped they had her letter and read it because she was fortunate enough to have had the staff report in her hands and addressed it. She was surprised to find that Mr. Bagato had drawn up some plans of homes. She didn't recognize that as being what they were talking about here. This is an established neighborhood. People have homes they have put money into, they are proud of it and there is no blight, except there are a couple of empty lots that the City owns and there was a home right next to that that has been allowed to deteriorate because they wanted to build an office professional. This overlay they are talking about is just that. It is an overlay. During the time they went through all those hearings for the general plan, different things, different people brought it up. Office Professional was one, R-1 was one, Open Space was another. Now they have all this there and they are fighting over essentially two empty lots and one place next to it. The rest of these places are owned, they are established, and people live there. They are not wanting anyone to take all these homes, demolish them, and put up anything else. These are homes and pride is taken in them. ..d Ms. Fletcher said they thoroughly approve removing any office professional overlay from this and she hoped that all of them would agree and support what they have worked for all this time. She asked if there were any questions from her letter. Many of her neighbors also signed it. Some couldn't be here because of vacation and they were all out having a good time. As soon as they got out of the meeting tonight, she hoped to be doing the same thing. So if they had any questions, she was present to answer them. If not, she asked them to please support the removal of the overlay. She thanked them. MR. JOHN ARIANO, 44-565 San Jose Avenue in Palm Desert, addressed the Commission. He said he received an incredible amount of information this evening. First and foremost he was disappointed that he has been completely out of the loop. He hasn't received any mailings for any of this. He was informed by a neighbor and he called City Hall and requested that he get a mailing of tonight's hearing. So there was a lot of information to digest this evening. j 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 However, he had a couple of opinions. He wasn't completely opposed to office professional buildings. He has seen the work that has been done on Fred Waring. The architecture was beautiful and the landscaping was beautiful. He wasn't in favor of two-story buildings. Single story he would be. When they look at some of the homes between Fred Waring and De Anza on Portola, they are in need of repair and landscaping. One thing he did learn by calling the office was that the empty lots that are owned are planned for apartment complexes, single-story apartment complexes. Whether or not that was true he had no idea. If those empty lots are going to be providing single family housing units, a single family home, that was great, but if they were going to be zoned for apartment buildings that would create more noise and more traffic then a single-story office professional building. So maybe he and everyone else in this room needed more specifics as to what the plans are for those empty lots that currently exist and the design. He thanked them. MR. PAUL BOWIE, 71-774 Chuckawalla in Palm Desert, stated that he owns the property at 44-401 Portola. He was here in a state of shock. He, like other people who made comments and he supported everything the others had said, he viewed this as almost an attempt to get a sell out of the owners. Things have been said about letting the market dictate what to do,which meant building bigger streets and it was said tonight that if Public Works had its way, they would build six lanes today. That has been evident for a long time. They could go back and read the letter he filed about six lanes on Portola and he has stated in writing that Public Works needs to reject and kill any four lanes. He didn't hear any planning. All he heard was more: more lanes, more multi-family, more this and more everything. That wasn't planning. This was simply running wild. In the very beginning when the office professional came up, particularly in the case of Fords, he didn't take a position either way. That property is contiguous to his property. It looked like it was going to be a nice idea. The plans looked okay, but of course it was turned down. He was obviously naive. It looked like it was going to be a nice, easy deal where places could be constructed for office and everyone could get along and so forth. But now he came here tonight and found 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 out like other folks that they were looking at two-stories, multi-family and other stuff like that. Absolutely not. He hears this business from staff that people let their property run down. That is false. It has been stated otherwise tonight. Properties have been upgraded. He has upgraded his property. He put thousands of dollars into it. It is under lease and it is well maintained. He did this out of respect for the city and for the residents nearby. Other things that came to mind tonight, he didn't make any notes, but was simply reacting to what has been said by staff and the staff keeps picking at this. This is a residential area and has been a residential area since the beginning of time. It used to be a grapefruit grove and some of those properties, including his, still have the original grapefruit trees from the old ranch. All he could say in frustration is the City wants to keep picking away at this issue. A few houses down there where people are getting along, are trying to do things and make it, and are making improvements. He didn't want to be the target of a sell out of some kind of a deal. He has had a realtor chasing him around for the last year wanting him to sell his property at, quite frankly, a very substantial price. Now he starts to say to coo himself, what is going on? Are they going to cobble together lots here and put in two-story and have multi-family and let it be done like that? He rejected that. He respects the people down there and asked this Commission to maintain the intent of residential for the 14 lots that were under discussion tonight. He thanked them. MR. ANTHONY PITEL, 44-399 Lingle Lane in Palm Desert, addressed the Commission. Referring to the exhibit, he said it is all homes. Continuing all the way down Portola it is all homes. And continuing up Portola just to 111 there are businesses, but farther up Portola there are homes that are gated communities or homes. Everywhere around there are homes except for that little island right there. He asked why they would want to put in businesses right in the middle of a neighborhood. That was ridiculous. Where his property is he wasn't effected by people looking over into his property or anything else, but he lives in that neighborhood. Probably longer than these old folks. He