The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRes 00-63 PP 94-5 Amend 1 and CUP 00-05 at 42575 Washington Street Resolution No. CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II. REQUEST: Consideration of an appeal by McFadden/McIntosh Architects on behalf of Drs. Frank and Janet Kerrigan to a decision of the Planning Commission denying a parking modification request and denying an amendment to the approved precise plan to allow expansion from 2,567 square feet to 3,693 square feet of an approved office building located at 42-575 Washington Street. III. APPELLANT: McFadden/McIntosh Architects 72-925 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 IV. CASE NOS: PP 94-5 Amendment #1 and CUP 00-05 V. DATE: May 25, 2000 VI. CONTENTS: A. Staff Recommendation B. Discussion C. Draft Resolution No. 00-63 D. Planning Commission Minutes involving Case No. PP 94-5 Amendment #1 and CUP 00-05 E. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1987 F. Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 2, 2000 G. Related maps and/or exhibits A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That City Council adopt Resolution No. 00-63 denying the appeal by McFadden/ McIntosh Architects on behalf of Drs. Frank and Janet Kerrigan. B. DISCUSSION: 1 . BACKGROUND: The subject property was annexed to the city in April 1994. In July 1994 the applicant filed a request for a change of zone and precise plan approval. The change of zone which was approved was from R-3 2,000 to PC(2) (district commercial). The precise plan request was for a 5,745 square foot CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT PP 94-5 AMENDMENT #1 AND CUP 00-05 MAY 25, 2000 single story medical office building and a future 2,567 square foot two story office/retail building (maximum 1 ,800 square feet of retail). Both applications were approved and the single story medical building on the rear (west) end of the lot was constructed. 2. CURRENT PROPOSAL: The applicant at this time requested an amendment to the existing approval to enlarge the two story building from 2,567 square feet to 3,693 square feet and change its use from retail and general office to medical office. The new CUP application seeks approval of a parking modification to support the larger building and its use as a medical office. 3. ANALYSIS: In 1994 the development was reviewed for consistency with the PC(2) zone standards (i.e., 5 parking spaces per 1 ,000 square feet of gross floor area). The PC(2) parking standard assumes a mix of uses across a range of uses (i.e., we limit restaurants to not more than 20% of floor area in a district center). The 1994 decision assumed a mix of medical office use, general office use and retail use on the total property. At this time we have a request for 100% medical office use at 5 spaces per 1 ,000 square feet whereas the current standard for medical offices is 6 spaces per 1 ,000 square feet. The applicant has had a parking analysis prepared by a registered professional traffic engineer, Vicki Lee Endo, P.E. (copy enclosed). This study at page 6 confirms that the 6 spaces per 1 ,000 square feet for medical offices is appropriate. The applicant in a letter dated April 17, 2000 acknowledges that the parking analysis does not support the expansion of the two story building but feels that an exemption is warranted because the new building will be under utilized in that it will allow for the existing uses on the site to spread out (i.e., an employee lounge occupies 25% of the second floor). 2 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT PP 94-5 AMENDMENT #1 AND CUP 00-05 MAY 25, 2000 4. PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING: At the Planning Commission hearing Mr. McFadden and Dr. Frank Kerrigan spoke in favor of the request. Their comments are detailed in the attached Planning Commission minutes. Essentially they said that the project warranted a parking modification because the project according to the parking study will be in compliance 90% of the time, the applicant co-operated with the city in 1994 when he could have processed through the County prior to annexation and therefore the new parking standard for medical offices which the city enacted in 1998 should not be applied to this project. The Planning Commission on a 3-2 vote denied the parking modification (Chairperson Beaty and Commissioner Campbell voted no). Chairperson Beaty and Commissioner Campbell in voting no felt that the matter should be continued to allow the applicant to pursue a shared parking arrangement with an adjacent property. Without the parking modification the amendment to the precise plan cannot be granted. The Planning Commission in denying the parking modification noted that it appreciated the quality of the rendering provided and that it would review a similar request if the applicant could work out a shared parking arrangement with an adjacent property which has excess parking. In denying the parking modification request commission noted that it would be contrary to the applicant's own parking analysis which confirms that the six spaces per 1 ,000 square feet standard is appropriate. Under utilization of a building by a particular tenant does not justify a larger building. Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved by: Review and Concur: /POW TEVE SMITH P ILIP DRELL CARLOS L. ORTEGA PLANNING MANAGER DIR. OF COMMUNITY DEV. ACTING CITY MANAGER CITY COUNCIL ACTION: /tm APPROVED DENIED, rFiT17711 *Referred matter back to Planning OTHER Commission based upon new MEETING DAB - S-00 information regarding shared AYES: " nL,A.A.u.. —4-.121.4 1L16.4},,, oOO (' A parking presented at this public NOES: hearing. ABSENT: s,N � ABST4IN: � �a VERIFIED BY: rL K i Aii17) Original on File with City Clerk's Office RESOLUTION NO. 00-63 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL BY MCFADDEN/MCINTOSH ARCHITECTS ON BEHALF OF DRS. FRANK AND JANET KERRIGAN TO A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING A PARKING MODIFICATION REQUEST AND DENYING AN AMENDMENT TO THE APPROVED PRECISE PLAN TO ALLOW EXPANSION FROM 2,567 SQUARE FEET TO 3,693 SQUARE FEET OF AN APPROVED MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED AT 42-575 WASHINGTON STREET. CASE NOS. PP 94-5 AMENDMENT #1 AND CUP 00-05 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 25th day of May, 2000, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the above noted appeal by McFadden/McIntosh Architects on behalf of Drs. Frank And Janet Kerrigan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 1987 has denied the application on a 3-2 vote; 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 denial of said conditional use permit and precise plan amendment: 1 . The proposed project will not comply with the current parking standard for medical office buildings and expansion of the proposed building will increase the degree of nonconformity with respect to parking. 2. The applicant's own parking study prepared by a registered professional traffic engineer confirms that the city's parking standard is appropriate. 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 the appeal to the Planning Commission decision be denied. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this day of , 2000, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BUFORD A. CRITES, Mayor ATTEST: RACHELLE KLASSEN, Acting City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California MAY-03-00 09:28 FROM:CITY OF PALM DESERT ID: 7S0 340 0574 PAGE 2/2 T �— r—•`•� 3�91 314 �, CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA '':°�� •r., ��';: APPLICATION TO APPEAL 1 DECISION OF THE Planning Commission (Name of Committee/Commission) NI\ Case No. PP94-5/ CUP 00-05 Meeting Date: 051G9/00 Name of Appellant McFadden/ McIntosh Architects Address 72-925 Fred Waring Dr. Phone: (760) 346-8014 Description of Application: Regues t Lor apgrov t_ of larger facility than originally approved •r._'ect in 1994 . New parking standards restrict increase in size. Reason for Appeal; (�wnr�r vnliin+ari lv rnmY th m(�rP�tring t Ci �•� Standards prior to annexation and is now being restricted from developing a project which would comply with Standards in effect at that time - request reciprocal consideration. Signature of Appellant / 1 1� A/ n n Date 5/ /0 0 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Date Appeal Filed: (� � Fee Received. Treasurer's Receipt#: _S- Received by: Public Hearing Set For: 23.11\- �-+-+ Jr 3 -e7eD Action taken by the City Council: Date: Sheila R Gitii�gan City Clerk -FT SUBJECT TO MINUTES REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION r MAY 2, 2000 E. Case Nos. PP 94-5 Amendment #1 and CUP 00-05 - DRS. FRANK AND JANET KERRIGAN, Applicants Request for approval of an amendment to Precise Plan 94-5 to allow construction of a 3,693 square foot medical office building and a conditional use permit to allow a parking modification for the expanded medical office facility located at 42-575 Washington Street. Mr. Smith noted that a rendering of the proposed building was on display, as well as a landscape plan and material sample board. Mr. Smith explained that the applicant in 1994 obtained approval for a project on the subject property. The single story medical office building was constructed. The two story, 2,500 square foot building on the front end of the property was not constructed. At this time the applicant was seeking approval to enlarge that two story building that was previously approved on the front easterly portion of the property from 2,567 square feet to 3,693 square feet and change it's proposed use from retail and general office to medical office. In order to support that application, the applicant needed a parking modification in that the parking lot in its ultimate size and shape was already constructed, so there was a fixed number of parking spaces available. Essentially, the proposal didn't meet the current six spaces per 1 ,000 square feet parking standard, which was the requirement for medical offices. In 1994 the property was rezoned to PC(2) and the project was reviewed for consistency with PC(2) standards, which is five spaces per 1 ,000 square feet. He stated that the overall project complies with that. The applicant recently had a parking study done of the immediate area and that was included in the commission packets. He said that basically it concluded that the six spaces per 1 ,000 square feet was an appropriate standard. Mr. Smith informed commission that the applicant would make a case for the fact that the second building would not be utilized to its ultimate use, therefore, a parking modification should be granted, but he would let the applicant make that case. Mr. Smith said that staff could not recommend approval of the requested parking modification. It would be contrary to the applicant's own parking analysis and it would be contrary to the city's current medical office standard, which is six spaces per 1 ,000 square feet. Therefore, staff was recommending that the parking modification be denied. Without the approval of the parking modification, the commission couldn't approve the expansion of the building. Staff's 14 T SUBJECT TO MINUTES y '� REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2, 2000 recommendation was that CUP 00-05 and the amendment to PP 94-5 not be approved. Commissioner Jonathan said alternatively, Mr. Smith didn't have a problem with medical use for the approved project size of 2,567 square feet. Mr. Smith agreed and said it complied. Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. CHRIS MCFADDEN, McFadden/McIntosh Architects, 72-295 Fred Waring Drive in Suite 204 in Palm Desert, stated that he had a handout for the commission (see attached Exhibit A). Mr. McFadden said that they believe they have some special mitigating circumstances under which they could gain approval of the project they were proposing with the commission's understanding and leniency. He explained that early in 1994 Dr. Kerrigan contracted with McFadden/McIntosh Architects prior to the city annexing the subject property. While under County review, they had less stringent parking requirements, building setbacks, building height, parking lot lighting, offsite assessments, and landscaping requirements. They could have attempted to come in under County regulations prior to the annexation, but Dr. Kerrigan was attempting to build the facility in a terribly risky market and chose to be a good neighbor and good developer. The city was very gracious to work with them and ran through all the agencies and they obtained conditions of approval just on the eve of annexation. It was a very good process and everything went well. At the time they were considered somewhat visionary requesting a zone change from R-3 to PC(2). This was not an easy process and although they could have obtained approval through a CUP, they pursued a zone change to increase the potential for development of the front parcel. Subsequently as an outcome of the area for the specific plan, the entire frontage was rezoned and what they worked hard for was given to adjacent landowners, inflating the values of the properties. Regarding the 2,500 square foot area allocation. He said this was an interesting calculation which was based on Section 25.58 of the Zoning Ordinance. The 2,500 square feet was merely a blocked allocation at the time for future development. The footprint shown on the site plan only measures 1 ,850 square feet. He had detailed parking calculations 15 MINUTES SUBJECT TO PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSIONam REVISION MAY 2, 2000 which he had just distributed (Exhibit A attached) which showed three parking scenarios. The original ordinance which demonstrated compliance, the current ordinance demonstrating a significant shortage in parking, and the original plus new showing they were about five parking spaces short. The building he was proposing tonight showed conformance with the Zoning Ordinance in effect at the time of the original approval. Regarding the proposed facility usage, initially the front pad was intended and saved for retail development and potential income. They anticipated perhaps a sandwich shop, a bookstore, or a video store. The medical industry experienced a major shift over the last five years with HMO's and PPO's. He indicated that Dr. Kerrigan would be addressing that himself later. Mr. McFadden said that the competition not only required better care, but better facilities and separation of services, hence the need for the proposed facilities. They were merely anticipating a shift in existing services and expanding the existing site use. For the second floor of their proposed facility the Zoning Ordinance permitted a 15% reduction in the floor area for parking calc. purposes as an accessory use. The conference lounge area for employees on the second floor was nearly twice that. The existing immediate care facility was to be relocated from the back door of the existing facility which was accessible from the alley to the entire ground floor of the new building out front; it was no longer shoe horned. The space vacated by the immediate care would merely return to private office space for Dr. Kerrigan. A women's wellness center was to be located upstairs to accommodate the personal needs of the existing clientele. This was about better quality of health care and services to the neighborhood. It was not about maximizing leasable space for some commercial income. Mr. McFadden said they provided the traffic study and did not "keep it in their pocket." They didn't shop traffic engineers seeking only those that would provide favorable results. Yes, it did support the six spaces per 1 ,000 square feet. It also stated that the project complies 90% of the time, or nine out of 10 hours. He felt that parking studies were not an exact science, but a conservative estimate. He indicated they implemented a 10% increase in anticipated volumes which might or might not happen. The potential for reciprocal parking use was also a possibility and the owners of Don O's had agreed to permit employee parking. Acquiring adjacent property had potential in conformance with the specific plan, unfortunately, partially due to the previously mentioned rezoning the 16 t. SUBJECT TO MINUTES REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2, 2000 land values made that fiscally unfeasible at this time. In conclusion, he asked that the commission consider the history of the development of this proposed project and the benefit to the community. He asked that they not deny the applicant the use of this property that he was previously entitled to and that they approve this project and, if necessary, condition it upon a reciprocal parking restriction. DR. FRANK KERRIGAN, the applicant, informed commission that the pressures on physicians and the medical community were great these days and they were trying to be somewhat innovative and thus three years ago they opened up their own urgent care which had been put in their current facility. It had been an interesting project. He said they are open seven days a week and they tend to their own patients for the most part, but their practice had grown as a result. The term "shoe horn" didn't fit. He thought they had grown nicely because they provided a good service to the community. With that they had to hire a lot of staff to take care of these people. If they talked in terms of FTEs per doctor or provider in the medical community, it was 3.5 per provider. They far exceeded that, thus again trying to keep service to the community. Part of the second building was really to take care of his own staff and that was what a good part of the upper floor would be. He felt that the urgent care was a good idea. If they looked around in the community, Eisenhower, JFK and other facilities had urgent care and they certainly didn't consult with the doctors about their feelings on that and they were taking a lot of their business. He said he was simply trying to remain competitive in a very difficult medical climate and thus the urgent care, which he was committed to, one way or another. He thought it was the right way to go, it took care of his own patients and had allowed the practice to flourish in an otherwise difficult time. He appreciated the commission's consideration on this matter. He knew that it wasn't easy based on the numbers, but for the most part they were just displacing the shoe-horned effect in this one building into the second. The larger building would be better for them and it was for that reason they were asking for this. He said it was mostly to take the urgent care out and then provide better patient flow with their current patient population. Commissioner Campbell asked how many people Dr. Kerrigan had on his staff. 17 MINUTES } FT SUBJECT TO II mi REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2, 2000 Dr. Kerrigan informed commission that he 9 now had 23 or 24 th en e they had some part time people working on the weekends, in the evenings and in the urgent care. It exceeded what was out there in the community. He said they really put service on the forefront. Commissioner Campbell asked if Dr. Kerrigan had a separate parking area for the staff. Dr. said Kerrigan gthey use the road next to them quite a bit. He said that the staff took a fair amount of the parking space and the concept of using Don O's parking would help with his staff. He had met with the gentleman who currently leases Don O's and he had been very gracious with them and he actually liked the idea of Dr. Kerrigan's staff using his parking spaces because it made him look busier. They were mostly going to use it during the day and he could displace his staff to there, plus in the street. The staff did take a good part of the parking lot, so if he could displace them, he thought there was plenty of parking for his patients. Commissioner Lopez asked if the parking calculations included any parking on Dudley, the on street parking adjacent to the facility. Dr. Kerrigan said that the traffic study looked at that in detail. Commissioner Campbell asked Mr. Smith if there were any plans for vacant land on Dudley to be built on. Mr. Smith said the property to the west end of Dudley was under developed at this point. It was zoned office professional and would eventually be built on, so there would be more competition for street parking. Dr. Kerrigan said that his office manager wanted him to make a correction. Because they were open 12 hours a day, 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and on the weekends. He didn't feel the weekends were a problem because there weren't many staff there then, and they had to rotate staff to minimize overtime. His office manager informed him that at any given time there were about 15 or 16 full time employees there, so they sort of leap frogged each other because of the prolonged hours they were open. 18 MINUTES a SUBJECT TO PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION M FT- , REVISION I MAY 2, 2000 Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. He asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Jonathan said that he was certainly sensitive to the applicant's desire to meet the needs of the community. Fortunately this wasn't the only place in the desert that provided medical care or urgent care, so he thought as Planning Commissioners responsible for the overall community, they had to look at this project in its broader impact and he concurred with staff's analysis and staff's conclusions. He was not closed to other possible scenarios that would utilize other available parking space, he was just saying that they had to be cognizant of the other uses that might require those spaces. He didn't know what Don O's was approved for and if they took the assumption that the business was successful, either now or in the future and that the applicant's business was successful now or in the future, then they had to look at the utilization of the existing parking spaces in that scenario to see if there was enough. But with the application in its present form, he would concur with staff. Commissioner Campbell concurred with Commissioner Jonathan. Even though this was approved in 1994 and even though Mr. McFadden stated that they shouldn't be denied land use for that which they were previously allowed, laws and regulations changed and they had to follow the new laws. Chairperson Beaty asked staff what the parking situation was at Don O's. Mr. Smith said that staff hadn't done parking counts out there. He knew that staff had contact from the owner there during the construction on Washington Street and he was concerned that his business was down. Chairperson Beaty said he was referring to Don O's square footage and his required parking spaces. He asked if Don 0's had excess parking spaces currently available. Mr. Smith said he didn't know. Chairperson Beaty felt an obvious answer to the problem was to come up with a parking arrangement and if the applicant could do that, he wouldn't have a problem. As it stood now, he wouldn't be in favor of the proposal. Commissioner Finerty said that unfortunately they were 10 parking spaces short. She said that she has driven by and noticed that Dudley did have quite a number of cars on it and knew that with the Dr. Kerrigan's office hours extending until 8:00 p.m., there would be an over lap with Don 0's customers. 