Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0502 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - MAY 2, 2000 � 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE � � � * �. � � .� � � .� * �. � � � * � .� � * * * � �. � .� * .� � � * � * � �. .� � � �. * � � I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Beaty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Lopez led in the pledge of allegiance. . III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Paul Beaty, Chairperson Jim Lopez, Vice Chairperson Sonia Campbell Cindy Finerty Sabby Jonathan i.rr Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Dave Erwin, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Martin Alvarez, Associate Planner Joe Gaugush, Engineering Manager Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the April 18, 2000 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the April 18, 2000 minutes as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION � Mr. Drell summarized pertinent April 27, 2000 City Council actions. �.. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2, 2000 � , � � VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 98-14 - HAROLD JACOBS, BOB & ALICE ABT, AND GUY E. DREIER, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge Lots 31 and 32 for a private residence within Bighorn at 131 Wanish Place. B. Case No. PMW 00-01 - JOSEPH C. & KATHERINE E. COKER, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to eliminate an existing lot line and merge the fots for addition to site � improvements with the lot to the north for property located at 75-145 St. Charles Place, APNs 632-050-020 and 026. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he or she or someone else raised at the pubfic hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. CUP 99-10 Amendment #1 - CRYSTAL GOBLET CELLAR, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to CUP 99-10 to aflow an on-site consumption liquor license at the existing retail wine and � crystal store located at 73-200 EI Paseo, Suite 3C. � 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2, 2000 �. Mr. Alvarez explained that in October of 1999 the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit to allow a Type 20 offsale liquor license at 73-200 EI Paseo. This allowed the onsite sale of wines, ports and champagnes. At this time the applicant was requesting a Type 42 license which was onsale beer and wine license to allow onsite consumptio� via a tasting room which was proposed as an 81 square foot area within the 662 square foot retail store. The service would be provided strictly for customers wishing to taste the wines prior to purchase. Staff's position was that this small of an area would not create any impact to the tenants or to the parking in that location. The project was a Class 1 categorical exemption for CEQA purposes. Mr. Alvarez recommended approval of the amendment. Commissioner Finerty asked how many parking spaces were currently needed. Mr. Alvarez replied that the 662 square foot retail store needed three. Commissioner Finerty asked if he was anticipating any increase in parking. Mr. Alvarez said no, not with this small of a space. Regarding the calculation for occupancy, Commissioner Finerty asked if M�. Alvarez took 81 and divided it by 15. Mr. Alvarez said no, he was going by the numbers provided by the � applicant. On an average that was what they expected. Commissioner Finerty said that she thought that she had read that the applicant was using the number 10. Mr. Alvarez said that as a maximum in the store he saw the number six for that area. Commissioner Finerty referred to the Expanded Statement of Use which stated, "Due to the small size of the tasting room, roughly 10 people would be the maximum capacity." Mr. Alvarez read the sentence before that which said, "It is my belief that at any given time no more than six clients would be tasting." Commissioner Finerty asked Mr. Alvarez if he was suggesting that if the commission were to approve this that the maximum would be six persons per the staff report. Mr. Alvarez said yes, six in the tasting area. Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. ERIC KRUDER, from Crystal Goblet Cellar at 73-200 EI Paseo Suite 3C, stated that he was present to answer any questions. Commissioner Campbell stated that she went to look at the retail store today and she was shown by Mrs. Kruder exactly where the table for the wine ... tasting was located. She noted that the parking behind that area was almost 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2, 2000 empty and there was ample parking all the time. She felt proposal would be good for business. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Beaty asked for commission comments or action. