Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZOA 03-01 PARKING REQUIREMENTS 2003 ORDINANCE NO. 1053 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 25.58 AS IT RELATES TO PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR CHURCHES AND OTHER PLACES OF ASSEMBLY. CASE NO. ZOA 03-01 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 25th day of September, 2003, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an amendment to the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Chapter 25.58 as described above; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution � No. 2219 has recommended approval of the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the"City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 02-60,"in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all-testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City.-Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify its approval as described below: 1. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with.the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the adopted General Plan; 3. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment would better serve the public health, safety and general welfare than the current regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. 2. That ZOA 03-01 as delineated in the attached Exhibit"A"is hereby ordained. 1 ti ORDIN<.:4CE NO. 1053 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this 9th day of October , 2003, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: CRITES, TELLY, SPIEGEL, BENSON NOES: FExcusoN ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE BENSON, MAYOR ATTEST: RACHL-1LE D. KLASSEN, City Cler City of Palm Desert, California 2 ORDINANCE NO. io51_ EXHIBIT "A" Section That Section 25.58.310 E Places of Assembly be amended to read: E. Places of Assembly. Auditoriums, theaters, sports 1 for each 3 fixed seats within the main arenas, stadiums, churches and, auditorium or for every 35 square feet of other places of assembly. seating area within the main auditorium where there are no fixed seats; 18 linear inches of bench shall be considered a fixed seat. - Where a conditional use permit is required, Planning Commission may require additional parking mitigation and/or parking management plan if the. Planning Commission makes the.finding that.specific operational characteristics of the.use create additional demand for parking. Section That Section 25.58.310 E Places of Assembly be amended to delete: Libraries 1 space for each 500 square feet of gross floor area. Section 3 That Section 25.58.310 F Other Uses be amended to add: Libraries 1 space for each 500 square feet of gross floor area. 3 B ORDINANCE NO. 1053 I � AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF i PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 25.58 AS IT RELATES TO PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR CHURCHES AND OTHER PLACES OF ASSEMBLY. CASE NO. ZOA 03-01 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 25th day of September, 2003, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an amendment to the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Chapter 25.58 as described above; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution', No. 2219 has recommended approval of the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the"City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 02-60," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption; and 1 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all-testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City.Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify its approval-as described below: 1. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the adopted General Plan; 3. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment would better serve the public health, safety and general welfare than the current regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. 2. That ZOA 03-01 as delineated in the attached Exhibit"A"is hereby ordained. 1 .11 ORDIN<1ACE NO. 1053 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this 9tn day of October , 2003. by the following vote, to wit: AYES: CRITES, TELLY, SPIEGEL, BENSON NOES: FERGusoN ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE BENSON, MAYOR ATTEST: RACHULE D. KLASSEN, City Clerf� City of Palm Desert, California 2 p ti ORDINANCE NO. 1os� j EXHIBIT "A" Section 1 That Section 25.58.310 E Places of Assembly be amended to read: E. Places of Assembly. Auditoriums, theaters, sports 1 for each 3 fixed seats within the main arenas, stadiums, churches and, auditorium or for every 35 square feet of other places of assembly. seating area within the main auditorium where there are no fixed seats: 18 linear inches of bench shall be considered a fixed seat. Where a conditional use permit is required, Planning Commission may require additional parking mitigation and/or parking management plan if the. Planning �. Commission makes the.finding that.specific operational characteristics of the.use create additional demand for parking. Section 2 That Section 25.58.310 E Places of Assembly be amended to delete: Libraries 1 space for each 500 square feet of gross floor area. Section 3 That Section 25.58.310 F Other Uses be amended to add: Libraries 1 space for each 500 square feet of gross floor area. 3 i � R CITY OF PALM DESERT -i�- , lG/t vV DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT REQUEST: Consideration of an amendment to the Municipal Code as it relates to parking requirements for churches and other places of assembly, G Municipal Code Section 25.58.310. SUBMITTED BY: Steve Smith, Planning Manager (?/ - APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert A, CASE NO: ZOA 03-01 C DATE: September 25, 2003 CONTENTS: S Staff Recommendation Background and Discussion Draft Ordinance No. 1053 Planning Commission Minutes involving Case No. ZOA 03-01C0" 3 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2219 Cj' Planning Commission Staff Reports dated December 3, 2002, March 18, June 3 and August 5, 2003 Staff Recommendation: That the City Council waive further reading and pass ZOA 03-01 to second reading. Background and Discussion: During the discussion of several conditional use permit requests for churches in 2002, Planning Commission directed staff to study the adequacy of the current parking standards for churches. December 3, 2002 staff submitted a report (copy enclosed) comparing code parking standards for various valley cities. The report concluded that the current Palm Desert standard was at the high end of the group. ORDINANCE NO. 1053 Staff Report Case No. ZOA 03-01 Page 2 September 25, 2003 March 18, 2003 staff presented a church parking study survey report (copy enclosed) which had been conducted during February 2003. The data revealed that there were no parking concerns related to small and medium sized churches, but that larger, older churches consistently had overflow parking onto adjacent streets for a few hours Sunday mornings. Commission directed staff to prepare options for a code amendment which would impose a parking surcharge on "large" churches. A June 3, 2003 staff report (copy enclosed) recommended that the magnitude of the problem did not warrant a surcharge on all "large" churches. Commission concluded that a blanket surcharge was not required, but that code needed to provide for exceptional circumstances. Q August 5, 2003 commission concluded its consideration of this matter (see /1 report enclosed) and on a 5-0 vote recommended approval of an amendment C6 which will allow the Planning Commission, where a conditional use permit is ll. required for a "place of assembly" to require additional parking mitigation and/or r.96,7 a parking management plan if the Planning Commission makes the finding that specific operational characteristics of the use create additional demand for parking. The recommended amendment also includes two housekeeping items related to where libraries are placed in the code and consolidates auditoriums, theaters, sports arenas, stadiums, churches and other places of assembly all in one category "Places of Assembly." Submitted by: De ment Head: Ste Smith Phil Drell Planning Manager Director of Community Development Appro Approval- Ho er Croy Carlos L. O a ACM for Development Services City Manager (WPd=Vm%.1zw03-01.m) V ORDINANCE NO. 1053 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 25.58 AS IT RELATES TO PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR CHURCHES AND OTHER PLACES OF ASSEMBLY. CASE NO. ZOA 03-01 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 25th day of September, 2003, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an amendment to the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Chapter 25.58 as described above; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2219 has recommended approval of the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 02-60," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify its approval as described below: 1. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the adopted General Plan; 3. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment would better serve the public health, safety and general welfare than the current regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. 2. That ZOA 03-01 as delineated in the attached Exhibit "A" is hereby ordained. 1 r - Y ORDINANCE NO. 1053 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this day of , 2003, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JEAN M. BENSON, MAYOR ATTEST: RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 2 i ORDINANCE NO. in 5 i EXHIBIT "A" Section 1 That Section 25.58.310 E Places of Assembly be amended to read: E. Places of Assembly. Auditoriums, theaters, sports 1 for each 3 fixed seats within the main arenas, stadiums, churches and auditorium or for every 35 square feet of other places of assembly. seating area within the main auditorium where there are no fixed seats; 18 linear inches of bench shall be considered a fixed seat. Where a conditional use permit is required, Planning Commission may require additional parking mitigation and/or parking management plan if the Planning Commission makes the finding that specific operational characteristics of the use create additional demand for parking. Section 2 That Section 25.58.310 E Places of Assembly be amended to delete: Libraries 1 space for each 500 square feet of gross floor area. Section 3 That Section 25.58.310 F Other Uses be amended to add: Libraries 1 space for each 500 square feet of gross floor area. 3 r..:_ CITY OF PALM DESERT ` DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development DATE: December 3, 2002 SUBJECT: Standards for church parking DISCUSSION: During a public hearing July 16`", 2002, staff was directed to reevaluate City parking standards for churches. Currently, churches are required to provide one parking space for each three fixed seats within the main auditorium or one for every 35 square feet of seating area in the main auditorium. Staff contacted other local jurisdictions to compare parking requirements for churches. PARKING STANDARD FOR A 3,500 SQUARE FOOT CHURCH CITY CODE REQUIREMENT # OF SPACES REQUIRED 15 spaces required. Rancho One parking space for four Mirage has three existing RANCHO MIRAGE seats or 30 gross floor area, churches, one approved and one plus classroom and meeting in the planning process. They rooms. have no concerns with current parking standards. 13 spaces required. Indian INDIAN WELLS One per two employees and Wells has not approved any one per 300 gross floor area. churches. Standard is untested at this time. 20 spaces required. La Quinta One space per 3 people, or has not approved any churches one space per 25 gross floor lately. Currently one church is in LA QUINTA area and additional parking for the process of expanding. separate uses based on the Currently looking at ways to parking standard for that use. provide additional parking for homes that were converted to churches. 12.5 parking spaces required. 'With a small church like this the One space per five persons planning department would permitted, based on maximum require one space five people CATHEDRAL CITY person defined in the Unified based on assembly area. One Building Code. church has been approved in the past 5 years. They have no concern with current parking standards. d One for every three fixed 20 spaces required. Palm seats, or one for each Springs approved a church two e PALM SPRINGS gross floor area a primary years ago. They have no assembly area. concerns with their current parking standards. One for every three fixed PALM DESERT seats, or one for each 35 feet 20 spaces required. of gross floor area of primary assembly area. Palm Desert's parking requirements are very similar to the standards used by other jurisdictions. The requirements are based on the number of seats in the assembly area, as this is the most intense use. Any accessory uses, such as offices and meeting rooms, do not need additional parking because those spaces are used on non-service days, or before and after service. This comparison does not provide us with enough information to make any suggestions for changing the current standards. Staff recommends that this discussion be continued to March, so that we can conduct a parking study of a representation selection of churches throughout the City to determine the nature of the problem and the appropriate solution. Prepared by: TONY BAGAT PLANNING TECHNICIAN Reviewed and Approved by�t ` (� r C-L-- PHIL DRELL DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Steve Smith, Planning Manager DATE: March 18, 2003 continued from December 3, 2002 SUBJECT: Church Parking Survey ' I. BACKGROUND: During the discussion of conditional use permit requests for churches, Planning Commission directed staff to conduct a parking survey of church parking lots and assess the appropriateness of the current parking requirement (i.e. one parking space for every three seats). Previously, staff had prepared a comparison with other cities. Palm Desert had one of the higher parking requirements. During February, 2003 Code Compliance staff conducted parking counts at twelve churches around the City. Most churches were counted on two separate weekends. Large denominational churches were counted and small non-denominational churches were counted (see attached survey). St. Margaret's Episcopal Church and Palm Desert Community Presbyterian Church on Highway 74 were not counted due to construction activity at the Community Church. II. ANALYSIS: A review of the parking survey data reveals: 1 . Small to mid-sized churches do not have overflow parking problems and utilize very little street parking. While these churches may use some street parking they still have vacant spaces on-site. 2. Larger, long established denominational churches have services where on-site parking approaches or exceeds 100% and utilize significant street parking. At Sacred Heart and Hope Lutheran, 100% on-site occupancy is not unusual. At Sacred Heart's 9:30 a.m. service the on-site parking was 1 12% (470 cars in 420 space parking lot) and 119 vehicles were counted on nearby streets. 3. For the average church the current parking requirement is adequate. � o co STAFF REPORT Q �� PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 The goal of the code required parking spaces is to provide adequate on-site parking for the average church. This is also the case with our restaurant standard department store requirement and all other uses covered in the municipal code. When we observed the situation at Sacred Heart Church (i.e. 100% + street parking) we contacted the church and attempted to detefmine what was causing this anomaly. Sacred Heart advised the main sanctuary seats 1 ,000 people. Under current code this would result in 333 required parking spaces. We inquired as to the size of church Sunday school attendance to see if it was impacting parking. We were advised that the maximum number of children at a Sunday school service is 50. This could account for 16 more parking spaces for a total of 349 spaces. The lot has 420 spaces. We conclude that this parking anomaly is a result of a reduction in the average household size and particularly the number of single persons attending services. III. CONCLUSION: The problem, of course, is how to address a problem which is observed in large denominational churches but not evident at smaller non-denominational churches. We should not increase the required parking for a whole group when only a small portion of the group is experiencing parking problems. Even if we were to amend the code it would not impact existing. churches. It would only be applicable to new churches. With the exception of Southwest Community Church, our experience with new churches is that they do not fall into the parking problem category. It is the long established churches which outgrow their available parking while membership continues to grow which have the problem. At this time, staff is not prepared to recommend a code amendment. Creating extra parking for the average church is not needed and excessive asphalt is not a positive contribution to the environment. 2 1 /STAFF REPORT PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 IV. RECOMMENDATION: That the issue of adequacy of church parking be tabled. Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved by: teve Smith Phil Drell Planning Manager Director of Community Development d/ q 3 . o RECE r�'EI� �--T CITY OF PALM DESERT ; 2003 BUILDING & SAFETY DEPARTMENT-- ""'TPDfPpr .,� C171. Gf9f£iY ,of P. i;• Df:.ikT.trEgT DESfA.T INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Hart Ponder Jr. Code Compliance Supervisor From: Johnny Terfehr, Code Compliance Officer , Date: February 19, 2003 Subject: Parking Lot Survey, Various Church's Vehicles were counted on Saturday February 8, 2003, Sunday February 9, 2003, Friday February 14, 2003 and Sunday February 16, 2003. Counts were taken at the times and locations listed on the attached spreadsheet. On the spreadsheet I have included the scheduled service time (service time) and the actual time I took the count (count time). The number of vehicles in the parking lot (count) and the.total available marked parking spaces (available). I also included the number of vehicles parked on the street that I believed were attending the church service (on street) at that time. At the Sacred Heart Church, you will notice that there are more vehicles than available parking spaces at some services. Vehicles were parked in unmarked spaces and on ends of parking rows in the red curb area. On street parking for the Sacred Heart Church included Deep Canyon and Florine. On street parking for Hope Lutheran Church included Portola and Fairway. On street parking for St. John's Lutheran was on a vacant grass lot across an alleyway from the Church. For the remainder of Church's the on street parking was the same as the church street address. I did not observe any serious conflicts in traffic between services. It seemed during the times I was able to monitor traffic that it was flowing smoothly. Sincerely, Johnny L.L. Terfehr Code Compliance Officer M:VAy dttVmd.a .mh 0�n9 MW y m .dx l� LIJ Location Date Service Time Count Time Count Available OnS 9 . 8-Feb-2003 9:15 AM 9:25 AM 20 161 74-200 Country Club Drive 10:50 AM 11:00 AM 80 181 Temple Siriai8-Feb 2003 10:00 AM 10:05 AM 31 328 73-251 Hovle Lane 14-Feb-2003 7:00 PM 7:05 PM 38 328 8-Feb-2003 6:45 AM 6:50 AM 117 420 3 43-775 Deep Canyon Road 8:00 AM 8:10 AM 364 420 33 9:30 AM 10:00 AM 470 420 119 11:00 AM 11:14 AM 365 420 45 12:30 PM 12:35 PM 161 420 11 16-Feb-2003 9:30 AM 9:53 AM 458 420 104 11:00 AM 11:20 AM 362 420 44 •• 8-Feb-2003 8:00 AM 8:15 AM 43 185 45-900 Portola Avenue 9:15 AM 9:40 AM 185 185 7 10:30 AM 10:50 AM 117 185 17 16-Feb-2003 8:00 AM 8:26 AM 59 185 0 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 155 185 9 10:30 AM 10:30 AM 169 185 12 • 8-Feb-2003 9:00 AM 1 9:05 AM 101 232 12 72-960 Park View 1:00 PM 1:08 PM 122 232 0 16-Feb-2003 9:00 AM 9:20 AM 135 232 18 1:00 PM 1:00 PM 1111 232 3 • ex=-XOTAIR,• B-Feb-2003 9:15 AM 9:15 AM 0 63 74-109 Larrea 10:00 AM 10:10 AM 15 63 21 • 8-Feb-2003 9:00 AM 9:20 AM 47 82 43-400 Warner Trail 10:00 AM 10:20 AM 72 82 4 16-Feb-2003 9:00 AM 9:03 AM 441 82 2 10:00 AM 10:04 AM 731 82 10 • 8-Feb-2003 9:00 AM 9:25 AM 75 75 16 42-695 Washington Street 11:00 AM 11:05 AM 66 75 5 16-Feb-2003 9:00 AM 9:10 AM 75 75 22 11:00 AM 11:05 AM 69 75 4 Location Date Service Time Count Time Count Available On Street i •W 8-Feb-2003 9:30 AM 9:44 AM 8 70 45-825 Edgehill 10:30 AM 10:40 AM 20 70 16-Feb-2003 9:30 AM 9:35 AM 9 70 10:30 AM 10:36 AM 19 70 8-Feb-2003 9:30 AM 9:55 AM 66 181 74-200 Country Club 16-Feb-2003 .9:30 AM 9:45 AM 71 181 8-Feb-2003 10:00 AM 10:25 AM 0 54 43-250 Warner Trail 16-Feb-2003 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 0 54 8-Feb-2003 10:30 AM 10:35 AM 35 47 72-700 Fred Waring 16-Feb-2003 10:30 AM 10:42 AM 31 47 G CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: June 3, 2003 CASE NO: ZOA 03-01 ' REQUEST: Amendment to the Municipal Code as it relates to parking requirements for churches and other places of assembly, Municipal Code Section 25.58.310 APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert I. BACKGROUND: March 18, 2003 staff presented a church parking survey report which had been conducted during February 2003. The data revealed that there were no parking concerns related to small and medium sized churches, but that larger, older churches consistently had overflow parking onto adjacent streets for a few hours Sunday mornings. Commission directed staff to prepare options for a code amendment which would impose a parking surcharge on "large" churches. II. ANALYSIS: The problem is that larger churches experience overflow parking during the season. Current code does not differentiate between large churches and small churches. The following issues need to be addressed as part of any proposed code amendment: A. Define what we mean by "large" church. Response: During the March 18, 2003 meeting, commission agreed that a church with a sanctuary capacity of 1 ,000 persons would be considered large. STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 03-01 JUNE 3, 2003 The question is what is the threshold? Three hundred, four hundred or more? Churches experiencing onstreet overflow,parking were Sacred Heart, Hope Lutheran, St. Margaret's and Palm Desert Community Presbyterian. We have reviewed the seating capacity of each of those churches to try to determine an appropriate threshold. CHURCH SANCTUARY SEATING Sacred Heart 1 ,000 persons St. Margaret's 903 persons Palm Desert Community Presbyterian 714 persons Hope Lutheran 550 persons The threshold should therefore be set somewhat below the lowest sanctuary size where significant onstreet overflow,parking occurs. At Hope Lutheran the number of vehicles parked on the street ranged from 7 to 17 depending on the time of the service. It is interesting to note while there were 17 vehicles on the street, the onsite parking lot was a third empty (i.e., there were 68 available spaces). At another service Hope Lutheran had 7 vehicles parked on the street and the onsite parking was occupied 100%. Seven overflow vehicles parked onstreet for one to two hours a week does not seem to warrant a parking "surcharge." B. Amount of Surcharge. If we apply a parking surcharge to "large" churches, the question becomes how much additional parking should be required. Response: The most significant overflow parking occurs at Sacred Heart Church which has seating for 1 ,000 persons and has 420 onsite parking spaces 2 STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 03-01 JUNE 3, 2003 which is one space per 2.38 seats. This amount (26% above the current code requirement) is adequate for all Sacred Heart services except the 9:30 a.m. service when they have 589 cars parked onsite and on nearby streets. Providing this much parking onsite would require a 76% surcharge. A 76% surcharge would require an additional acre and a half of asphalt. Staff feels that this would be excessive given the extent and duration of the overflow parking. The current parking requirement for churches is one space per three (3) seats or one (1) space for every 35 square feet of assembly area. A 25% surcharge would increase the required parking to one space per 2.4 seats. A 50% surcharge would increase the required parking to one space per two seats. At Hope Lutheran, vehicles parking on the street are not the result of a lack of onsite parking, but rather a preference of people to park in legal onstreet parking spaces. C. Surcharge Parking Onsite Versus Offsite. Should the "surcharge" spaces be required onsite or can they be provided offsite? Response: If the City were to require the parking be provided onsite, it will significantly increase the amount of asphalt for a problem which only occurs a few hours per week during the season. If we require the church to provide offsite parking (i.e., lease use of an existing nearby lot or a further away lot and provide a shuttle) this will reduce the amount of asphalt on the church site. The question is whether church members will park at a satellite parking lot (and walk or shuttle) 3 STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 03-01 JUNE 3, 2003 or will they use closer-by street parking and walk a shorter distance. Street spaces would have to be signed and enforced for no parking. I'm not sure we want to direct the Sheriff to ticket church goers for using otherwise legal onstreet parking. III. CONCLUSION: Although staff does not recommend approval of this amendment, staff has provided a draft resolution containing the following provisions: A. That a "large" church be defined as one having a sanctuary seating 700 persons or more. B. That the amount of the parking surcharge be set at no more than 25%. C. That the surcharge parking spaces may be provided offsite through long- term lease. When this offsite parking is located more than 500 feet from the church property, a shuttle service shall be provided. IV. RECOMMENDATION: That Case No. ZOA 03-01 amending parking requirements for large churches be tabled. V. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft resolution B. Legal notice Prepared by: Revi$wed and Approved by: 1 ,. Steve Smith Phil Drel Planning Manager Director of Community Development Revie nd Concur omer Croy ACM for Devel ent Services 4 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: August 5, 2003 continued from June 3, 2003 CASE NO: ZOA 03-01 ' REQUEST: Amendment to the Municipal Code as it 'relates to parking requirements for churches and other places of assembly, Municipal Code Section 25.58.310 APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert I. BACKGROUND: March 18, 2003 staff presented a church parking survey report which had been conducted during February 2003. The data revealed that there were no parking concerns related to small and medium sized churches, but that larger, older churches consistently had overflow parking onto adjacent streets for a few hours Sunday mornings. Commission directed staff to prepare options for a code amendment which would impose a parking surcharge on "large" churches. June 3, 2003 staff recommended that the magnitude of the problem did not warrant a surcharge on all "large" churches. Commission concluded that a blanket surcharge was not required, but that code needed to provide for exceptional circumstances. IL ANALYSIS: Staff has prepared an amendment which will: A. Remove libraries from the places of assembly section of the parking ordinance and place it in the Other Uses category. B. Consolidate the remaining uses in the Places of Assembly section in that they (auditoriums, theaters, sports arenas, stadiums, churches and other places of assembly) all have the same parking requirement. STAFF REPORT \ CASE NO. ZOA 03-01 AUGUST 5, 2003 This will make the ordinance consistent with the provisions of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act (RLUIPA). The act requires that churches and other places of worship be treated consistent with other places of assembly. The standard is not changing, it is just being consolidated into one section. C. Add a provision to Places of Assembly which will read: Where a conditional use permit is required, Planning Commission may require additional parking if it makes the finding that specific operational characteristics of the use create additional demand for parking. The new "Places of Assembly" code section will read: "E. Places of Assembly. Auditoriums, theaters, 1 for each 3 fixed seats within the main sports arenas, stadiums, auditorium or for every 35 square feet of churches and other places seating area within the main auditorium of assembly. where there are no fixed seats; 18 linear inches of bench shall be considered a fixed seat. Where a conditional use permit is required, Planning Commission may require additional parking if the Planning Commission makes the finding that specific operational characteristics of the use create additional demand for parking." III. CEQA REVIEW: The proposed amendment is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption for purposes of CEQA. No further review is necessary. 2 STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 03-01 AUGUST 5, 2003 IV. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. recommending to the City Council approval of Case No. ZOA 03-01 amending the parking requirements for Places of Assembly. V. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft resolution B. Legal notice Prepared by: Re ' wed and Approved by: 1 % S e e Smith Phil Drell Planning Manager Director of Community Development Review arSd Concur:;///� Flomer Croy ACM for Devel pm nt Services IWpaocsbflsr\zos03-01.pc31 3 f MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 moving pretty quickly and they are selling them almost as quickly as they can build them. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification that staff wasn't recommending Alternative 2. Mr. Drell said the developers weren't asking for it and the property owners weren't asking for it. Chairperson Finerty suggested going with Alternative 3 and asked if staff needed a minute motion or if they should just leave it alone. Mr. Drell said they could just receive and file the report. It was up to the commission. Chairperson Finerty asked the commission if they wanted to receive and file. The commission concurred. Action: The report was received and filed. B. Discussion of Church Parking Standards Mr. Drell explained that as discussed at the last meeting, staff investigated how other cities were regulating their church parking and found that Palm Desert is actually on the high side. On the other hand, we have most of the churches. Before they imposed standards that weren't necessary, staff was suggesting that they select a representative sample of churches of various types and sizes in the city and study them through the season to find out if we have a problem and the nature of that problem. Whether it was big churches that have a problem, the small ones or medium ones or if they need different standards for different sized churches. He was suggesting they come back in March once staff has completed the study to know what the nature of the problem is and the appropriate solution. Chairperson Finerty asked if there was a motion continuing this until the second meeting in March. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, continuing this discussion to March 18, 2003. 67 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 Commissioner Jonathan requested that staff please include in their sampling St. Margaret's and the Palm Desert Presbyterian Church. Chairperson Finerty called for the vote. The motion carried 5-0. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (October 16, 2002) Commissioner Campbell indicated that the committee chose two artists to put in their artwork. One of them was, a man and a woman, two dancers, and they were about eight feet tall. The other one was about 50 pieces. It was made out of metal work and looked like cacti. Chairperson Finerty noted there might be more discussion about the one with the cacti. There was some concern expressed about it at the Landscape Committee meeting. B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (November 21 , 2002) Chairperson Finerty indicated they talked about the Economic Element and Land Use. Staff and the consultant would be bringing back four plans of land use December 11 and they might be able to decide on one at that time. E. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (November 26, 2002) Chairperson Finerty noted that they reviewed the proposed artwork Gas mentioned by Commissioner Campbell. They also talked about the Westfield Shopping Town's landscaping around the bus bay, the Fred Waring strip and park signage, and they were going to have an event for the opening of that park. For the Cook Street median north of Country Club, they would like that to have beautiful year-round color. What was brought to the committee looked like that had been achieved, so they hoped it would all grow, would stay growing and would be properly maintained. 