has lived there 34 years. He bought the property from his parents. He has two lots there. So he intended to live there another 34 years or 50 more years. His kids walk down that street, around Catalina, onto his private street (Lingle Lane), and they go into their 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 home. That was a bad place to put offices. There are homes that abut Portola on Santa Rosa and then there are all condos. It is a neighborhood. It wasn't the same as Fred Waring. It wasn't the same as Monterey. Those go through and they are all businesses. All up Portola it is residential. They need to put a park in there. That is the heart of Palm Desert. He has lived there 34 years. Not part time, not leasing his property, 34 straight years he has lived on that street and he would live there many more years. It is a bad decision, so he supported not putting in Office Professional. He thanked them. Chairperson Tschopp closed the public hearing and for Commission comments. Commissioner Finerty told the audience that she gets it and hears what they are saying. She didn't know why they were going through this all over again. They went through it with the General Plan and she listened to them over and over again. She heard loud and clear through the McFadden project and the Ford project that they don't want office professional. They understand, or at least she did, that they want to protect the integrity of their neighborhood and she supported that. She would be inclined to change it only to Open Space if that was what was acceptable. Office Professional should not be and multi-family apartment complexes were also not what it should be. So she would not be in support of what staff recommended. Commissioner Campbell worked with the General Plan also and said they have been through this before. She was not in favor of the multi-story apartments and they really didn't need to tear down all of those homes and put more residential homes there. She was in favor of Office Professional, but not the two-story kind,just like a regular home would be or have it Open Space. Commissioner Jonathan concurred, but he wanted to explain why. He was sitting there really listening to them, and they are good people and are long time residents of the city, and they really struck a chord with him and he empathized with their concerns. If he was living in their neighborhood, he would have the exact same concerns. He wanted to tell them a couple of things. Number one, this kind of use of space along major roads does work. It wasn't the worst thing that was running through their minds. There are places in the city where it works. He 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6 2005 thought on Portola in their neighborhood it could work because they weren't talking about tall buildings. They weren't talking about a second story that would look into their back yards. They were talking about structures that would look like homes. There were good examples on Deep Canyon if they would take time to drive and look at those. So it has the possibility of working. The question of why was asked tonight. Why do this? What differentiates these homes on Portola is that they have a driveway that goes onto a very very busy street and yes, he gets it. He understood where they were coming from, but the Commission's responsibility here is to listen to them, understand their needs, but also their job as Planning Commissioners is to look at the bigger picture. Sometimes that puts them in a position where they aren't just catering to the people in front of them, but looking at other needs as well. They may agree or disagree, but he wanted them to hear the answer to the question why. These properties are differentiated because they have a driveway that goes onto a major street. The other residential homes, when they look at all the yellow areas on the map, they are differentiated because they have other access. They don't have to go directly into a driveway off of Portola and then reverse out. That was a dangerous, unacceptable situation .. just asking for problems. He would love another situation and he commended staff for bringing several alternatives to the table. Because open space, if the City wanted to spend $3 million - $5 million, he was happy with that and it would be great. It is part of what they as the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council in going through the General Plan amendment. They felt that more open space is needed. So if the Council makes that decision, he would be 100% in support of that. Short of that, if the current situation is unacceptable where they have these homes and driveways backing onto Portola, then what other alternatives were they left with? If someone more creative then the people here in this room tonight could come forward and suggest other alternatives, he would certainly keep an open mind. But short of that, the Office Professional could be a reasonable alternative if designed properly. He thought it would not end up being their worst nightmare. The other question as to why they were here is they did go through a General Plan amendment that the Planning Commission recommended to Council to allow this Office Professional use. Council said yes,we agree, and r in fact the General Plan included that. What Council did earlier this year was 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6. 2005 reverse themselves and say no, they now see a project that fits into that zoning, it is office professional residential in scale, but for whatever reason the Council did not like it, so they needed to clean up the General Plan and the zoning and change what they approved previously. That is why they were back here tonight. No one wanted to be back here readdressing an old issue, but the Council changed its mind and wanted Planning Commission to make a recommendation changing the General Plan designation. That's why they were there tonight. In summary, they really struck a chord and he empathized with their concerns, but they were kind of between a rock and a hard place. There is a situation on Portola that is not acceptable. It is dangerous and they couldn't have people reversing out onto a street like that. They were just asking for bad events to take place and he thought that was unacceptable. Short of another alternative, he had to agree with staff. He thought it was well thought out and given all their options, it was a reasonable recommendation with one exception. He could not support two-story residential. He understood that a developer, if it went residential, had to make a return, but he didn't think it made sense from a planning standpoint. Commissioner Lopez said he too has listened and they struck a chord with him also from the standpoint that their concerns were such that they wanted to leave this as an R-1 location. They already know that there's more traffic on that road then that road can take or should be taking. They know there would be continued growth and