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, � approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planni�g Commission Resolution No. 1985, approving CUP 99-10 Amendment #1 , subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. B Case No. CUP 00-05 - AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES, Applicant , Request for approval of a conditional use permit to install a 50- „� foot high wireless communication tower camouflaged as an artificial Washingtonia Robusta tree at 72-885 Highway 111 (Palms to Pines East Shopping Center). Property is zoned PC-3 S.P., Planned Commercial (Regional) and is also particularly described as APN 640-170-008. Mr. Alvarez informed commission that the project was located at 72-885 Highway 111 and was known as the Palms to Pines Shopping Center East which fronted on both Highway 111 and EI Paseo. The request was to install a 50-foot high wireless communication tower. He explained that the location was basically behind the buildings that front on EI Paseo. The tower would be 50 feet high and camouflaged as an artificial Washingtonia Robusta. As conditioned by ARC, two live Washingtonia Robusta palm trees would be placed in the same planter. The ordinance allowed these types of towers in the planned commercial zone with specific development and performance standards. Those were outlined in the staff report. With the exception of one standard, which was the separation distance of 300 feet from residential property, the project met those standards. The project as proposed was 197 ; feet to the north of the existing Sandpiper residential project. Mr. Alvarez explained that the proposed tower would be behind the La Jolla Patio Furniture 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2, 2000 �.. Store. It was 197 feet from the base of the tower to the property line of the adjacent residential property. The issue was the separation. There were some findings that could be made in staff's opinion to allow for an exception to the separation distance. Those findings were addressed on page 3 of the staff report. With the camouflaging technique and the clustering of the palm trees staff believed the tower would bfend in with the existing project. He noted that there were palm trees in the existing shopping center as well as on EI Paseo. Mr. Alvarez informed commission that a letter of no objection was received from the homeowners' association. That letter was included with the staff report. With the use of this innovative camouflaging technique, staff felt the exception could be made. A similar type of palm tree was approved by Planning Commission on Cook Street and Merle. The only difference was that tree simulated a date palm. The proposal was for a Washingtonia Robusta. Mr. Alvarez indicated that the project was a Class 3 categorical exemption for CEQA purposes and recommended approval of the project, subject to the conditions attached to the draft resolution. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there were several Sandpiper Homeowners' � Associations. Mr. Alvarez said that there were quite a few. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the letter represented all of them. Mr. Alvarez said no, it represented the one directly adjacent to the property. Mr. Drell indicated that it was the one located within 300 feet. Commissioner Jonathan asked how far the pole would be to the closest residence. Mr. Alvarez guessed the distance to be 230 or 240 feet. Commissioner Jonathan asked for the exact location of the one at Cook and Merle. Mr. Alvarez stated that it is located behind the U.S. Mini Storage facility at the northeast corner of Merle and Cook. Chairperson Beaty noted that was the location of the tree that the commission had requested to be untied. Mr. Alvarez informed commission that he had contacted that applicant, Nextell Communications, and they were well aware of it. Commissioner Jonathan asked how tali that tree was. Mr. Alvarez said that one was 60 feet. Commissioner Finerty asked Mr. Alvarez why Architectural Review Commissioner Van Vliet voted no. Mr. Alvarez said that Commissioner Van Vliet was not satisfied with the height. He wanted it lower and he tried asking for it to be on the tops of buildings, but that didn't satisfy the requirements of the applicant as far as height. '�..i 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION . MAY 2, 2000 Commissioner Lopez asked for confirmation that there would be a totai of three trees. Mr. Alvarez said that was correct. There would be the psoposed artificial tree and two live palm trees. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there were samples of this proposed tree in the desert. Mr. Alvarez said he wasn't aware of one. There were date palms, but not this type. He pointed out a material sample board on display that showed the material for the pole and the palm fronds. Chairperson Beaty asked if there was an agreement that the live trees would be trimmed, maintained and watered. Mr. Alvarez said there was a landscaping maintenance agreement that the applicants would sign and adhere to. Chairperson Beaty asked if it was the applicant's responsibility or the ' responsibility of the shopping center. Mr. Alvarez referred the question to the applicant. Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. DAVE LEONARD, a consultant representing AT&T Wireless Services, informed commission that this was their first time processing an application in the city of Palm Desert and stated that they always appreciated staff's efforts in guiding them through the process. He thought they had come up with a very fine project. He stated that normally they had an equipment shelter located adjacent to a pole which contained panels and basically the computer brain that operated the pole. In this instance they had the benefit of having space inside the shopping center building so there wouldn't be an exterior structure. In response to earlier questions he believed the commission would find a palm very similar to the proposal if not exactly like it by Nextell near Palm Springs Motors in Cathedral City. He said they would also be doing another mono-palm facility at that location and that was one that was very similar. Also in terms of the landscaping they would be "on the hook" and they would have a condition for it, but he wouldn't be surprised if they contracted out with the shopping center so that there was unity in the maintenance between the shopping center and this site in terms of the daily operation. He said they reviewed the conditions of approval and were in agreement with all of them and asked for any questions. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2, 2000 � Commissioner Jonathan asked if the applicant had any experience with the wearability of this product. For example, how long it would look like a palm tree. Mr. Leonard noted that this whole industry was in its infancy so the best he could provide for an answer was that he has seen mono-palms that had been in place for up to five years. They really weren't around before then and they were still in good shape. He thought that the industry standard for these was improving every day. They used to have massive trunks and now they were streamlining them more and they were starting to get texture. While they obviously looked like manufactured trees, they were actually starting to look more like trees. To the extent that they have lasted for five years, they were in good shape, at least the ones he observed were. He said that time would tell. He also noted that they had a maintenance program with these facilities so that if the simulated fronds started to tear or blow off, they would replace them from time to time to make sure it remained like a tree and they would even untie them if it was tied to begin with once �r.r it was installed. Commissioner Jonathan said his concern was that it would be 50 feet high and with the winds in this area as well as the baking of the sun, etc., they would probably have a tendency to wear faster here than in other locations. The maintenance was an issue. Mr. Leonard agreed that was a good point, particularly for this area, and their maintenance was on two-week intervals. Chairperson Beaty asked when a pole would be installed out in the center of the valley. He noted that there were some bad areas out there for users. He mentioned the Cook and Country Club area as an example. Mr. Leonard said they had a substantial network coming in. Chairperson Beaty stated that he was very impressed with the technology and he thought it spoke for itself that Commissioner Jonathan hadn't noticed the one since it had been there about a year. He said the live tree looked te►rible, but the artificial antenna tree looked great. He noted that there was an agreement for maintenance and that was a condition. � 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2, 2000 1 � 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. Chairperson Beaty asked for comments or action from the commission. Commissioner Jonathan asked staff which condition covered the maintenance aspect. Mr. Alvarez said that Condition No. 7 addressed it since it was a landscaping project. Commissioner Jonathan said that he was concerned about the pole itself and the fronds. He asked that the wording be spruced up. Mr. Drell said that in the agreement that the applicant signs, staff would customize that agreement to include the maintenance of the artificial tree. Commissioner Jonathan stated that in that event, he would move for approval. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Cornmissioner . Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1986, approving CUP � � 00-05, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. .,� C. Case No. PP 00-06 - ROBERT RICCIARDI for JOHN OATEY AND MARY OATEY, Applicants Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and a precise plan to construct a 7,430 square foot medical office building located at 10 Village Court. Mr. Smith noted that the site plan and building elevations were on display. He indicated that Village Court was at the east end of the city immediately adjacent to the city of Indian Wells north off of Highway 1 1 1 . This was a parcel on the east side of Village Court approximately 1 ,000 feet north of the highway. The proposal was for a medical office building af 7,430 square feet in two phases. The property itself was 191 by 148 feet. The building was oriented to Village Court with parking located to the north, south and west. Access driveways were provided at the north and at the south ends of the property and there would be mutual access driveways with the properties to the north and the south. There was a condition requiring the granting of appropriate easements to assure that. Architectural Review Commission �1 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2, 2000 ` granted preliminary approval at its meeting of March 28, 2000. Parking was consistent with the six spaces per 1 ,000 feet for medical office use. Findings for approval of a precise plan were outlined on page 3. Staff recommended certification