19 MINUTES SUBJECT TO PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT- REVISION MAY 2, 2000 She didn't feel that Don O's parking was adequate the way it is, especially during the season when it could be crowded. Commissioner Lopez stated that he also concurred with staff. Looking at the area itself, he thought this building architecturally would add to the environment at this local, but he did have a problem with the parking situation. He felt that if Don O's had the opportunity to provide them additional parking spaces, it was obviously seasonal, but if they had excess parking, that might provide an opportunity which could be explored. Chairperson Beaty asked for commission action. Commissioner Jonathan stated that in concurrence with staff, he would move to approve the findings as presented by staff, which would be for denial. His conclusion was based on staff's analysis and he concurred with their conclusion. He was also persuaded by the fact that the applicant could at least partially, if not entirely, accommodate the needs he articulated with the 2,500 square foot building that is approved which could accommodate medical use. On that basis he would move for approval of the findings. Commissioner Finerty stated that she would second the motion. Chairperson Beaty asked if the commission approved the findings and denied the project, if that precluded the applicant from looking into the parking situation for a possible parking agreement. If it would, he would prefer to see a continuance. Mr. Drell said that with a denial the applicant could not come back with the same application for one year. He said that the commission could deny it tonight without prejudice, but if it was the commission's desire to see if something could be worked out, it would be better to continue it. Chairperson Beaty stated that he would be in favor of a continuance to evaluate the current parking requirements at Don O's. He didn't think a month's continuance would be a problem. Commissioner Finerty didn't feel that they would be able to get accurate parking counts at this time of year. Chairperson Beaty said he wanted to know how many spaces Don O's required and if he had any excess spaces now. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the applicant was preempted from submitting a new application for one year. Mr. Drell said yes, if it was denied and if it was the same application. Mr. Smith said that applied if it was substantially the same application. He indicated it would be different if the applicant was submitting something with a parking agreement on an adjacent property. Mr. Erwin said it might be questionable as to whether that was substantially different. That determination was basically left to the commission to decide. Mr. Drell felt that if the reason for the denial was purely the parking issue and the parking 20 SUBJECT TO MINUTES D , , AFT- REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2, 2000 issue was different, then he felt that would be a material difference. Commissioner Jonathan pointed out that the applicant had the option to appeal the decision to the council and thought that the applicant had a lot of options and he had to believe that many of them had been explored to get to this point when the applicant knew that staff would be recommending denial. He wouldn't care about Don 0's current utilization, but as Chairperson Beaty stated, he would like to know if the applicant was able to demonstrate that Don O's, based on restaurant usage, had excessive parking spaces available and that during the high point of the season that there was availability as well. That was a complicated issue that hadn't been presented to the commission by the applicant in any detail, so he would stand by his motion to adopt the findings as presented by staff. Chairperson Beaty called for the vote. Chairperson Beaty and Commissioner Campbell both indicated that they would prefer a continuance. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-2 (Chairperson Beaty and Commissioner Campbell voted no). It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1987, denying PP 94-5 Amendment #1 and CUP 00-05. Motion carried 3-2 (Chairperson Beaty and Commissioner Campbell voted no). F. Case Nos. GPA 00-02, C/Z 00-03 and PP 00-05 - CARL L. KARCHER, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, general plan amendment from high density residential to office professional, a change of zone from R-3 (multifamily residential) to 0.P. (office professional) for property located on the east side of San Pablo from 221 feet south of Catalina Way to San Gorgonio Way and including property at the southwest corner of San Gorgonio Way and San Carlos Avenue. Project also includes a request for approval of a precise plan of design and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for a 5,700 21 I ltt. f OWNERS APPROVAL /— ` , ►is plan is conceptually approved as r PP is / as noted: Drs. Frank and/or Janet Kerrigan Date AREA TABULATIONS (L First Floor Leasable Area Second Floor Leaseable Area 1890 sq. ftft. Total Leaseable Area (New) 3568 sq. ft. Mech. / Misc. 125 sq. ft. Building Total 3693 sq. ft. // Total Lot Area •". 34678 sq. ft. or 0.79 acre Existing Building Floor Area l 5794 sq. ft. Proposed Building Lease Spaces .. 3139 sq. ft. Building Coverage # .. 9487 sq. ft. or 27.4 X Hardscape 18096 sq. ft. or 52.2 X • Landscaping 7095 sq. ft. or 20.4 X 0 PARKING TABULATIONS (Scenario 1 — Original Ordinance — All Medical) \ \ Bldg. A" (4925 / 200 sq. ft.) = 24.63 Spaces Bldg. B Flr. 1" (1607 / 250 sq. ft.) = 6.43 + Bldg. B FIr. 2" (1426 / 250 sq. ft.) = 5.70 or 37 Total Required " 38 parking spaces provided. (Scenario 2 — Current Ordinance) Bldg. A• (4925 / 167 sq. ft.) = 29.55 Spaces OBldg. B" (3033 / 167 sq. ft.) = 18.2 Spaces or 48 Total Required • 38 parking spaces provided. (Scenario 3 — Original + New Ordinance — All Medical) Bldg. A• (4925 / 200 sq. ft.) = 24.63 Spaces Bldg. B" (3033 / 167 sq. ft.) = 18.2 Spaces or 43 Total Required * 38 parking spaces provided. * Less accessory use space per Sec. 1002 UBC. Accessory spaces are defined as Bathrooms, Closets and Hallways. Maximum 15% Gross F.A. • Overall areas are calculated within property lines based on Lot Survey prepared by Cal— West Engineering, May 1994 • # Measured area at footprint of Lease Space (Conditioned + Mechanical) Facilities. t i ► Q PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1987 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PARKING MODIFICATION FOR AN EXPANDED MEDICAL OFFICE FACILITY AND DENYING AN AMENDMENT TO PRECISE PLAN 94-5 TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,693 SQUARE FOOT MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING. CASE NOS. PP 94-5 AMENDMENT #1 AND CUP 00-05 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 2nd day of May, 2000, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of DRS. FRANK AND JANET KERRIGAN for approval of the above mentioned requests; 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 denial of said conditional use permit and precise plan amendment: 1 . The proposed project will not comply with the current parking standard for medical office buildings and expansion of the proposed building will increase the degree of nonconformity with respect to parking. 2. The applicant's own parking study prepared by a registered professional traffic engineer confirms that the city's parking standard is appropriate. 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 CUP 00-05 and PP 94-5 Amendment #1 be denied for the reasons specified above and in the staff report dated May 2, 2000. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 2nd day of May, 2000, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: FINERTY, JONATHAN, LOPEZ NOES: CAMPBELL, REATY ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE PAUL R. BEATY, Chairperson ATTEST: --74:4 PHILIP DRELL, Secretary Palm Desert PI nning Commission CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: May 2, 2000 CASE NOS: PP 94-5 Amendment #1 and CUP 00-05 REQUEST: Approval of an amendment to Precise Plan 94-5 to allow construction of a 3,693 square foot medical office building and a conditional use permit to allow a parking modification for the expanded medical office facility located at 42-575 Washington Street. APPLICANT: Drs. Frank and Janet Kerrigan 42-575 Washington Street Palm Desert, CA 92260 Christopher McFadden 72-925 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 BACKGROUND: The subject property was annexed to the city in April 1994. In July 1994 the applicant filed a request for a change of zone and precise plan approval. The change of zone which was approved was from R-3 2,000 to PC(2) (district commercial). The precise plan request was for a 5,745 square foot single story medical office building and a future 2,567 square foot two story office/retail building (maximum 1 ,800 square feet of retail). Both applications were approved and the single story medical building was constructed. II. CURRENT PROPOSAL: The applicant at this time is requesting an amendment to the existing approval to enlarge the two story building from 2,567 square feet to 3,693 square feet and change its use from retail and general office to medical office. The new CUP application seeks approval of a parking modification to support the larger building and its use as a medical office. STAFF REPORT PP 94-5 AMENDMENT #1 AND CUP 00-05 MAY 2, 2000 III. ANALYSIS: In 1994 the development was reviewed for consistency with the PC(2) zone standards (i.e., 5 parking spaces per 1 ,000 square feet of gross floor area). The PC(2) parking standard assumes a mix of uses across a range of uses (i.e., we limit restaurants to not more than 20% of floor area in a district center). The 1994 decision assumed a mix of medical office use, general office use and retail use on the total property. At this time we have a request for 100% medical office use at 5 spaces per 1 ,000 square feet whereas the current standard is 6 spaces per 1 ,000 square feet. The applicant has had a parking analysis prepared by a registered professional traffic engineer, Vicki Lee Endo, P.E. (copy enclosed). This study at page 6 confirms that the 6 spaces per 1 ,000 square feet for medical offices is appropriate. The applicant in a letter dated April 17, 2000 acknowledges that the parking analysis does not support the expansion of the two story building but feels that an exemption is warranted because the new building will be under utilized in that it will allow for the existing uses on the site to spread out (i.e., an employee lounge occupies 25% of the second floor). IV. CONCLUSION: Staff cannot recommend approval of the requested parking modification. It would be contrary to the applicant's own parking analysis which confirms that the 6 spaces per 1 ,000 square feet standard is appropriate. Under utilization of a building by a particular tenant does not justify a larger building. Therefore, we will recommend that the requested parking modification be denied. Without approval of the parking modification the proposed expansion is not consistent with the ordinance (i.e., parking). Therefore, the amendment to PP 94-5 cannot be recommended for approval. Since the existing approval for a 2,567 square foot building will meet the 6 spaces per 1 ,000 square feet standard, it may be used for medical purposes. V. RECOMMENDATION: That CUP 00-05 and PP 94-5 Amendment #1 not be approved. 2 STAFF REPORT PP 94-5 AMENDMENT #1 AND CUP 00-05 MAY 2, 2000 VI. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft resolution B. Legal notice C. Comments from city departments and other agencies D. Plans and exhibits Prepared by teve Smith Reviewed and Approved b Phil Drell /tm 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PARKING MODIFICATION FOR AN EXPANDED MEDICAL OFFICE FACILITY AND DENYING AN AMENDMENT TO PRECISE PLAN 94-5 TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,693 SQUARE FOOT MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING. CASE NOS. PP 94-5 AMENDMENT -#1 AND CUP 00-05 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 2nd day of May, 2000, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of DRS. FRANK AND JANET KERRIGAN for approval of the above mentioned requests; 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 denial of said conditional use permit and precise plan amendment: 1 . The proposed project will not comply with the current parking standard for medical office buildings and expansion of the proposed building will increase the degree of nonconformity with respect to parking. 