Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1017 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - OCTOBER 17, 2000 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER Vice Chairperson Lopez called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Jonathan led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jim Lopez, Vice Chairperson Sonia Campbell Cindy Finerty Sabby Jonathan Members Absent: Paul Beaty, Chairperson err Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager Mark Greenwood, Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the October 3, 2000 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the October 3, 2000 minutes as submitted. Motion carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained). V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent October 12, 2000 City Council actions. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2000 I 9 VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 00-19: MAINIERO, SMITH, AND ASSOCIATES, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge two parcels into one parcel. Property is on the north side of Gerald Ford Drive between Monterey Avenue and Portola Avenue. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he/she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case Nos. GPA 00-4, C/Z 00-07, PP 00-11, and VAR 00-06 - CHARLES K. SWEET, Applicant Request for recommendation to the City Council of approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact, general plan amendment from medium density residential to office professional, change of zone from PR-7 (planned residential 7 units per acre) to O.P. (Office professional), a precise plan of design for a 64,521 square foot office complex (three (3) two- story office buildings) and height exception to allow a 30-foot high building on the north side of Fred Waring Drive 330 feet west of Fairhaven Drive. The application includes a request for joint use parking with the University Baptist Church located on the northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Fairhaven Drive, 72-600 Fred Waring Drive. to 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2000 tow Mr. Smith stated that a revised site plan in the form of an 8 Y2 x 11 copy had been passed out to commission. The changes on this site plan are relevant to the setbacks for the two buildings immediately adjacent to Fred Waring Drive. On the plans included in the packet, the setback was shown 32' behind the property line. The revised plan has that at 25'. Both plans would comply with the ordinance setback requirements. A line-of-sight drawing building height analysis is on the 11 x 17 sheet, also for review. The property in question is on the north side of Fred Waring Drive, just west of Fairhaven. When the Pearl Industries proposal was reviewed last year, which also fronted on Park View Drive, it initially started out as a 13-acre project and on this site the applicant had shown a skilled nursing facility. Through input from the neighborhood and a variety of other reasons, that part of the project was dropped. This piece of the property was left out so that the approved facility on the 10 acres stands on its own and we therefore have this 2.7 acre piece left. The property is surrounded by the Baptist church on the east, One Quail Place on the north and the west and is across the street from the Trader Joe's Center. The property is currently zoned residential, PR-7, seven units per acre. Part of this application requires an amendment to the general plan and a change of zone, in order that the rest of the application can proceed. That request is to change both general plan and zoning to office professional. Staff feels that findings necessary for the approval for the general plan and change of zone can be met and that it fronts onto a busy Fred Waring Drive, which is seeing higher traffic volumes every year. In fact, the city is processing plans currently to widen the bridge to the west and subsequently widen Fred Waring in each direction. Office Professional is typically used as a transitional land use between heavily trafficked streets and residential uses and this, staff feels, will certainly fix the bill. Staff will recommend approval of the general plan change and the change of zone to Office Professional. The Precise Plan in the form of the landscape plan is displayed. The applicant provided a rendering of the architecture and the site, which is displayed on the table. The proposal is for three two-story buildings on the parcel. The two smaller 24' buildings adjacent to Fred Waring Drive, are now proposed at 25' of setback from the property line, while indicated at 32' in the staff report. The main larger, higher building is located toward the north of the back end of the site. Access is taken from Fred Waring Drive right in, right out only. There will also be a secondary access through the church parking lot to the east and onto Fairhaven Drive. Fairhaven Drive will only exit southerly to Fred Waring Drive. There is no discussion or intention to alter the existing the closed street situation on Fairhaven Drive north of the church property. The applicant proposes to utilize the joint used 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2000 parking authority provided for under the municipal code, in that they were proposing to create on their own site 127 parking spaces. With the revision to the