68 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT T( \ MARCH 18, 2003 t=' �� y REVISION Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Chairperson Campbell, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Chairperson Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2192 recommending to City Council approval of TT 31135, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). Clerical staff asked for confirmation that the action by the commission was a recommendation of approval to City Council. Mr. Drell said it was adoption of the resolution before them, which was recommending approval. Commission concurred. B. Discussion of Church Parking Standards Mr. Drell indicated that Mr. Smith could answer any questions regarding the investigation. Regarding Sacred Heart, Chairperson Campbell stated that she takes her parents there and people park on the street, but there were actually spaces in the parking lot that people weren't using because it was easier. That was the only reason there was more parking on the street. Mr. Drell said they kind of limited their access to the parking lot in deference to the neighborhood, which probably exacerbated that problem since people couldn't get out onto Florine. The bigger problem was they had these single, old major denominations that get bigger and bigger. The other problem was that as the congregation aged, there were more one and two people per car and not the three that the ordinance called for. Using Sacred Heart as an example, Commissioner Jonathan noted that their main sanctuary seats 1,000 people. The requirement under the current ordinance would be 333 parking spaces. Yet they were getting 470 cars according to the counts. So staffs conclusion was that there didn't seem to be a problem with smaller churches, but that there did seem to be a problem with larger churches. He asked why they wouldn't then conclude that the ordinance needed to be modified for larger churches and keep the ordinance 27 f MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 SUBJECT Tl �, �' >a REVISION the same for up to a certain size, but require additional parking ratios for churches over a certain size. Mr. Smith said it wasn't necessarily consistent across the-full spectrum-They don't say to a restauranteur that they are— going to be more successful than the average restaurant and in that case they have to provide extra parking. Going in•they have no way of knowing which churches wera going to be overly successful. Mr. Drell noted that the Mormon church, which is a large church, doesn't have a problem. Mr. Smith concurred. He said they had 180 vacant parking spaces. Mr. Drell said that Temple Sinai was kind of a large church and it didn't have a problem. The difference was partly the devotional quality of the members which was kind of hard to characterize in an ordinance. Since staff recognized that there was a problem, Commissioner Jonathan thought non-resolution was not the best direction to go in. Mr. Drell asked how severe a problem it was. The fact that people were parking on the street for a couple of hours on Sunday at three or four of the churches, did that justify adding another acre of asphalt to the parking lot. Mr. Smith said that it would also be required of a lot of churches that don't have a problem. Mr. Drell said it might be a problem, but the streets were designed specifically to accommodate cars parking on them. If they don't want cars parked on them, they should make them a lot skinnier.. There was a lot of debate about street -- design and that we do design our streets too wide. He said it might be somewhat of a problem, but was it enough of one to add another acre of asphalt. Commissioner Lopez noted that Sacred Heart was a campus with all the different uses. There was the church with Sunday School. Mr. Smith said staff contacted them about that thinking they were going to have seas of children there which would mean they needed to add in for the number of kids. According to the information they gave staff, the most they ever have is 50 which would account for 16 parking spaces which was not significant. Chairperson Campbell noted that they didn't drive anyway. Mr. Drell said that staff did determine that they should count Sunday School capacity because that was part of the three seats per car. Two of them could be adults and one a child. So really the Sunday School was an extension of the sanctuary. It was just kind of offsite. So they should count Sunday School capacity as part of the seat count for determining parking, but unfortunately 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT Tt MARCH 18, 2003y L r F T M REVISION \ they couldn't identify that the problems that were occurring were because of Sunday School. _ Commissioner Tschopp said that it seemed,to him that in the study they came up with two of the 12 surveyed, or 16.5% have a parking problem. If they added in the two churches that they didn't include which are large denomination churches, they would have four of 14 which would be almost 29% of the churches having a parking problem. It seemed to him that in some ways they have identified a problem, but they concluded that they weren't going to do anything about it. They were going to see churches come in that want to expand and if they came in to expand to a larger church because they are successful, they were going to expand under the old parking codes, which they acknowledge that when a church gets large enough, that is when it becomes a problem. In his mind, now was the time to plan for the future by implementing a code on the parking which would address those expansion plans in the future. Maybe it wasn't more asphalt, but maybe it was getting a little more creative and perhaps it was offsite parking. When churches meet on Sunday mornings or Saturdays, a lot of businesses are closed and there is a lot of empty commercial parking spaces sometimes in areas. Perhaps they needed to find a way to require them instead of parking in residential neighborhoods, which was really the problem, but to bus them from other commercial areas or something of that nature. Chairperson Campbell didn't think that would work. Commissioner Tschopp said his point was that they needed to do something because churches will grow. So what they were saying is that there is a problem with large churches and if they didn't do something now, they would have more problems with larger churches down the road. Commissioner Jonathan concurred. He thought that staffs investigation confirmed their suspicions that there is a problem. The analysis was further helpful in that it isolated the problems to the larger churches. So now the next logical step wasn't to say they wouldn't do anything about it, but to say they would do something about the larger churches and that was why he suggested some kind of a tiered ordinance which was consistent with others. Commissioner Finerty concurred. It was like what they did for regular offices versus medical offices. Commissioner Jonathan agreed. 29 I ,J MINUTES / PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION I " SUBJECT Tt f MARCH 18, 2003 LR k y� REVISION Commissioner Lopez asked if they were looking at basing it on square footage. Commissioner Jonathan clarified that it would be on sanctuary size. -.---He didn't know what that number was. He thought-they would have to ask staff to go back to the drawing board, but certainly a sanctuary that seats 1,000 is large. A sanctuary that seats 100 is not. Where the delineation was he didn't know and how much additional ratio should be required for the larger churches he didn't know. Mr. Smith noted that they were suggesting a surcharge on larger sanctuaries. Commissioner Jonathan concurred. He agreed with Commissioner Finerty that it would be similar to what they do with service industrial versus warehouse, similar to what they do with office compared to service industrial, similar to what they do with medical compared to office. Chairperson Campbell asked if this would be for new churches. Commissioner Jonathan said yes, new churches as well as expansions. Commissioner Jonathan said his suggestion was to ask staff to continue their analysis and come back with a further recommendation regarding some kind of a resolution along the discussion that just took place with regard to the larger sanctuaries, the larger churches. Commissioner Finerty asked if they thought they could define larger as 500 or more. Commissioner Jonathan said he didn't know and was open to suggestions. He thought they would _ probably end up with around that size. .- ----- — Commissioner Tschopp said he didn't want to complicate the issue, but in large cities when they have events a lot of times they have satellite parking. People drive to that location and then catch a bus to the main event. If they have a large successful church or a large successful stadium down here some day, perhaps that was a way to keep the asphalt, which was a staff concern, in check. He thought it would be nice to draft something that would take into consideration mass transit. Commissioner Jonathan said he was in favor of mass transit and wasn't opposed to a creative approach. For example, they could keep the parking standards the same, but for churches with sanctuaries over 500 or whatever number, that they be required to have satellite space available in the event that they either have special events or in the event, for example, that their regular Sunday morning services are deemed to be a problem for the neighborhood, so a contingency satellite parking lot available. Commissioner Finerty asked for a few aftematives. Commissioner Jonathan concurred. He 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT Tl MARCH 18, 2003 `- REVISION wasn't trying to define the solution, but they identified a problem and wanted to work on the solution. Commissioner Tschopp noted that at the meeting of February 18, they were going to condition an applicant to park the employees onsite. He didn't know if there was a way to hook at code, or if it was necessary to amend code, but to him employees were going to park where they are told to park. If management tells them to park in the street to free up their spaces next to the building, that is where they were going to go. They had no leverage against the employer. It made sense to him that if they actually had something that required employees/staff to have to park onsite. The difference being that customers would raise objections with a business to get to park closer. He thought it would be good to have it in code that employees had to park onsite and they might see some owners take additional steps to correct a problem because their customers would complain. Chairperson Campbell said that is what she does in front of her store. But there were beauty operators nearby and the owner of that shop parked in front of her store and he was there all day. So she went out there and told him to park somewhere else or in front of his own store. Mr. Smith noted that the owner of Napas Tapas parked his little car with advertising all over it. Mr. Drell said the problem was there is public parking. They could restrict it. And that was a problem with offsite parTong. Unless they- restricted the public-parking — adjacent to the church, people would park there as opposed to parking four blocks away and taking a bus. It was a significant administrative task. He said there is an ordinance which allows preferential residential parking. It was seen in major cities often next to business districts where they take the residential street parking and make it prohibited unless the vehicle has a sticker and the sticker is only given to people who live there. But unless they did that, offsite parking wasn't going to work. Commissioner Tschopp said he wasn't talking about churches, but in other cities when they have events that are regularly scheduled / reoccurring, a lot of times the signs posted would be no parking from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. or no parking Saturday nights 6:00 p.m. to midnight. Again, it was an enforcement problem, but the concern was the infringement upon residential neighborhoods and that's where they should be looking to help out. Along that same issue, Commissioner Jonathan noted that he drives by the Roberge Gallery and Augusta Restaurant frequently and on weekend nights 31 A MINUTES T PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION I SUBJECT Tl MARCH 18, 2003 REVISION there was a car they parked sideways on the driveway to prevent access into the parking lot. He assumed that was because of valet parking. But he asked _ - if that was supposed to be a-public parking lot. He asked how that worked and if they approved it for general public parking. Mr. Diercks asked for clarification on the location. Mr. Smith noted that it was on El Paseo at Portola. Mr. Diercks said they weren't allowed to restrict any access if it was a public parking lot. The aisle was not supposed to be restricted. Commissioner Jonathan said that driveway was blocked by a car being parked. Mr. Diercks said that wasn't right. Valet parking permits specifically say they aren't allowed to restrict any drive aisles. They are allowed to put in cones for parking stalls themselves, but not the drive aisles. Commissioner Jonathan said this was a regular weekend night. Mr. Diercks said he was in charge of valet parking now, so he would investigate. Commissioner Jonathan said that forced patrons to park offsite and they were trying to provide parking onsite. He didn't know where the off-street parking was taking place, but it could be intruding into those neighborhoods. Mr. Diercks said he would definitely look into it. Commissioner Jonathan thanked him. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES -- A: ART IN-PUBLIC PLACES-- (No-meeting) — -B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (No meeting) E. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) F. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) XI. COMMENTS Chairperson Campbell asked staff to look into the dust regulations relative to dirt roads and parking lots. Mr. Diercks didn't know if there had been any discussions on that matter, but would initiate discussions. 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3. 2003 It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp,adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2205 approving TT 31020 and Negative Declaration as it pertains thereto, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. , G. Case No. ZOA 03-01 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of amendment to the Municipal Code Section 25.58.310 as it relates to parking requirements for churches and other places of assembly. Chairperson Campbell noted that staff was recommending that the matter be tabled and asked for a staff report. Mr. Drell asked if the commission wanted to just ask questions and comment on the report. Commissioner Jonathan noted that in the report staff was indicating,focusing on Sacred Heart as an example of a church with seating for 1 ,000 persons, that the requirement was for 333 spaces under the current code. They were regularly getting almost 600 cars. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the requirement was 300+, they were getting almost 600, yet staff was recommending no change. Mr. Drell explained that all of the parking requirements were average requirements for the average use. Sacred Heart was kind of exceptional in that there were probably only a few Catholic churches in the valley. It was like trying to make every restaurant park like it was a very busy Ruth's Chris Restaurant. Their evaluation was what the worst thing was that could happen if this exceptional circumstance occurs. The question was whether to make every single church operate as if it would be like Sacred Heart. Then they looked at the result. People parking on the street on Sunday morning. Was that a horrible thing? Was it worth making all churches double the amount of asphalt they have in their parking lot? Staffs conclusion was, given the fact that they design streets for people to park on and it only occurs for four hours, probably only during the season on Sunday, the remedy for Sacred Heart of adding another acre and a half of asphalt to satisfy that four-hour problem once a week staff didn't feel was justified given the severity of the situation. He didn't object to having people park on a public street designed for public parking unless it started 24 { MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2003 depriving the local resident of a place to park, then it was a problem. On Sunday morning, the local residents were probably already parked and had their spaces if they needed them. Commissioner Jonathan noted that they did hear testimony from area residents about the parking overflow on Sunday mornings. How bad it was was probably a matter of their perspective and if they lived across the street. Commissioner Jonathan said he could see staffs point. If a new applicant came in with a new 1,000 person sanctuary, then they had the ability to evaluate that situation individually. Mr. Drell thought maybe that was the amendment they should do.. Commissioner Finerty indicated they could keep it site specific. Mr. Drell agreed they could place that in the ordinance that it would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis where they would design their sanctuary and staff would analyze them as a place of assembly, not as a religion. Commissioner Jonathan agreed it was the project demand and usage. Mr. Drell thought they should have that standard, but the standard could be modified. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would be more comfortable with something like that then simply ignoring the matter. It just seemed to go against the grain to recognize that a 1,000-person sanctuary does have an issue. If code requires 300 and they were using 600, he didn't want to create another such situation. He would at least like the ability to deal with it. Mr. Drell said that staff could come back with language. Commissioner Finerty asked how they dealt with the point that staff made in the report about Hope Lutheran where they have plenty of onsite parking, but people still preferred to park on the street. Commissioner Jonathan said that when Southwest Community Church was on Hovley, they dealt with it by requiring a parking management plan and they had volunteers out on Hovley directing traffic and had cones, etc. Commissioner Finerty said they could keep it more site specific, like if they had a problem with Sacred Heart. She recalled that there were only about two people that gave public testimony, so it was nothing like what they dealt with at Southwest. Mr. Drell thought that Southwest had 5,000 people showing up on Sundays. With Hope Lutheran, the way they designed their facility and their parking lot, they probably had 100 street spaces on their side of the street adjacent to their parking lot. He 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3 2003 thought staff should come back with some careful language that didn't get them in trouble with the Freedom of Religion Act which allowed the Planning Commission to use the standard as a guide and the ability to adjust those standards for a particular circumstance. Hesaid it also had to do with the nature of the neighborhood around it. With Hope Lutheran, that street parking didn't impact anyone. In other neighborhoods it could be more significant if it was a problem. Commissioner Jonathan said he liked staffs discussion of alternative resolutions other than creating more cement or concrete such as a parking management plan for special occasions and holidays with an alternative site parking lot or something like that. As long as they had the ability to make it clear that they recognize potential problems and were open to creative management of those potential problems, then he was okay with it. Mr. Drell said that staff would take another shot at it at the next meeting. Commissioner Finerty asked if staff wanted to continue it to July 15. Mr. Smith noted that this was a public hearing and that there were people present to speak. Regarding Sacred Heart, Chairperson Campbell believed that most people parking on the street were on Deep Canyon, not on the side streets. She said she also noticed about five cars parked on Florine, but they were mostly on Deep Canyon. They would rather park there because it was easier to get out. Commissioner Tschopp asked when staff was doing the parking study for these churches if they looked at or ascertained how full the sanctuary was. He said they weren't so much dealing with the problem as it exists today, although they had a couple of churches that were a problem, they were looking down the road. Churches would fill up depending on how popular or what the ability was of the minister, priest, preacher, so they could have these problems in the future. When they looked at them and said they didn't have a problem now, they should keep in mind that ministers would change and so then could the number of people in the sanctuary which would then have an negative impact with parking on the streets. Mr. Drell noted that Ruth's Chris could get a lousy chef, etc. That is why by their nature all the parking requirements were averages. They didn't assume the most 26 MINUTES r PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3. 2003 successful or a failure. What was the worst thing that would happen if there was a great restaurant or church? The good news is that there is a great restaurant or church and as long as the ramifications of that weren't disastrous for the surrounding area or a significant inconvenience, that's when they would evaluate on a case-by-case basis. What would be the potential harm if they had the best case such as a successful church? They adjust the parking accordingly based on each individual situation. He said they didn't count the number of parishioners inside the sanctuary. Commissioner Tschopp said he didn't have a problem with the intentwith the direction staff was taking, he was just stating that they were looking down the road at potential problems so if they were talking about parking, they should be looking at how full the sanctuary was and how much more it could hold, which would be relevant to the number of cars parked on the street and more residents would be impacted. Because churches were a little bit different in that they do sit in residential neighborhoods, that did have a direct impact on residential quality of life. But he thought that if they were looking at anything that had a reoccurring event (places of assembly) that would impact neighborhoods, there should be something in the code that allowed them to work with the individual to address it. Mr. Drell said that is what they would try to come up with. Some language and criteria for those kinds of special considerations to occur which were generic in their application. Chairperson Campbell said that it was also seasonal. Right now there weren't that many people at these churches, yet there were still people parking on the street. So for six months out of the year was when they had a problem. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked for testimony in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MR. PHILIP SMITH, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Palm Desert Community Presbyterian Church, 80-703 Avenue 49 in Indio, addressed the commission. He said they could support the direction the commission seemed to be taking. A good example of what the commission was talking about was what they were required to do in connection to their current expansion. They were conditioned in the approvals to do a parking study and generate a parking management plan, which they did. He thought the City would have continuing jurisdiction to see that it worked. When they opened their new facility 27 P MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3 2003 later this year, he thought that would be a good example to see how they were doing. He thought the site specific approach made a lot of sense and said they would be happy to work with staff and looked forward to seeing the draft ordinance. MR. DOUG GERARD, Pastor of the Palm Desert Presbyterian Church, 77-664 Carla Court in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He said they had been using a management parking service to help them through the season. For them that seasonal period was about five to six months. He thought that what he read in terms of the current ordinance, one space for three seats, their average attendance during the season was about 1,200 people over three services. During the summer, the attendance was down to about 700. So it was definitely a seasonal problem. There was a residential community to the north where a lot of their folks had been parking, especially during the construction period. They had been having the shuttle service to assist those folks to get to the sanctuary. He agreed it was a site specific issue. One question he had was just because the congregation or sanctuary only seated 200 or 300 people, that didn't mean they didn't have a parking problem. In fact, the parking problem might be more significant for a smaller congregation or smaller sanctuary. He thanked the commission for their time. Commissioner Jonathan thought that was a good and salient point as they head toward a site specific solution. He thought maybe they shouldn't limit it to the larger sanctuaries, but make it available to all places of gathering. Chairperson Campbell left the public hearing open and asked for a motion of continuance. Staff suggested a continuance to August 5, 2003. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, continuing Case No. ZOA 03-01 to August 5, 2003 by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS 28 FT. REVISIONSUBJECT MINUTES � � � PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5 2003 Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was none and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Campbell asked for commission comments. Commissioner Finerty said she would move for approval. Commissioner Tschopp seconded the motion. Mr. Smith clarified that with respect to the office building to the east, they would attempt to elicit cooperation from that applicant. If in fact there were windows there, it might be something the applicant would have to live with because that project had standing as an approved project. If there were windows, they would endeavor to get cooperation. Mr. Barnett spoke up and said he believed there were windows there so he planned to put up trees blocking them. He already ordered some Italian Cypress, so he was ready. Chairperson Campbell noted there was a motion and a second and asked for the vote. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2218, recommending to City Council approval of C/Z 03-07. Motion carried 5-0. D. Case No. ZOA 03-01 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant (Continued from June 3, 2003) Request for approval of an amendment to the Municipal Code as it relates to parking requirements for churches and other places of assembly, Municipal Code Section 25.58.310. Mr. Smith noted that in June commission directed staff away from imposing a surcharge on large churches, but felt they should come up with language which would take care of exceptional circumstances. They 17 SUBJECT It ' MINUTES REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5 2003 attempted to do that at this point by adding under places of assembly that the Planning Commission may require additional parking if the commission made the finding that specific operational characteristics of the use would create additional demand for parking. That would apply to all uses which fell under "places of assembly" such as auditoriums, theaters, sports arenas, stadiums, churches and other places of assembly. They also took advantage at this point in time to take libraries out of that category and moved them into "other uses" and then consolidated the current places.of assembly in that all of the uses under places of assembly had the same standards, but they were spread out all over the ordinance, so they were trying to do a little housekeeping at this time. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Tschopp said that it appeared that it would address their concerns if they had churches coming in to be built new or to expand, so if they were aware of circumstances that would warrant additional parking, it could be required at that time. Mr. Smith concurred. He said the commission could require a parking management plan, additional parking, and whatever else seemed appropriate under the circumstances they were in at that point in time. Given how theaters, auditoriums and churches could change as to the number of people attending them, Commissioner Tschopp asked if they could have a clause stating in there that if parking became a problem, or they would always be part of a parking plan, or something of that nature. Mr. Smith said the City Attorney advised that they could do that under the parking management plan. Commissioner Tschopp thought that it made sense to have that on places where the congregations could grow significantly, create a problem in the neighborhoods, and for it to be a standard item for in the future if it was a problem, they would be under that parking plan and would have to readdress the city. Mr. Smith said it could be a standard condition that the applicant, in cooperation with the City, develop a parking management plan and that as a provision of the parking management plan, it has at some threshold when they expand beyond a certain number, then it triggered additional provisions. Commissioner Tschopp thought that made sense and was something they should look at so that they didn't run into the same problems in the future and if they did, they would have the means to make them come in and work out the problem. That was his recommendation. 18 �V J SUBJECT Tl MINUTES F REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION — AUGUST 5, 2003 Commissioner Jonathan asked if Commissioner Tschopp was suggesting that it would be something that, if they require additional parking mitigation, that they do it at that time as a condition or if he was suggesting that it be part of the revised code section. Commissioner Tschopp said he would like to see it used in a manner that would give them the most authority to address problems, whether it was a new applicant or someone coming in for an amendment. Commissioner Jonathan said he was going to suggest that the wording be modified slightly in that portion of the code where they said, "require additional parking" and instead say, "require additional parking mitigation" so it would say that, "where a conditional use permit is required, Planning Commission may require additional parking mitigation if the Planning Commission makes the finding that specific operational characteristics of the use creates additional demand for parking." In other words, requiring additional spaces might not be the solution. They might want off-site parking, a parking management plan, and there were a lot of options and staff had been creative in resolving parking issues and he wanted to have the leeway, including what Commissioner Tschopp referenced, to resolve those kinds of issues. Mr. Smith thought the commission would see staff coming in with requirements for parking management plans a lot more frequently. This clause gave them the ability to do that. Commissioner Tschopp stated that he liked the idea of additional parking mitigation because sometimes they didn't want another big parking lot, they wanted other solutions like busing, etc., so he liked the addition of that word. Commissioner Jonathan said that especially applied to existing parking lots where the use has blossomed and they didn't have the option of adding spaces, but they wanted to be able to require other measures from the applicant. So if inserting the word "mitigation" after parking gave them the ability, that was what he preferred. Mr. Erwin suggested that they not only add the word mitigation, but also go a little further and add in "and / or parking management plan." That clearly would let anyone coming in be aware that it was a distinct possibility. Commission concurred. 19 SUBJECT 1, MINUTES 1.� �' ` I — REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5 2003 Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing, there was no one present to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION, and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Campbell asked for a motion. Action: ' It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2219, recommending to City Council approval of ZOA 03-01 as amended. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (July 16, 2003) Chairperson Campbell advised that there was a meeting on July 16, 2003, at which time they had two artists who showed them renditions of monument signs for the entrances to Palm Desert at Dinah Shore / Monterey and Washington / Fred Waring, but the commission voted them down. So they were looking for other artists or different renditions. B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) E. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) 20 Y CIIY 0f PflEM DESEfl1 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT. CALIFORNIA 9z26c-2178 TEL: 760 346—o611 FAX 760 34e1 1098 mfn@Palm-0es org // �V- CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE ZOA 03-01 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance as it relates to parking requirements for churches and other places of assembly. M.C. Section 25.58.310. SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday,.September 25,2003,before the Palm Desert City Council at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert City Hall, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive,Palm Desert,California,at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the department of community development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m.and 5:00 p.m.Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the planning commission at,or prior to,the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun RACHELLE KLASSEN,City Clerk September 9,2003 Palm Desert Planning Commission CITY OF PALM DESERT . DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: June 3, 2003 CASE NO: ZOA 03-01 REQUEST: Amendment to the Municipal Code as it relates to parking requirements for churches and other places of assembly, Municipal Code Section 25.58.310 APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert I. BACKGROUND: March 18, 2003 staff presented a church parking survey report which had been conducted during February 2003. The data revealed that there were no parking concerns related to small and medium sized churches, but that larger, older churches consistently had overflow parking onto adjacent streets for a few hours Sunday mornings. Commission directed staff to prepare options for a code amendment which�j would impose a parking surcharge on "large" churches. / II. ANALYSIS: The problem is that larger churches experience overflow parking during the season. Current code does not differentiate between large churches and small churches. The following issues need to be addressed as part of any proposed code amendment: A. Define what we mean by "large" church. Response: During the March 18, 2003 meeting, commission agreed that a church with a sanctuary capacity of 1 ,000 persons would be considered large. STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 03-01 JUNE 3, 2003 The question is what is the threshold? Three hundred, four hundred or more? Churches experiencing onstreet overflow parking were Sacred Heart, Hope Lutheran, St. Margaret's and Palm Desert Community Presbyterian. We have reviewed the seating capacity of each of those churches to try to determine an appropriate threshold. CHURCH SANCTUARY SEATING Sacred Heart 1 ,000 persons St. Margaret's 903 persons Palm Desert Community Presbyterian 714 persons Hope Lutheran 550 persons The threshold should therefore be set somewhat below the lowest sanctuary size where significant onstreet overflow,parking occurs. At Hope Lutheran the number of vehicles parked on the street ranged from 7 to 17 depending on the time of the service. It is interesting to note while there were 17 vehicles on the street, the onsite parking lot was a third empty (i.e., there were 68 available spaces). At another service Hope Lutheran had 7 vehicles parked on the street and the onsite parking was occupied 100%. Seven overflow vehicles parked onstreet for one to two hours a week does not seem to warrant a parking "surcharge." B. Amount of Surcharge. If we apply a parking surcharge to "large" churches, the question becomes how much additional parking should be required. Response: The most significant overflow parking occurs at Sacred Heart Church which has seating for 1 ,000 persons and has 420 onsite parking spaces 2 STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 03-01 JUNE 3, 2003 which is one space per 2.38 seats. This amount (26% above the current code requirement) is adequate for all Sacred Heart services except the 9:30 a.m. service when they have 589 cars parked onsite and on nearby streets. Providing this much parking onsite would require a 76% surcharge. A 76% surcharge would require an additional acre and a half of asphalt. Staff feels that this would be excessive given the extent and duration of the overflow parking. The current parking requirement for churches is one space per three (3) seats or one (1 ) space for every 35 square feet of assembly area. A 25% surcharge would increase the required parking to one space per 2.4 seats. A 50% surcharge would increase the required parking to one space per two seats. At Hope Lutheran, vehicles parking on the street are not the result of a lack of onsite parking, but rather a preference of people to park in legal onstreet parking spaces. C. Surcharge Parking Onsite Versus Offsite. Should the "surcharge" spaces be required onsite or can they be provided offsite? Response: If the City were to require the parking be provided onsite, it will significantly increase the amount of asphalt for a problem which only occurs a few hours per week during the season. If we require the church to provide offsite parking (i.e., lease use of an existing nearby lot or a further away lot and provide,a shuttle) this will reduce the amount of asphalt on the church site. The question is whether church members will park at a satellite parking lot (and walk or shuttle) 3 STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 03-01 JUNE 3, 2003 or will they use closer-by street parking and walk a shorter distance. Street spaces would have to be signed and enforced for no parking. I'm not sure we want to direct the Sheriff to ticket church goers for using otherwise legal onstreet parking. III. CONCLUSION: Although staff does not recommend approval of this amendment, staff has provided a draft resolution containing the following provisions: A. That a "large" church be defined as one having a sanctuary seating 700 persons or more. B. That the amount of the parking surcharge be set at no more than 25%. C. That the surcharge parking spaces may be provided offsite through long- term lease. When this offsite parking is located more than 500 feet from the church property, a shuttle service shall be provided. IV. RECOMMENDATION: That Case No. ZOA 03-01 amending parking requirements for large churches be tabled. V. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft resolution B. Legal notice Prepared by: Revi wed and Approved by: Steve Smith P it Drel Planning Manager Director of Community Development Revie nd Concur• Omer Croy ACM for Devel ent Services 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 25.58.310 AS IT RELATES TO PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR CHURCHES AND OTHER PLACES OF ASSEMBLY. CASE NO. ZOA 03-01 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 3rd day of June, 2003, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an amendment to the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Chapter 25.58.310; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 02-60," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15305 (Class 5, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) of CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify its recommendation as described below: 1 . That the Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent with the adopted General Plan and affected specific plans. 3. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment would better serve the public health, safety and general welfare than the current regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of a Zoning Ordinance text amendment as provided in the attached Exhibit "A" to amend Municipal Code Chapter 25.58.310. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 3rd day of June, 2003, by the following.vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT "A" Section 1 : That the following be added to Municipal Code Section 25.58.310 D Churches and other places of assembly not specified above. "When a church or other place of assembly has a seating capacity in the main sanctuary in excess of 700 persons, a parking "surcharge" of 25% shall be imposed. Said "surcharge" spaces may be located onsite or offsite through a long-term lease. When the offsite parking is located more than 500 feet from the church property, a shuttle service shall be provided." 3 CIIY OE PH [ M 0 M P I 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92z60-0578 VEL: 76o 346—o61 I FAX: 760 341-7098 m(a®palm-demrt.oq CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE ZOA 03-01 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance as it relates to parking requirements for churches and other places of assembly. M.C. Section 25-58.310. SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday,June 3,2003,before the Palm Desert Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert City Hall,73-510 Fred Waring Drive,Pahn Desert,California,at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the department of community development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m.and 5:00 p.m.Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the planning commission at,or prior to,the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL,Secretary May 20,2003 Palm Desert Planning Commission I CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Steve Smith, Planning Manager DATE: March 18, 2003 continued from December 3, 2002 SUBJECT: Church Parking Survey I. BACKGROUND: During the discussion of conditional use permit requests for churches, Planning Commission directed staff to conduct a parking survey of church parking lots and assess the appropriateness of the current parking requirement (i.e. one parking space for every three seats). Previously, staff had prepared a comparison with other cities. Palm Desert had one of the higher parking requirements. During February, 2003 Code Compliance staff conducted parking counts at twelve churches around the City. Most churches were counted on two separate weekends. Large denominational churches were counted and small non-denominational churches were counted (see attached survey). St. Margaret's Episcopal Church and Palm Desert Community Presbyterian Church on Highway 74 were not counted due to construction activity at the Community Church. ll. ANALYSIS: A review of the parking survey data reveals: 1 . Small to mid-sized churches do not have overflow parking problems and utilize very little street parking. While these churches may use some street parking they still have vacant spaces on-site. 2. Larger, long established denominational churches have services where on-site parking approaches or exceeds 100% and utilize significant street parking. At Sacred Heart and Hope Lutheran, 100% on-site occupancy is not unusual. At Sacred Heart's 9:30 a.m. service the on-site parking was 112% (470 cars in 420 space parking lot) and 119 vehicles were counted on nearby streets. 3. For the average church the current parking requirement is adequate. STAFF REPORT PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 The goal of the code required parking spaces is to provide adequate on-site parking for the average church. This is also the case with our restaurant standard department store requirement and all other uses covered in the municipal code. When we observed the situation at Sacred Heart Church (i.e. 100% + street parking) we contacted the church and attempted to determine what was causing this anomaly. Sacred Heart advised the main sanctuary seats 1 ,000 people. Under current code this would result in 333 required parking spaces. We inquired as to the size of church Sunday school attendance to see if it was impacting parking. We were advised that the maximum number of children at a Sunday school service is 50. This could account for 16 more parking spaces for a total of 349 spaces. The lot has 420 spaces. We conclude that this parking anomaly is a result of a reduction in the average household size and particularly the number of single persons attending services. III. CONCLUSION: The problem, of course, is how to address a problem which is observed in large denominational churches but not evident at smaller non-denominational churches. We should not increase the required parking for a whole group when only a small portion of the group is experiencing parking problems. Even if we were to amend the code it would not impact existing churches. It would only be applicable to new churches. With the exception of Southwest Community Church, our experience with new churches is that they do not fall into the parking problem category. It is the long established churches which outgrow their available parking while membership continues to grow which have the problem. At this time, staff is not prepared to recommend a code amendment. Creating extra parking for the average church is not needed and excessive asphalt is not a positive contribution to the environment. 2 STAFF REPORT PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 IV. RECOMMENDATION: That the issue of adequacy of church parking be tabled. Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved by: teve Smith Phil Drell Planning Manager Director of Community Development /dq 3 MINUT E S S LM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION I SUBJECT T( RCH 18, 2003 rs. �� ,� REVISION Action: _ It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Chairperson Campbell, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Chairperson Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2192 recommending to City Council approval of TT 31135, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). Clerical staff asked for confirmation that the action by the commission was a recommendation of approval to City Council. Mr. Drell said it was adoption of the resolution before them, which was recommending approval. Commission concurred. B. Discussion of Church Parking Standards Mr. Drell indicated that Mr. Smith could answer any questions regarding the investigation. Regarding Sacred Heart, Chairperson Campbell stated that she takes her parents there and people park on the street, but there were actually spaces in the parking lot that people weren't using because it was easier. That was the only reason there was more parking on the street. Mr. Drell said they kind of limited their access to the parking lot in deference to the neighborhood, which probably exacerbated that problem since people couldn't get out onto Florine. The bigger problem was they had these single, old major denominations that get bigger and bigger. The other problem was that as the congregation aged, there were more one and two people per car and not the three that the ordinance called for. Using Sacred Heart as an example, Commissioner Jonathan noted that their main sanctuary seats 1,000 people. The requirement under the current ordinance would be 333 parking spaces. Yet they were getting 470 cars according to the counts. So staffs conclusion was that there didn't seem to be a problem with smaller churches, but that there did seem to be a problem with larger churches. He asked why they wouldn't then conclude that the ordinance needed to be modified for larger churches and keep the ordinance 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 + SUBJECT Tt REVISION the same for up to a certain size, but require additional parking ratios for churches over a certain size. Mr. Smith said it wasn't necessarily consistent — across the-full spectrum. They don't say to a restauranteur that they are goingto be more successful than the average restaurant and in that case they have to provide extra parking. Going in they have no way of knowing which churches were going to be overly successful. Mr. Drell noted that the Mormon church, which is a large church, doesn't have a problem. Mr. Smith concurred. He said they had 180 vacant parking spaces. Mr. Drell said that Temple Sinai was kind of a large church and it didn't have a problem. The difference was partly the devotional quality of the members which was kind of hard to characterize in an ordinance. Since staff recognized that there was a problem, Commissioner Jonathan thought non-resolution was not the best direction to go in. Mr. Drell asked how severe a problem it was. The fact that people were parking on the street for a couple of hours on Sunday at three or four of the churches, did that justify adding another acre of asphalt to the parking lot. Mr. Smith said that it would also be required of a lot of churches that don't have a problem. Mr. Drell said it might be a problem, but the streets were designed specifically to accommodate cars parking on them. If they don't want cars parked on them, - -. they should make them a lot skinnier. There was a lot of debate about street -- design and that we do design our streets too wide. He said it might be somewhat of a problem, but was it enough of one to add another acre of asphalt. Commissioner Lopez noted that Sacred Heart was a campus with all the different uses. There was the church with Sunday School. Mr. Smith said staff contacted them about that thinking they were going to have seas of children there which would mean they needed to add in for the number of kids. According to the information they gave staff, the most they ever have is 50 which would account for 16 parking spaces which was not significant. Chairperson Campbell noted that they didn't drive anyway. Mr. Drell said that staff did determine that they should count Sunday School capacity because that was part of the three seats per car. Two of them could be adults and one a child. So really the Sunday School was an extension of the sanctuary. It was just kind of offsite. So they should count Sunday School capacity as part of the seat count for determining parking, but unfortunately . 28 MINUTES r. PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION N SUBJECT Tt MARCH 18, 2003 REVISION they couldn't identify that the problems that were occurring were because of Sunday School. Commissioner Tschopp said that it seemed to him that in the study they came up with two of the 12 surveyed, or 16.5% have a parking problem. If they added in the two churches that they didn't include which are large denomination churches, they would have four of 14 which would be almost 29% of the churches having a parking problem. It seemed to him that in some ways they have identified a problem, but they concluded that they weren't going to do anything about it. They were going to see churches come in that want to expand and if they came in to expand to a larger church because they are successful, they were going to expand under the old parking codes, which they acknowledge that when a church gets large enough, that is when it becomes a problem. In his mind, now was the time to plan for the future by implementing a code on the parking which would address those expansion plans in the future. Maybe it wasn't more asphalt, but maybe it was getting a little more creative and perhaps it was offsite parking. When churches meet on Sunday mornings or Saturdays, a lot of businesses are closed and there is a lot of empty commercial parking spaces sometimes in areas. Perhaps they needed to find a way to require them instead of parking in residential neighborhoods, which was really the problem, but to bus them from other commercial areas or something of that nature. Chairperson Campbell didn't think that would work. Commissioner Tschopp said his point was that they needed to do something because churches will grow. So what they were saying is that there is a problem with large churches and if they didn't do something now, they would have more problems with larger churches down the road. Commissioner Jonathan concurred. He thought that staffs investigation confirmed their suspicions that there is a problem. The analysis was further helpful in that it isolated the problems to the larger churches. So now the next logical step wasn't to say they wouldn't do anything about it, but to say they would do something about the larger churches and that was why he suggested some kind of a tiered ordinance which was consistent with others. Commissioner Finerty concurred. It was like what they did for regular offices versus medical offices. Commissioner Jonathan agreed. 29 MINUTES II , PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION tF SUBJECT Tl MARCH 18, 2003 k r REVISION Commissioner Lopez asked if they were looking at basing it on square footage. Commissioner Jonathan clarified that it would be on sanctuary size. ---He didn't know what that number was. He thought-they would have to ask staff to go back to the drawing board, but certainly a sanctuary that seats 1,000 is large. A sanctuary that seats 100 is not. Where the delineation was he didn't know and how much additional ratio should be required for the larger churches he didn't know. Mr. Smith noted that they were suggesting a surcharge on larger sanctuaries. Commissioner Jonathan concurred. He agreed with Commissioner Finerty that it would be similar to what they do with service industrial versus warehouse, similar to what they do with office compared to service industrial, similar to what they do with medical compared to office. Chairperson Campbell asked if this would be for new churches. Commissioner Jonathan said yes, new churches as well as expansions. Commissioner Jonathan said his suggestion was to ask staff to continue their analysis and come back with a further recommendation regarding some kind of a resolution along the discussion that just took place with regard to the larger sanctuaries, the larger churches. Commissioner Finerty asked if they thought they could define larger as 500 or more. Commissioner Jonathan said he didn't know and was open to suggestions. He thought they would probably end up with around that size. -- Commissioner Tschopp said he didn't want to complicate the issue, but in large cities when they have events a lot of times they have satellite parking. People drive to that location and then catch a bus to the main event. If they have a large successful church or a large successful stadium down here some day, perhaps that was a way to keep the asphalt, which was a staff concern, in check. He thought it would be nice to draft something that would take into consideration mass transit. Commissioner Jonathan said he was in favor of mass transit and wasn't opposed to a creative approach. For example, they could keep the parking standards the same, but for churches with sanctuaries over 500 or whatever number, that they be required to have satellite space available in the event that they either have special events or in the event, for example, that their regular Sunday morning services are deemed to be a problem for the neighborhood, so a contingency satellite parking lot available. Commissioner Finerty asked for a few alternatives. Commissioner Jonathan concurred. He 30 /. PALM NUTES DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION i '� Sbg�ECT Tl ARCH 18, 2003 REVISION Lo� k � r r wasn't trying to define the solution, but they identified a problem and wanted to work on the solution. Commissioner Tschopp noted that at the meeting of February 18, they were going to condition an applicant to park the employees onsite. He didn't know if there was a way to took at code, or if it was necessary to amend code, but to him employees were going to park where they are told to park. If management tells them to park in the street to free up their spaces next to the building, that is where they were going to go. They had no leverage against the employer. It made sense to him that if they actually had something that required employees/staff to have to park onsite. The difference being that customers would raise objections with a business to get to park closer. He thought it would be good to have it in code that employees had to park onsite and they might see some owners take additional steps to correct a problem because their customers would complain. Chairperson Campbell said that is what she does in front of her store. But there were beauty operators nearby and the owner of that shop parked in front of her store and he was there all day. So she went out there and told him to park somewhere else or in front of his own store. Mr. Smith noted that the owner of Napas Tapas parked his little car with advertising all over it. Mr. Drell said the problem was there is public parking. They could restrict it. And that was a problem with offsite parking. Unless they restricted the public parking adjacent to the church, people would park there as opposed to parking four blocks away and taking a bus. It was a significant administrative task. He said there is an ordinance which allows preferential residential parking. It was seen in major cities often next to business districts where they take the residential street parking and make it prohibited unless the vehicle has a sticker and the sticker is only given to people who live there. But unless they did that, offsite parking wasn't going to work. Commissioner Tschopp said he wasn't talking about churches, but in other cities when they have events that are regularly scheduled / reoccurring, a lot of times the signs posted would be no parking from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. or no parking Saturday nights 6:00 p.m. to midnight. Again, it was an enforcement problem, but the concern was the infringement upon residential neighborhoods and that's where they should be looking to help out. Along that same issue, Commissioner Jonathan noted that he drives by the Roberge Gallery and Augusta Restaurant frequently and on weekend nights 31 � c MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION I ' SUBJECT Tl MARCH 18, 2003FT' �` REVISIDN there was a car they parked sideways on the driveway to prevent access into the parking lot. He assumed that was because of valet parking. But he asked _ - if that was supposed to be a-p blic parking lot. He asked how that worked and if they approved it for general public parking. Mr. Diercks asked for clarification on the location. Mr. Smith noted that it was on El Paseo at Portola. Mr. Diercks said they weren't allowed to restrict any access if it was a public parking lot. The aisle was not supposed to be restricted. Commissioner Jonathan said that driveway was blocked by a car being parked. Mr. Diercks said that wasn't right. Valet parking permits specifically say they aren't allowed to restrict any drive aisles. They are allowed to put in cones for parking stalls themselves, but not the drive aisles. Commissioner Jonathan said this was a regular weekend night. Mr. Diercks said he was in charge of valet parking now, so he would investigate. Commissioner Jonathan said that forced patrons to park offsite and they were trying to provide parking onsite. He didn't know where the off-street parking was taking place, but it could be intruding into those neighborhoods. Mr. Diercks said he would definitely look into it. Commissioner Jonathan thanked him. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN-PUBLIC-PLACES - (No-meeting) -- -B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (No meeting) E. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) F. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) XI. COMMENTS Chairperson Campbell asked staff to look into the dust regulations relative to dirt roads and parking lots. Mr. Diercks didn't know if there had been any discussions on that matter, but would initiate discussions. 32 ifs RA C.EI VED �r-� CITY OF PALM DESERT : 2003 BUILDING & SAFETY DEPARTMENT-4-V=,N1ry .V CITY or Palv'D�r 1EPIRTME.1'7 SERT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Hart Ponder Jr. Code Compliance Supervisor From: Johnny Terfehr, Code Compliance Officer Date: February 19, 2003 Subject: Parking Lot Survey, Various Church's Vehicles were counted on Saturday February 8, 2003, Sunday February 9, 2003, Friday February 14, 2003 and Sunday February 16, 2003. Counts were taken at the times and locations listed on the attached spreadsheet. On the spreadsheet I have included the scheduled service time (service time) and the actual time I took the count (count time). The number of vehicles in the parking lot (count) and the.total available marked parking spaces (available). I also included the number of vehicles parked on the street that I believed were attending the church service (on street) at that time. At the Sacred Heart Church, you will notice that there are more vehicles than available parking spaces at some services. Vehicles were parked in unmarked spaces and on ends of parking rows in the red curb area. On street parking for the Sacred Heart Church included Deep Canyon and Florine. On street parking for Hope Lutheran Church included Portola and Fairway. On street parking for St. John's Lutheran was on a vacant grass lot across an alleyway from the Church. For the remainder of Church's the on street parking was the same as the church street address. I did not observe any serious conflicts in traffic between services. It seemed during the times I was able to monitor traffic that it was flowing smoothly. Sincerely, Johnny L. Terfehr Code Compliance Officer H:1My doe ",e Izhurt.A pa*.V SMymemoAX Location Date Service Ume Count Time Count Available On Street . 8-Feb-2003 9:15 AM 9:25 AM 20 181 74-200 Count Club Drive 10:50 AM 11:00 AM 80 181 8-Feb-2003 10:00 AM 10:05 AM 31 328 73-251 Hovle Lane 14-Feb-2003 7:00 PM 7:05 PM 38 328 8-Feb-2003 6:45 AM 6:50 AM 117 420 3 43-775 Deep Canyon Road 8:00 AM 8:10 AM 364 420 33 9:30 AM 10:00 AM 470 420 119 11:00 AM 11:14 AM 365 420 45 12:30 PM 12:35 PM 161 420 11 16-Feb-2003 9:30 AM 9:53 AM 458 420 104 11:00 AM 11:20 AM 362 420 44 •• 8-Feb-2003 8:00 AM 8:15 AM 43 185 45-900 Portola Avenue 9:15 AM 9:40 AM 185 185 7 10:30 AM 10:50 AM 117 185 17 16-Feb-2003 8:00 AM 8:26 AM 59 185 0 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 155 185 9 10:30 AM 10:30 AM 169 185 12 8-Feb-2003 9:00 AM 9:05 AM 101 232 12 72-960 Park View 1:00 PM 1:08 PM 122 232 0 16-Feb-2003 9:00 AM 9:20 AM 135 232 18 1:00 PM 1:00 PM 111 232 3 . - • ... 8-Feb-2003 9:15 AM 9:15 AM 0 63 74-109 Larrea 10:00 AM 10:10 AM 15 63 21 =. 8-Feb-2003 9:00 AM 9:20 AM 47 82 43-400 Warner Trail 10:00 AM 10:20 AM 72 82 4 16-Feb-2003 9:00 AM 9:03 AM 44 82 2 10:00 AM 10:04 AM 73 82 10 8-Feb-2003 9:00 AM 9:25 AM 75 75 16 42-695 Washington Street 11:00 AM 11:05 AM 66 75 5 16-Feb-2003 9:00 AM 9:10 AM 751 75 22 11:00 AM 11:05 AM 691 75 4 'Location Date Service Time Count Time Count Available On Street -ToW :.. 8-Feb-2003 9:30 AM 9:44 AM 8 70 45-825 Edgehill 10:30 AM 10:40 AM 20 70 16-Feb-2003 9:30 AM 9:35 AM 9 70 10:30 AM 10:36 AM 19 70 8-Feb-2003 9:30 AM 9:55 AM 66 181 74-200 Country Club 16-Feb-2003 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 71 181 8-Feb-2003 10:00 AM 10:25 AM 0 54 43-250 Warner Trail 16-Feb-2003 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 0 54 8-Feb-2003 10:30 AM 10:35 AM 351 47 72-700 Fred Waring 16-Feb-2003 10:30 AM 10:42 AM 31 47 b CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development DATE: December 3, 2002 SUBJECT: Standards for church parking DISCUSSION: During a public hearing July 16th, 2002, staff was directed to reevaluate City parking standards for churches. Currently, churches are required to provide one parking space for each three fixed seats within the main auditorium or one for every 35 square feet of seating area in the main auditorium. Staff contacted other local jurisdictions to compare parking requirements for churches. PARKING STANDARD FOR A 3,500 SQUARE FOOT CHURCH CITY CODE REQUIREMENT # OF SPACES REQUIRED 15 spaces required. Rancho One parking space for four Mirage has three existing RANCHO MIRAGE seats or 30 gross floor area, churches, one approved and one plus classroom and meeting in the planning process. They rooms. have no concerns with current parking standards. 13 spaces required. Indian INDIAN WELLS One per two employees and Wells has not approved any one per 300 gross floor area. churches. Standard is untested at this time. 20 spaces required. La Quinta One space per 3 people, or has not approved any churches one space per 25 gross floor lately. Currently one church is in LA QUINTA area and additional parking for the process of expanding. separate uses based on the Currently looking at ways to parking standard for that use. provide additional parking for homes that were converted to churches. 12.5 parking spaces required. *With a small church like this the One space per five persons planning department would d on maximum require one space five people permitted, base CATHEDRAL CITY person defined d the Unified based on assembly area. One Building Code. church has been approved in the past 5 years. They have no concern with current parking standards. One for every three fixed 20 spaces required. Palm seats, or one for each 24 Springs approved a church two PALM SPRINGS gross floor area of primary years ago. They have no assembly area. concerns with their current parking standards. One for every three fixed PALM DESERT seats, or one for each 35 feet 20 spaces required. of gross floor area of primary assembly area. Palm Desert's parking requirements are very similar to the standards used by other jurisdictions. The requirements are based on the number of seats in the assembly area, as this is the most intense use. Any accessory uses, such as offices and meeting rooms, do not need additional parking because those spaces are used on non-service days, or before and after service. This comparison does not provide us with enough information to make any suggestions for changing the current standards. Staff recommends that this discussion be continued to March, so that we can conduct a parking study of a representation selection of churches throughout the City to determine the nature of the problem and the appropriate solution. Prepared by: TONY BAGAT PLANNING TECHNICIAN Reviewed and ApprovedL- PHIL DRELL DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 moving pretty quickly and they are selling them almost as quickly as they can build them. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification that staff wasn't recommending Alternative 2. Mr. Drell said the developers weren't asking for it and the property owners weren't asking for it. Chairperson Finerty suggested going with Alternative 3 and asked if staff needed a minute motion or if they should just leave it alone. Mr. Drell said they could just receive and file the report. It was up to the commission. Chairperson Finerty asked the commission if they wanted to receive and file. The commission concurred. Action: The report was received and filed. B. Discussion of Church Parking Standards Mr. Drell explained that as discussed at the last meeting, staff investigated how other cities were regulating their church parking and found that Palm Desert is actually on the high side. On the other hand, we have most of the churches. Before they imposed standards that weren't necessary, staff was suggesting that they select a representative sample of churches of various types and sizes in the city and study them through the season to find out if we have a problem and the nature of that problem. Whether it was big churches that have a problem, the small ones or medium ones or if they need different standards for different sized churches. He was suggesting they come back in March once staff has completed the study to know what the nature of the problem is and the appropriate solution. Chairperson Finerty asked if there was a motion continuing this until the second meeting in March. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, continuing this discussion to March 18, 2003. 67 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 Commissioner Jonathan requested that staff please include in their sampling St. Margaret's and the Palm Desert Presbyterian Church. Chairperson Finerty called for the vote. The motion carried 5-0. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (October 16, 2002) Commissioner Campbell indicated that the committee chose two artists to put in their artwork. One of them was a man and a woman, two dancers, and they were about eight feet tall. The other one was about 50 pieces. It was made out of metal work and looked like cacti. Chairperson Finerty noted there might be more discussion about the one with the cacti. There was some concern expressed about it at the Landscape Committee meeting. B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (November 21 , 2002) Chairperson Finerty indicated they talked about the Economic Element and Land Use. Staff and the consultant would be bringing back four plans of land use December 11 and they might be able to decide on one at that time. E. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (November 26, 2002) Chairperson Finerty noted that they reviewed the proposed artwork as mentioned by Commissioner Campbell. They also talked about the Westfield Shopping Town's landscaping around the bus bay, the Fred Waring strip and park signage, and they were going to have an event for the opening of that park. For the Cook Street median north of Country Club, they would like that to have beautiful year-round color. What was brought to the committee looked like that had been achieved, so they hoped it would all grow, would stay growing and would be properly maintained. 68 CIIY OF PH101 DESERI 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346—o6i i FAX: 760 340-0574 info®palm-desert.org May 29, 2003 St. Margaret's Episcopal Church Bill Harris 47-535 Highway 74 Palm Desert, CA 92260 RE: Proposed Code Amendment Dear Mr. Harris: Tuesday, June 3, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. the Palm Desert Planning Commission will consider an amendment to the municipal code relating to required parking for "large" churches. This proposed amendment (copy enclosed) will be prospective in that it will only be applicable to cases arising after its enactment. Your church could be impacted if you were to seek approval of an expansion at some point in the future. The proposed amendment, if approved, will establish a surcharge for parking for large churches. The draft code amendment would provide that the surcharge be imposed when a church sanctuary provides seating for more than 700 persons and would amount to 25%. The surcharge parking could be provided on site or off site if a Ion term lease is obtained. P 9 P 9 You are welcome to attend and assist the Planning Commission to better define the problem and any possible solutions at the public hearing on June 3, 2003. If you have any questions regarding the proposed amendment please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Sincerely, STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER SS:dq CIIV 01 PHIm OESERI 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346-061I FAX: 760 340-0574 info@palm-dtsttoorg May 29, 2003 Sacred Heart Catholic Church Father Howard Lincoln 43-775 Deep Canyon Road Palm Desert, CA 92260 RE: Proposed Code Amendment Dear Father Lincoln: Tuesday, June 3, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. the Palm Desert Planning Commission will consider an amendment to the municipal code relating to required parking for "large" churches. This proposed amendment (copy enclosed) will be prospective in that it will only be applicable to cases arising after its enactment. Your church could be impacted if you were to seek approval of an expansion at some point in the future. The proposed amendment, if approved, will establish a surcharge for parking for large churches. The draft code amendment would provide that the surcharge be imposed when a church sanctuary provides seating for more than 700 persons and would amount to 25%. The surcharge parking could be provided on site or off site if a long term lease is obtained. You are welcome to attend and assist the Planning Commission to better define the problem and any possible solutions at the public hearing on June 3, 2003. If you have any questions regarding the proposed amendment please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Sincerely, STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER SS:dq CITY 01 PHIM 0HERI 73-5io FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346-o6i i FAX: 760 340-0574 info@palm-dese rt.orp May 29, 2003 Hope Lutheran Church Sr. Pastor Carl Witt, Jr. 45-900 Portola Avenue Palm Desert, CA 92260 RE: Proposed Code Amendment Dear Sr. Pastor Witt: Tuesday, June 3, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. the Palm Desert Planning Commission will consider an amendment to the municipal code relating to required parking for "large" churches. This proposed amendment (copy enclosed) will be prospective in that it will only be applicable to cases arising after its enactment. Your church could be impacted if you were to seek approval of an expansion at some point in the future. The proposed amendment, if approved, will establish a surcharge for parking for large churches. The draft code amendment would provide that the surcharge be imposed when a church sanctuary provides seating for more than 700 persons and would amount to 25%. The surcharge parking could be provided on site or off site if a long term lease is obtained. _ You are welcome to attend and assist the Planning Commission to better define the problem and any possible solutions at the public hearing on June 3, 2003. If you have any questions regarding the proposed amendment please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Sincerely, STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER SS:dq ��..............,rr,w CIIY Uf P 0 1 M DESERT 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346—o61 I FAX: 760 340-0574 info®palm-dcsert.a rg May 29, 2003 Palm Desert Community Presbyterian Church Rick Widney 47-321 Highway 74 Palm Desert, CA 92260 RE: Proposed Code Amendment Dear Mr. Widney: Tuesday, June 3, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. the Palm Desert Planning Commission will consider an amendment to the municipal code relating to required parking for "large" churches. This proposed amendment (copy enclosed) will be prospective in that it will only be applicable to cases arising after its enactment. Your church could be impacted if you were to seek approval of an expansion at some point in the future. The proposed amendment, if approved, will establish a surcharge for parking for large churches. The draft code amendment would provide that the surcharge be imposed when a church sanctuary provides seating for more than 700 persons and would amount to 25%. The surcharge parking could be provided on site or off site if a long term lease is obtained. You are welcome to attend and assist the Planning Commission to better define the problem and any possible solutions at the public hearing on June 3, 2003. If you have any questions regarding the proposed amendment please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Sincerely, STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER SS:dq s^a.........,,m...... f CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: August 5, 2003 continued from June 3, 2003 CASE NO: ZOA 03-01 REQUEST: Amendment to the Municipal Code as it "relates to parking requirements for churches and other places of assembly, Municipal Code Section 25.58.310 APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert I. BACKGROUND: March 18, 2003 staff presented a church parking survey report which had been conducted during February 2003. The data revealed that there were no parking concerns related to small and medium sized churches, but that larger, older churches consistently had overflow parking onto adjacent streets for a few hours Sunday mornings. Commission directed staff to prepare options for a code amendment which would impose a parking surcharge on "large" churches. June 3, 2003 staff recommended that the magnitude of the problem did not warrant a surcharge on all "large" churches. Commission concluded that a blanket surcharge was not required, but that code needed to provide for exceptional circumstances. II. ANALYSIS: Staff has prepared an amendment which will: A. Remove libraries from the places of assembly section of the parking ordinance and place it in the Other Uses category. B. Consolidate the remaining uses in the Places of Assembly section in that they (auditoriums, theaters, sports arenas, stadiums, churches and other places of assembly) all have the same parking requirement. STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 03-01 AUGUST 5, 2003 This will make the ordinance consistent with the provisions of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act (RLUIPA). The act requires that churches and other places of worship be treated consistent with other places of assembly. The standard is not changing, it is just being consolidated into one section. C. Add a provision to Places of Assembly which will read: Where a conditional use permit is required, Planning Commission may require additional parking if it makes the finding that specific operational characteristics of the use create additional demand for parking. The new "Places of Assembly" code section will read: "E. Places of Assembly. Auditoriums, theaters, 1 for each 3 fixed seats within the main sports arenas, stadiums, auditorium or for every 35 square feet of churches and other places seating area within the main auditorium of assembly. where there are no fixed seats; 18 linear inches of bench shall be considered a fixed seat. Where a conditional use permit is required, Planning Commission may require additional parking if the Planning Commission makes the finding that specific operational characteristics of the use create additional demand for parking." III. CEQA REVIEW: The proposed amendment is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption for purposes of CEQA. No further review is necessary. 2 STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 03-01 AUGUST 5, 2003 IV. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. recommending to the City Council approval of Case No. ZOA 03-01 amending the parking requirements for Places of Assembly. V. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft resolution B. Legal notice Prepared by: Re ' wed and Approved by: r J See Smith Phil Drell Planning Manager Director of Community Development Review and Concur:;' 140mer Croy ACM for Devel pment Services (Wpdocs�lm\SrXzOB03-01.pc3) 3 r a PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 25.58 AS IT RELATES TO PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR CHURCHES AND OTHER PLACES OF ASSEMBLY. CASE NO. ZOA 03-01 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 3rd day of June, 2003, hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued to August 5, 2003 to consider an amendment to the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Chapter 25.58 as described above; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the"City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 02-60," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify its recommendation as described below: 1. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent with the adopted General Plan; 3. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment would better serve the public health, safety and general welfare than the current regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of a Zoning Ordinance text amendment as provided in the attached Exhibit "A" to amend Municipal Code Chapter 25.58. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 5th day of August, 2003, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 r PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT "A" Section 1 That Section 25.58.310 E Places of Assembly be amended to read: E. Places of Assembly. Auditoriums, theaters, sports 1 for each 3 fixed seats within the main arenas, stadiums, churches and auditorium or for every 35 square feet of other places of assembly. seating area within the main auditorium where there are no fixed seats; 18 linear inches of bench shall be considered a fixed seat. Where a conditiona se permit is required, Planning Commission may require additional parking-if the Planning Commission makes the finding that specific operational characteristics of the use create additional demand for parking. Section 2 That Section 25.58.310 E Places of Assembly be amended to delete: Libraries 1 space for each 500 square feet of gross floor area. Section 3 That Section 25.58.310 F Other Uses be amended to add: Libraries 1 space for each 500 square feet of gross floor area. 3 { • +E 25.58310 E 10MMU Nt bUNn 4UM 1 PARKING STALLS PARKING STALLS USE REQUnM USE REQUIIM Public utility fkaities 1 for each 2 employees in Private clubs, lodge halls, 1 for each 75 square fed including.but not limited the largest shift phis 1 far union headquarters of gross floor arm to electric,gas,water. each vehicle used in eon- telephone and telegraph nection with the use. A Restaurants, (takeout res- 10 minimum and 10 for facilities not having minimum of 2 spaces shall tatuants)and other eating each 1 W square feet of business offices on the be provided for each such establishments including gross floor area fortesmttr- premises use regardless of building lounges for the consump- ants up to 3,000 square feet space or number of cm- lion of food and beverages and 15 spaces for each ployees 1,000 square feet of gross floor area in excess of Warehouses,storage build- 2 for each 3 employees,but 3,000 square fed of gross ings or structures used in no event less than 1 for floor area exclusively for storage each am thousand square purposes feet of gross floor arm for F. Other Uses. the fast twenty thousand square feet 1 for each two Day nurseries, including 2 far each 3 employees and thousand square fed;I for preschools and nursery teachers plus 1 loading each two thousand square schools space for each.8 children feet of gross floor arm for the second tw exey thousand G. When a fractional figure is found as a remainder square feet,I for each four in computations made to determine the number of required thousand square feet of off-sued parking spaces or garages the fraction shall be gross floor area for areas construed as the next larger whole numben m excess of the initial forty lL Parking area shall be computed by adding the areas thousand square feu of used for access drives, aisles, stalls. maneuvering, and Door area of the building. landscaping within that portion of the premises that is devoted to vehicular parking.(Ord.903 Exhibit A, 1999; Wholesale establishments I for each 3,000 square feet Ord 883 Exhibit A,1998;Ord.335(put), 1993;Ord 314 and warehouses not used of gross floor area (put),1982;Ord 264§4,1991;Ord 213§ I(part).1979; exclusively for storage Ord. 128 §§7 (put), 10, 1976;Ord. 98 § 1 (part). 1975: Exhibit A §2533-7) E.Places of Assembly. 2558.311 Conditional use permit required. Auditoriums,theaters, I for each 3 seats or 1 for A. All uses within the C-1 zone requiring a greater sports arenas, stadiums each 35 square feet of gross than one space per two hundred fifty square feet panting floor area where there are stall to Door area ratio shall be required to acquire a condi- no Cued seats tioual use permit as set forth in Chapter 25.72 of this title. B. As part of said conditional use permit the commis- Churches and other place 1 for each 3 fixed seats sion may modify the parking requirements for said use- of assembly not specified within the main auditorium In modifying such requirements the commission shall above or for every 35 square feet consider. of seating area within the 1. The parking demand generated by said use in tdabort main auditorium where to other uses in the area; there are no fixed seats;18 2. The hours of operation of said use in relation to linear inches of bench shall the hours of operation of other uses in the area; be considered a feed seat 3. The relationship of the type of use to other uses in the area; Libraries I for each 500 square feet 4. Any other factor the commission might deem of gross floor area necessary in making its decision (Ord. 264 § 5, 1981) (Palm D.Mn M99) 430 - i r MINUTES • PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3. 2003 It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp,adopting Planning Commission Resolution No.2205 approving TT 31020 and Negative Declaration as it pertains thereto, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. G. Case No. ZOA 03-01 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of amendment to the Municipal Code Section 25.58.310 as it relates to parking requirements for churches and other places of assembly. Chairperson Campbell noted that staff was recommending that the matter be tabled and asked for a staff report. Mr. Drell asked if the commission wanted to just ask questions and comment on the report. Commissioner Jonathan noted that in the report staff was indicating,focusing on Sacred Heart as an example of a church with seating for 1 ,000 persons, that the requirement was for 333 spaces under the current code. They were regularly getting almost 600 cars. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the requirement was 300+, they were getting almost 600, yet staff was recommending no change. Mr. Drell explained that all of the parking requirements were average requirements for the average use. Sacred Heart was kind of exceptional in that there were probably only a few Catholic churches in the valley. It was like trying to make every restaurant park like it was a very busy Ruth's Chris Restaurant. Their evaluation was what the worst thing was that could happen if this exceptional circumstance occurs. The question was whether to make every single church operate as if it would be like Sacred Heart. Then they looked at the result. People parking on the street on Sunday morning. Was that a horrible thing? Was it worth making all churches double the amount of asphalt they have in their parking lot? Staffs conclusion was, given the fact that they design streets for people to park on and it only occurs for four hours, probably only during the season on Sunday, the remedy for Sacred Heart of adding another acre and a half of asphalt to satisfy that four-hour problem once a week staff didn't feel was justified given the severity of the situation. He didn't object to having people park on a public street designed for public parking unless it started 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3. 2003 depriving the local resident of a place to park, then it was a problem. On Sunday morning, the local residents were probably already parked and had their spaces if they needed them. Commissioner Jonathan noted that they did hear testimony from area residents about the parking overflow on Sunday mornings. How bad it was was probably a matter of their perspective and if they lived across the street. Commissioner Jonathan said he could see staffs point. If a new applicant came in with a new 1,000 person sanctuary, then they had the ability to evaluate that situation individually. Mr. Drell thought maybe that was the amendment they should do.. Commissioner Finerty indicated they could keep it site specific. Mr. Drell agreed they could place that in the ordinance that it would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis where they would design their sanctuary and staff would analyze them as a place of assembly, not as a religion. Commissioner Jonathan agreed it was the project demand and usage. Mr. Drell thought they should have that standard, but the standard could be modified. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would be more comfortable with something like that then simply ignoring the matter. It just seemed to go against the grain to recognize that a 1,000-person sanctuary does have an issue. If code requires 300 and they were using 600, he didn't want to create another such situation. He would at least like the ability to deal with it. Mr. Drell said that staff could come back with language. Commissioner Finerty asked how they dealt with the point that staff made in the report about Hope Lutheran where they have plenty of onsite parking, but people still preferred to park on the street. Commissioner Jonathan said that when Southwest Community Church was on Hovley, they dealt with it by requiring a parking management plan and they had volunteers out on Hovley directing traffic and had cones, etc. Commissioner Finerty said they could keep it more site specific, like if they had a problem with Sacred Heart. She recalled that there were only about two people that gave public testimony, so it was nothing like what they dealt with at Southwest. Mr. Drell thought that Southwest had 5,000 people showing up on Sundays. With Hope Lutheran, the way they designed their facility and their parking lot, they probably had 100 street spaces on their side of the street adjacent to their parking lot. He 25 MINUTES , PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3. 2003 thought staff should come back with some careful language that didn't get them in trouble with the Freedom of Religion Act which allowed the Planning Commission to use the standard as a guide and the ability to adjust those standards for a particular circumstance. He said it also had to do with the nature of the neighborhood around it. With Hope Lutheran, that street parking didn't impact anyone. In other neighborhoods it could be more significant if it was a problem. Commissioner Jonathan said he liked staffs discussion of alternative resolutions other than creating more cement or concrete such as a parking management plan for special occasions and holidays with an alternative site parking lot or something like that. As long as they had the ability to make it clear that they recognize potential problems and were open to creative management of those potential problems, then he was okay with it. Mr. Drell said that staff would take another shot at it at the next meeting. Commissioner Finerty asked if staff wanted to continue it to July 15. Mr. Smith noted that this was a public hearing and that there were people present to speak. Regarding Sacred Heart, Chairperson Campbell believed that most people parking on the street were on Deep Canyon, not on the side streets. She said she also noticed about five cars parked on Florine, but they were mostly on Deep Canyon. They would rather park there because it was easier to get out. Commissioner Tschopp asked when staff was doing the parking study for these churches if they looked at or ascertained how full the sanctuary was. He said they weren't so much dealing with the problem as it exists today, although they had a couple of churches that were a problem, they were looking down the road. Churches would fill up depending on how popular or what the ability was of the minister, priest, preacher, so they could have these problems in the future. When they looked at them and said they didn't have a problem now, they should keep in mind that ministers would change and so then could the number of people in the sanctuary which would then have an negative impact with parking on the streets. Mr. Drell noted that Ruth's Chris could get a lousy chef, etc. That is why by their nature all the parking requirements were averages. They didn't assume the most 26 r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3. 2003 successful or a failure. What was the worst thing that would happen if there was a great restaurant or church? The good news is that there is a great restaurant or church and as long as the ramifications of that weren't disastrous for the surrounding area or a significant inconvenience, that's when they would evaluate on a case-by-case basis. What would be the potential harm if they had the best case such as a successful church? They adjust the parking accordingly based on each individual situation. He said they didn't count the number of parishioners inside the sanctuary. Commissioner Tschopp said he didn't have a problem with the intent with the direction staff was taking, he was just stating thatthey were looking down the road at potential problems so if they were talking about parking, they should be looking at how full the sanctuary was and how much more it could hold, which would be relevant to the number of cars parked on the street and more residents would be impacted. Because churches were a little bit different in that they do sit in residential neighborhoods, that did have a direct impact on residential quality of life. But he thought that if they were looking at anything that had a reoccurring event (places of assembly) that would impact neighborhoods, there should be something in the code that allowed them to work with the individual to address it. Mr. Drell said that is what they would try to come up with. Some language and criteria for those kinds of special considerations to occurwhich were generic in their application. Chairperson Campbell said that it was also seasonal. Right now there weren't that many people at these churches, yet there were still people parking on the street. So for six months out of the year was when they had a problem. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked for testimony in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MR. PHILIP SMITH, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Palm Desert Community Presbyterian Church, 80-703 Avenue 49 in Indio, addressed the commission. He said they could support the direction the commission seemed to be taking. A good example of what the commission was talking about was what they were required to do in connection to their current expansion. They were conditioned in the approvals to do a parking study and generate a parking management plan, which they did. He thought the City would have continuing jurisdiction to see that it worked. When they opened their new facility 27 MINUTES , PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DUNE 3. 2003 later this year, he thought that would be a good example to see how they were doing. He thought the site specific approach made a lot of sense and said they would be happy to work with staff and looked forward to seeing the draft ordinance. MR. DOUG GERARD, Pastor of the Palm Desert Presbyterian Church, 77-664 Carla Court in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He said they had been using a management parking service to help them through the season. For them that seasonal period was about five to six months. He thought that what he read in terms of the current ordinance, one space for three seats, their average attendance during the season was about 1,200 people over three services. During the summer, the attendance was down to about 700. So it was definitely a seasonal problem. There was a residential community to the north where a lot of their folks had been parking, especially during the construction period. They had been having the shuttle service to assist those folks to get to the sanctuary. He agreed it was a site specific issue. One question he had was just because the congregation or sanctuary only seated 200 or 300 people, that didn't mean they didn't have a parking problem. In fact, the parking problem might be more significant for a smaller congregation or smaller sanctuary. He thanked the commission for their time. Commissioner Jonathan thought that was a good and salient point as they head toward a site specific solution. He thought maybe they shouldn't limit it to the larger sanctuaries, but make it available to all places of gathering. Chairperson Campbell left the public hearing open and asked for a motion of continuance. Staff suggested a continuance to August 5, 2003. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, continuing Case No. ZOA 03-01 to August 5, 2003 by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS 28 t CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Steve Smith, Planning Manager DATE: March 18, 2003 continued from December 3, 2002 SUBJECT: Church Parking Survey I. BACKGROUND: During the discussion of conditional use permit requests for churches, Planning Commission directed staff to conduct a parking survey of church parking lots and assess the appropriateness of the current parking requirement (i.e. one parking space for every three seats). Previously, staff had prepared a comparison with other cities. Palm Desert had one of the higher parking requirements. During February, 2003 Code Compliance staff conducted parking counts at twelve churches around the City. Most churches were counted on two separate weekends. Large denominational churches were counted and small non-denominational churches were counted (see attached survey). St. Margaret's Episcopal Church and Palm Desert Community Presbyterian Church on Highway 74 were not counted due to construction activity at the Community Church. II. ANALYSIS: A review of theiparking survey data reveals: 1 . Small to mid-sized churches do not have overflow parking problems and utilize very little street parking. While these churches may use some street parking they still have vacant spaces on-site. 2. Larger, long established denominational churches have services where on-site parking approaches or exceeds 100% and utilize significant street parking. At Sacred Heart and Hope Lutheran, 100% on-site occupancy is not unusual. At Sacred Heart's 9:30 a.m. service the on-site parking was 112% (470 cars in 420 space parking lot) and 119 vehicles were counted on nearby streets. 3. For the average church the current parking requirement is adequate. STAFF REPORT Pr 1 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 The goal of the code required parking spaces is to provide adequate on-site parking for the average church. This is also the case with our restaurant standard department store requirement and all other uses covered in the municipal code. When we observed the situation at Sacred Heart Church (i.e. 100% + street parking) we contacted the church and attempted to determine what was causing this anomaly. Sacred Heart advised the main sanctuary seats 1 ,000 people. Under current code this would result in 333 required parking spaces. We inquired as to the size of church Sunday school attendance to see if it was impacting parking. We were advised that the maximum number of children at a Sunday school service is 50. This could account for 16 more parking spaces for a total of 349 spaces. The lot has 420 spaces. We conclude that this parking anomaly is a result of a reduction in the average household size and particularly the number of single persons attending services. III. CONCLUSION: The problem, of course, is how to address a problem which is observed in large denominational churches but not evident at smaller non-denominational churches. We should not increase the required parking for a whole group when only a small portion of the group is experiencing parking problems. Even if we were to amend the code it would not impact existing churches. It would only be applicable to new churches. With the exception of Southwest Community Church, our experience with new churches is that they do not fall into the parking problem category. It is the long established churches which outgrow their available parking while membership continues to grow which have the problem. At this time, staff is not prepared to recommend a code amendment. Creating extra parking for the average church is not needed and excessive asphalt is not a positive contribution to the environment. 2 s STAFF REPORT PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 IV. RECOMMENDATION: That the issue of adequacy of church parking be tabled. Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved by: teve Smith Phil Drell Planning Manager Director of Community Development /dq 3 REC �Y �•� CITY OF PALM DESERT "1 2003 BUILDING & SAFETY DEPARTMENT 4 f`NITrDE�,�,or,r .. C]TY Dp PA C,t;DESERT dRT,1f&q INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Hart Ponder Jr. Code Compliance Supervisor Code Compliance Officer From: Johnny Terfehr, p Date: February 19, 2003 Subject: Parking Lot Survey, Various Church's Vehicles were counted on Saturday February 8, 2003, Sunday February 9, 2003, Friday February 14, 2003 and Sunday February 16, 2003. Counts were taken at the times and locations listed on the attached spreadsheet. On the spreadsheet I have included the scheduled service time (service time) and the actual time I took the count (count time). The number of vehicles in the parking lot (count) and the total available marked parking spaces (available). I also included the number of vehicles parked on the street that I believed were attending the church service (on street) at that time. At the Sacred Heart Church, you will notice that there are more vehicles than available parking spaces at some services. Vehicles were parked in unmarked spaces and on ends of parking rows in the red curb area. On street parking for the Sacred Heart Church included Deep Canyon and Florine. On street parking for Hope Lutheran Church included Portola and Fairway. On street parking for St. John's Lutheran was on a vacant grass lot across an alleyway from the Church. For the remainder of Church's the on street parking was the same as the church street address. I did not observe any serious conflicts in traffic between services. It seemed during the times I was able to monitor traffic that it was flowing smoothly. Sincerely, Johnny L. Terfehr Code Compliance Officer n:Wy eowwnMchumh oarwoe sway m MAM Location Da te Service Time Count Time Count Available On Street 8-Feb-2003 9:15 AM 9:25 AM 20 181 74-200 Country Club Drive 10:50 AM 11:00 AM 80 181 . - 8-Feb-2003 10:00 AM 10:05 AM 31 328 73-251 Hovle Lane 14-Feb-2003 7:00 PM 7:05 PM 38 328 8-Feb-2003 6:45 AM 6:50 AM 117 420 3 43-775 Deep Canyon Road 8:00 AM 8:10 AM 364 420 33 9:30 AM 10:00 AM 470 420 119 11:00 AM 11:14 AM 365 420 45 12:30 PM 12:35 PM 161 420 11 16-Feb-2003 9:30 AM 9:53 AM 458 420 104 11:00 AM 11:20 AM 362 420 44 .. 8-Feb-2003 8:00 AM 8:15 AM 43 185 45-900 Portola Avenue 9:15 AM 9:40 AM 185 185 7 10:30 AM 10:50 AM 117 185 17 16-Feb-2003 8:00 AM 8:26 AM 59 185 0 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 155 185 9 10:30 AM 10:30 AM 169 185 12 _ - •_ 8-Feb-2003 9:00 AM 9:05 AM 101 232 12 72-960 Park View 1:00 PM 1:08 PM 122 232 0 16-Feb-2003 9:00 AM 9:20 AM 135 2321 18 1:00 PM 1:00 PM 111 232 3 . .- • ... B-Feb-2003 9:15 AM 9:15 AM 0 63 74-109 Larrea 10:00 AM 10:10 AM 15 63 21 ._. 8-Feb-2003 9:00 AM 9:20 AM 47 82 43-400 Warner Trail 10:00 AM 10:20 AM 721 82 4 16-Feb-2003 9:00 AM 9:03 AM 44 82 2 10:00 AM 10:04 AM 73 82 10 8-Feb-2003 9:00 AM 9:25 AM 75 75 16 42-695 Washington Street 11:00 AM 11:05 AM 66 75 5 16-Feb-2003 9:00 AM 9:10 AM 75 75 22 11:00 AM 11:05 AM 691 75 4 r .a Location Date Service Time Count Time Count Available On Street 9I4T-qiwIrzWF.nf 99i 8-Feb-2003 9:30 AM 9:44 AM 8 70 45-825 Edgehill 10:30 AM 10:40 AM 20 70 16-Feb-2003 9:30 AM 9:35 AM 9 70 10:30 AM 10:36 AM 19 70 8-Feb-2003 9:30 AM 9:55 AM 66 181 74-200 Country Club 16-Feb-2003 .9:30 AM 9:45 AM 71 181 8-Feb-2003 10:00 AM 10:25 AM 0 54 43-250 Warner Trail 16-Feb-2003 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 0 54 8-Feb-2003 10:30 AM 10:35 AM 351 47 72-700 Fred Warin 16-Feb-2003 10:30 AM 1 10:42 AM 1 311 47 Council Agenda Request Meeting of 1. To be considered under: Consent Calendar ❑ Resolutions ❑ Ordinances ❑ New Business ] Old Business ❑ Informational Items ❑ Public Hearings Other f] 2. Item Title:l Consideration of an amendment to the Municipal Code as it relates to parking requirements for churches and other places of assembly, -- - Municipal Code Section 25.58.310. case 00,'? 