of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and approval of the project. Commissioner Jonathan concurred with Mr. Smith's comments about the architectural design being somewhat less than inspired and he noted on the east elevation that there didn't seem to be any improvements. Furthermore, while the surrounding buildings were pleasing aesthetically, this one still seemed to lack some of the little touches in the drawings. He asked if there had been any creative modifications. Mr. Smith said that the ARC action required additional work on the east elevation which had not been performed up to this point in time. They would be seeing improvements on the east elevation. Commissioner Jonathan asked if that was the only requirement at this point. Mr. Smith said that was the action that ARC took. Chairperson Beaty o�ened the public hearing and asked if the applicant was r. present. There was no response. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one. Chairperson Beaty closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would be in favor of either continuing the matter or denying the application. He felt that the building in its present form architecturally was lacking and would be a downgrade from the existing development. Commissioner Finerty concurred. Chairperson Beaty asked if there was a motion. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the commission wished to continue the matter to give the applicant a chance to come back in a month, to the first meeting in June. Commissioner Campbell asked if that would be enough time. Mr. Smith pointed out that the architecture was approved by the association in place out there. Mr. Drell said that the same comment was brought up at ARC and the architect's explanation was that these were the same details of the existing buildings. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would like to hear from the applicant. � Mr. Drell said that while the applicant would have desired to be a little more 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION � MAY 2, 2000 innovative, the requirement of the association was to build the building just like the ones that were already there. He guessed the issue was if there were details on the existing building which were absent from the proposal. Commissioner Jonathan felt that was a question the commission should be able to put to the applicant. Commissioner Jonathan said he would move to continue the matter to the first meeting in June. Chairperson Beaty reo�ened the public hearing and asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, continuing Case No. PP 00-06 to June 6, 2000, by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. D. Case No. VAR 00-01 - DAVID AND ROSALINA REYES, Applicants Request for approval of a variance to the required front setback from 14 � feet to 3 feet for a carport structure in front of the residence at 77-290 � Indiana Avenue, APN 637-243-002. Mr. Smith explained that in April of 1999 approval was given to construct a carport at 77-290 Indiana Avenue. The construction did not begin for some time. In February 2000 the Building Department granted an extension to the building permit that had been pulled. Mr. Smith stated that there was a copy of the approval in the commission's packet, as well as reproductions of photographs of the carport structure. He said that there was some confusion as to how far back the carport needed to be set. It was noted on the plans that there were 41 feet of distance from the curb to the existing dwelling. He said that when looking at the carport on the site, it was obvious that there was never 41 feet there. He said that the Building Department did an initial footing inspection on February 8, 2000 and passed it. On April 4 they were called back to do a framing inspection and that inspector questioned the setback of the structure. Subsequently the applicant filed this variance request. He explained that the required front ya�d setback in this zone was 20 feet. They were allowed a shading device to encroach up to six feet into the required setback, hence the requirement of 14 feet. As indicated the structure , is at about three from the property line. Mr. Smith noted that there is a 12- foot parkway so the distance between the curb and the edge of the carport is 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2, 2000 �r.. about 15 feet. Staff circulated notices of this hearing to property owners within 300 feet. The applicant brought staff a petition or statement signed by five of his neighbors supporting the application. Staff received one letter of objection from the property owner at 43-490 Illinois, which was east of this location on the next street, but it was within 300 feet. He also noted that there was a letter from Marilyn Hamlet, the President of the Palm Desert Country Club Association, saying that they never received an application for the construction of the carport nor for any variances. Staff's recommendation was to continue this to allow the applicant to process the request through the homeowners' association. When the applicant got through with that process, then the city would take up the process again. Mr. Smith suggested that ihe matter be continued to June 6, 2000. Chairperson Beaty o�ened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Alvarez