there would be more traffic on that road. It was inevitable. Having lived in that area for many years, right off Rutledge and his kids go to Lincoln School, he knows the dangers along that road and what it was like during the height of the school season. The chances of things going on on that particular road increased each year with the amount of traffic that goes along there at the speed it currently goes and kids were going in and out of those on those sidewalks from those developments and it is a dangerous situation. The best thing to happen along that location would be to widen that road and move those sidewalks away from that street and create a situation that is much safer than currently exists. But to do that they somehow had to develop that property in one of two areas and that would be to either develop it to an open space park,that's one alternative that has been brought forward tonight. The concern he had about that is open space or parks in general would provide locations for more kids to go in that area if that was the way %WW 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6. 2005 the park was developed. It could be a walk through park and that would be fine. But that would create more hazards he thought for the youth that go along Portola Avenue. The other part would be to convert it to office professional, single story, looking like residential and this way moving that sidewalk back and allowing some kind of an area to develop and create a much safer environment than what currently exists. But, unfortunately,the group before them tonight would like nothing to happen. They would rather have everything remain the same and he feared that they were going to develop something that they would all regret in years to come. As the traffic continues to grow, a situation could develop there that is not very healthy. He was opposed to any type of two-story development along Portola, whether residential or commercial. Folks who live on San Jose do not want to have people looking down into their backyards. He was in favor of an open space area and if that is one of the alternatives that the City Council takes, he would be in agreement with that. He liked the idea of open space and liked the idea of open parks with proper setbacks. He liked the way that it currently exists with the office professional. As an alternative, open space, and thought it was the best alternative they could come up with right now based on current conditions on Portola. Chairperson Tschopp said this was a very difficult decision. They were hearing different opinions tonight and his would probably fall right there with them. He heard their comments and concurred that he would not like two- story buildings looking down into his backyard, whether office or apartments. However, they have seen where a well-designed office professional built to residential standards and height could be a very good buffer and a shield to traffic, noise and so forth that occurs on a major thoroughfare. The thing that scared him was doing nothing. They weren't taking away any uncertainty of what will have to happen at some time in the future, which is address a major thoroughfare happening on Portola. There is no way to divert that traffic and would be adding to it with the bridge, putting in an interchange and the traffic was already increasing tremendously and would only continue to do so. So at some point in time they would have to look at it again. He thought it was time to do it now. The buffer has worked before and worked very well. It has shielded and actually been a benefit to people on the in-lying streets. Tonight most of the 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 speakers, except for maybe one, were people who live on San Jose behind it and their concern was the buffer. He truly believed there was a way to do that with office professional, single story, and protecting them from the noise and traffic better than just leaving it the way it is. He, too, had a very big concern about people backing out onto Portola from their houses and that would still be a real problem. So he was in favor of staffs recommendation without the second story request. Commissioner Finerty commented that if the Ford project didn't protect everyone and create the right buffer, she didn't think there was any project for O.P. that could. She noted that Mr. Drell mentioned at the beginning of the meeting that at the end of the fiscal year, the City found themselves with $4 million left over and the staff report said that the passive park would be $3 to $5 million, so that would pay for it. And there is an annual maintenance of$50,000 and that would basically be one piece of artwork and they would have the area dealt with. The other thing that didn't make any sense to her was staff purporting concern that there's been so much traffic on Portola and r., then, on the other hand, they are recommending that they make this two- story multifamily for apartments. She didn't understand what they were trying to say, but she did hear the residents loud and clear and with that, she would make a motion to delete office professional from this area and that would be exactly what the City Council had done back in February. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty to delete Office Professional from this area. The motion failed due to lack of a second. Commissioner Campbell said she was in favor of Office Professional with single story, or Open Space. No multifamily dwellings or other single family homes. Mr. Drell asked if that would include reducing the residential designation from Medium Density to Low Density, which is the current residential zoning. Commissioner Campbell said there wouldn't be any residential, she was talking about Office Professional or Open Space. Commissioner Jonathan concurred and was prepared to second that motion with the clarification that Office Professional would be residential in scale, one story. Commissioner Campbell concurred. %WW 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6. 2005 It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, by minute motion, to recommend that City Council approve O.P. and/or O.S.; Office Professional to be residential in scale, single story in height. (Residential use to be removed.) Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). Mr. Drell stated that staff would prepare a resolution for adoption at the next meeting. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner Campbell reported that there was no meeting. ..r B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty indicated that there would be a meeting tomorrow. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty advised that there wasn't a meeting. XI. COMMENTS None. 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 X11. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:02 p.m. PHILIP DREL , Secretary ATTEST: S DAVI -E. TSCHOPP, Chairperson Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm 31