05 -dl - _-- 3. Financial (a) Acccunt/Project#_ (b) Amount Requested (c) In the Current Budget?___ _ (d) Appropriation Required?___ Approved by the Director of Finance:_,_._______ 4. Submitted by: Steve Smith 5. Approvals: Depa tment He _ _ M for Development Servic P i DreI City Manager___ Carlos L. Ortega CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT REQUEST: Consideration of an amendment to the Municipal Code as it relates to parking requirements for churches and other places of assembly, Municipal Code Section 25.58.310. SUBMITTED BY: Steve Smith, Planning Manager APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert CASE NO: ZOA 03-01 DATE: September 25, 2003 CONTENTS: Staff Recommendation Background and Discussion Draft Ordinance No. Planning Commission Minutes involving Case No. ZOA 03-01 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2219 Planning Commission Staff Reports dated December 3, 2002, March 18, June 3 and August 5, 2003 Staff Recommendation: That the City Council waive further reading and pass ZOA 03-01 to second reading. Background and Discussion: During the discussion of several conditional use permit requests for churches in 2002, Planning Commission directed staff to study the adequacy of the current parking standards for churches. December 3, 2002 staff submitted a report (copy enclosed) comparing code parking standards for various valley cities. The report concluded that the current Palm Desert standard was at the high end of the group. Staff Report Case No. ZOA 03-01 Page 2 September 25, 2003 March 18, 2003 staff presented a church parking study survey report (copy enclosed) which had been conducted during February 2003. The data revealed that there were no parking concerns related to small and medium sized churches, but that larger, older churches consistently had overflow parking onto adjacent streets for a few hours Sunday mornings. Commission directed staff to prepare options for a code amendment which would impose a parking surcharge on "large" churches. A June 3, 2003 staff report (copy enclosed) recommended that the magnitude of the problem did not warrant a surcharge on all "large" churches. Commission concluded that a blanket surcharge was not required, but that code needed to provide for exceptional circumstances. August 5, 2003 commission concluded its consideration of this matter (see report enclosed) and on a 5-0 vote recommended approval of an amendment which will allow the Planning Commission, where a conditional use permit is required for a "place of assembly" to require additional parking mitigation and/or a parking management plan if the Planning Commission makes the finding that specific operational characteristics of the use create additional demand for parking. The recommended amendment also includes two housekeeping items related to where libraries are placed in the code and consolidates auditoriums, theaters, sports arenas, stadiums, churches and other places of assembly all in one category "Places of Assembly." Submitted by: De ment Head: i�/IGLGL�i-. Ste Smith Phil Drell Planning Manager Director of Community Development n Approval: : ,� Ho er Croy Carlos L. Ortega ACM for Development Services City Manager (WptlotsVm�sr�zaa03-01.cc) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 25.58 AS IT RELATES TO PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR CHURCHES AND OTHER PLACES OF ASSEMBLY. CASE NO. ZOA 03-01 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 25th day of September, 2003, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an amendment to the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Chapter 25.58 as described above; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2219 has recommended approval of the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 02-60," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify its approval as described below: 1. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the adopted General Plan; 3. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment would better serve the public health, safety and general welfare than the current regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. 2. That ZOA 03-01 as delineated in the attached Exhibit"A" is hereby ordained. 1 J ORDINANCE NO. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this day of 2003, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JEAN M. BENSON, MAYOR ATTEST: RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 2 ORDINANCE NO. EXHIBIT "A" Section 1 That Section 25.58.310 E Places of Assembly be amended to read: E. Places of Assembly. Auditoriums, theaters, sports 1 for each 3 fixed seats within the main arenas, stadiums, churches and auditorium or for every 35 square feet of other places of assembly. seating area within the main auditorium where there are no fixed seats; 18 linear inches of bench shall be considered a fixed seat. Where a conditional use permit is required, Planning Commission may require additional parking mitigation and/or parking management plan if the Planning Commission makes the finding that specific operational characteristics of the use create additional demand for parking. Section 2 That Section 25.58.310 E Places of Assembly be amended to delete: Libraries 1 space for each 500 square feet of gross floor area. Section 3 That Section 25.58.310 F Other Uses be amended to add: Libraries 1 space for each 500 square feet of gross floor area. 3 Jzw ORDINANCE NO. 1053 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 25.58 AS IT RELATES TO PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR CHURCHES AND OTHER PLACES OF ASSEMBLY. CASE NO. ZOA 03-01 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 25th day of September, 2003, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an amendment to the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Chapter 25.58 as described above; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution', No. 2219 has recommended approval of the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS,said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 02-60," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City.Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify its approval as described below: 1. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the adopted General Plan; 3. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment would better serve the public health, safety and general welfare than the current regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. 2. That ZOA 03-01 as delineated in the attached Exhibit"A" is hereby ordained. I t T i ORDIN<_:dCE NO. 1053 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this 9th day of October , 2003, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: CRITES, BELLY, SPIEGEL, BENSON NOES: FERcusoN ABSENT: NoNE ABSTAIN: NONE . BENSON, MAYOR ATTEST: RAG-ILLLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 2 1° j ORDINANCE NO. in53 I . 1 EXHIBIT "A" Section 1 That Section 25.58,310 E Places of Assembly be amended to read: E. Places of Assembly. Auditoriums, theaters, sports 1 for each 3 fixed seats within the main arenas, stadiums, churches and, auditorium or for every 35 square feet of other places of assembly. seating area within the main auditorium where there are no fixed seats; 18 linear inches of bench shall be considered a fixed seat. Where a conditional use permit is required, Planning Commission may require additional parking mitigation and/or parking management plan if the. Planning Commission makes the finding that specific operational characteristics of the use create additional demand for parking. Section 2 That Section 25.58.310 E Places of Assembly be amended to delete: Libraries 1 space for each 500 square feet of gross floor area. Section 3 That Section 25.58.310 F Other Uses be amended to add: Libraries 1 space for each 500 square feet of gross floor area. I i 3 CIIY OF P0101 OESERI 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92 260-2 5 78 TEL: 760 346-o6i i FAX: 760 341-7098 info@pal mdesert.org CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE ZOA 03-01 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance as it relates to parking requirements for churches and other places of assembly. M.C. Section 25.58.310. SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, September 25,2003,before the Palm Desert City Council at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert City Hall, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the department of community development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m.and 5:00 p.m.Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you of someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the planning commission at, or prior to,the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun RACHELLE KLASSEN, City Clerk September 9, 2003 Palm Desert Planning Commission CIIY DF PfllM DESERt 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346-o6i i FAX: 760 341-7098 infoOpalm-desere.orR CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE ZOA 03-01 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance as it relates to parking requirements for churches and other places of assembly. M.C. Section 25.58.310. SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 3, 2003,before the Palm Desert Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert City Hall, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the department of community development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the planning commission ati or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL, Secretary May 20, 2003 Palm Desert Planning Commission ORDINANCE NO. 1021 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 25.16.090.A.2 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, AS IT RELATES TO SETBACKS FOR GARAGES IN THE R-1 DISTRICT CASE NO. ZOA 02-03 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 12`h day of September, 2002, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an amendment to the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Chapter 25.16.090.A.2, as it relates to garage setbacks; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the"City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 02-60," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)per Section 15305 (Class 5, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) of CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify its recommendation as described below: 1. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance; i 2. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent with the adopted General Plan and affected specific plans; and 3. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment would better serve the public health, safety and general welfare than the current regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That ZOA 02-03 as delineated in the attached Exhibit "A" is hereby ordained. \ Qa 0 ORDINANCE NO. 1021 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning , Commission, held on this 26thday of September , 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: BENSON, CRITES, FERGUSON, SPIEGEL, KELLY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE RICHARD S. KELLY, Mayor ATTEST: RACH LLE KLASS N, City CIS e City of Palm Desert, California l 2 SGGUL� �—l_£�- a� - � III �� _-� ��p �-Gi-�� II ;�� ' III - - - �, s��.�-�-�� III � i i{� III I'I III II! li III III - ��� „� �� 3e4�(,oS c� U STInEs 1Z2 3u sPputs{t- 5'"30 Jrtr..� 13 � 3�f0 — ply 3 IIIY 0f P h t M 0ESER1 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346—o611 FAX: 760 341-7098 info@p lm-desen.org PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION Date: August 6, 2003 City of Palm Desert Re: ZOA 03-01 The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of August 5, 2003: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF CASE NO. ZOA 03-01 BY ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 2219 AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. Philip Drell, Se retary Palm Desert PI nning Commission /tm cc: Coachella Valley Water District Public Works Department Building & Safety Department Fire Marshal MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 2003 Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was none and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Campbell asked for commission comments. Commissioner Finerty said she would move for approval. Commissioner Tschopp seconded the motion. Mr. Smith clarified that with respect to the office building to the east, they would attempt to elicit cooperation from that applicant. If in fact there were windows there, it might be something the applicant would have to live with because that project had standing as an approved project. If there were windows, they would endeavor to get cooperation. Mr. Barnett spoke up and said he believed there were windows there so he planned to put up trees blocking them. He already ordered some Italian Cypress, so he was ready. Chairperson Campbell noted there was a motion and a second and asked for the vote. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2218, recommending to City Council approval of C/Z 03-07. Motion carried 5-0. D. Case No. ZOA 03-01 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant (Continued from June 3, 2003) Request for approval of an amendment to the Municipal Code as it relates to parking requirements for churches and other places of assembly, Municipal Code Section 25.58.310. Mr. Smith noted that in June commission directed staff away from imposing a surcharge on large churches, but felt they should come up with language which would take care of exceptional circumstances. They 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5 2003 attempted to do that at this point by adding under places of assembly that the Planning Commission may require additional parking if the commission made the finding that specific operational characteristics of the use would create additional demand for parking. That would apply to all uses which fell under "places of assembly" such as auditoriums, theaters, sports arenas, stadiums, churches and other places of assembly. They also took advantage at this point in time to take libraries out of that category and moved them into "other uses" and then consolidated the current places of assembly in that all of the uses under places of assembly had the same standards, but they were spread out all over the ordinance, so they were trying to do a little housekeeping at this time. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Tschopp said that it appeared that it would address their concerns if they had churches coming in to be built new or to expand, so if they were aware of circumstances that would warrant additional parking, it could be required at that time. Mr. Smith concurred. He said the commission could require a parking management plan, additional parking, and whatever else seemed appropriate under the circumstances they were in at that point in time. Given how theaters, auditoriums and churches could change as to the number of people attending them, Commissioner Tschopp asked if they could have a clause stating in there that if parking became a problem, or they would always be part of a parking plan, or something of that nature. Mr. Smith said the City Attorney advised that they could do that under the parking management plan. Commissioner Tschopp thought that it made sense to have that on places where the congregations could grow significantly, create a problem in the neighborhoods, and for it to be a standard item for in the future if it was a problem, they would be under that parking plan and would have to readdress the city. Mr. Smith said it could be a standard condition that the applicant, in cooperation with the City, develop a parking management plan and that as a provision of the parking management plan, it has at some threshold when they expand beyond a certain number, then it triggered additional provisions. Commissioner Tschopp thought that made sense and was something they should look at so that they didn't run into the same problems in the future and if they did, they would have the means to make them come in and work out the problem. That was his recommendation. 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 2003 Commissioner Jonathan asked if Commissioner Tschopp was suggesting that it would be something that, if they require additional parking mitigation, that they do it at that time as a condition or if he was suggesting that it be part of the revised code section. Commissioner Tschopp said he would like to see it used in a manner that would give them the most authority to address problems, whether it was a new applicant or someone coming in for an amendment. Commissioner Jonathan said he was going to suggest that the wording be modified slightly in that portion of the code where they said, "require additional parking" and instead say, "require additional parking mitigation" so it would say that, "where a conditional use permit is required, Planning Commission may require additional parking mitigation if the Planning Commission makes the finding that specific operational characteristics of the use creates additional demand for parking." In other words, requiring additional spaces might not be the solution. They might want off-site parking, a parking management plan, and there were a lot of options and staff had been creative in resolving parking issues and he wanted to have the leeway, including what Commissioner Tschopp referenced, to resolve those kinds of issues. Mr. Smith thought the commission would see staff coming in with requirements for parking management plans a lot more frequently. This clause gave them the ability to do that. Commissioner Tschopp stated that he liked the idea of additional parking mitigation because sometimes they didn't want another big parking lot, they wanted other solutions like busing, etc., so he liked the addition of that word. Commissioner Jonathan said that especially applied to existing parking lots where the use has blossomed and they didn't have the option of adding spaces, but they wanted to be able to require other measures from the applicant. So if inserting the word "mitigation" after parking gave them the ability, that was what he preferred. Mr. Erwin suggested that they not only add the word mitigation, but also go a little further and add in "and / or parking management plan." That clearly would let anyone coming in be aware that it was a distinct possibility. Commission concurred. 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5 2003 Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing, there was no one present to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION, and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Campbell asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2219, recommending to City Council approval of ZOA 03-01 as amended. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (July 16, 2003) Chairperson Campbell advised that there was a meeting on July 16, 2003, at which time they had two artists who showed them renditions of monument signs for the entrances to Palm Desert at Dinah Shore / Monterey and Washington / Fred Waring, but the commission voted them down. So they were looking for other artists or different renditions. B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) E. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) 20 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2219 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 25.58 AS IT RELATES TO PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR CHURCHES AND OTHER PLACES OF ASSEMBLY. CASE NO. ZOA 03-01 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 3rd day of June, 2003, hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued to August 5, 2003 to consider an amendment to the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Chapter 25.58 as described above; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 02-60," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify its recommendation as described below: 1. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent with the adopted General Plan; 3. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment would better serve the public health, safety and general welfare than the current regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of a Zoning Ordinance text amendment as provided in the attached Exhibit "A" to amend Municipal Code Chapter 25.58. 1 f PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2219 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 5th day of August, 2003, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: FINERTY, JONATHAN, LOPEZ, TSCHOPP, CAMPBELL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE / SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2219 EXHIBIT "A" Section 1 That Section 25.58.310 E Places of Assembly be amended to read: E. Places of Assembly. Auditoriums, theaters, sports 1 for each 3 fixed seats within the main arenas, stadiums, churches and auditorium or for every 35 square feet of other places of assembly. seating area within the main auditorium where there are no fixed seats; 18 linear inches of bench shall be considered a fixed seat. Where a conditional use permit is required, Planning Commission may require additional parking mitigation and/or parking management plan if the Planning Commission makes the finding that specific operational characteristics of the use create additional demand for parking. Section 2 That Section 25.58.310 E Places of Assembly be amended to delete: Libraries 1 space for each 500 square feet of gross floor area. Section 3 That Section 25.58.310 F Other Uses be amended to add: Libraries 1 space for each 500 square feet of gross floor area. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 2003 Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was none and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Campbell asked for commission comments. Commissioner Finerty said she would move for approval. Commissioner Tschopp seconded the motion. Mr. Smith clarified that with respect to the office building to the east, they would attempt to elicit cooperation from that applicant. If in fact there were windows there, it might be something the applicant would have to live with because that project had standing as an approved project. If there were windows, they would endeavor to get cooperation. Mr. Barnett spoke up and said he believed there were windows there so he planned to put up trees blocking them. He already ordered some Italian Cypress, so he was ready. Chairperson Campbell noted there was a motion and a second and asked for the vote. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2218, recommending to City Council approval of C/Z 03-07. Motion carried 5-0. D. Case No. ZOA 03-01 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant, (Continued from June 3, 2003) Request for approval of an amendment to the Municipal Code as it relates to parking requirements for churches and other places of assembly, Municipal Code Section 25.58.310. Mr. Smith noted that in June commission directed staff away from imposing a surcharge on large churches, but felt they should come up with language which would take care of exceptional circumstances. They 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5. 2003 attempted to do that at this point by adding under places of assembly that the Planning Commission may require additional parking if the commission made the finding that specific operational characteristics of the use would create additional demand for parking. That would apply to all uses which fell under "places of assembly" such as auditoriums, theaters, sports arenas, stadiums, churches and other places of assembly. They also took advantage at this point in time to take libraries out of that category and moved them into "other uses" and then consolidated the current places of assembly in that all of the uses under places of assembly had the same standards, but they were spread out all over the ordinance, so they were trying to do a little housekeeping at this time. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Tschopp said that it appeared that it would address their concerns if they had churches coming in to be built new or to expand, so if they were aware of circumstances that would warrant additional parking, it could be required at that time. Mr. Smith concurred. He said the commission could require a parking management plan, additional parking, and whatever else seemed appropriate under the circumstances they were in at that point in time. Given how theaters, auditoriums and churches could change as to the number of people attending them, Commissioner Tschopp asked if they could have a clause stating in there that if parking became a problem, or they would always be part of a parking plan, or something of that nature. Mr. Smith said the City Attorney advised that they could do that under the parking management plan. Commissioner Tschopp thought that it made sense to have that on places where the congregations could grow significantly, create a problem in the neighborhoods, and for it to be a standard item for in the future if it was a problem, they would be under that parking plan and would have to readdress the city. Mr. Smith said it could be a standard condition that the applicant, in cooperation with the City, develop a parking management plan and that as a provision of the parking management plan, it has at some threshold when they expand beyond a certain number, then it triggered additional provisions. Commissioner Tschopp thought that made sense and was something they should look at so that they didn't run into the same problems in the future and if they did, they would have the means to make them come in and work out the problem. That was his recommendation. 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 2003 Commissioner Jonathan asked if Commissioner Tschopp was suggesting that it would be something that, if they require additional parking mitigation, that they do it at that time as a condition or if he was suggesting that it be part of the revised code section. Commissioner Tschopp said he would like to see it used in a manner that would give them the most authority to address problems, whether it was a new applicant or someone coming in for an amendment. Commissioner Jonathan said he was going to suggest that the wording be modified slightly in that portion of the code where they said, "require additional parking" and instead say, "require additional parking mitigation" so it would say that, "where a conditional use permit is required, Planning Commission may require additional parking mitigation if the Planning Commission makes the finding that specific operational characteristics of the use creates additional demand for parking." In other words, requiring additional spaces might not be the solution. They might want off-site parking, a parking management plan, and there were a lot of options and staff had been creative in resolving parking issues and he wanted to have the leeway, including what Commissioner Tschopp referenced, to resolve those kinds of issues. Mr. Smith thought the commission would see staff coming in with requirements for parking management plans a lot more frequently. This clause gave them the ability to do that. Commissioner Tschopp stated that he liked the idea of additional parking mitigation because sometimes they didn't want another big parking lot, they wanted other solutions like busing, etc., so he liked the addition of that word. Commissioner Jonathan said that especially applied to existing parking lots where the use has blossomed and they didn't have the option of adding spaces, but they wanted to be able to require other measures from the applicant. So if inserting the word "mitigation" after parking gave them the ability, that was what he preferred. Mr. Erwin suggested that they not only add the word mitigation, but also go a little further and add in "and / or parking management plan." That clearly would let anyone coming in be aware that it was a distinct possibility. Commission concurred. 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 2003 Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing, there was no one present to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION, and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Campbell asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2219, recommending to City Council approval of ZOA 03-01 as amended. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (July 16, 2003) Chairperson Campbell advised that there was a meeting on July 16, 2003, at which time they had two artists who showed them renditions of monument signs for the entrances to Palm Desert at Dinah Shore / Monterey and Washington / Fred Waring, but the commission voted them down. So they were looking for other artists or different renditions. B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) E. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) 20 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: August 5, 2003 continued from June 3, 2003 CASE NO: ZOA 03-01 REQUEST: Amendment to the Municipal Code as it "relates to parking requirements for churches and other places of assembly, Municipal Code Section 25.58.310 APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert I. BACKGROUND: March 18, 2003 staff presented a church parking survey report which had been conducted during February 2003. The data revealed that there were no parking concerns related to small and medium sized churches, but that larger, older churches consistently had overflow parking onto adjacent streets for a few hours Sunday mornings. Commission directed staff to prepare options for a code amendment which would impose a parking surcharge on "large" churches. June 3, 2003 staff recommended that the magnitude of the problem did not warrant a surcharge on all "large" churches. Commission concluded that a blanket surcharge was not required, but that code needed to provide for exceptional circumstances. H. ANALYSIS: Staff has prepared an amendment which will: A. Remove libraries from the places of assembly section of the parking ordinance and place it in the Other Uses category. B. Consolidate the remaining uses in the Places of Assembly section in that they (auditoriums, theaters, sports arenas, stadiums, churches and other places of assembly) all have the same parking requirement. STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 03-01 AUGUST 5, 2003 This will make the ordinance consistent with the provisions of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act (RLUIPA). The act requires that churches and other places of worship be treated consistent with other places of assembly. The standard is not changing, it is just being consolidated into one section. C. Add a provision to Places of Assembly which will read: Where a conditional use permit is required, Planning Commission may require additional parking if it makes the finding that specific operational characteristics of the use create additional demand for parking. The new "Places of Assembly" code section will read: "E. Places of Assembly. Auditoriums, theaters, 1 for each 3 fixed seats within the main sports arenas, stadiums, auditorium or for every 35 square feet of churches and other places seating area within the main auditorium of assembly. where there are no fixed seats; 18 linear inches of bench shall be considered a fixed seat. Where a conditional use permit is required, Planning Commission may require additional parking if the Planning Commission makes the finding that specific operational characteristics of the use create additional demand for parking." III. CEOA REVIEW: The proposed amendment is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption for purposes of CEQA. No further review is necessary. 2 STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 03-01 AUGUST 5, 2003 IV. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. recommending to the City Council approval of Case No. ZOA 03-01 amending the parking requirements for Places of Assembly. V. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft resolution B. Legal notice Prepared by: Re : wed and Approved by: S e e Smith Phil Drell Planning Manager Director of Community Development e Concur: omer Croy ACM for Devel pm nt Services IWpd ocs\tm\sr{z0003-01.pc3) 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 25.58 AS IT RELATES TO PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR CHURCHES AND OTHER PLACES OF ASSEMBLY. CASE NO. ZOA 03-01 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 3rd day of June, 2003, hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued to August 5, 2003 to consider an amendment to the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Chapter 25.58 as described above; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the"City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 02-60," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify its recommendation as described below: 1. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent with the adopted General Plan; 3. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment would better serve the public health, safety and general welfare than the current regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of a Zoning Ordinance text amendment as provided in the attached Exhibit "A" to amend Municipal Code Chapter 25.58. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 5th day of August, 2003, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT "A" Section 1 That Section 25.58.310 E Places of Assemblv be amended to read: E. Places of Assembly. Auditoriums, theaters, sports 1 for each 3 fixed seats within the main arenas, stadiums, churches and auditorium or for every 35 square feet of other places of assembly. seating area within the main auditorium where there are no fixed seats; 18 linear inches of bench shall be considered a fixed seat. Where a conditional use permit is required, Planning Commission may require additional parking if the Planning Commission makes the finding that specific operational characteristics of the use create additional demand for parking. Section 2 That Section 25.58.310 E Places of Assemblv be amended to delete: Libraries 1 space for each 500 square feet of gross floor area. Section 3 That Section 25.58.310 F Other Uses be amended to add: Libraries 1 space for each 500 square feet of gross floor area. 3 2558310 �I MINIMUM ME41MUM PARKING STALLS PARKING STALLS USE REQUIM USE REQUIRED Public utility facilities 1 for each 2 employees in Private clubs, lodge halls, 1 for each 75 square feet including,but not limited the largest shift phis I for union headquarters of gross floor area to electric,gas,water. each vehicle used in con- telephone and telegraph nection with the use. A Restaurants, (takeout res- 10 minimum and 10 for facilities not having minimum of 2 spaces shall taurants)and other eating each 1,000 square feet of business offices on the be provided for each such establishments including gross floor area for restam- premises use regardless of building lounges for the comump- ants up to 3,00D square feet space or mrmber of em- tion of food and beverages and 15 spaces for each ployees 1,000 square feet of gross floor area in excess of Warehouses,storage build- 2 for each 3 employees,but 3,000 square feet of gross iogs than or structures used in no event less an 1 for floor area exclusively for storage each one thousand square purposes feet of gross floor area for F. Other Uses. 3 the fuse twenty thousand square feet;l for each two Day maseries,including 2 for each 3 employees and thousiad square feet;I for preschools and nursery teachers phis I loading each two thousand square schools space for eaoh.8 children _ feet of gross flour area for the accord meaty thou ard G. When a fractional figure is found as a remainder square feet I for each four in computations made to determine the mmaber of required thousand square feet of off-strect parking spaces or garages the fraction shall be gross floor area for areas construed as the next larger whole number. in excess of the initial forty IL Parking area shall be computed by adding the areas thousand square feet of used for access drives, aisles, stalls, maneuvering, and floor area of the building. landscaping within that portion of the premises that is devoted to vehicular parking.(Ord.903 Exhibit A,1999; Wholesale establishments I for each 3,000 square feet Ord.883 Exhibit A,1998;Ord.335(part).1983;Ord.314 and warehouses not used of gross floor area (put),1982;Ord 264§4,1981;Ord 213§I(part),1979; exclusively for storage Ord 128§§7 (part), 1% 1976;Ord.98§ 1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A §2533-7) E.Places of Assembly. 2558.311 Conditional an permit required. Auditoriums,theaters, I for each 3 seats or I for A. All uses within the C-I zone requiring a greats 4 sports arenas stadiums each 35 square feet of gross than one space per two hundred fifty square fed parking floor area where there are stall to floor area ratio shall be required to acquire a cordi- no fixed seats tiooal use permit as set forth in Chapter 25.72 of this title. B. As pan of said conditional We permit the commis Churches and other place 1 for each 3 fixed seats Sion may modify the parking requirements for said use_ of assembly not specified within the main auditorium In modifying such requirements the commission shall above or for every 35 square fed consider of seating area within the 1. The parking demand generated by said use in relation - main auditorium where to other uses in the area; there are no fixed seats;18 2. The hours of operation of said use in relation to linear inches of bench shall the hours of operation of other uses in the area; be considered a fixed seat 3. The relationship of the type of use to other uses _ in the area; Libraries I for each 500 square feet 4. Any other factor the commission might deem of gross floor area necessary in making its decision (Ord. 264 § 5, 1981) (Pam oaxn 10-M 430 { �I MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3. 2003 It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp,adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2205 approving TT 31020 and Negative Declaration as it pertains thereto, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. G. Case No. ZOA 03-01 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of amendment to the Municipal Code Section 25.58.310 as it relates to parking requirements for churches and other places of assembly. Chairperson Campbell noted that staff was recommending that the matter be tabled and asked for a staff report. Mr. Drell asked if the commission wanted to just ask questions and comment on the report. Commissioner Jonathan noted that in the report staff was indicating,focusing on Sacred Heart as an example of a church with seating for 1,000 persons, that the requirement was for 333 spaces under the current code. They were regularly getting almost 600 cars. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the requirement was 300+, they were getting almost 600, yet staff was recommending no change. Mr. Drell explained that all of the parking requirements were average requirements for the average use. Sacred Heart was kind of exceptional in that there were probably only a few Catholic churches in the valley. It was like trying to make every restaurant park like it was a very busy Ruth's Chris Restaurant. Their evaluation was what the worst thing was that could happen if this exceptional circumstance occurs. The question was whether to make every single church operate as if it would be like Sacred Heart. Then they looked at the result. People parking on the street on Sunday morning. Was that a horrible thing? Was it worth making all churches double the amount of asphalt they have in their parking lot? Staffs conclusion was, given the fact that they design streets for people to park on and it only occurs for four hours, probably only during the season on Sunday,the remedy for Sacred Heart of adding another acre and a half of asphalt to satisfy that four-hour problem once a week staff didn't feel was justified given the severity of the situation. He didn't object to having people park on a public street designed for public parking unless it started 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2003 depriving the local resident of a place to park, then it was a problem. On Sunday morning, the local residents were probably already parked and had their spaces if they needed them. Commissioner Jonathan noted that they did hear testimony from area residents about the parking overflow on Sunday mornings. How bad it was was probably a matter of their perspective and if they lived across the street. Commissioner Jonathan said he could see staffs point. If a new applicant came in with a new 1,000 person sanctuary, then they had the ability to evaluate that situation individually: Mr. Drell thought maybe that was the amendment they should do. Commissioner Finerty indicated they could keep it site specific. Mr. Drell agreed they could place that in the ordinance that it would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis where they would design their sanctuary and staff would analyze them as a place of assembly, not as a religion. Commissioner Jonathan agreed it was the project demand and usage. Mr. Drell thought they should have that standard, but the standard could be modified. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would be more comfortable with something like that then simply ignoring the matter. It just seemed to go against the grain to recognize that a 1,000-person sanctuary does have an issue. If code requires 300 and they were using 600, he didn't want to create another such situation. He would at least like the ability to deal with it. Mr. Drell said that staff could come back with language. Commissioner Finerty asked how they dealt with the point that staff made in the report about Hope Lutheran where they have plenty of onsite parking, but people still preferred to park on the street. Commissioner Jonathan said that when Southwest Community Church was on Hovley, they dealt with it by requiring a parking management plan and they had volunteers out on Hovley directing traffic and had cones, etc. Commissioner Finerty said they could keep it more site specific, like if they had a problem with Sacred Heart. She recalled that there were only about two people that gave public testimony, so it was nothing like what they dealt with at Southwest. Mr. Drell thought that Southwest had 5,000 people showing up on Sundays. With Hope Lutheran, the way they designed their facility and their parking lot, they probably had 100 street spaces on their side of the street adjacent to their parking lot. He ' 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3. 2003 thought staff should come back with some careful language that didn't get them in trouble with the Freedom of Religion Act which allowed the Planning Commission to use the standard as a guide and the ability to adjust those standards for a particular circumstance.,He said it also had to do with the nature of the neighborhood around it. With Hope Lutheran, that street parking didn't impact anyone. In other neighborhoods it could be more significant if it was a problem. Commissioner Jonathan said he liked staffs discussion of alternative resolutions other than creating more cement or concrete such as a parking management plan for special occasions and holidays with an alternative site parking lot or something like that. As long as they had the ability to make it clear that they recognize potential problems and were open to creative management of those potential problems, then he was okay with it. Mr. Drell said that staff would take another shot at it at the next meeting. Commissioner Finerty asked if staff wanted to continue it to July 15. Mr. Smith noted that this was a public hearing and that there were people present to speak. Regarding Sacred Heart, Chairperson Campbell believed that most people parking on the street were on Deep Canyon, not on the side streets. She said she also noticed about five cars parked on Florine, but they were mostly on Deep Canyon. They would rather park there because it was easier to get out. Commissioner Tschopp asked when staff was doing the parking study for these churches if they looked at or ascertained how full the sanctuary was. He said they weren't so much dealing with the problem as it exists today, although they had a couple of churches that were a problem, they were looking down the road. Churches would fill up depending on how popular or what the ability was of the minister, priest, preacher, so they could have these problems in the future. When they looked at them and said they didn't have a problem now, they should keep in mind that ministers would change and so then could the number of people in the sanctuary which would then have an negative impact with parking on the streets. Mr. Drell noted that Ruth's Chris could get a lousy chef, etc. That is why by their nature all the parking requirements were averages. They didn't assume the most 26 I -- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3. 2003 successful or a failure. What was the worst thing that would happen if there was a great restaurant or church? The good news is that there is a great restaurant or church and as long as the ramifications of that weren't disastrous for the surrounding area or a significant inconvenience, that's when they would evaluate on a case-by-case basis. What would be the potential harm if they had the best case such as a successful church? They adjust the parking accordingly based on each individual situation. He said they didn't count the number of parishioners inside the sanctuary. Commissioner Tschopp said he didn't have a problem with the intent with the direction staff was taking, he wasjust stating thattheywere looking down the road at potential problems so if they were talking about parking, they should be looking at how full the sanctuary was and how much more it could hold, which would be relevant to the number of cars parked on the street and more residents would be impacted. Because churches were a little bit different in that they do sit in residential neighborhoods, that did have a direct impact on residential quality of life. But he thought that if they were looking at anything that had a reoccurring event (places of assembly) that would impact neighborhoods, there should be something in the code that allowed them to work with the individual to address it. Mr. Drell said that is what they would try to come up with. Some language and criteria for those kinds of special considerations to occur which were generic in their application. Chairperson Campbell said that it was also seasonal. Right now there weren't that many people at these churches, yet there were still people parking on the street. So for six months out of the year was when they had a problem. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked for testimony in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MR. PHILIP SMITH, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Palm Desert Community Presbyterian Church, 80-703 Avenue 49 in Indio, addressed the commission. He said they could support the direction the commission seemed to be taking. A good example of what the commission was talking about was what they were required to do in connection to their current expansion. They were conditioned in the approvals to do a parking study and generate a parking management plan, which they did. He thought the City would have continuing jurisdiction to see that it worked. When they opened their new facility 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3. 2003 later this year, he thought that would be a good example to see how they were doing. He thought the site specific approach made a lot of sense and said they would be happy to work with staff and looked forward to seeing the draft ordinance. MR. DOUG GERARD, Pastor of the Palm Desert Presbyterian Church, 77-664 Carla Court in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He said they had been using a management parking service to help them through the season. For them that seasonal period was about five to six months. He thought that what he read in terms of the current ordinance, one space for three seats, their average attendance during the season was about 1,200 people over three services. During the summer, the attendance was down to about 700. So it was definitely.a seasonal problem. There was a residential community to the north where a lot of their folks had been parking, especially during the construction period. They had been having the shuttle service to assist those folks to get to the sanctuary. He agreed it was a site specific issue. One question he had was just because the congregation or sanctuary only seated 200 or 300 people, that didn't mean they didn't have a parking problem. In fact, the parking problem might be more significant for a smaller congregation or smaller sanctuary. He thanked the commission for their time. Commissioner Jonathan thought that was a good and salient point as they head toward a site specific solution. He thought maybe they shouldn't limit it to the larger sanctuaries, but make it available to all places of gathering. Chairperson Campbell left the public hearing open and asked for a motion of continuance. Staff suggested a continuance to August 5, 2003. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, continuing Case No. ZOA 03-01 to August 5, 2003 by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS 28 - CITY Of PhIM 01 1 R T 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 9 22 60-2 5 78 TEL: 760 346—o6i i FAX: 760 341-7098 info@palm-Aeserr.org PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION Date: June 10, 2003 City of Palm Desert Re: ZOA 03-01 The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of June 3, 2003: PLANNING COMMISSION, BY MINUTE MOTION, CONTINUED CASE NO. ZOA 03-01 TO AUGUST 5, 2003. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. If you have any questions regarding this action, please call my office at (760) 346-0611 . Philip Drell, Sec etary Palm Desert Pla ning Commission /tm cc: Coachella Valley Water District Public Works Department Building & Safety Department Fire Marshal ei,einma rvram o,u MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3. 2003 G. Case No. ZOA 03-01 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of amendment to the Municipal Code Section 25.58.310 as it relates to parking requirements for churches and other places of assembly. Chairperson Campbell noted that staff was recommending that the matter be tabled and asked for a staff report. Mr. Drell asked if the commission wanted to just ask questions and comment on the report. Commissioner Jonathan noted that in the report staff was indicating, focusing on Sacred Heart as an example of a church with seating for 1,000 persons, that the requirement was for 333 spaces under the current code. They were regularly getting almost 600 cars. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the requirement was 300+, they were getting almost 600, yet staff was recommending no change. Mr. Drell explained that all of the parking requirements were average requirements for the average use. Sacred Heart was kind of exceptional in that there were probably only a few Catholic churches in the valley. It was like trying to make every restaurant park like it was a very busy Ruth's Chris Restaurant. Their evaluation was what the worst thing was that could happen if this exceptional circumstance occurs. The question was whether to make every single church operate as if it would be like Sacred Heart. Then they looked at the result. People parking on the street on Sunday morning. Was that a horrible thing? Was it worth making all churches double the amount of asphalt they have in their parking lot? Staffs conclusion was, given the fact that they design streets for people to park on and it only occurs for four hours, probably only during the season on Sunday, the remedy for Sacred Heart of adding another acre and a half of asphalt to satisfy that four-hour problem once a week staff didn't feel was justified given the severity of the situation. He didn't object to having people park on a public street designed for public parking unless it started depriving the local resident of a place to park, then it was a problem. On Sunday morning, the local residents were probably already parked and had their spaces if they needed them. Commissioner Jonathan noted that they did hear testimony from area residents about the parking overflow on Sunday mornings. How bad it was was probably a matter of their perspective and if they lived across the street. 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3. 2003 Commissioner Jonathan said he could see staffs point. If a new applicant came in with a new 1,000 person sanctuary, then they had the ability to evaluate that situation individually. Mr. Drell thought maybe that was the amendment they should do. Commissioner Finerty indicated they could keep it site specific. Mr. Drell agreed they could place that in the ordinance that it would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis where they would design their sanctuary and staff would analyze them as a place of assembly, not as a religion. Commissioner Jonathan agreed it was the project demand and usage. Mr. Drell thought they should have that standard, but the standard could be modified. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would be more comfortable with something like that then simply ignoring the matter. It just seemed to go against the grain to recognize that a 1,000-person sanctuary does have an issue. If code requires 300 and they were using 600, he didn't want to create another such situation. He would at least like the ability to deal with it. Mr. Drell said that staff could come back with language. Commissioner Finerty asked how they dealt with the point that staff made in the report about Hope Lutheran where they have plenty of onsite parking, but people still preferred to park on the street. Commissioner Jonathan said that when Southwest Community Church was on Hoviey, they dealt with it by requiring a parking management plan and they had volunteers out on Hovley directing traffic and had cones, etc. Commissioner Finerty said they could keep it more site specific, like if they had a problem with Sacred Heart. She recalled that there were only about two people that gave public testimony, so it was nothing like what they dealt with at Southwest. Mr. Drell thought that Southwest had 5,000 people showing up on Sundays. With Hope Lutheran, the way they designed their facility and their parking lot, they probably had 100 street spaces on their side of the street adjacent to their parking lot. He thought staff should come back with some careful language that didn't get them in trouble with the Freedom of Religion Act which allowed the Planning Commission to use the standard as a guide and the ability to adjust those standards for a particular circumstance. He said it also had to do with the nature of the neighborhood around it. With Hope Lutheran, that street parking didn't impact anyone. In other neighborhoods it could be more significant if it was a problem. 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3. 2003 Commissioner Jonathan said he liked staffs discussion of alternative resolutions other than creating more cement or concrete such as a parking management plan for special occasions and holidays with an alternative site parking lot or something like that. As long as they had the ability to make it clear that they recognize potential problems and were open to creative management of those potential problems, then he was okay with it. Mr. Drell said that staff would take another shot at it at the next meeting. Commissioner Finerty asked if staff wanted to continue it to July 15. Mr. Smith noted that this was a public hearing and that there were people present to speak. Regarding Sacred Heart, Chairperson Campbell believed that most people parking on the street were on Deep Canyon, not on the side streets. She said she also noticed about five cars parked on Florine, but they were mostly on Deep Canyon. They would rather park there because it was easier to get out. Commissioner Tschopp asked when staff was doing the parking study for these churches if they looked at or ascertained how full the sanctuary was. He said they weren't so much dealing with the problem as it exists today, although they had a couple of churches that were a problem, they were looking down the road. Churches would fill up depending on how popular or what the ability was of the minister, priest, preacher, so they could have these problems in the future. When they looked at them and said they didn't have a problem now, they should keep in mind that ministers would change and so then could the number of people in the sanctuary which would then have an negative impact with parking on the streets. Mr. Drell noted that Ruth's Chris could get a lousy chef, etc. That is why by their nature all the parking requirements were averages. They didn't assume the most successful or a failure. What was the worst thing that would happen if there was a great restaurant or church? The good news is that there is a great restaurant or church and as long as the ramifications of that weren't disastrous for the surrounding area or a significant inconvenience, that's when they would evaluate on a case-by-case basis. What would be the potential harm if they had the best case such as a successful church? They adjust the parking accordingly based on each individual situation. He said they didn't count the number of parishioners inside the sanctuary. 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3. 2003 Commissioner Tschopp said he didn't have a problem with the intent with the direction staff was taking, he was just stating that they were looking down the road at potential problems so if they were talking about parking, they should be looking at how full the sanctuary was and how much more it could hold, which would be relevant to the number of cars parked on the street and more residents would be impacted. Because churches were a little bit different in that they do sit in residential neighborhoods, that did have a direct impact on residential quality of life. But he thought that if they were looking at anything that had a reoccurring event (places of assembly) that would impact neighborhoods, there should be something in the code that allowed them to work with the individual to address it. Mr. Drell said that is what they would try to come up with. Some language and criteria for those kinds of special considerations to occur which were generic in their application. Chairperson Campbell said that it was also seasonal. Right now there weren't that many people at these churches, yet there were still people parking on the street. So for six months out of the year was when they had a problem. Chairperson Campbell oogened the public hearing and asked for testimony in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MR. PHILIP SMITH, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Palm Desert Community Presbyterian Church, 80-703 Avenue 49 in Indio, addressed the commission. He said they could support the direction the commission seemed to be taking. A good example of what the commission was talking about was what they were required to do in connection to their current expansion. They were conditioned in the approvals to do a parking study and generate a parking management plan, which they did. He thought the City would have continuing jurisdiction to see that it worked. When they opened their new facility later this year, he thought that would be a good example to see how they were doing. He thought the site specific approach made a lot of sense and said they would be happy to work with staff and looked forward to seeing the draft ordinance. MR. DOUG GERARD, Pastor of the Palm Desert Presbyterian Church, 77-664 Carla Court in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He said they had been using a management parking service to help them through the season. For them that seasonal 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3. 2003 period was about five to six months. He thought that what he read in terms of the current ordinance, one space for three seats, their average attendance during the season was about 1,200 people over three services. During the summer, the attendance was down to about 700. So it was definitely a seasonal problem. There was a residential community to the north where a lot of their folks had been parking, especially during the construction period. They had been having the shuttle service to assist those folks to get to the sanctuary. He agreed it was a site specific issue. One question he had was just because the congregation or sanctuary only seated 200 or 300 people, that didn't mean they didn't have a parking problem. In fact, the parking problem might be more significant for a smaller congregation or smaller sanctuary. He thanked the commission for their time. Commissioner Jonathan thought that was a good and salient point as they head toward a site specific solution. He thought maybe they shouldn't limit it to the larger sanctuaries, but make it available to all places of gathering. Chairperson Campbell left the public hearing open and asked for a motion of continuance. Staff suggested a continuance to August 5, 2003. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, continuing Case No. ZOA 03-01 to August 5, 2003 by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. REQUEST FOR STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY ABANDONMENT OF PROPERTY ALONG FAIRHAVEN DRIVE AND A PORTION OF SIERRA VISTA DRIVE GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF FAIRHAVEN DRIVE AND SIERRA VISTA DRIVE WITHIN THE PALM VISTA UNIT NO. 2. Mr. Drell clarified that it was the parkway going from 20 feet to six feet. He noted that there was a diagram that was distributed. With that clarification 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2003 G. Case No. ZOA 03-01 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of amendment to the Municipal Code Section 25.58.310 as it relates to parking requirements for churches and other places of assembly. Chairperson Campbell noted that staff was recommending that the matter be tabled and asked for a staff report. Mr. Drell asked if the commission wanted to just ask questions and comment on the report. Commissioner Jonathan noted that in the report staff was indicating, focusing on Sacred Heart as an example of a church with seating for 1 ,000 persons, that the requirement was for 333 spaces under the current code. They were regularly getting almost 600 cars. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the requirement was 300+, they were getting almost 600, yet staff was recommending no change. Mr. Drell explained that all of the parking requirements were average requirements for the average use. Sacred Heart was kind of exceptional in that there were probably only a few Catholic churches in the valley. It was like trying to make every restaurant park like it was a very busy Ruth's Chris Restaurant. Their evaluation was what the worst thing was that could happen if this exceptional circumstance occurs. The question was whether to make every single church operate as if it would be like Sacred Heart. Then they looked at the result. People parking on the street on Sunday morning. Was that a horrible thing? Was it worth making all churches double the amount of asphalt they have in their parking lot? Staffs conclusion was, given the fact that they design streets for people to park on and it only occurs for four hours, probably only during the season on Sunday, the remedy for Sacred Heart of adding another acre and a half of asphalt to satisfy that four-hour problem once a week staff didn't feel was justified given the severity of the situation. He didn't object to having people park on a public street designed for public parking unless it started depriving the local resident of a place to park, then it was a problem. On Sunday morning, the local residents were probably already parked and had their spaces if they needed them. Commissioner Jonathan noted that they did hear testimony from area residents about the parking overflow on Sunday mornings. How bad it was was probably a matter of their perspective and if they lived across the street. 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2003 Commissioner Jonathan said he could see staffs point. If a new applicant came in with a new 1,000 person sanctuary, then they had the ability to evaluate that situation individually. Mr. Drell thought maybe that was the amendment they should do. Commissioner Finerty indicated they could keep it site specific. Mr. Drell agreed they could place that in the ordinance that it would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis where they would design their sanctuary and staff would analyze them as a place of assembly, not as a religion. Commissioner Jonathan agreed it was the project demand and usage. Mr. Drell thought they should have that standard, but the standard could be modified. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would be more comfortable with something like that then simply ignoring the matter. It just seemed to go against the grain to recognize that a 1,000-person sanctuary does have an issue. If code requires 300 and they were using 600, he didn't want to create another such situation. He would at least like the ability to deal with it. Mr. Drell said that staff could come back with language. Commissioner Finerty asked how they dealt with the point that staff made in the report about Hope Lutheran where they have plenty of onsite parking, but people still preferred to park on the street. Commissioner Jonathan said that when Southwest Community Church was on Hovley, they dealt with it by requiring a parking management plan and they had volunteers out on Hovley directing traffic and had cones, etc. Commissioner Finerty said they could keep it more site specific, like if they had a problem with Sacred Heart. She recalled that there were only about two people that gave public testimony, so it was nothing like what they dealt with at Southwest. Mr. Drell thought that Southwest had 5,000 people showing up on Sundays. With Hope Lutheran, the way they designed their facility and their parking lot, they probably had 100 street spaces on their side of the street adjacent to their parking lot. He thought staff should come back with some careful language that didn't get them in trouble with the Freedom of Religion Act which allowed the Planning Commission to use the standard as a guide and the ability to adjust those standards for a particular circumstance. He said it also had to do with the nature of the neighborhood around it. With Hope Lutheran, that street parking didn't impact anyone. In other neighborhoods it could be more significant if it was a problem. 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3. 