site plan, moving the two buildings seven feet closer to Fred Waring Drive, they are able to add ten parking spaces to the site plan. That is one of the improvements which they are presenting us with. In addition, the applicant proposes to utilize 141 spaces on the church parking lot. Part of the agreement with the church requires that they improve the parking lot up to current city standards and that they put in carports over a majority of the parking spaces. One of the conditions that staff would place on it requires that they enter into a recorded covenant acceptable to the city attorney that would guarantee in perpetuity the availability of that parking. It was discussed in the report the fact that it was slightly below 50% of the total required parking on the subject property. That problem goes away with the additional ten parking spaces on the revised plan. The applicant has been before Architectural Review Commission several times. At the first meeting, commission generally felt that the architectural elements of the large building at the north end of the property, which was then proposed at 25' in height, with the tower elements extending to 32', were generally out of proportion and it was suggested that the applicant go back to redesign. There was suggestion that height be increased to take care of the proportionality concerns. The applicant returned with the plans, now on display, with the 30' height building with a tower element which extends 12' above that. Those plans were given preliminary approval by ARC on a 6:1 vote with Commissioner Lingle voting nay. Commissioner Lingle's feeling was that they should live within the 25'. The O.P. district standards which create a maximum of 25' building height, were originally established to create a transitional zone between arterial streets and residential districts. Most of the O.P. zoned lots on Monterey and Fred Waring Drive are much smaller than the lot in question. A 10,000 square foot lot would be more typical. The lot in question is 2.7 acres. Staff feels that the 25' maximum height limit, while it is appropriate on the smaller lots, is not necessarily something should be adhered to with a large parcel at over 2 acres. The two-story building is proposed at 30' in height will be setback 56' and 73' from the two-story apartment complex to the north and west and is set back 158' from Fred Waring Drive and is behind two smaller buildings, as seen in the line-of sight drawing. To the east is the existing church facility and the parking lot. To the east of the church are the nearest residential units which are 480' further away. The findings for the approval of the change of zone and the precise plan are outlined on page 5 and 6. Staff feels they can be affirmed. Staff also 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2000 feels that the findings for the approval of the height variance of the building can be affirmed. Generally the findings for the approval of the variance are based on the uniqueness of the location of the property, its size, and the fact that it is across the street from commercially zoned properties. A letter of concern was received from David Middleton and Kathleen Huggins, of 72799 Arbolita, which is included in the report. They expressed concerns about traffic noise, trash, and the height exception. Generally we feel that the change in zone and general plan amendment to office professional is appropriate. We feel the precise plan, as designed, is appropriate. At the Environmental Review, there will be a negative declaration of environmental impact prepared and staff recommend that it be certified or commission recommend it be certified to the city council. Staff recommends approval. Commissioner Campbell inquired about how the Baptist Church looks like a two-story building from the front and is a one story building in the back. Mr. Smith estimated the height of the front is 20-22'. Commissioner Campbell inquired about the height of the cross on the of the building, which it extends above the telephone pole height, possibly 20' above the height of the church. Mr. Smith does not know the exact height. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification about the joint use parking M.C. Section 25. "M.C." stands for Municipal Code. It was asked when the last time an arrangement such as this was required or if there are any properties which currently use this arrangement. Mr. Smith stated the joint use parking was used between the temple and the Latter-day Saints church but is unsure if it was a formal agreement with the city. Commissioner Jonathan disagreed that it was a joint use parking agreement. That was where it was determined that one adjacent property owner wasn't fully using the parking lot to allow an agreement to use a certain space. Is there a specific example? Mr. Drell stated that the section quoted above is the example, where an adjacent use is under utilized for most of the time, because of hours of operation. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the city has ever done anything close to this situation, where the applicant would have only 50% parking spaces on site if it wasn't for the special arrangement. Mr. Drell stated that when a restaurant is used as an accessory next to another project, such as in a center or next to a hotel, the restaurant is discounted by 50%. In essence, by virtue of a legal covenant, we are combining these uses and analyzing the demand based on the interaction of the two uses. The legal document will make this a common lot. Most of the time this joint parking use has been used on a smaller scale. it.. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2000 Commissioner Jonathan asked if there is a sample of this type of legal covenant, from the city attorney. Staff is unaware of a sample. They are not very complicated, but mutual parking agreements are fairly common such as in all of the centers. Commissioner Jonathan is asking because Conditions 19 and 21 are related to the parking accommodation and they specify that, "because of the parking requirement the applicant's business hours be limited to 8-5 Monday through Saturday. Furthermore, the building owner and employees will park in the church parking lot and leave the on-site parking for customers." This brings up issues regarding the agreement. There are issues of forcibility, and should there be a parking monitor out there. The perpetuity, is there a legal basis for that? It was thought that agreements of this nature had to be for a specific term. Mr. Drell said no. If Mr. Sweet cannot produce the agreement, then he cannot do the project as planned. Commissioner Jonathan stated that for example, if the church were to sell to a synagogue that needed parking on Saturdays, then either the new owners would be subject to the rules or there would be a problem. Mr. Drell stated that Mr. Sweet would need to restrict his use on Saturday rather than Sunday. Commissioner Jonathan inquired about the height of tower element being 12' above 30' with a total of 42' in height. Mr. Smith stated that was correct. Commission asked that when ARC recommended increasing the height, were they concerned about the line-of-sight or did they take that into consideration? Mr. Smith commented that they did not have the line-of-sight drawing before then, but the architects on ARC have a basic understanding of that. Commissioner Campbell inquired about the line-of-sight for the tower that has been allowed by ARC, the building is 157' from Fred Waring, where would the tower be? Mr. Smith said it would be about 200' in from Fred Waring. Commission asked about Condition 12, regarding the parking agreement. The report indicates that the entire parking lot would be brought to current standards. Mr. Smith said that is correct and that a certain number of spaces are required to have carports as per the request from the church. Mr. Drell said that it is included in a letter from the church in which both parties executed, although it is not in the report. Commission does not require covered parking in a commercial lot. It was decided to add a condition to the report to bring the entire lot up to standard. Commission asked if the covered parking is for employees. Mr. Drell said that the covered parking is designed for the benefit for the church goers and will lure the employees to park in this 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2000 rr area rather than around the building. The covered parking would benefit both businesses. Vice Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. CHARLES K. SWEET, 43708 Virginia Ave, Palm Desert, discussed the expansion of Fred Waring into six lanes. When the design process began, Dick Folkers, the City Engineer, said that he would require a 12' right of way on the site, but he could not confirm that. The project was designed with the existing 12' easement plus a future 12' easement and designed the setbacks from there. It wasn't until this morning that Mr. Folkers confirmed that he would not require a right of way on the subject property because all of the expansion would be to the south. The curb and sidewalk will remain as it is currently after the expansion as well. Commissioner Finerty asked if the expansion is going to be on the south, as it was her understanding that it would be on the north. From east of Portola to Deep Canyon, it will all be on the north, but for Mr. Sweet, it will all be on the south. Mr. Drell asked what it will do to the setbacks as described. Mr. Sweet stated that because of that reason, they designed the site plan without the requested right of way and that is why there is an addendum. Mr. Drell clarified that this is how the buildings were allowed to be moved into that area and allowed the extra ten parking spaces. Mr. Sweet commented that this still meets the code requirements with regards to the setbacks. Therefore, they have more than 50% of the parking stalls on the 2.74 acre site. That was the background to the original setbacks at 12' & 12'. The new site plan yields an additional 10 parking spaces on the 2.74 acres, as indicated earlier. This project is also processing through the city with Pat Conlon, Head of Special Projects. They will be putting the existing power poles under ground and the project will bear the that cost. Those power poles will go rr 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2000 underground in front of the property. It will include the power poles in front of the Baptist church. It will also bear the cost of putting the poles under ground in front of the Jehovah's Witness church. Three separate properties. This cleans up that section of Fred Waring, which is the only section left with above ground power poles. Commissioner Jonathan brought up the joint use parking agreement. Mr. Sweet said that he