stated that the applicant was present and he would be interpreting for him. �.. MR. DAVID REYES, 77-290 Indiana Avenue, addressed the commission. Commissioner Finerty said that when she went to look at the carport, part of the structure was in the grass and the other side of the carport was in the dirt. There was a small portion of asphalt but it was in terrible shape. She asked if there were any plans to install a driveway. Mr. Reyes informed commission that he does have plans to install concrete the whole width of the carport area. Commissioner Lopez asked if the applicant understood the process with the homeowners' association and what he needs to do. Mr. Reyes said he was not aware of the process, but now he was aware of it and would be making contact with them. Commissioner Campbell asked if the carport would be painted the same color as the house. .. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2, 2000 � � Mr. Reyes said that he had the paint to do both the residence and the carport, but he was waiting for a decision. Chairperson Beaty asked for a clarification. The original approval noted that it was per setbacks noted. He asked if that was given to Mr. Reyes in writing and how he would have known that. He asked if they were noted on Mr. Reyes' plan. Mr. Smith said there was a copy of the plan as it was approved and it noted the 41 feet, the 26 feet and the 15. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the matter. There was no one and the public hearing was left open. Chairperson Beaty asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Jonathan asked if in the event the homeowners' association approved the carport as is, if staff's recommendation would be to grant an exception from the ordinance. Because if staff was opposed, then the homeowners' association action was superfluous and perhaps the item didn't � need to be continued. Mr. Smith said that he indicated in the staff report that ' they would have difficulty making finding "C;" it wasn't an impossibility, but � it would be difficult. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was a sufficient possibility that staff would recommend allowing an exception to warrant the continuance and the applicant's expenditure of time and effort to work with the association. Mr. Drell said that the overall policy with these sorts of variances, especially where there were associations, was to tend to try and defer to the opinion of the association. There might be other design issues that could be suggested to make it Iook more like part of the house and there could be other suggestions to make it stick out less than it does. Given the fact that it exists he felt they should explore every avenue and they should see if the neighborhood could feel if it was acceptable or not. Commissioner Finerty suggested that one of the design aspects that the association might look at was the height of the carport, which was actually higher than the edge of the �oof where it meets. So they had the roof coming down and the carport extending about six inches above that so that it clearly looked like it didn't fit, but at 43-480 Illinois there was a carport there that fit in really nicely. The trim was all the same and it blended very well. Mr. Drell felt that given that the carport exists, they should investigate all the , possibilities. ' t ! � 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2, 2000 �.. Commissioner Campbell said that right now it stood out iike a sore thumb, but once it was painted it could blend in. She felt that with the concrete driveway and improved landscaping, it would help. Mr. Drell said that to a certain extent, especially with carports, the ordinance specifies that they should have two covered spaces. Without taking out a bedroom that couldn't be done. He thought that at some time in the distant past there was probably a one car garage there which was converted to a room. Probably long before the applicant bought the house. In those situations where an applicant was trying to comply with one part of the code which said he was supposed to have two covered spaces, and obviously covered spaces was a desirable thing to have out here in the desert, so that was why they tried to work with people the best they could. Commissioner Lopez said that considering that this has gone through several steps here, he thought it looked like there was some sharing of burden here as it pertained to fault. He asked if the worst case scenario was that this had to come down, if there was any area where the financial burden should be shared. Mr. Dreil stated that was a question for the City Attorney and he �••• would probably want to give that answer to the commission in closed session. Mr. Erwin concurred that he would prefer to discuss this issue in closed session if the commission wished to discuss this issue. Chairperson Beaty asked if there were any other comments or a motion. Commissioner Jonathan felt that it made sense to continue the matter to give the applicant the opportunity to work with the association and neighbors. He asked how much time would be appropriate. Mr. Smith said that staff was suggesting a continuance to June 6, 2000. Chairperson Beaty asked if staff knew if there was an association meeting between now and June 6. Mr. Smith didn't know. Commissioner Jonathan suggested the continuance to June 6 and if the applicant needed more time, it could be continued again. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, continuing VAR 00-01 to June 6, 2000 by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Alvarez relayed the information to the applicant. The applicant thanked the commission. r.. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 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 recomrnend 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 appraval of the parking modification, the � commission couldn't approve the expansion of the building. Staff's 14 MINUTES 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/Mclntosh 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/Mclntosh Architects prior to the city annexing the subject property. While under County r..r 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 vaiues 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 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION .; MAY 2, 2000 .J 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 MINUTES 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 firying to keep service to the community. Part of the second building was really to take care of his own statf 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 poputation. : Commissioner Campbell asked how many people Dr. Kerrigan had on his staff. r.. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2, 2000 Dr. Kerrigan informed commission that he now had 23 or 24 and then 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. Kerrigan said they 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. Commissione� 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 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2, 2000 �r.. 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 0'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. `o. 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 O'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 O's customers. �.. 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 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 topez stated that he also concurred with staff. Looking at the area itself, he thought this building a�chitecturally would add to the environment at this local, but he did have a problem with the parking situation. He felt that if Don 0'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 fo� 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 MINUTES 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 councif 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 O'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 prefe► 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 i.. 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 O.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 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2, 2000 square foot single story office building on the property known as 44-550 San Pablo. Mr. Smith apologized to the commission for not having the mapping in the packet originally. He indicated the area on the east side of San Pablo which was the area that was subject to the proposed general plan amendment and zone change. He also pointed out where the zone change itself was applied, which was the property at the southwest corner of San Gorgonio and San Carlos. He also ind+cated that the designated three lots on the east side of San Pablo were the three parcels which initiated this whole process in that staff had a request from Mr. Karcher to put an office complex on those three lots and in order to get to that application they needed to go through these other two steps, hence the applications before the commission. He said that all the properties were currently zoned R-3. If they were to go to office use or the Karcher proposal, the way to do it was through the amendment to the . general plan and the zone change. He pointed out that San Pablo Avenue is carrying a higher volume of traffic every year and it was becoming less desirable for residential development. Office professional use had been used as an effective transitional use between heavily trafficked streets and residential uses. That had been done on Fred Waring, on Monterey and on Deep Canyon. Staff felt it was appropriate to proceed with the general plan land use amendment and the zone change to office professional. Staff tafked with the various property owners in that area and they were on board and they supported the application. Some of them wrote to staff and their letters were included with the staff report. Mr. Smith indicated that the precise plan proposal by Mr. Karcher had 260 feet of frontage with a depth of about 1 14 feet. This depth varied depending upon the amount of street widening that had previously been taken. He noted that the middle lot of the three was somewhat shorter than the others and that was through some County taking of the frontage of the property. He said that Public Works would entertain vacating some of that back to the applicant. He noted that the front setback varied from 14 feet to 28 feet as a result of that, but for commission's purposes they needed to keep in mind that the buildings would be 33 feet back from the curb consistently. The curb wouldn't change. He said they were looking at a 5,700 square foot single story building. Its height ranged from 13 feet at the flat end. He said that the peaked hip roof section at its top was 24 feet. He noted that the landscape plan and elevations were on display, as well , as a material sample board. The maximum height in the O.P. zone was 25 feet. Due to its design it had a lot less impact than a typical 24-foot building. 