2003 Commissioner Jonathan said he liked staffs discussion of alternative resolutions other than creating more cement or concrete such as a parking management plan for special occasions and holidays with an alternative site parking lot or something like that. As long as they had the ability to make it clear that they recognize potential problems and were open to creative management of those potential problems, then he was okay with it. Mr. Drell said that staff would take another shot at it at the next meeting. Commissioner Finerty asked if staff wanted to continue it to July 15. Mr. Smith noted that this was a public hearing and that there were people present to speak. Regarding Sacred Heart, Chairperson Campbell believed that most people parking on the street were on Deep Canyon, not on the side streets. She said she also noticed about five cars parked on Florine, but they were mostly on Deep Canyon. They would rather park there because it was easier to get out. Commissioner Tschopp asked when staff was doing the parking study for these churches if they looked at or ascertained how full the sanctuary was. He said they weren't so much dealing with the problem as it exists today, although they had a couple of churches that were a problem, they were looking down the road. Churches would fill up depending on how popular or what the ability was of the minister, priest, preacher, so they could have these problems in the future. When they looked at them and said they didn't have a problem now, they should keep in mind that ministers would change and so then could the number of people in the sanctuary which would then have an negative impact with parking on the streets. Mr. Drell noted that Ruth's Chris could get a lousy chef, etc. That is why by their nature all the parking requirements were averages. They didn't assume the most successful or a failure. What was the worst thing that would happen if there was a great restaurant or church? The good news is that there is a great restaurant or church and as long as the ramifications of that weren't disastrous for the surrounding area or a significant inconvenience, that's when they would evaluate on a case-by-case basis. What would be the potential harm if they had the best case such as a successful church? They adjust the parking accordingly based on each individual situation. He said they didn't count the number of parishioners inside the sanctuary. 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2003 Commissioner Tschopp said he didn't have a problem with the intent with the direction staff was taking, he was just stating that they were looking down the road at potential problems so if they were talking about parking, they should be looking at how full the sanctuary was and how much more it could hold, which would be relevant to the number of cars parked on the street and more residents would be impacted. Because churches were a little bit different in that they do sit in residential neighborhoods, that did have a direct impact on residential quality of life. But he thought that if they were looking at anything that had a reoccurring event (places of assembly) that would impact neighborhoods, there should be something in the code that allowed them to work with the individual to address it. Mr. Drell said that is what they would try to come up with. Some language and criteria for those kinds of special considerations to occur which were generic in their application. Chairperson Campbell said that it was also seasonal. Right now there weren't that many people at these churches, yet there were still people parking on the street. So for six months out of the year was when they had a problem. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked for testimony in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MR. PHILIP SMITH, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Palm Desert Community Presbyterian Church, 80-703 Avenue 49 in Indio, addressed the commission. He said they could support the direction the commission seemed to be taking. A good example of what the commission was talking about was what they were required to do in connection to their current expansion. They were conditioned in the approvals to do a parking study and generate a parking management plan, which they did. He thought the City would have continuing jurisdiction to see that it worked. When they opened their new facility later this year, he thought that would be a good example to see how they were doing. He thought the site specific approach made a lot of sense and said they would be happy to work with staff and looked forward to seeing the draft ordinance. MR. DOUG GERARD, Pastor of the Palm Desert Presbyterian Church, 77-664 Carla Court in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He said they had been using a management parking service to help them through the season. For them that seasonal 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3. 2003 period was about five to six months. He thought that what he read in terms of the current ordinance, one space for three seats, their average attendance during the season was about 1,200 people over three services. During the summer, the attendance was down to about 700. So it was definitely a seasonal problem. There was a residential community to the north where a lot of their folks had been parking, especially during the construction period. They had been having the shuttle service to assist those folks to get to the sanctuary. He agreed it was a site specific issue. One question he had was just because the congregation or sanctuary only seated 200 or 300 people, that didn't mean they didn't have a parking problem. In fact, the parking problem might be more significant for a smaller congregation or smaller sanctuary. He thanked the commission for their time. Commissioner Jonathan thought that was a good and salient point as they head toward a site specific solution. He thought maybe they shouldn't limit it to the larger sanctuaries, but make it available to all places of gathering. Chairperson Campbell left the public hearing open and asked for a motion of continuance. Staff suggested a continuance to August 5, 2003. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, continuing Case No. ZOA 03-01 to August 5, 2003 by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. REQUEST FOR STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY ABANDONMENT OF PROPERTY ALONG FAIRHAVEN DRIVE AND A PORTION OF SIERRA VISTA DRIVE GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF FAIRHAVEN DRIVE AND SIERRA VISTA DRIVE WITHIN THE PALM VISTA UNIT NO. 2. Mr. Drell clarified that it was the parkway going from 20 feet to six feet. He noted that there was a diagram that was distributed. With that clarification 28 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: June 3, 2003 CASE NO: ZOA 03-01 REQUEST: Amendment to the Municipal Code as it relates to parking requirements for churches and other places of assembly, Municipal Code Section 25.58.310 APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert I. BACKGROUND: March 18, 2003 staff presented a church parking survey report which had been conducted during February 2003. The data revealed that there were no parking concerns related to small and medium sized churches, but that larger, older churches consistently had overflow parking onto adjacent streets for a few hours Sunday mornings. Commission directed staff to prepare options for a code amendment which would impose a parking surcharge on "large" churches. II. ANALYSIS: The problem is that larger churches experience overflow parking during the season. Current code does not differentiate between large churches and small churches. The following issues need to be addressed as part of any proposed code amendment: A. Define what we mean by "large" church. Response: Duringthe March 18 2003 meeting, commission agreed that a church � g with a sanctuary capacity of 1 ,000 persons would be considered large. STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 03-01 JUNE 3, 2003 The question is what is the threshold? Three hundred, four hundred or more? Churches experiencing onstreet overflow parking were Sacred Heart, Hope Lutheran, St. Margaret's and Palm Desert Community Presbyterian. We have reviewed the seating capacity of each of those churches to try to determine an appropriate threshold. CHURCH SANCTUARY SEATING Sacred Heart 1 ,000 persons St. Margaret's 903 persons Palm Desert Community Presbyterian 714 persons Hope Lutheran 550 persons The threshold should therefore be set somewhat below the lowest sanctuary size where significant onstreet overflow.parking occurs. At Hope Lutheran the number of vehicles parked on the street ranged from 7 to 17 depending on the time of the service. It is interesting to note while there were 17 vehicles on the street, the onsite parking lot was a third empty (i.e., there were 68 available spaces). At another service Hope Lutheran had 7 vehicles parked on the street and the onsite parking was occupied 100%. Seven overflow vehicles parked onstreet for one to two hours a week does not seem to warrant a parking "surcharge." B. Amount of Surcharge. If we apply a parking surcharge to "large" churches, the question becomes how much additional parking should be required. Response: The most significant overflow parking occurs at Sacred Heart Church which has seating for 1 ,000 persons and has 420 onsite parking spaces 2 STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 03-01 JUNE 3, 2003 w P which is one ace per 2.38 seats. This amount (26% above the current code requirement) is adequate for all Sacred Heart services except the 9:30 a.m. service when they have 589 cars parked onsite and on nearby streets. Providing this much parking onsite would require a 76% surcharge. A 76% surcharge would require an additional acre and a half of asphalt. Staff feels that this would be excessive given the extent and duration of the overflow parking. The current parking requirement for churches is one space per three (3) seats or one (11 space for every 35 square feet of assembly area. A 25% surcharge would increase the required parking to one space per 2.4 seats. A 50% surcharge would increase the required parking to one space per two seats. At Hope Lutheran, vehicles parking on the street are not the result of a lack of onsite parking, but rather a preference of people to park in legal onstreet parking spaces. C. Surcharge Parking Onsite Versus Offsite. Should the "surcharge" spaces be required onsite or can they be provided offsite? Response: If the City were to require the parking be provided onsite, it will significantly increase the amount of asphalt for a problem which only occurs a few hours per week during the season. If we require the church to provide offsite parking (i.e., lease use of an existing nearby lot or a further away lot and provide a shuttle) this will reduce the amount of asphalt on the church site. The question is whether church members will park at a satellite parking lot (and walk or shuttle) 3 STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 03-01 JUNE 3, 2003 or will they use closer-by street parking and walk a shorter distance. Street spaces would have to be signed and enforced for no parking. I'm not sure we want to direct the Sheriff to ticket church goers for using otherwise legal onstreet parking. III. CONCLUSION: Although staff does not recommend approval of this amendment, staff has provided a draft resolution containing the following provisions: A. That a "large" church be defined as one having a sanctuary seating 700 persons or more. B. That the amount of the parking surcharge be set at no more than 25%. C. That the surcharge parking spaces may be provided offsite through long- term lease. When this offsite parking is located more than 500 feet from the church property, a shuttle service shall be provided. IV. RECOMMENDATION: That Case No. ZOA 03-01 amending parking requirements for large churches be tabled. V. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft resolution B. Legal notice Prepared by: Revi weddaand Approved by: Steve Smith P il�i Drell Planning Manager Director of Community Development Revie nd Concur• OotrCroy ACM for Devel ent Services 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 25.58.310 AS IT RELATES TO PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR CHURCHES AND OTHER PLACES OF ASSEMBLY. CASE NO. ZOA 03-01 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 3rd day of June, 2003, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an amendment to the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Chapter 25.58.310; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 02-60," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15305 (Class 5, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) of CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify its recommendation as described below: 1 . That the Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent with the adopted General Plan and affected specific plans. 3. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment would better serve the public health, safety and general welfare than the current regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of a Zoning Ordinance text amendment as provided in the attached Exhibit "A" to amend Municipal Code Chapter 25.58.310. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 3rd day of June, 2003, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 II PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT "A" Section 1 : That the following be added to Municipal Code Section 25.58.310 D Churches and other places of assembly not specified above. "When a church or other place of assembly has a seating capacity in the main sanctuary in excess of 700 persons, a parking "surcharge" of 25% shall be imposed. Said "surcharge" spaces may be located onsite or offsite through a long-term lease. When the offsite parking is located more than 500 feet from the church property, a shuttle service shall be provided." 3 " 11Y OF P 0 1 M 0ESE - 1 73-5io FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 76o 346—o6u FAX: 760 341-7o98 infoppclm-dnen.ne8 I CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE ZOA 03-01 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance as it relates to parking requirements for churches and other places of assembly. M.C. Section 25.58.310. SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday,June 3,2003,before the Palm Desert Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m.in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert City Hall,73-510 Fred Waring Drive,Palm Desert,California,at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the department of community development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m.and 5:00 p.m.Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the planning commission at,or prior to,the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL,Secretary May 20,2003 Palm Desert Planning Commission CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Steve Smith, Planning Manager DATE: March 18, 2003 continued from December 3, 2002 SUBJECT: Church Parking Survey I. BACKGROUND: During the discussion of conditional use permit requests for churches, Planning Commission directed staff to conduct a parking survey of church parking lots and assess the appropriateness of the current parking requirement (i.e. one parking space for every three seats). Previously, staff had prepared a comparison with other cities. Palm Desert had one of the higher parking requirements. During February, 2003 Code Compliance staff conducted parking counts at twelve churches around the City. Most churches were counted on two separate weekends. Large denominational churches were counted and small non-denominational churches were counted (see attached survey). St. Margaret's Episcopal Church and Palm Desert Community Presbyterian Church on Highway 74 were not counted due to construction activity at the Community Church. II. ANALYSIS: A review of the parking survey data reveals: 1 . Small to mid-sized churches do not have overflow parking problems and utilize very little street parking. While these churches may use some street parking they still have vacant spaces on-site. 2. Larger, long established denominational churches have services where on-site parking approaches or exceeds 100% and utilize significant street parking. At Sacred Heart and Hope Lutheran, 100% on-site occupancy is not unusual. At Sacred Heart's 9:30 a.m. service the on-site parking was 1 12% (470 cars in 420 space parking lot) and 119 vehicles were counted on nearby streets. 3. For the average church the current parking requirement is adequate. STAFF REPORT PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 The goal of.the code required parking spaces is to provide adequate on-site parking for the average church. This is also the case with our restaurant standard department store requirement and all other uses covered in the municipal code. When we observed the situation at Sacred Heart Church (i.e. 100% + street parking) we contacted the church and attempted to determine what was causing this anomaly. Sacred Heart advised the main sanctuary seats 1 ,000 people. Under current code this would result in 333 required parking spaces. We inquired as to the size of church Sunday school attendance to see if it was impacting parking. We were advised that the maximum number of children at a Sunday school service is 50. This could account for 16 more parking spaces for a total of 349 spaces. The lot has 420 spaces. We conclude that this parking anomaly is a result of a reduction in the average household size and particularly the number of single persons attending services. III. CONCLUSION: The problem, of course, is how to address a problem which is observed in large denominational churches but not evident at smaller non-denominational churches. We should not increase the required parking for a whole group when only a small portion of the group is experiencing parking problems. Even if we were to amend the code it would not impact existing churches. It would only be applicable to new churches. With the exception of Southwest Community Church, our experience with new churches is that they do not fall into the parking problem category. It is the long established churches which outgrow their available parking while membership continues to grow which have the problem. At this time, staff is not prepared to recommend a code amendment. Creating extra parking for the average church is not needed and excessive asphalt is not a positive contribution to the environment. 2 STAFF REPORT PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 IV. RECOMMENDATION: That the issue of adequacy of church parking be tabled. Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved by: teve Smith Phil Drell Planning Manager Director of Community Development /dq 3 MINUTES ^�^ . PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION l SUBJECT R MARCH 18, 2003 tom' E b�-yFri M REVISION Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Chairperson Campbell, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Chairperson Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2192 recommending to City Council approval of TT 31135, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). Clerical staff asked for confirmation that the action by the commission was a recommendation of approval to City Council. Mr. Drell said it was adoption of the resolution before them, which was recommending approval. Commission concurred. E. Discussion of Church Parking Standards Mr. Drell indicated that Mr. Smith could answer any questions regarding the investigation. - - -- Regarding Sacred-Heart;Chairperson Campbell stated that she takes her-- — - parents there and people park on the street, but there were actually spaces in the parking lot that people weren't using because it was easier. That was the only reason there was more parking on the street. Mr. Drell said they kind of limited their access to the parking lot in deference to the neighborhood, which probably exacerbated that problem since people couldn't get out onto Florine. The bigger problem was they had these single, old major denominations that get bigger and bigger. The other problem was that as the congregation aged, there were more one and two people per car and not the three that the ordinance called for. Using Sacred Heart as an example, Commissioner Jonathan noted that their main sanctuary seats 1,000 people. The requirement under the current ordinance would be 333 parking spaces. Yet they were getting 470 cars according to the counts. So staffs conclusion was that there didn't seem to be a problem with smaller churches, but that there did seem to be a problem with larger churches. He asked why they wouldn't then conclude that the ordinance needed to be modified for larger churches and keep the ordinance 27 s MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT Tl MARCH 18, 2003 REVISION i.the same for up to a certain size, but require additional parking ratios for churches over a certain size. Mr. Smith said it wasn't necessarily consistent — across the-full spectrum. They don't say to a restauranteur-that they-are— going to be more successful than the average restaurant and in that case they have to provide extra parking. Going in they have no way of knowing which churches wera going to be overly successful. Mr. Drell noted that the Mormon church, which is a large church, doesn't have a problem. Mr. Smith concurred. He said they had 180 vacant parking spaces. Mr. Drell said that Temple Sinai was kind of a large church and it didn't have a problem. The difference was partly the devotional quality of the members which was kind of hard to characterize in an ordinance. Since staff recognized that there was a problem, Commissioner Jonathan thought non-resolution was not the best direction to go in. Mr. Drell asked how severe a problem it was. The fact that people were parking on the street for a couple of hours on Sunday at three or four of the churches, did that justify adding another acre of asphalt to the parking lot. Mr. Smith said that it would also be required of a lot of churches that don't have a problem. Mr. Drell said it might be a problem, but the streets were designed specifically to accommodate cars parking on them. If they don't want cars parked on them, __they should-make-them-a-lot skinnier.—There was-a lot of debate about-street— design and that we do design our streets too wide. He said it might be somewhat of a problem, but was it enough of one to add another acre of asphalt. Commissioner Lopez noted that Sacred Heart was a campus with all the different uses. There was the church with Sunday School. Mr. Smith said staff contacted them about that thinking they were going to have seas of children there which would mean they needed to add in for the number of kids. According to the information they gave staff, the most they ever have is 50 which would account for 16 parking spaces which was not significant. Chairperson Campbell noted that they didn't drive anyway. Mr. Drell said that staff did determine that they should count Sunday School capacity because that was part of the three seats per car. Two of them could be adults and one a child. So really the Sunday School was an extension of the sanctuary. It was just kind of offsite. So they should count Sunday School capacity as part of the seat count for determining parking, but unfortunately 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION '' SUBJECT Tl MARCH 18, 2003 p REVISION they couldn't identify that the problems that were occurring were because of - — — Sunday School. Commissioner Tschopp said that it seemed to him that in the study they came up with two of the 12 surveyed, or 16.5% have a parking problem. If they added in the two churches that they didn't include which are large denomination churches, they would have four of 14 which would be almost 29% of the churches having a parking problem. It seemed to him that in some ways they have identified a problem, but they concluded that they weren't going to do anything about it. They were going to see churches come in that want to expand and if they came in to expand to a larger church because they are successful, they were going to expand under the old parking codes, which they acknowledge that when a church gets large enough, that is when it becomes a problem. In his mind, now was the time to plan for the future by implementing a code on the parking which would address those expansion plans in the future. Maybe it wasn't more asphalt, but maybe it was getting a little more creative and perhaps it was offsite parking. When churches meet on Sunday mornings or Saturdays, a lot of businesses are closed and there is a lot of empty commercial parking spaces sometimes in areas. Perhaps they needed to find a way to require them instead of parking in residential neighborhoods, which was really the _ problem, but to bus them from other commercial areas or something of that nature. Chairperson Campbell didn't think that would work. Commissioner Tschopp said his point was that they needed to do something because churches will grow. So what they were saying is that there is a problem with large churches and if they didn't do something now, they would have more problems with larger churches down the road. Commissioner Jonathan concurred. He thought that staffs investigation confirmed their suspicions that there is a problem. The analysis was further helpful in that it isolated the problems to the larger churches. So now the next logical step wasn't to say they wouldn't do anything about it, but to say they would do something about the larger churches and that was why he suggested some kind of a tiered ordinance which was consistent with others. Commissioner Finerty concurred. It was like what they did for regular offices versus medical offices. Commissioner Jonathan agreed. 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT Tt \ MARCH 18, 2003 L.A. T � REVISION Commissioner Lopez asked if they were looking at basing it on square footage. Commissioner Jonathan clarified that it would be on sanctuary size. - -- - --He didn't know what that number was.-He thought they would have to ask staff to go back to the drawing board, but certainly a sanctuary that seats 1,000 is large. A sanctuary that seats 100 is not. Where the delineation was he didn't know and how much additional ratio should be required for the larger churches he didn't know. Mr. Smith noted that they were suggesting a surcharge on larger sanctuaries. Commissioner Jonathan concurred. He agreed with Commissioner Finerty that it would be similar to what they do with service industrial versus.warehouse, similar to what they do with office compared to service industrial, similar to what they do with medical compared to office. Chairperson Campbell asked if this would be for new churches. Commissioner Jonathan said yes, new churches as well as expansions. Commissioner Jonathan said his suggestion was to ask staff to continue their analysis and come back with a further recommendation regarding some kind of a resolution along the discussion that just took place with regard to the larger sanctuaries, the larger churches. Commissioner Finerty asked if they thought they could define larger as 500 or more. Commissioner Jonathan said he didn't know and was open to suggestions. He thought they would __ -probably end up with aroundthat size. - --.- ---- --- - — Commissioner Tschopp said he didn't want to complicate the issue, but in large cities when they have events a lot of times they have satellite parking. People drive to that location and then catch a bus to the main event. If they have a large successful church or a large successful stadium down here some day, perhaps that was a way to keep the asphalt, which was a staff concern, in check. He thought it would be nice to draft something that would take into consideration mass transit. Commissioner Jonathan said he was in favor of mass transit and wasn't opposed to a creative approach. For example, they could keep the parking standards the same, but for churches with sanctuaries over 500 or whatever number, that they be required to have satellite space available in the event that they either have special events or in the event, for example, that their regular Sunday morning services are deemed to be a problem for the neighborhood, so a contingency satellite parking lot available. Commissioner Finerty asked for a few alternatives. Commissioner Jonathan concurred. He 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION �.�.F� SUBJECT TL MARCH 18, 2003 lr� 1 REVISION wasn't trying to define the solution, but they identified a problem and wanted to work on the solution. Commissioner Tschopp noted that at the meeting of February 18, they were going to condition an applicant to park the employees onsite. He didn't know if there was a way to look at code, or if it was necessary to amend code, but to him employees were going to park where they are told to park. If management tells them to park in the street to free up their spaces next to the building, that is where they were going to go. They had no leverage against the employer. It made sense to him that if they actually had something that required employees/staff to have to park onsite. The difference being that customers would raise objections with a business to get to park closer. He thought it would be good to have it in code that employees had to park onsite and they might see some owners take additional steps to correct a problem because their customers would complain. Chairperson Campbell said that is what she does in front of her store. But there were beauty operators nearby and the owner of that shop parked in front of her store and he was there all day. So she went out there and told him to park somewhere else or in front of his own store. Mr. Smith noted that the owner of Napas Tapas parked his little car with advertising all over it. Mr. Drell said the problem was there is public parking. They could restrict it. And that was a problem with offsite pa Wing._Uffless tFiey restricted the public parking — adjacent to the church, people would park there as opposed to parking four blocks away and taking a bus. It was a significant administrative task. He said there is an ordinance which allows preferential residential parking. It was seen in major cities often next to business districts where they take the residential street parking and make it prohibited unless the vehicle has a sticker and the sticker is only given to people who live there. But unless they did that, offsite parking wasn't going to work. Commissioner Tschopp said he wasn't talking about churches, but in other cities when they have events that are regularly scheduled / reoccurring, a lot of times the signs posted would be no parking from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. or no parking Saturday nights 6:00 p.m. to midnight. Again, it was an enforcement problem, but the concern was the infringement upon residential neighborhoods and that's where they should be looking to help out. Along that same issue, Commissioner Jonathan noted that he drives by the Roberge Gallery and Augusta Restaurant frequently and on weekend nights 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION ' SUBJECT Tl \ MARCH 18, 2003 REVISION FT there was a car they parked sideways on the driveway to prevent access into the parking lot. He assumed that was because of valet parking. But he asked _ - if that-was supposed to-be-a-public parking lot. He asked how that worked and if they approved it for general public parking. Mr. Diercks asked for clarification on the location. Mr. Smith noted that it was on El Paseo at Portola. Mr. Diercks said they weren't allowed to restrict any access if it was a public parking lot. The aisle was not supposed to be restricted. Commissioner Jonathan said that driveway was blocked by a car being parked. Mr. Diercks said that wasn't right. Valet parking permits specifically say they aren't allowed to restrict any drive aisles. They are allowed to put in cones for parking stalls themselves, but not the drive aisles. Commissioner Jonathan said this was a regular weekend night. Mr. Diercks said he was in charge of valet parking now, so he would investigate. Commissioner Jonathan said that forced patrons to park offsite and they were trying to provide parking onsite. He didn't know where the off-street parking was taking place, but it could be intruding into those neighborhoods. Mr. Diercks said he would definitely.look into it. Commissioner Jonathan thanked him. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES -- — — A-----ART IN-PUBLIC—PLACES-- (No-meeting)--- - — - - B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (No meeting) E. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) F. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) XI. COMMENTS Chairperson Campbell asked staff to look into the dust regulations relative to dirt roads and parking lots. Mr. Diercks didn't know if there had been any discussions on that matter, but would initiate discussions. 32 • Re cp f4 Y� �T CITY OF PALM DESERT �. 2003 BUILDING & SAFETY DEPARTMENT{-'' r-`n7 pE�,f,G/M1fE1„ GTf'np P4�Y fDElSakTlr DtSfRr "f'�T INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Hart Ponder Jr. Code Compliance Supervisor From: Johnny Terfehr, Code Compliance Officer Date: February 19, 2003 Subject: Parking Lot Survey, Various Church's Vehicles were counted on Saturday February 8, 2003, Sunday February 9, 2003, Friday February 14, 2003 and Sunday February 16, 2003. Counts were taken at the times and locations listed on the attached spreadsheet. On the spreadsheet I have included the scheduled service time (service time) and the actual time I took the count (count time). The number of vehicles in the parking lot (count) and the.total available marked parking spaces (available). I also included the number of vehicles parked on the street that I believed were attending the church service (on street) at that time. At the Sacred Heart Church, you will notice that there are more vehicles than available parking spaces at some services. Vehicles were parked in unmarked spaces and on ends of parking rows in the red curb area. On street parking for the Sacred Heart Church included Deep Canyon and Florine. On street parking for Hope Lutheran Church included Portola and Fairway. On street parking for St. John's Lutheran was on a vacant grass lot across an alleyway from the Church. For the remainder of Church's the on street parking was the same as the church street address. I did not observe any serious conflicts in traffic between services. It seemed during the times I was able to monitor traffic that it was flowing smoothly. Sincerely, Johnny L. Terfehr Code Compliance Officer H.Wy Eocu tsWumh oa�nre sway MMAM Location Date Service Time Count Time Count Avaijable On Street 8-Feb-2003 9:15 AM 9:25 AM 20 181 74-200 Country Club Drive 10:50 AM 11:00 AM 80 181 Temple Sinai8-Feb-2003 10:00 AM 10:05 AM 31 328 73-251 Hovley Lane 14-Feb-2003 7:00 PM 7:05 PM 38 328 8-Feb-2003 6:45 AM 6:50 AM 117 420 3 43-775 Deep Canyon Road 80 AAM -8 10 AM 364 420 33 9:30 AM 10:00 AM 470 420 119 11:00 AM 11:14 AM 365 420 45 12:30 PM 12:35 PM 161 420 11 16-Feb-2003 9:30 AM 9:53 AM 458 420 104 11:00 AM 11:20 AM 362 420 44 •. 