2. The applicant's own parking study prepared by a registered professional traffic engineer confirms that the city's parking standard is appropriate. 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 CUP 00-05 and PP 94-5 Amendment #1 be denied for the reasons specified above and in the staff report dated May 2, 2000. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 2nd day of May, 2000, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PAUL R. BEATY, Chairperson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: September 20 , 1994 CASE NOS : C/Z 94-2 , PP 94-5 REQUEST: Approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact, a precise plan, and a change of zone from R-3 2 , 000 (multifamily) to PC-2 (district commercial) to allow construction of a 5745 square foot one story office building and a 2567 square foot two story office/ retail building at 42-575 Washington Street. APPLICANT: Drs . Frank and Janet Kerrigan 40-100 Washington Street Bermuda Dunes , CA 92201 I . BACKGROUND: A. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE : North: PC-2/Don O ' s restaurant South: R-3 2 , 000/apartments East: R-3 2 , 000/apartments West: R-3 2 , 000/single family B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 1 . Change of Zone The change of zone from R-3 2 ,000 to PC-2 will allow the applicant to operate up to 1800 square feet of retail use in the two story building. The proposed proposed PC-2 zoning is consistent with the zoning of the property to the north (Don O' s restaurant) . 2 . Precise Plan The project consists of a 5745 square foot one story office building located at the rear of the property and a 2567 square foot two story office/retail building fronting Washington Street. Access to the site will consist of a single ingress/egress point off Dudley Drive. The project received preliminary approval for architecture and landscaping at the July 26 , 1994 architectural review commission meeting . REPORT 0 C/Z 94-2 , PP 94-5 SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 3 . Development Standards for the R-3 2 , 000 and PC-2 Zones Project PC-2 Zone R-3 2, 000 Zone Site size 34 , 678 sq. ft . * 5 acres 10,000 sq. ft. Building area 8 , 302 sq. ft . Building height 24 feet 30 feet 24 feet Building coverage 24% 50% 50% Building setbacks : * Front 15 feet 32 feet 15 feet Rear 10 feet 20 feet 10 feet Sides: street 12 feet 32 feet 10 feet interior 8 feet 20 feet 8 feet *Exceptions to standards discussed below in analysis . II . ANALYSIS: The project design generally meets the intent of the PC-2 zone. The two exceptions noted in the standards may be granted under provisions of the PC-2 zone . 1 . For purposes of the site size requirement, this project can be considered as a part of the Lucky' s center to the north. 2 . The project was developed with R-3 standards to ensure compatibility with the surrounding uses . Granting an exception to the site setbacks would be consistent with the city' s goals for this portion of Washington Street. III . RECOMMENDATION: Approve findings and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. _ recommending to the city council approval of C/Z 94-2 and PP 94-5, subject to conditions . IV. ATTACHMENTS : A. Draft resolution B. Legal notice C. Correspondence D. Plans and exhibits Prepared by ;\ �^ Y Reviewed and Approved by 1w__ JW/tm 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, A PRECISE PLAN, AND A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-3 2 , 000 (MULTIFAMILY) TO PC-2 (DISTRICT COMMERCIAL) TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 5745 SQUARE FOOT ONE STORY OFFICE BUILDING AND A 2567 SQUARE FOOT TWO STORY OFFICE/ RETAIL BUILDING AT 42-575 WASHINGTON STREET. CASE NOS . C/Z 94-2 AND PP 94-5 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 20th day of September, 1994 , hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of DRS . FRANK AND JANET KERRIGAN for approval of the above mentioned project; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of "City City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89 , " in that the director of community development has determined that the project will not have an adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared; 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 recommending approval of said zone change and precise plan: 1 . The land use resulting from the change of zone would be compatible with adjacent proposed land uses . 2 . The design of the proposed project is compatible with the existing and proposed land uses in the vicinity. 3 . The proposed change of zone would be compatible with the adopted Palm Desert General Plan. 4 . The design of the precise plan will not substantially depreciate property values , nor be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 5 . The precise plan will not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes . 6 . The precise plan will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare . PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 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 approval of Change of Zone subject to and P he attached recise Plan 94-5 is hereby recommended to city council, conditions . PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held 'on this day t 1994 , by the following vote, to it: AYES: NOES : ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ROBERT A. SPIEGEL, Chairman ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ , Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NOS . C/Z 94-2 AND PP 94-5 Department of Community Development: 1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the department of community development/planning,ment/ lanning, as modified by the following co nditions .ons . 2 . Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null , void and of no effect whatsoever. 3 . The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force . 4 . Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies : Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Palm Desert Water & Services District Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5 . Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas . Said placement shall be approved by applicable trash company and department of community development . 6 . All future occupants of the buildings shall comply with parking requirements of the zoning ordinance. 7 . A detailed parking lot and building lighting plan shall be submitted to staff for approval , subject to applicable lighting standards , plan to be prepared by a qualified lighting engineer. S . All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the department of public works prior to architectural review commission submittal . 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 9 . Project is subject to Art in Public Places fee per Ordinance No . 473 . Department of Public Works : 1 . Drainage fees , in accordance with Section 26 . 49 of the Palm Dot Municipal Code and Ordinance No. 653 , shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading permit. 2 . Signalization fees , in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos . 79-17 and 79-55 , shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading permit . 3 . Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (T.U.M. F . ) in accordance with City of Palm Desert ordinances shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permits . 4 . Full public improvements , as required by Sections 26 .40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable city standards . 5 . All private driveways and parking lots shall be inspected by the engineering department and a standard inspection fee paid prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 6 . Landscaping maintenance on Washington Street and Dudley Drive shall be the responsibility of the property owner. 7 . A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of the grading permit . 8 . Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans by the Director of Public Works and the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works . 9 . As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26 .28 , and in accordance with Sections 26 . 40 and 26 . 44 , complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. Offsite improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works and a surety posted to guarantee the installation , of all required offsite improvements prior to issuance of a grading permit . Such improvements shall include, but not be limited to construction t full height curb and gutter and asphalt pavement to match, installation of concrete sidewalk in an appropriate size and configuration and installation of concrete drive approach all in accordance with appropriate city standards . "As-built" plans 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of Public Works prior to the acceptance of the improvements by the City. 10 . As required under Section 12 . 16 and 26 . 44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, all existing utilities shall be placed underground per each respective utility district ' s recommendation. If determined to be unfeasible, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the City attorney, surety in an amount equal to the estimated construction costs for the subject undergrounding. 11 . In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 27 , complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project . 12 . Size, number and location of driveways shall be to the specifications of the Department of Public Works with one driveway approach permitted to serve this property. 13 . Building pad elevations for the proposed project are subject t o review and modification in accordance with Section 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. Riverside County Fire Department: 1 . With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plan check, the fire department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Code, NFPA, UFC, and UBC and/or recognized fire protection standards : The fire department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per Uniform Fire Code Sec. 10 . 301C. 2 . A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 3 . Provide, or show there exists a water system capable of providing a potential gallon per minute flow of 1500 for single family, 2500 for multifamily, and 3000 for commercial . The actual fire flow available from any one hydrant connected to any given water main shall be 1500 gpm for two hours duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure. 4 . The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrant( s ) ( 6" x 4" x 2-1/2" x 2-1/2" ) , located not less than 25 ' nor more than 150 ' from any portion of the building( s ) as measured along 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. approved vehicular travelways . Hydrants installed below 3000 ' elevation shall be of the "wet barrel" type. 5 . Provide written certification from the appropriate water company having jurisdiction that hydrant( s) will be installed and will produce the required fire flow, or arrange field inspection by the fire department prior to request for final inspection. 6 . Prior to the application for a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original and two copies of the water system plan to the county fire department for review. No building permit shall be issued until the water system plan has been approved by the county fire chief . Upon approval, the original will be returned. One copy will be sent to the responsible inspecting authority. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements . Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer and may be signed by the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department. " "System has been designed to provide a minimum gallon per minute flow of 1500 , 2500, 3000 . " 7 . The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point in the permit process to reflect changes in design, construction type, area separations, or built-in fire protection measures such as a fully fire sprinklered building. S . Comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations , adopted January 1 , 1990, for all occupancies . 9 . Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13 . The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front, not less than 25 ' from the building and within 50 ' of an approved hydrant. This applies to all buildings with 3000 square feet or more building area as measured by the building footprint, including overhangs which are sprinklered per NFPA 13 . The building area of additional floors is added in for a cumulative total . Exempted are one and two family dwellings . 10 . Install a fire alarm (water flow) as required by the Uniform Building Code 3803 for sprinkler system. Install tamper alarms on all supply and control valves for sprinkler systems . 11 . Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes and shall be clearly marked by painting and/or signs approved by the fire marshal . 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12 . Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10 , but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Fire extinguishers must not be over 75 ' walking distance . In addition to the above, a 40BC fire extinguisher is required for commercial kitchens . 13 . All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150 ' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall be not less than 24 ' of unobstructed width and 13 ' 6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is allowed, the roadway shall be 36 ' wide with parking on both sides , 32 ' wide with parking on one side . Dead- end roads in excess of 150 ' shall be provided with a minimum 45 ' radius turn-around (55 ' in industrial developments) . Fountains or garden islands placed in the middle of these turn-arounds shall not exceed a 5 ' radius or 10 ' diameter. City standards may be more restrictive. 14 . Contact the fire department for a final inspection prior to occupancy. 15 . This project may require licensing and/or review by state agencies. Applicant should prepare a letter of intent detailing the proposed usage to facilitate case review. Contact should be made with the Office of the State Fire Marshal ( 818-960-6441) for an opinion .and , a classification of occupancy type. This information and a copy of the letter of intent should be submitted to the fire department so that proper requirements may be specified during the review process . Typically this applies to educational , day care, institutional, health care, etc . 16 . Commercial buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city. 17 . All fire sprinkler systems , fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be submitted separately for approval prior to construction. Subcontractors should contact the fire marshal ' s office submittal requirements . 18 . Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes , ordinances , laws , or when building permits are not obtained within twelve months . 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT A Pursuant to Title 14 , Division 6 , Article 7 , Section 15083, of the California Administrative Code . NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NOS : C/Z 94-2 and PP 94-5 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Drs . Frank and Janet Kerrigan 40-100 Washington Street Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: A 5745 square foot one story office building and a 2567 square foot two story office/retail building at 42- 575 Washington Street. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures , if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. RAMON A. DIAZ DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 8 41 u' g'n o es nee 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NOS. PP 94-5 AND C/Z 94-2 (Project previously noticed as CUP 94-11, VAR 94-1) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by DRS. FRANK AND JANET KERRIGAN for approval of a precise plan, change of zone from R-3 (multifamily) to PC-2 (district commercial) to allow construction of a 5745 square foot one story office building and a 2567 square foot two story office/retail building at 42-575 Washington Street. jl II I II II II I —i 42r,d AVENUE R-3 2,000 45.14,1 PC-2 o.S. =it.ui>Th(STATES SITE s s u I Faa • 2,000 1 • et.A.AAE IT p . O R-1 9,000 — I SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 20, 1994, at 7 :00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 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 the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the department of community development/ planning 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 (or city council) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary , - MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1661, approving PP 94-4 , subject to conditions . Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Fernandez abstained) . ( B. ) Continued Case Nos . C/Z 94-2 and PP 94-5 (Formerly CUP 94-11/VAR 94-1) DRS . FRANK AND JANET KERRIGAN, Applicants Request for approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact, change of zone and precise plan to allow construction of a 5745 square foot one story office building and a 2567 square foot two story office/retail building in the R-3 zone at 42-575 Washington Street. Mr. Diaz indicated that this case was continued to allow staff to re-advertise for a change of zone and precise plan instead of a conditional use permit and variance. He noted that no letters had been received in opposition. He stated that the project met all the requirements except for site size and building setbacks and those were discussed in the analysis . He explained that exceptions were allowed under city provisions . Staff felt that the project should proceed and that planning commission should recommend approval to city council of the zone change from residential to commercial . Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification on the number of parking spaces being required. Mr. Diaz stated that in terms of office and retail uses, more were at four parking spaces per 1000 . For PC-2 zoning (retail commercial ) = the requirement was five parking spaces per 1000 and the entire area was five per 1000 . Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification on the setbacks . Mr. Diaz stated that staff could look at it and the applicant could also address the issue. Commissioner Jonathan questioned if the setbacks were consistent with the Lucky center satellite pads . Chairperson Spiegel opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. 3 — MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 MR. CHRIS MCFADDEN, 73-929 Larrea in Palm Desert, informed commission that the setbacks met the city' s requirements . Commissioner Whitlock asked the applicant about the number of parking spaces being provided. Mr. McFadden stated that the parking met the requirement for the mixed uses . He noted there would be 5794 square feet of general office use and 2568 square feet of office retail use--they were providing 39 parking spaces including two handicapped spaces . Commissioner Jonathan asked for and received clarification that 39 parking spaces was the requirement and 39 spaces were being provided. Commissioner Jonathan asked why the reduction in setbacks was needed. Mr. McFadden stated that with the original zoning they would be within the requirements under the conditional use provisions . Staff and the city attorney recommended that a change of zone be done . He stated that this project was in compliance with site approval . He noted that they could have applied for approval under the county before annexation, but they chose to process it in the city and he complied with more provisions under the original zoning, but city staff felt this would be a simpler process . Mr. Diaz stated that under the PC zoning requirements, as part of the zone change application these recommendations could be waived or modified with the precise plan. The project could be considered to be part of the Lucky' s center for the five acre requirements for development in the R-3 standards . He indicated that the applicant was correct--they could have gone through the county for approval . Chairperson Spiegel asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was no one . Chairperson Spiegel closed the public testimony. Commissioner Jonathan expressed concern with the setbacks for the two story buildings . Mr. Diaz explained that the setback was 15 feet from the street and the project design was 30 feet from the curb. There was about a 15 foot parkway area . Commissioner Whitlock asked if the additional 15 feet was the greenbelt area shown on the plan. Mr. Diaz concurred . Commissioner Jonathan thanked staff for the clarification. Chairperson Spiegel felt it would have been beneficial for the commission to see a plan of the whole Lucky' s center. Mr Diaz concurred and said for future developments it would be 4 r w - MINUTES / PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION / SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 provided. Commissioner Whitlock noted that Don O' s was an existing hotel that is two stories and 150 feet from single story elements . Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the findings as presented by staff . Carried 5-0 . Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1662, recommending approval of C/Z 94-2 and PP 94-5 to city council . Carried 5-0 . COMMISSION CALLED A FIVE MINUTE RECESS AT 7 : 24 P.M. THE MEETING RECONVENED AT 7 : 32 P.M. C. Continued Case No. 4341 SA - B-Y-J PARTNERS for BURGER KING, Applicant Request for approval of an exception to Section 25 . 68 . 310 (A) of the zoning ordinance to allow an additional freestanding sign at 73-547 Highway 111 (Jensen' s shopping center) . Mr. Diaz explained that the request was for a ground-mounted directional sign for Burger King. The architectural commission looked at the sign design and approved it . The matter before the commission was if the sign should be permitted. Staff was recommending approval because of the unusual entrance and exit into the Jensen ' s center. The matter before commission was the issue of whether or not the additional ground-mounted sign should be given. He said that technically speaking because there was a variance involved in the request, commission could also look at the entire sign and its design. If there were concerns about it, that could be referred back to the architectural commission for comment or conditioned. Chairperson Spiegel opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. RICHARD AGIN, 18103 Kingsport Drive in Malibu, and MR. TOM YEAGER, a resident of Palm Desert, came forward. Mr. Agin said the question was asked why they needed this directional sign and he felt that traveling east on Highway 111, there was a building and landscaping that 5 Mc FADDEN - r h i e c t s a c t Mc INTOSH April 12, 2000 CITY OF PALM DESERT Planning Department Attn: Mr. Steve Smith 73-150 Fred Waring Dr_ Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: Kerrigan Medical Group *Building B 42-575 Washington St. Parking Analysis Job No: 9910.00 Dear Steve, Per our phone conversation today, I wish to respond to the Parking Analysis Recommendations, which we provided from Endo Engineering. Essentially, the report does support the current zoning ordinance for 6 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. for the office/medical use. It is not our intention to discount or deny that. We believe that this project has special mitigating circumstances and as such should receive an exemption from Commission andlor Council. As we discussed when this project was approved