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2, 2000 i.. He indicated that the site plan was iaid out with parking to the north and the building to the south. There were 36 parking spaces of which 20 would be covered with carports. As indicated, there were 36 spaces and only 23 were required, so they were considerabiy over parked. Mr. Smith stated that the Public Works Department in their conditions requested or required that the northerly driveway be deleted. He said it would still have one access and would function just fine. The concern was ihat it would almost align with the street to the west, Guadalupe, and they wanted to avoid that situation. Staff's conclusion was that it was appropriate to do the zone change and general plan amendment. Mr. Smith felt the precise plan would be a quality office development which would fit i�to the neighborhood. The project had been reviewed and was given preliminary approval by ARC. The zone change and general plan amendment were reviewed through ZORC and they endorsed the proposal. He recommended certification of the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and of the project. He noted that in the draft resolution at page two, the second item whe�e they were approving the general plan and the change of zone, he wanted to insert the words "as shown on Exhibit 6." �,,., Chairperson Beaty o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. CARL KARCHER, 72-875 Fred Waring Drive in Palm Desert, said his intent was to build his own office complex with a couple of rental spaces and it obviously needed rezoning. He thought that Mr. Smith covered everything. He felt it would be a very nice facility and would be the gateway to City Hall and hopefully would set the tone for future office professional buildings along San Pablo in the future. Commissioner Campbell asked if Mr. Karcher had any intention of buying the homes on eithe� side of that property, to the north and to the south. Mr. Karcher said there was just one home to the south and his understanding was that the broker that he uses contacted Fitzhenry Funera! Home which was on the corner and Fitzhenry was expressing interest in possibly buying that and building an office or putting in a better entrance to their facility. Commissioner Campbell asked about the home to the north. i..► 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2, 2000 ' Mr. Karcher said he did not purchase that home. He was just dealing with the three empty lots. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the p�oposal. MR. DEREK ZIMMERMAN add�essed the commission and stated he was also speaking on behalf of his wife, who was also present. They both owned property at 44-667 San Pablo and 44-795 San Pablo. He said they were very much in favor of the project and the proposal. They felt that San Pablo needed to have future development and the office concept was ideal for San Pablo because they were having more and more traffic there and a residential type of use was not desirable with the way San Pablo was right now. They were in favor of the proposal and were looking forward to having it in the neighborhood. Chairperson Beaty closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments or action. � Commissioner Campbell stated that she was in favor of the project and would � move for approval. Commissioner Finerty said she would second that. She felt the project blended in very well with the neighborhood. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he felt this was an absolutely ideal utilization of that land, not just in terms of planning but in terms of a precise plan office that would make the city proud. There was excess parking and it was everything that he would ever want in an application. Commissioner Campbell noted that the height was one story, not two. Commissioner Jonathan concurred and felt that everything he could ask for was there. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, , adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1988, recommending to City 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2, 2000 �r.. Council approval of GPA 00-02, C/Z 00-03 and PP 00-05, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. REQUEST FOR A DETERMINATtON OF USE NOT LISTED TO ALLOW A DESIGNER FURNITURE SHOWROOM TO APPLY FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT tN THE OFFtCE PROFESSIONAL ZONE. Mr. Drell stated that currently in the O.P. zone art galleries were a listed use and the request was whether interior design showrooms from a land use intensity point of view were sufficiently similar to an art gallery for them to be able to apply as a conditional use in the O.P. zone. Commissioner Jonathan said that for purposes of determining whether he needed to abstain or not, he needed to know if the matter before the commission was of a general nature or whether it applied