8-Feb-2003 8:00 AM 8:15 AM 43 185 45-900 Portola Avenue 9:15 AM 9:40 AM 185 185 7 10:30 AM 10:50 AM 117 185 17 16-Feb-2003 8:00 AM 8:26 AM 59 185 0 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 155 185 9 10:30 AM 10:30 AM 169 185 12 •. 8-Feb-2003 9:00 AM 9:05 AM 101 232 12 72-960 Park View 1:00 PM 1:08 PM 1221 232 0 16-Feb-2003 9:00 AM 9:20 AM 135 232 18 1:00 PM 1:00 PM 111 232 3 . .- • ... 8-Feb-2003 9:15 AM 9:15 AM 0 63 74-109 Larrea 10:00 AM 10:10 AM 15 63 21 =.. 8-Feb-2003 9:00 AM 9:20 AM 471 82 43-400 Warner Trail 10:00 AM 10:20 AM 721 82 4 16-Feb-2003 9:00 AM 9:03 AM 441 82 2 10:00 AM 10:04 AM 731 82 10 8-Feb-2003 9:00 AM 9:25 AM 75 75 16 42-695 Washington Street 1 11:00 AM 11:05 AM 66 75 5 16-Feb-2003 9:00 AM 9:10 AM 75 75 22 11:00 AM 11:05 AM 69 75 4 Location Date Service Time Count Time Count Available On Street' 17-m-Imm Mr... 8-Feb-2003 9:30 AM 9:44 AM 8 70 45-825 Edgehill 10:30 AM 10:40 AM 20 70 16-Feb-2003 9:30 AM 9:35 AM 9 70 10:30 AM 10:36 AM 19 70 8-Feb-2003 9:30 AM 9:55 AM 66 181 74-200 Country Club 16-Feb-2003 .9:30 AM 9:45 AM 71 181 8-Feb-2003 10:00 AM 10:25 AM 0 54 43-250 Warner Trail 16-Feb-2003 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 0 54 :.. 8-Feb-2003 10:30 AM 10:35 AM 35 47 72-700 Fred Waring 16-Feb-2003 10:30 AM 10:42 AM 31 47 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development DATE: December 3, 2002 SUBJECT: Standards for church parking DISCUSSION: During a public hearing July 161h, 2002, staff was directed to reevaluate City parking standards for churches. Currently, churches are required to provide one parking space for each three fixed seats within the main auditorium or one for every 35 square feet of seating area in the main auditorium. Staff contacted other local jurisdictions to compare parking requirements for churches. PARKING STANDARD FOR A 3,500 SQUARE FOOT CHURCH CITY CODE REQUIREMENT # OF SPACES REQUIRED 15 spaces required. Rancho One parking space for four Mirage has three existing RANCHO MIRAGE seats or 30 gross floor area, churches, one approved and one plus classroom and meeting in the planning process. They rooms. have no concerns with current parking standards. 13 spaces required. Indian INDIAN WELLS One per two employees and Wells has not approved any one per 300 gross floor area. churches. Standard is untested at this time. 20 spaces required. La Quinta One space per 3 people, or has not approved any churches one space per 25 gross floor lately. Currently one church is in LA QUINTA area and additional parking for the process of expanding. separate uses based on the Currently looking at ways to parking standard for that use. provide additional parking for homes that were converted to churches. 12.5 parking spaces required. `With a small church like this the One space per five persons planning department would permitted, based on maximum require one space five people CATHEDRAL CITY person defined in the Unified based on assembly area. One Building Code. church has been approved in the past 5 years. They have no concern with current parking standards. One for every three fixed 20 spaces required. Palm seats, or one for each 24 Springs approved a church two PALM SPRINGS gross floor area of primary years ago. They have no assembly area. concerns with their current parking standards. One for every three fixed PALM DESERT seats, or one for each 35 feet 20 spaces required. of gross floor area of primary assembly area. Palm Desert's parking requirements are very similar to the standards used by other jurisdictions. The requirements are based on the number of seats in the assembly area, as this is the most intense use. Any accessory uses, such as offices and meeting rooms, do not need additional parking because those spaces are used on non-service ,days, or before and after service. This comparison does not provide us with enough information to make any suggestions for changing the current standards. Staff recommends that this discussion be continued to March, so that we can conduct a parking study of a representation selection of churches throughout the City to determine the nature of the problem and the appropriate solution. Prepared by: TONY BAGAT PLANNING TECHNICIAN Reviewed and Approved b t( f — PHIL DRELL DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 moving pretty quickly and they are selling them almost as quickly as they can build them. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification that staff wasn't recommending Alternative 2. Mr. Drell said the developers weren't asking for it and the property owners weren't asking for it. Chairperson Finerty suggested going with Alternative 3 and asked if staff needed a minute motion or if they should just leave it alone. Mr. Drell said they could just receive and file the report. It was up to the commission. Chairperson Finerty asked the commission if they wanted to receive and file. The commission concurred. Action: The report was received and filed. B. Discussion of Church Parking Standards Mr. Drell explained that as discussed at the last meeting, staff investigated how other cities were regulating their church parking and found that Palm Desert is actually on the high side. On the other hand, we have most of the churches. Before they imposed standards that weren't necessary, staff was suggesting that they select a representative sample of churches of various types and sizes in the city and study them through the season to find out if we have a problem and the nature of that problem. Whether it was big churches that have a problem, the small ones or medium ones or if they need different standards for different sized churches. He was suggesting they come back in March once staff has completed the study to know what the nature of the problem is and the appropriate solution. Chairperson Finerty asked if there was a motion continuing this until the second meeting in March. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, continuing this discussion to March 18, 2003. 67 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 Commissioner Jonathan requested that staff please include in their sampling St. Margaret's and the Palm Desert Presbyterian Church. Chairperson Finerty called for the vote. The motion carried 5-0. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (October 16, 2002) Commissioner Campbell indicated that the committee chose two artists to put in their artwork. One of them was a man and a woman, two dancers, and they were about eight feet tall. The other one was about 50 pieces. It was made out of metal work and looked like cacti. Chairperson Finerty noted there might be more discussion about the one with the cacti. There was some concern expressed about it at the Landscape Committee meeting. B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (November 21 , 2002) Chairperson Finerty indicated they talked about the Economic Element and Land Use. Staff and the consultant would be bringing back four plans of land use December 11 and they might be able to decide on one at that time. E. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (November 26, 2002) Chairperson Finerty noted that they reviewed the proposed artwork as mentioned by Commissioner Campbell. They also talked about the Westfield Shopping Town's landscaping around the bus bay, the Fred Waring strip and park signage, and they were going to have an event for the opening of that park. For the Cook Street median north of Country Club, they would like that to have beautiful year-round color. What was brought to the committee looked like that had been achieved, so they hoped it would all grow, would stay growing and would be properly maintained. 68 REC�:uEl) CITY CI E`2.N 'S OFFICE PALM UEGF_RT, CA 2003 MAY 23 AH 9: 0 6- PROOF OF PUBLICATION This is space for County Clerk's Filing Stamp (2015.5.C.C.P) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Riverside 1 am a citizen of the United States and a resident of Proof of Publication of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen No.457.7 PALM years,and not a party to or interested in the CITY OGFAL NOTIOCE DESERT above-entitled matter.1 am the principal clerk of a ILEZOA 03-01 printer of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING COMPANY a circulation,general of newspaper NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing g will be held before the Palm Desert Planning printed and published in the city of Palm Springs, Commission to consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance as It relates to perking require- County of Riverside,and which newspaper has been ments for churches and other places of assembly. adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the M.C. section 25.58.310. Superior Court of the Count of Riverside,State of SAID ppublic hearing will be held on Tuesday, P y June 3, 2003, before at 7:00p the,Palm Desert Planning cit Chamber California under the date of March 24, 1988.Case a°the�Pailm Desert&Y HM. art 73he 5°10nFred Wa n Number 191236; that the notice,of which the Drne, Palm Desert, Ca1Homie, et invitwhiched to a an lace all interested persons are inched er attend annexed is a printed copy(set in type not smaller end be heard.Wnone,omments concerning all items covered by this pblic hearing notice shall than non pariel,has been published in each regular be accepted up to the date of the nearing. Infor- mation concerning the proposed protect antl/or and entire Issue of said newspaper and not in any negative declaration Is available for review in the supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit: department of community development at the above atldress between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 P.m. Monday through Friday. Itmau ou challenge the proposed actions in court,y Y be limited to raising only thoubtic hearimutla- Ma 201h someone else raised et the p Y scriba in this notice, or in written correspon- ----- ------- ----- prior there to the do hearingnin9 commission at,or r t PHILIP DRELL. Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission All in the year 2003 PUB: May 20. 2003 - I certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 20'" Dated at Palm Springs,California this----day ' May of--------------- ----,2003 � Signature CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Steve Smith, Planning Manager DATE: March 18, 2003 continued from December 3, 2002 SUBJECT: Church Parking Survey I. BACKGROUND: During the discussion of conditional use permit requests for churches, Planning Commission directed staff to conduct a parking survey of church parking lots and assess the appropriateness of the current parking requirement (i.e. one parking space for every three seats). Previously, staff had prepared a comparison with other cities. Palm Desert had one of the higher parking requirements. During February, 2003 Code Compliance staff conducted parking counts at twelve churches around the City. Most churches were counted on two separate weekends. Large denominational churches were counted and small non-denominational churches were counted (see attached survey). St. Margaret's Episcopal Church and Palm Desert Community Presbyterian Church on Highway 74 were not counted due to construction activity at the Community Church. II. ANALYSIS: A review of the parking survey data reveals: 1 . Small to mid-sized churches do not have overflow parking problems and utilize very little street parking. While these churches may use some street parking they still have vacant spaces on-site. 2. Larger, long established denominational churches have services where on-site parking approaches or exceeds 100% and utilize significant street parking. At Sacred Heart and Hope Lutheran, 100% on-site occupancy is not unusual. At Sacred Heart's 9:30 a.m. service the on-site parking was 112% (470 cars in 420 space parking lot) and 119 vehicles were counted on nearby streets. 3. For the average church the current parking requirement is adequate. STAFF REPORT PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 The goal of the code required parking spaces is to provide adequate on-site parking for the average church. This is also the case with our restaurant standard department store requirement and all other uses covered in the municipal code. When we observed the situation at Sacred Heart Church (i.e. 100% + street parking) we contacted the church and attempted to determine what was causing this anomaly. Sacred Heart advised the main sanctuary seats 1 ,000 people. Under current code this would result in 333 required parking spaces. We inquired as to the size of church Sunday school attendance to see if it was impacting parking. We were advised that the maximum number of children at a Sunday school service is 50. This could account for 16 more parking spaces for a total of 349 spaces. The lot has 420 spaces. We conclude that this parking anomaly is a result of a reduction in the average household size and particularly the number of single persons attending services. III. CONCLUSION: The problem, of course, is how to address a problem which is observed in large denominational churches but not evident at smaller non-denominational churches. We should not increase the required parking for a whole group when only a small portion of the group is experiencing parking problems. Even if we were to amend the code it would not impact existing churches. It would only be applicable to new churches. With the exception of Southwest Community Church, our experience with new churches is that they do not fall into the parking problem category. It is the long established churches which outgrow their available parking while membership continues to grow which have the problem. At this time, staff is not prepared to recommend a code amendment. Creating extra parking for the average church is not needed and excessive asphalt is not a positive contribution to the environment. 2 STAFF REPORT PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 IV. RECOMMENDATION: That the issue of adequacy of church parking be tabled. Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved by: teve Smith Phil Drell Planning Manager Director of Community Development /dq 3 CITY OF PALM DESERT - 1003 BUILDING & SAFETY DEPARTMENT'OMML'AVTrDEVELDL,nrE V. CITY OF PALN,DESERT ARTAIENT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Hart Ponder Jr. Code Compliance Supervisor From: Johnny Terfehr, Code Compliance Officer Date: February 19, 2003 Subject: Parking Lot Survey, Various Church's Vehicles were counted on Saturday February 8, 2003, Sunday February 9, 2003, Friday February 14, 2003 and Sunday February 16, 2003. Counts were taken at the times and locations listed on the attached spreadsheet. On the spreadsheet I have included the scheduled service time (service time) and the actual time I took the count (count time). The number of vehicles in the parking lot (count) and the total available marked parking spaces (available). I also included the number of vehicles parked on the street that I believed were attending the church service (on street) at that time. At the Sacred Heart Church, you will notice that there are more vehicles than available parking spaces at some services. Vehicles were parked in unmarked spaces and on ends of parking rows in the red curb area. On street parking for the Sacred Heart Church included Deep Canyon and Florine. On street parking for Hope Lutheran Church included Portola and Fairway. On street parking for St. John's Lutheran was on a vacant grass lot across an alleyway from the Church. For the remainder of Church's the on street parking was the same as the church street address. I did not observe any serious conflicts in traffic between services. It seemed during the times I was able to monitor traffic that it was flowing smoothly. Sincerely, Johnny L. Terfehr Code Compliance Officer H:1My ddcumentsVhurM parking study m rna-dx Location Date Service Time Count Time Count Available On Street Seventh Day Adventist Temple Sinai • t rMWIT,IMMERTIM MIX ®�- ---�-- Sacred Heart IMMEM907-1 MI, ME nor,=1 — ���® i MEMMM���� Hope Luthren : • r : ITM���— Y ��®Jesus Christ of Latter Da Saints �� �� � � 72-960 Park View St. George Greeek Orthodox First Baptist : '• r �'���— 43-400 Warner Trail Omni no Im"n St. John's Lutheran 42-695 Washington nionmrine OF, ®®® -mogul MMKIWITI �®� r - Location Date Service Time Count Time Count On Street 8-Feb-2003 9:30 AM 9:44 AM 8 Available 70 45-825 Edgehill 10:30 AM 10:40 AM 20 70 16-Feb-2003 9:30 AM 9:35 AM 9 70 10:30 AM 10:36 AM 19 70 Peace Lutheran8-Feb-2003 9:30 AM 9:55 AM 661 181 74-200 CountryClub 16-Feb-2003 .9:30 AM 9:45 AM 71 181 8-Feb-2003 10:00 AM 10:25 AM 0 54 43-250 Warner Trail 16-Feb-2003 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 0 54 University :.. 8-Feb-2003 10:30 AM 10:35 AMI 351 47 72-700 Fred Warin 16-Feb-2003 10:30 AM 10:42 AM 31 47 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development DATE: December 3, 2002 SUBJECT: Standards for church parking DISCUSSION: During a public hearing July 16t', 2002, staff was directed to reevaluate City parking standards for churches. Currently, churches are required to provide one parking space for each three fixed seats within the main auditorium or one for every 35 square feet of seating area in the main auditorium. Staff contacted other local jurisdictions to compare parking requirements for churches. PARKING STANDARD FOR A 3,500 SQUARE FOOT CHURCH CITY CODE REQUIREMENT # OF SPACES REQUIRED 15 spaces required. Rancho One parking space for four Mirage has three existing RANCHO MIRAGE seats or 30 gross floor area, churches, one approved and one plus classroom and meeting in the planning process. They rooms. have no concerns with current parking standards. 13 spaces required. Indian INDIAN WELLS One per two employees and Wells has not approved any one per 300 gross floor area. churches. Standard is untested at this time. 20 spaces required. La Quinta One space per 3 people, or has not approved any churches one space per 25 gross floor lately. Currently one church is in LA QUINTA area and additional parking for the process of expanding. separate uses based on the Currently looking at ways to parking standard for that use. provide additional parking for homes that were converted to churches. I rl 12.5 parking spaces required. *With a small church like this the One space per five persons planning department would permitted, based on maximum require one space five people CATHEDRAL CITY person defined in the Unified based on assembly area. One Building Code. church has been approved in the past 5 years. They have no concern with current parking standards. One for every three fixed 20 spaces required. Palm seats, or one for each 24 Springs approved a church two PALM SPRINGS gross floor area of primary years ago. They have no assembly area. concerns with their current parking standards. One for every three fixed PALM DESERT seats, or one for each 35 feet 20 spaces required. of gross floor area of primary assembly area. Palm Desert's parking requirements are very similar to the standards used by other jurisdictions. The requirements are based on the number of seats in the assembly area, as this is the most intense use. Any accessory uses, such as offices and meeting rooms, do not need additional parking because those spaces are used on non-service days, or before and after service. This comparison does not provide us with enough information to make any suggestions for changing the current standards. Staff recommends that this discussion be continued to March, so that we can conduct a parking study of a representation selection of churches throughout the City to determine the nature of the problem and the appropriate solution. Prepared by: TONY BAGAT15 PLANNING TECHNICIAN Reviewed and Approved ba PHIL DRE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 moving pretty quickly and they are selling them almost as quickly as they can build them. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification that staff wasn't recommending Alternative 2. Mr. Drell said the developers weren't asking for it and the property owners weren't asking for it. Chairperson Finerty suggested going with Alternative 3 and asked if staff needed a minute motion or if they should just leave it alone. Mr. Drell said they could just receive and file the report. It was up to the commission. Chairperson Finerty asked the commission if they wanted to receive and file. The commission concurred. Action: The report was received and filed. B. Discussion of Church Parking Standards Mr. Drell explained that as discussed at the last meeting, staff investigated how other cities were regulating their church parking and found that Palm Desert is actually on the high side. On the other hand, we have most of the churches. Before they imposed standards that weren't necessary, staff was suggesting that they select a representative sample of churches of various types and sizes in the city and study them through the season to find out if we have a problem and the nature of that problem. Whether it was big churches that have a problem, the small ones or medium ones or if they need different standards for different sized churches. He was suggesting they come back in March once staff has completed the study to know what the nature of the problem is and the appropriate solution. Chairperson Finerty asked if there was a motion continuing this until the second meeting in March. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, continuing this discussion to March 18, 2003. 67 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 Commissioner Jonathan requested that staff please include in their sampling St. Margaret's and the Palm Desert Presbyterian Church. Chairperson Finerty called for the vote. The motion carried 5-0. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (October 16, 2002) Commissioner Campbell indicated that the committee chose two artists to put in their artwork. One of them was a man and a woman, two dancers, and they were about eight feet tall. The other one was about 50 pieces. It was made out of metal work and looked like cacti. Chairperson Finerty noted there might be more discussion about the one with the cacti. There was some concern expressed about it at the Landscape Committee meeting. B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (November 21 , 2002) Chairperson Finerty indicated they talked about the Economic Element and Land Use. Staff and the consultant would be bringing back four plans of land use December 11 and they might be able to decide on one at that time. E. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (November 26, 2002) Chairperson Finerty noted that they reviewed the proposed artwork as mentioned by Commissioner Campbell. They also talked about the Westfield Shopping Town's landscaping around the bus bay, the Fred Waring strip and park signage, and they were going to have an event for the opening of that park. For the Cook Street median north of Country Club, they would like that to have beautiful year-round color. What was brought to the committee looked like that had been achieved, so they hoped it would all grow, would stay growing and would be properly maintained. 68 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development DATE: December 3, 2002 SUBJECT: Standards for church parking DISCUSSION: During a public hearing July 16t', 2002, staff was directed to reevaluate City parking standards for churches. Currently, churches are required to provide one parking space for each three fixed seats within the main auditorium or one for every 35 square feet of seating area in the main auditorium. Staff contacted other local jurisdictions to compare parking requirements for churches. PARKING STANDARD FOR A 3,500 SQUARE FOOT CHURCH CITY CODE REQUIREMENT # OF SPACES REQUIRED 15 spaces required. Rancho One parking space for four Mirage has three existing RANCHO MIRAGE seats or 30 gross floor area, churches, one approved and one plus classroom and meeting in the planning process. They rooms. have no concerns with current parking standards. 13 spaces required. Indian INDIAN WELLS One per two employees and Wells has not approved any one per 300 gross floor area. churches. Standard is untested at this time. 20 spaces required. La Quinta One space per 3 people, or has not approved any churches one space per 25 gross floor lately. Currently one church is in LA QUINTA area and additional parking for the process of expanding. separate uses based on the Currently looking at ways to parking standard for that use. provide additional parking for homes that were converted to churches. 12.5 parking spaces required. *With a small church like this the One space per five persons planning department would permitted, based on maximum require one space five people CATHEDRAL CITY person defined in the Unified based on assembly area. One Building Code. church has been approved in the past 5 years. They have no concern with current parking standards. One for every three fixed 20 spaces required. Palm seats, or one for each 24 Springs approved a church two PALM SPRINGS gross floor area of primary years ago. They have no assembly area. concerns with their current parking standards. One for every three fixed PALM DESERT seats, or one for each 35 feet 20 spaces required. of gross floor area of primary assembly area. Palm Desert's parking requirements are very similar to the standards used by other jurisdictions. The requirements are based on the number of seats in the assembly area, as this is the most intense use. Any accessory uses, such as offices and meeting rooms, do not need additional parking because those spaces are used on non-service days, or before and after service. This comparison does not provide us with enough information to make any suggestions for changing the current standards. Staff recommends that this discussion be continued to March, so that we can conduct a parking study of a representation selection of churches throughout the City to determine the nature of the problem and the appropriate solution. Prepared by: TONY BAGATCY PLANNING TECHNICIAN Reviewed and Approved by.�� L—L-- PHIL DRELL DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 moving pretty quickly and they are selling them almost as quickly as they can build them. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification that staff wasn't recommending Alternative 2. Mr. Drell said the developers weren't asking for it and the property owners weren't asking for it. Chairperson Finerty suggested going with Alternative 3 and asked if staff needed a minute motion or if they should just leave it alone. Mr. Drell said they could just receive and file the report. It was up to the commission. Chairperson Finerty asked the commission if they wanted to receive and file. The commission concurred. Action: The report was received and filed. CI�j B. Discussion of Church Parking Standards Mr. Drell explained that as discussed at the last meeting, staff investigated how other cities were regulating their church parking and found that Palm Desert is actually on the high side. On the other hand, we have most of the churches. Before they imposed standards that weren't necessary, staff was suggesting that they select a representative sample of churches of various types and sizes in the city and study them through the season to find out if we have a problem and the nature of that problem. Whether it was big churches that have a problem, the small ones or medium ones or if they need different standards for different sized churches. He was suggesting they come back in March once staff has completed the study to know what the nature of the problem is and the appropriate solution. Chairperson Finerty asked if there was a motion continuing this until the second meeting in March. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, continuing this discussion to March 18, 2003. 67 ♦ I • � 1 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 Commissioner Jonathan requested that staff please include in their sampling St. Margaret's and the Palm Desert Presbyterian Church. Chairperson Finerty called for the vote. The motion carried 5-0. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (October 16, 2002) Commissioner Campbell indicated that the committee chose two artists to put in their artwork. One of them was a man and a woman, two dancers, and they were about eight feet tall. The other one was about 50 pieces. It was made out of metal work and looked like cacti. Chairperson Finerty noted there might be more discussion about the one with the cacti. There was some concern expressed about it at the Landscape Committee meeting. B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (November 21 , 2002) Chairperson Finerty indicated they talked about the Economic Element and Land Use. Staff and the consultant would be bringing back four plans of land use December 11 and they might be able to decide on one at that time. E. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (November 26, 2002) Chairperson Finerty noted that they reviewed the proposed artwork as mentioned by Commissioner Campbell. They also talked about the Westfield Shopping Town's landscaping around the bus bay, the Fred Waring strip and park signage, and they were going to have an event for the opening of that park. For the Cook Street median north of Country Club, they would like that to have beautiful year-round color. What was brought to the committee looked like that had been achieved, so they hoped it would all grow, would stay growing and would be properly maintained. 68 r .RECE jVED CITY OF PALM DESERT FED � 9 2003 BUILDING & SAFETY DEPARTMENf°MMJNrrroE�ELOP CITY OP PALM LES DEPARTMENT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Hart Ponder Jr. Code Compliance Supervisor From: Johnny Terfehr, Code Compliance Officer Date: February 19, 2003 Subject: Parking Lot Survey, Various Church's Vehicles were counted on Saturday February 8, 2003, Sunday February 9, 2003, Friday February 14, 2003 and Sunday February 16, 2003. Counts were taken at the times and locations listed on the attached spreadsheet. On the spreadsheet I have included the scheduled service time (service time) and the actual time I took the count (count time). The number of vehicles in the parking lot (count) and the total available marked parking spaces (available). I also included the number of vehicles parked on the street that I believed were attending the church service (on street) at that time. At the Sacred Heart Church, you will notice that there are more vehicles than available parking spaces at some services. Vehicles were parked in unmarked spaces and on ends of parking rows in the red curb area. On street parking for the Sacred Heart Church included Deep Canyon and Florine. On street parking for Hope Lutheran Church included Portola and Fairway. On street parking for St. John's Lutheran was on a vacant grass lot across an alleyway from the Church. For the remainder of Church's the on street parking was the same as the church street address. I did not observe any serious conflicts in traffic between services. It seemed during the times I was able to monitor traffic that it was flowing smoothly. Sincerely, Johnny L. Terfehr Code Compliance Officer HAMy docum tskhurch parking study memp.doc Location Date Service Time Count Time Count Available On Street Seventh Day Adventist . Temple Sinai ®�- Sacred Heart : • • I ME ®�© -�0MOMM��� r ' q, Hope Luthren : • t : r ���- - 1 MT- 1, : 1 1 ' ��� - � Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints •.1 St. George Greeek Orthodox • Larrea First Baptist . ��- St.John's Lutheran t ®®� i ~ Location Date Service Time Count Time Count Available On Street - - :-. Fq 8-Feb-2003 9:30 AM 9:44 AM 8 70 45-825 Ed ehill 10:30 AM 10:40 AM 20 70 16-Feb-2003 9:30 AM 9:35 AM 9 70 10:30 AM 16:36 AM 19 70 8-Feb-2003 9:30 AM 9:55 AM 1 66 181 74-200 Country Club 16-Feb-2003 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 71 181 llffffel � 8-Feb-2003 10:00 AM 10:25 AM 0 54 43-250 Warner Trail 16-Feb-2003 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 0 54 :.. 8-Feb-2003 10:30 AM 10:35 AM 35 47 72-700 Fred Waring 16-Feb-2003 10:30 AM 10:42 AM 31 47 '00, w CITY OF PALM DESERT i COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Hart Ponder, Director of Code Compliance FROM: Steve Smith, Planning Manager DATE: February 4, 2003 SUBJECT: Church Parking Survey The Community Development Department is undertaking a review of the adequacy of the current parking standards for churches. Please arrange for personnel to conduct counts at the following churches: 1. Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints 72-960 Park View Sunday 9:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. 2. Temple Sinai 73-251 Hovley Lane Friday 7:00 p.m. Saturday 10:00 a.m. 3. Hope Lutheran 45-900 Portola Avenue Sunday 8:00 a.m., 9:15 a.m. & 10:30 a.m. 4. Sacred Heart 43-775 Deep Canyon Road Sunday 6:45 a.m., 8:00 a.m., 9:30 a.m., 11:00 a.m. & 12:30 p.m. 5. Peace Lutheran 74-200 Country Club Drive Sunday 9:30 a.m. 6. Seventh Day Adventist 74-200 Country Club Saturday 9:15 a.m. & 10:50 a.m. 1 �- Page 2 Church Parking Survey February 4, 2003 7. United Church of Desert 43-250 Warner Trail Sunday 10:00 a.m. i i 8. St. John's Lutheran I 42-695 Washington Street Sunday 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. 9. St. George Greek Orthodox 74-109 Larrea Sunday 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. 10. Desert Cities Baptist 45-825 Edgehill Sunday 9:30 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. 11. University Baptist 72-700 Fred Waring Sunday 10:30 a.m. 12. First Baptist 43-400 Warner Trail Sunday 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. Each church/temple should be observed on at least two different weekends with the number of vacant spaces noted. The total number of available spaces would also be helpful, as would comments relating to any impacts on traffic flow in the area. Where a church has back-to-back services, we would appreciate comments relating to whether there is conflict between vehicles leaving and those arriving for the next service. If the staff member who will be doing the survey wishes, I am available to discuss in more detail the information we hope to obtain from the survey. We will need your report by March 6, 2003 as we intend to present our report to Planning Commission at its March 18, 2003 meeting. Thank you for your cooperation in this study. cc: Homer Croy ACM for Development Services