in 1995 and 2,500 sq. ft. was allocated or approved for the future facility, it just so happened to coincide perfectly with the current ordinance. There are a total of 38 parking spaces and 25 are required for the existing facility leaving 13 for future expansion. Currently, the 13 spaces x 167 (6 per 1,000) yields 2,171 sq. ft. net plus 15% parking reduction yields 326 sq. ft. or 2,497 sq. ft. gross buildable. At the time of approval the parking ratio was calculated at 11200 (or 5 per 1,000) and for a single space greater than 2,200 sq. ft. this was appropriate. The proposed design today, complies with the parking standards in effect at the time of original approval in that both spaces (upper and lower door) fall below the 2,200 sq. ft. space size and should be calculated at the 11250 (or 4 per 1,000) allocation per the ordinance in effect at that time. The basis of our request for exemption from the current standards is two fold as follows: 1) We should not be denied land use for that which we were previously allowed, and; P;i1ri: q f.;E Td WdS0:b0 000E ET add E96089S09L : 'ON XHJ HSOlNI°W/NSUaudPW : W0dd Kerrigan memo Page two... 2) and most importantly, Dr. Kerrigan is shifting the use on site and is not adding any significant load to the existing facilities. Dr. Kerrigan wishes to relocate his Urgent Care facility from the back of the building and alley entrance to the more open and accessible front building. This is about better "quality" of Healthcare facilities and less congestion. The second floor of the proposed facilities is intended to feature a Women's Wellness Center and the balance (25%) is an employees lounge. Again, this does not pose a burden on the existing parking as there is no intended increase, but we did model a modest 10% increase within the traffic study just to be reasonable. You can focus on the fact that there may be inadequate parking 10% of the time or accept that the study shows that parking is adequate 90% of the time. Alternate methods of meeting the potential overflow are addressed within the study. Since Dr. Kerrigan has been a good investor in the City of Palm Desert and voluntarily compiled with more stringent City Standards prior to the city annexing his parcel, it would only be reciprocal at this juncture for the City to allow Dr. Kerrigan to complete the development of this parcel in conformance with the standards in effect at the time of approval. This will ultimately benefit the community. I hope that this satisfies your initial concerns, should you have any questions or comments, please call. I will look forward to working with you on the furtherance of this project. Regards, Chris opher McFen CMIsm r-,will (/crJ, Ed Wd90:b0 000E ET .Jdd £96089S09L : '0N XFid HSO1N I DW,N9QQddoW : W0eld CHRISOPHER M C F A D D t N A I A 73-929 Larrea, Suite lA Palm Desert, California 92260 Tel : ( 619) 346-8014 Fax: ( 619) 568-0963 July 28, 1994 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION Re: Kerrigan Office Building Job No. : 9406 . 00 1 . LEGAL DESCRIPTION/ OWNERSHIP: * Parcel 3 of parcel map 11739, A.P.N. 637-170-006 located at the NW corner of Dudley Drive and Washington Street at 42-575 Washington Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260. * The parcel is currently in escrow with a 240 day feasibility period to accommodate annexation (complete) and to obtain conditions of approval on the conditional use permit. 3 . EXPANDED STATEMENT OF USE REQUEST: * Kerrigan Family Medical Group has selected this location to construct their office facilities . The proposed office facility has been designed to provide for their current staff and clientele needs in addition to future expansion for the next 10 years . The second facility (fronting Washington) has been allocated for future investment and is anticipated to be constructed within the next 2 - 3 years, if all goes well . The future facility is the most controversial of the two, as the applicant desires a dual occupancy classification on this facility only. This would allow for optimum leasing potential, that is we currently anticipate a range of 1500 -1800 sq. ft. 1st floor construction to be classified as general office/ retail and the balance upstairs to be classified as general office - no additional medical use needed. With the recent construction of the Lucky' s shopping center and other commercial projects along Washington Street, we could envision the likelihood of a sandwich shop and/ or book store type tenant due to the prominent frontage The applicant would be willing to enter into some sort of development agreement with the City of Palm Desert in order to accommodate this request . The two story element of this building is located 150 feet from the two story R-3 facilities to the south. While this parcel was under County jurisdiction it was subject to a plot plan approval process only and was allowed to be constructed to a height limit of 35 feet . We are under the understanding that the City of Palm Desert will be "sensitive" to the prior zoning allocations . Kerrigan Application page two. . In light of the prior allowed limit we also request a variance for the proposed single story building height limit to be raised from 22 ' to 24 ' at the center tower structure only. The balance of the building massing terraces to be architecturally compatible with the westerly zoning. We believe that the project will be a valued asset to the community and the neighborhood in which it is proposed. I hope that your review will be favorable. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please call . Sincerely, Ch ' o her cF dden, AIA P CM/di INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Department of Community Development/Planning Attention: STEVE SMITH FROM: Richard J. Folkers, Asst. City Manager/Public Works Director SUBJECT: C.U.P. 00-02; KERRIGAN OFFICE BUILDING DATE: April 25, 2000 The following should be considered conditions of approval for the above-referenced project: (1 ) All applicable provisions, conditions and requirements contained within City of Palm Desert Planning Resolution No. 1662 and City Council Resolution No. 94-110 shall be considered as conditions of approval for this project. RICHARD J. FOLKERS, P.E. (cup/cup0002.cnd) . � ' CITY Of PHA . RI • maiis 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE to I PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 •`:f — — :1 TEL: 760 4 6-061 1 w 3 1• ".. info l°'P alm-deserr.org CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. PP 94-5 Amendment #1, CUP 00-5 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert PlanningCommission ss on to consider a request by DRS. FRANK AND JANET KERRIGAN for approval of an Amendment to Precise Plan 94-5 to allow the construction of a 3,693 square foot medical office building and a Conditional Use Permit to allow a parking modification for the medical office facility located at 42-575 Washington Street. SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, May 2, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 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 the 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 (or city council) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun Philip Drell, Secretary April 17, 2000 Palm Desert Planning Commission *ATER ``.' ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY aiSTRIo COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058•COACHELLA,CALIFORNIA 92236•TELEPHONE(760)398-2651 DIRECTORS OFFICERS TELLIS CODEKAS, PRESIDENT THOMAS E.LEVY,GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER RUSSELL KITAHARA,VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON,SECRETARY JOHN W. McFADDEN March 21, 2000 OWEN McCOOK,ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER JOHN P. POWELL, Jr. REDWINE AND SHERRILL,ATTORNEYS DOROTHY M.NICHOLS File: 0163.1 050613-1 Department of Community Development City of Palm Desert 'F C,F ' FD 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 MAR 2 3 2000 Gentlemen: k.OMMUNITrc.VELt1 t;+.;4rlvEFgyfb1tNi CITY OF PALM DESERT Subject: Precise Plan 00-02 This area is designated Zone C on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in effect at this time. This project is within the limits of the Bermuda Dunes Drainage Study area. The Bermuda Dunes Drainage Study established a requirement for new developments to retain 100 percent of the runoff for a 100-year event and was agreed upon by all of the participating agencies, including Riverside County and the Cities of Palm Desert, Indian Wells, La Quinta and Indio. Since the stormwater issues of this development are local drainage, the district does not need to review drainage design further. The district will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with the current regulations of this district. These regulations provide for the payment of certain fees and charges by the subdivider and said fees and charges are subject to change. Plans for grading, landscaping and irrigation systems shall be submitted to the district for review. This review is for ensuring efficient water management. If you have any questions please call Joe Cook,planning engineer, extension 292. Yours ivery truly, Tom Levy General Manager-Chief Engin r cc: Don Park Riverside County Department of Public Health 82-675 Highway 111, Second Floor Indio, California 92201 TRUE CONSERVATION JEC:jl\eng\sw\mar\pp00-02 USE WATER WISELY Mc FAD EN ---.---• architects MC INTOSH February 18, 2000 CITY OF PALM DESERT Planning Department Attn: Mr. Steve Smith 73-150 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: Kerrigan Medical Group *Building B 42-575 Washington St. *A.P.N. 637-170-006 Job No: 9910.00 Dear Steve, This letter is intended to complete the written document submittal requirements for the Conditional Use Permit submittal. In regards to the intended use for this facility it is primarily being pursued to reduce the strain on the existing facilities. As you are aware, the existing building contains an Immediate Care Clinic accessed from the northwest corner of the facility. The Immediate Care services are intended to be transferred to the lower floor of the proposed facility utilizing the entire lower floor (2015 sq. ft.) or 55% of the building. The existing Immediate Care space will become a private waiting room for Dr. Kerrigan. The upper floor will feature a Women's Wellness Center, which will attend to the needs of current clientele. Current staff will be rotated and perhaps one new employee will be added. The intention is to provide better care for private patients. Due to the competition in the medical industry, better care requires better facilities. Dr. Kerrigan hopes for perhaps a 10% increase in patient flow. Currently the Immediate Care operates 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Saturday and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Sunday. There is no anticipated change to this schedule upon change of location. This facility will utilize 1250 sq. ft. of the upper floor or 74%. The balance of the upper level will consist of Conference/ Lounge space for employees of the entire complex and will again generate no additional off site usage. As you are aware, when Doctor Kerrigan initially purchased this project, the parcel was located in the County of Riverside. At that time it was subject to then future annexation by the City of Palm Desert, Dr. Kerrigan directed us as a future good neighbor policy to design the project in full conformance with the future City of Palm Desert zoning restrictions. This in effect limited the site to more restrictive parking allowances (both size and quantity) and reduced building mass. i2-1:25 Fred Vtfaring Dr., Pelni /)tort, Califrrni f2260 .!r•lerilinne: (760) tf-f f i! Fay (760) gir.1,0562 - Kerrigan memo Page two... The purchase of this property was predicated on its master plan build out, inclusive of the present (then future) proposed facility. In addition to the above-mentioned