to the northwest � corner of Cook and Sheryl specifically. Mr. Drell said it was actually of a general nature. If a determination of use was made, it did set a precedent so although a potential candidate would be the O.P, property there, all the commission was saying was that as a general principle, an O.P. zoned property could apply for a CUP. Mr. Erwin recommended that he abstain. Commissioner Jonathan said that he would abstain. Commissioner Campbell thought that there were showrooms for window coverings and those kinds of uses already allowed in the O.P. zone. After further discussion it was determined that those existing uses were in the S.I. zone, which allowed businesses catering to the construction industry. Mr. Drell said that the things they were proposing were included in a typical designer showroom but weren't included in the current listing of uses allowed in the O.P. zone. Chairperson Beaty asked Mr. Baxley if he had any comments. Mr. Baxley stated that he was present to answer any questions. Chairpe�son Beaty asked for commission action. ... 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2, 2000 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, allowing a designer furniture showroom to apply for a conditional use permit in the O.P. zone by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained.) B. REQUEST FOR EXCESS STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION FOR A PORTION OF SAN PABLO QVENUE SOUTH OF CATALINA WAY. Mr. Gaugush stated that this dealt with property directly north of the previous application for Mr. Karcher. There was a situation where there was excessive right-of-way and the applicant had requested that some of the property be released back. Staff was recommending that most of it be given back and was asking for a general plan conformity action to recommend that to the city council. Chairperson Beaty asked Mr. Rexrode, the applicant, if he had anything he'd like to add. Mr. Rexrode indicated that this would allow them to move forward with the Karcher office professional development. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, by minute motion determining that the subject abandonment is in conformity with the City's General Plan. Motion carried 5-0. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (April 19, 2000) Commissioner Campbell informed commission that Mr. Tim Bartlett gave a presentation on the proposed new art gallery on the corner of Highway 1 11 and Portola. They also had a presentation for the Desert Willow bus shelter design and concept. They chose one out of three that were presented. B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2, 2000 +... D. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (No meeting) E. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) F. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) G. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (April 19, 2000) Mr. Smith indicated that the discussion involved accessory buildings in rear yards. XI. COMMENTS Commissioner Jonathan commented that the design from Chris McFadden that the commission saw earlier tonight was very nice. He noted that there were times when he commented that they wouldn't know what a building would look like, but this one was really nice. Commissioner Lopez agreed. � Commissioner Jonathan knew that staff couldn't always ask for that level, but it was sure nice to see. X11. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:23 p.m. PHILIP DRELL, ecretary ATTEST: n PAUL R. BEATY, Chairperso Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm ... 27 EXHI6IT A 0 W N E R S A P P R 0 V A L This plcn is conceptually cpproved cs is / as noted: Dro. Fronk ond/or Jonet Kerrigan Date A R E A T A 8 U L A T I 0 N S � Firat Floor Leasable Areo ............ 1890 sq. R. � Second Floor Leaseoble Areo ...... 1678 sq. ft. Totot Leoaeable Area (New) ........ 3568 aq. tt. Mech. / Miac. ................................. 125 aq. ft. Building Total ............................... 3693 sq. ft. Totol Lot Arec �•. 34678 aq. ft. or 0.79 acre Exiating 8uilding Floor A�ea � ..... 5794 sq. ft. Propoaed Building Leaae Space* .. 3139 aq. ft. Building Coveroge � .. 9487 aq. ft. or 27.4 X Hardacape ................. 18096 sq. ft. or 52.2 X . Landacoping ............... 7095 sq. ft. or 20.4 X OP A R K I N G T A 8 U L A T I 0 N S (Scenario 1 — Original Ordinance — All Medical) Bldg. A* (4925 / 200 aq. ft.) = 24.63 Spacea Bldg. B FI�. 1• 1607 / 250 aq. ft.� = 6.43 + 81dg. 8 Flr. 2• �1426 / 250 sq. ft.) � 5.70 or 37 Totol Required • 38 parking apacea provided. (Scenario 2 — Curcent Ordinance) Bldg. A• 4925 / 167 aq. ft. = 29.55 Spacea 81dq. 8• 3033 / 167 sq. ft.� = 18.2 Spacea or O . 48 Total Requi�ed ' 38 porlcing apacea provided. (Scenario 3 — Origincl + New .Ordinance — All Medical) Bldg. A• (4925 / 200 aq. ft.) = 24.63 Spacea Bldg. B• (3033 / 167 aq. ft.) � 18.2 Spacea or 43 Toto1 Required * 38 par{cing spacea provided. ' Leaa occessory uae apcce per Sec. 1002 UBC. Accessory epcces are defined aa Bathrooma� Closets and Hollways. Maximum 15R Grosa F.A. •*Overoll areos afe calculated within property lines based on Lot Survey prepared by Cal— West Engineering� May 1994 � � � Meoaured orea ot footprint of Lecse Space � (Conditioned + Mechcniccl) Facilities. � 1 � � _ s � �