impacts, the City of Palm Desert also required a zone change, which was an additional hurtle. The zone change, which we worked hard to acquire was subsequently given to the surrounding properties. I mention this as surrounding property values escalated inhibiting Dr. Kerrigan from acquiring adjacent property at a non-inflated value. Dr. Kerrigan's project was also assessed backbone utility and street improvements along Dudley Frontage, benefiting his project and sized for future projects to the west. Finally as of July 1998, the parking standards changed ultimately jeopardizing the feasibility of this project. In 1994, 37 parking spaces were required for this exact project (see parking tabulations on accompanying drawing P1.1) and we literally cast-in-concrete 38 spaces. Today we would be 10 parking spaces short due to the change in the standards. Dr. Kerrigan would be denied the use of his property today, which he was previously (and intended) entitled. Dr. Kerrigan has shown good faith and put forth significant effort and expense to date, to be denied this portion of improvement to the facility over modified parking regulations would be unfair. Two reasons alone (apart from parking studies, traffic flow, etc.) should permit this project to be approved: 1. The project is in conformance with the Conditions of Approval/ Zoning Ordinance in effect a the time of it's initial master planning and; 2. Due to the relocation of existing services no significant additional traffic volumes are anticipated that the existing parking allocation has (and therefore will) accommodate. I hope that this satisfies your initial concerns, should you have any questions or comments, please call. I will look forward to working with you on the furtherance of this project. Regards, ti Christopher F den CM/di 72 ..2E Frrd \t1 rinr Or., Palm Dar.nri, falifr;rria e226o Tcirpllona: (76O) /t -f Oi4 Fax (76O) 6 •051 Endo Engineering Traffic Engineering Air Quality Studies Noise Assessments February 10, 2000 Drs. Frank and Janet Kerrigan 42-575 Washington Street Palm Desert, CA 92260 SUBJECT: Parking Analysis For Kerrigan Medical Group Office Buildings in Palm Desert Dear Dr. Kerrigan; Pursuant to your request, Endo Engineering has evaluated the adequacy of the existing parking supply to serve a new medical office building proposed north of Dudley Drive and west of Washington Street, in the City of Palm Desert. The purpose of this parking analysis was to document the existing peak parking demand and determine if the existing 38-space parking lot is adequate to serve both the existing medical office building (Building A) and the proposed medical office building (Building B), as shown in Figure 1. Based upon information provided by McFadden, McIntosh Architects and coordination with Mr. Steve Smith of the City of Palm Desert, Endo Engineering has identified the existing peak parking demand with a parking survey and projected the parking supply needed for the proposed medical office building. Background It is our understanding that the project site was master planned for two medical office buildings providing a total of 9,487 square feet of Gross Floor Area (GFA), prior to annexation to the City of Palm Desert. At that time, Riverside County required 4 parking spaces per thousand square feet (TSF) and the City of Palm Desert parking requirement was four spaces per TSF for medical offices with less than 2,200 square feet of floor area and five spaces per TSF for medical offices with 2,200 or more square feet of floor area. The office floor area used to determine the parking requirement was exclusive of stairways, elevators, landings and mechanical rooms (not exceeding 15% of the GFA). The 9,487 square feet (S.F.) of Gross Floor Area, when reduced by 15%, yielded 8,064 S.F. of floor area(see Table 1). Under the Riverside County parking standard, 32 parking spaces were required on-site. Since the first and second floors of Building B were physically divided and would maintain separate entrances/exits, they were considered to be separate medical offices so the Palm Desert parking requirement for less than 2,200 S.F. of floor area would apply (requiring 12.6 spaces for Building B). The single story Building A (with 4,925 S.F) required 24.6 spaces for a total of 37 spaces required on-site. The project proponent opted to meet the more stringent City parking requirements, and constructed 38 off-street parking spaces when the first medical office building (Building A) was constructed with 5,794 S.F of GFA in 1994. 28811 Woodcock Drive, Laguna Niguel, CA 92677-1330 (949) 362-0020 FAX: (949) 362-0015 (IL i Figure 1 Site Development Plan EXISTING MOTEL EXISTING RESTAURANT no MOP,/llaa. PC-2en.a./Zuwb. K-J __ - air I W'-P I ♦ n•-r ♦ o•-r ♦ J 1, 1 r. Er ■e000000000eNm®® I — — _ M..o M [� — a JE®lr9 6a►•e 740 — 4 • —1 se.«yr • i (( a 1 I Ij '_ ® //�h. \ /f.-A r _. • J ¢� sii Mr-. II o : „._._,, , _,_,, I �rUF711 Im>Ac EXISTING RESIDENTIAL ••` s w- / // �° y • 02 r / M�� ` "` J1! alit b Q iMOi luny =WMc: *., 7 '�'� . !rib.R Y . t —in e-r as � �5 D Q • ativ 6 _q I .d Y El #\.i � lip.4' 4 d /4'..;.... pi ;,,''' 'r. ''...;:',.;i:, 'Z ...,..'.1 Ili-.-.s \\\ \ , ,i, , .:_. ._ 0 4r7,,t .....,.‘ .-:,. i+— xw.e: . ....— t, 4 .. LOT.. C - n r�ar.m-• - 1.. - .A a LOT "B" '' . Dudley • Co• b r1 • . ..A* , _______ EXISTING MULTI-FAMILY ♦ a-r m smrr/Za.c, a-Yswb) om�c.a.voo®1 ED Source: McFadden, McIntosh Architects, 12/6/99 Scale: 1" =46' Table 1 Palm Desert Off-Street Parking Requirement Applicable Palm Desert Gross Floor Area 85% of GFA Off-Street Parking Parking Requirement (Square Feet) (Square Feet) Required Original Ordinance (Section 25.58.310) Building A- (Existing) 5,794 S.F. 4,925 S.F. 24.6 Spaces Building B - (Proposed) 3,693 S.F 3,139 S.F. 12.6 Spaces Total 9,487 S.F. 8,064 S.F. 37 Spaces Current Ordinance (Ordinance No. 883) Building A- (Existing) 5,794 S.F. 4,925 S.F. 29.6 Spaces Building B - (Proposed) 3,693 S.F 3,139 S.F. 18.8 Spaces Total 9,487 S.F. 8,064 S.F. 48 Spaces Building A contains an Immediate Care Clinic, a Women's Wellness Center, and Dr. Kerrigan's private practice, staffed by a total of 12 employees. The Immediate Care Clinic operates from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Sunday. To alleviate the strain of overcrowding on the existing medical office facilities, the Kerrigan Medical Group is currently seeking a Conditional Use Permit from the City of Palm Desert to complete the project by constructing the second medical office building (Building B). The second building would permit the Immediate Care Clinic to relocate downstairs into a larger space and allow the vacated space in Building A to be converted into a private waiting room for Dr. Kerrigan that is expected to increase patient flow by 10 percent. The existing Women's Wellness Center to be re-located on the upper floor of the new Building B would continue to attend to the needs of the current clientele. In addition, an employee conference/lounge space would be located upstairs in the new building to serve all of the staff on-site. The total number of employees on-site is expected to increase from 12 to 13. In July of 1998, the Palm Desert parking requirement for medical offices was revised. The current parking requirement is six spaces per TSF of gross floor area, which reflects the higher demand observed in some areas of Palm Desert. The Planning Commission may grant up to a 15% parking reduction, upon review of the floor plan, based upon such considerations as elevators, stairways and landings, interior utility facilities, restroom areas, and non-leasable common areas. As shown in Table 1, based upon this requirement, 8,064 S.F. of floor area would be required to provide 48 off-street parking spaces, 10 more spaces than currently exist on-site. The parking lot for both buildings was fully constructed in conjunction with the first building. The acquisition of adjacent land for additional off-street parking has been considered but rejected as being financially unfeasible. 2 An existing multi-family residential development is located adjacent to the south side of Dudley Drive, opposite the project site. Don O's Restaurant is located north of the proposed Building B. An existing two-story hotel is located north of the existing medical office BuildingA. Single-family residential land uses exist west of the project site. g Y The Kerrigan Medical Group is requesting a parking variance to permit the development of Building B under the original Palm Desert parking ordinance, since the existing lot is ® seldom more than two-thirds occupied. To demonstrate that the existing parking supply is adequate, the project proponent commissioned a parking survey from 8:00 a.m. through 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 20, and Friday, January 21, 2000. At the request of the City, the parking survey included not only the existing parking lot on-site, but also the adjacent on-street parking along Dudley Drive. The purpose of the parking survey was to determine the peak parking demand associated with Building A and, based upon that site specific data, forecast the future peak parking demand when Building B is constructed. Available Parking Supply Thirty-eight off-street parking spaces currently exist on-site. Two of these parking spaces are handicapped spaces. The site is located adjacent to the north side of Dudley Drive, with frontage that extends 305 feet west of Washington Street. No on-street parking occurs on Washington Street. On-street parking is permitted along the north and south side of Dudley Drive adjacent to the project site. Two "no parking" zones exist along the north side of Dudley Drive, where red curbs extend for a total of 50 feet (See Figure 2). One red curb extends 30 feet adjacent to a fire hydrant, opposite the southeast corner of Building A. The other extends 20 feet and is located opposite the entry to the multi-family residential development located south of Dudley Drive and west of Washington Street. In addition, the site driveway extends 24 feet along the north side of Dudley Drive. Therefore, there is 230 feet of curb space available for on-street parking along the north side of Dudley Drive, opposite the site that is divided in such a way as to permit a maximum of 11 cars to park on-street. There is also 120 feet of available curb space on the south side of Dudley Drive, opposite Building A, and 120 feet opposite the proposed Building B (for a total of 240 feet). This space can accommodate a maximum of 12 parked cars. Along both sides of Dudley Drive, there is room for a total of 23 cars to park on-street opposite the project site. Literature Search Findings The peak parking demand for various land uses has been studied for many years and documented by different sources. Many of today's parking standards were based upon Highway Research Board Special Report 125 "Parking Principles" (1971). The peak parking demand published therein for medical buildings was studied in the central business districts of eight cities and found to range between 1.1 and 8.6 spaces per TSF of building area, with an average of 5.0 spaces per TSF. The more recent Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication "Parking Generation" (August 1987) identifies parking characteristics of medical/dental clinic/office uses, based upon 40 studies of free standing facilities ranging in size from 1,550 to 140,000 gross square feet of building area. From these studies, peak parking was found to occur during the mid-morning and mid-afternoon hours. The range of peak parking rates was 2.22 to 9.67 spaces per TSF of GFA. The highest rates reported were for the smallest facilities surveyed. The average rate was 4.11 peak parking spaces per TSF of gross building area (GFA). The average building area was 23,000 square feet. 3 Ali # Figure 2 Available On-Street Parking EXISTING HOTEL EXISTING REST AUliANT TO MKT/ZONINC PC-7 00,4 04/EOM. PC-7 i3.--0 -- --. - - ' t ...... r --to-a L 4,17. 3.1.5. • • L' in 11.1111 1"" 11WW1Vnif:OL in , ,40_••: 11 Plill.:.. 17.ACIC LK 1 .....:`::. 6 .'•f,‘c_ ' L„A -- ...,_ . - : :11 01946. .;,•„:::,„ ill . , _ 1 • ....,,. •. glektim.""" L. a-, . -.,...::. H..11 '''1 it01 ". ' — ' ....""' 114••••11•1 ,.., , a : :......„ 1 it P..-:-,',',_ 1P1., . t •P:.. 111PANIEMWA ,BUILap'. .. '''''•''''':AUL MI It-. 1 - "T".. tg-'21/1111• id :!,. 11111 ; imi i 1 &,%,r ,. .,, -er'•- r g.,.. a ....IW:' WI ,.,,,, 11 . , ........1.. ...... ..,,..‘";:m , 1 114r,'' 1 i 111 111 'Wee .... , .._ 1............L.--stc_..im _ ..._ _ri....... . ___ _ _ - r/4 b • N s II :• § . 0 . . . 4 b 2 Spaces Red Zone • 3 Spaces- Red Zone- • — • -4 Spaces --c, • -Driveway 2 Spaces- • — I (36 Feet) (30 Feet) (74 Feet) (20 Feet) (81 Feet) (24 Feet) (38 Feet) Dudley Drive 6 Spaces (120 Feet) 6 Spaces (120 Feet) T.,- Ie ,,%'• \1 f 111 ' 1 j0.17, 1 43,0' EXISTING MULTI-FAMILY 1 ammo dw,MOM.= PC stew,/zoom. II'.00.0 ED Scale: 1" = 46' The fitted curve equation determined by ITE from the 40 data points was: Ln(P) = 0.82 Ln(X) + 1.81 Where: P=the number of peak parking spaces occupied X =TSF of gross building area (without any adjustment for non usable space) mq M Based upon this equation, Building A on-site (with 5,794 S.F. of GFA) would be expected to generate a peak parking demand of 26 parked cars. Building A and Building B (with 9,487 S.F of GFA)would be expected to generate a maximum of 39 parked cars. Parking Survey Findings The number of parked cars located within the site parking lot and along Dudley Drive was monitored every 30 minutes during the survey period. Motorists were observed entering and leaving their parked vehicles to determine if they were visiting the medical offices on- site or the adjacent multi-family residential land uses. The survey findings with regard to the medical office parking accumulation are detailed in Table 2. Table 2 Building A Parking Accumulation Survey Resultsa 30-Minute Thursday (January 20, 2000) I Friday (January 21, 2000) Interval On-Site On-Street Total On-Site On-Street Total Beginning Cars Cars Cars Cars Cars Cars 8:00 a.m. 12 4 16 8 2 10 8:30 a.m. 14 6 20 13 3 16 9:00 a.m. 16 8 24 17 6 23 9:30 a.m. 22 8 30 17 5 22 10:00 a.m. 18 8 26 19 6 25 10:30 a.m. 16 8 24 19 6 25 11:00 a.m. 20 8 28 21 7 28 11:30 a.m. 18 8 26 19 7 26 12:00 p.m. 20 7 27 20 8 28 12:30 p.m. 19 7 26 19 7 26 1:00 p.m. 22 8 30 15 7 22 1:30 p.m. 23 7 30 21 7 28 2:00 p.m. 26 7 33 24 7 31 Peak 26 7 33 24 7 31 90th Percentile 23 7 30 21 7 28 a. Source: Counts Unlimited, Inc. All on-site cars and on-street cars shown were associated with the existing medical offices in Building A. 4 As shown in Table 2, the project site appears to have an adequate off-street parking supply (38 spaces) to meet the existing peak parking demand associated with Building A (33 parked vehicles). The site parking lot was never more than 70 percent occupied during the parking survey. At least 12 empty parking spaces were always available on-site during the survey period. To the casual observer, the site appears to provide 30 percent more parking than is currently needed. However, this is the case because motorists destined to the medical offices on-site are routinely parking on-street along both sides of Dudley Drive, mi opposite Building A. Throughout seventy-five percent of the survey period, either 7 or 8 vehicles related to the medical offices were parked on-street along Dudley Drive. Eleven on-street parking spaces are available at this location. It appears that the curb space along Dudley Drive is more attractive to some motorists than the available parking spaces provided in the existing medical office parking lot on-site. Therefore, on-street parking along Dudley Drive will most likely continue to occur in the future,even if additional off-street parking is provided. During every survey interval, vehicles associated with the adjacent multi-family residential land uses were parked along both sides of Dudley Drive, adjacent to the eastern half of the project site, where space for 12 parked vehicles is available. The maximum residential parking accumulation observed was 9 vehicles and the minimum was 3 vehicles. Residential parking demand tends to complement office parking demand, as it is typically lowest from 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. (when medical office parking is highest). However, the parking survey found no consistent trend regarding the hours when residential parking demands peak on Dudley Drive, other than the peaking that occurs overnight and extends until 9 a.m. Multi-family residential developments, like medical offices, are required to provide adequate off-street parking. Therefore, the parking survey indicates that some residents of the adjacent multi-family development find curb space along Dudley Drive more convenient than the available off-street residential parking spaces provided for their use. Existing Peak Parking Demand The peak parking demand identified for Building A was 33 spaces, with a 90th percentile value of 30 spaces (exceeded only twice in two days). The 90th percentile parking demand (30 spaces) was found to be 6 spaces per TSF of Building A floor area, which is equivalent to the City's parking requirement of 6 spaces per TSF of building space (assuming 85% of GFA). Given a future floor area in Building A and Building B of 8,064 S.F. (assuming 85% of GFA) the 90th percentile parking demand exhibited by the existing and proposed medical offices is projected to be 48 spaces. Designing the parking supply on-site to meet the 90th percentile demand value (i.e. providing enough off-street parking to meet the demand 90 percent of the time) would mean that for one hour out of every 10 hours that the medical offices are open, the parking demand would exceed the existing off-street supply and a few vehicles arriving during that hour would have to park on Dudley Drive. Projected Future Parking Demand Based upon the 90th percentile parking demand of 6 spaces per TSF of building area, Building B would be expected to generate an additional 18 parked vehicles. Therefore, a 90th percentile parking demand of 48 parked cars could be expected when both buildings on-site are fully occupied. This would probably only be exceeded for thirty minutes to an hour each day. 5 There is curb space available that would accommodate eleven vehicles along the north side of Dudley Drive and 12 more vehicles along the south side of Dudley Drive. As previously noted, up to 8 vehicles destined for the medical offices on-site currently park on Dudley Drive 75 percent of the time between 8:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. Other Considerations It should be noted that the Building A medical offices on-site are currently over crowded. ri That is why the second medical office building is needed. When waiting rooms are overcrowded,the delay increases and the amount of time that the cars of patients are parked on-site increases. As the length of stay goes up, the parking accumulation on-site increases. Therefore, if the existing uses on-site remain unchanged but are spread out into a larger area which permits more efficient handling of patients, the delay should decrease and the number of parked cars on-site during periods of peak demand should also decrease. Conclusions Although the existing medical offices on-site and the multi-family residential uses located on the south side of Dudley Drive currently provide adequate off-street parking, some motorists appear to find on-street parking along Dudley Drive more attractive and/or convenient. Up to 17 vehicles were observed parked on-street along Dudley Drive, adjacent to the project site, where the available curb space could accommodate up to 23 parked cars. During this period, the existing parking lot on-site had a minimum of 12 empty parking spaces. The peak parking demand identified for Building A during the parking survey was 33 spaces, with a 90th percentile value of 30 spaces. The 90th percentile parking demand was found to be 6 spaces per TSF of Building A floor area, which is equivalent to the City's parking requirement of 6 spaces per TSF of building space (assuming 85% of GFA). Given a future floor area in Building A and Building B of 8,064 S.F. (assuming 85% of GFA) the 90th percentile parking demand exhibited by the existing and proposed medical offices is projected to be 48 spaces, 10 more than currently exist on-site. Available on-street parking along Dudley Drive could satisfy the peak demand identified, since 23 spaces are available of which up to 9 are being used by adjacent multi-family residential development. However, the primary functions of streets are the movement of people and goods and the provision of access to adjacent property. Other uses must be considered of secondary importance. The stopping, starting and backing of vehicles during the on-street parking maneuver physically restricts other traffic movements. It increases the potential for conflicts between traffic and pedestrians crossing the street from between parked cars to reach parked vehicles and then opening vehicle doors. It also reduces sight distances, when vehicles park close to driveways. For these reasons, cities regulate and strive to minimize curb parking on all streets by requiring adequate off-street parking facilities. Recommendations It is recommended, that the project proponent investigate strategies to increase the available off-street parking supply, as the existing medical offices appear to justify a parking requirement of 6 spaces per TSF of floor area. With the proposed relocation of existing uses, the development of Building B may only generate a modest increase in parking demand. However, based upon the parking survey, the future parking demand could exceed the current off-street parking supply of 38 spaces. 6 Reciprocal employee parking arrangements with other adjacent land uses may be possible and should be investigated. The feasibility of acquiring adjacent land for additional off- street parking should be reconsidered. Encouraging employees to carpool may also reduce employee parking on-site. We trust that this clarifies the parking situation on-site and brings a better understanding of the parking dynamics of medical offices that require careful consideration in the design process. If you have questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call our offices at I (949) 362-0020. Sincerely, FESSI Endo Engineering Qltfl O r c 'u�9l : Xai. grdto ,��``J��0 LEE fN�Fyn. �� o V r,, Vicki Lee Endo, P.E. 4e �" Registered Professional TR 1161 Traffic Engineer TR 1161 * SA-/it r Ppp sj"TE OF CMOsmt - 7 •41`.�. , " ©a'RT a PaDUM o esen .`;n..3 �e` 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NOS. PP 94-5 AMENDMENT NO. 1 AND CUP 00-05 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider an appeal by McFadden/McIntosh Architects on behalf of Drs. Frank and Janet Kerrigan to a decision of the Planning Commission denying a parking modification request and denying an amendment to the approved precise plan to allow expansion from 2,567 square feet to 3,693 square feet of an approved medical office building located at 42-575 Washington Street. ' �� NOVI.EY LAN€EA$T 1 42ad AVENUE R-3 2,000 1 r�e�� . ' ' lE...ii. �■� I NORTH rP.C.—(2) O.S. }- kl-1 I LI I ILL I aillimmil AdNUi OFTTE LTA i .� N P.C.— ■ . e1rlij%�� w y ��ar•.. „ :::: , to rg b „� 'emalism.s. :II r �i � �:R�� `.., u 9 1LW.°;� ■ate Vim= %—s I .0 IIIIIII■1 , ,,kh ,,, , AI - I3 II1 r -' I 1 LM_` -y= I ` PLACE 1 f I T 1 I I ' • 1 r01N1TAiii �n• , 1 I I I I 1 I I , i i _ I I L i 1 l i I 1,Jn fI SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, May 25, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 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 the 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 iaising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun RACHELLE KLASSEN, Acting City Clerk May 9, 2000 City of Palm Desert, California