did one with John Westmen for Charthouse, in Rancho Mirage, that worked out remarkably well, with the daytime user and night time user. Mr. Sweet was working with John on several other projects at the time. He had commented that the agreements had worked out well. In regards to the tower height at 42', as understood from staff, the equation for tower height could allow a 50' tower. However, they are trying to keep this building mass in proportion. Trying to maintain proportion was why ARC recommended going to 30', which they did, and developed a tower in an effort to maintain architectural proportion. However they are not at the allowable 50' since they feel it would be out of proportion. Submitted to staff earlier in the day, are the line-of- sight drawings, which are on display. Beyond that, they do have, in writing, with the University Baptist church, reciprocal parking easement. Their lawyer has initiated drafting the documents, but obviously, they will be on the city approved documents. Included in the agreement with the church is the improvement of all their land, except for the church building, per say. This includes all of their parking area, not just the covered parking area, all of their lighting, all of their landscape, and the office project will also do their maintenance for that parking lot. The way they look at this deal is they don't see it as a 2.7 acre office project, they look at it as a 4.5 acre office project and let the church use it on Sunday. The office project will bear the cost of the maintenance of their parking lot, landscaping, etc. Commissioner Campbell asked about the parking area by the church. Some of the area is asphalt and some is dirt. Do they still use that area for parking? Mr. Sweet answered by saying that yes, they use it for parking and there is a big portion of dirt out there. Commissioner Campbell asked if they ever finished that portion of the lot? 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2000 Mr. Sweet answered by saying no it was never finished. It is the original lot, 45 years old. It's almost all sand. Commissioner Campbell looked at that and thought it might be another parcel, instead it is their existing parking lot. It's on the corner of Fred Waring and Fairhaven. Did it used to be all asphalt before? Mr. Sweet answered no. That will all become parking. He explained using the drawing. Commissioner Campbell said that they are really improving that whole area. Commissioner Jonathan asked what is in the tower and what is it for. Mr. Sweet said that the intention is to design a very high tech building and not knowing what's coming down the road, as far as the technology industry. The tower will function as a GPS communicator, satellite communicator, etc. It will be a functional tower. In addition, they will run fiber optics into the building. It will be state of the art, whatever that high tech is at the time they get underway. You'll be able to do that high video conference in Germany within two seconds of hookup. It'll be fantastic. They have 10,000 square feet of users in letters of intent form now, which is quite unusual, since they usually don't get letters of intent this early in the planning stage. Vice Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. JUDY ROGERS, 43840 Fairhaven Drive, stated that she believed that the reason the room wasn't filled is because she doesn't know how many people got notified of the meeting. She was notified, as were her neighbors, and one other person who rents on Fairhaven. Ms. Rogers is of the neighborhood who strongly wanted to squash the effort of the senior center and have only reluctantly agreed to do it because there were several things done in their favor, they felt. They were never in favor of a 30' anything, anywhere near the property. They understand that they've seen all of the development in the city and all of the allowances that have been made that have never been made before as to height, density and that they're somewhat fighting a losing battle. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2000 Ms. Roger's main concern at this time is to always leave Fairhaven closed. They have also talked about vacating that street. It's becoming less apparent that might be an option because what separates Fairhaven and the church parking lot right now is a piece of wire through one of the driveways. There is no enforcement of that wire in the event that the parking for this structure becomes overwhelming. There is nobody to say, "No, you have to leave that wire up." No, there is nobody to say the driveway will not become useful. That is on the north side of the blockade leading into the residential area. Ms. Rogers has not heard that at all mentioned tonight. They are very concerned that the road stay blocked. It has been an enormous relief to have that in the neighborhood. The busier Fred Waring gets, the busier and noisier their home becomes. They have put enough money into their third acre parcel that they can't afford to move into the outlying areas where the development doesn't take place as rapidly as is taking place here. They are very concerned that the road will be opened and/or that the driveway will be opened. Again, nothing in this agreement has addressed that issue. As a resident there, if that becomes fact, it will destroy everything they have tried to work for. In fact, they feel that it will mean the end of their residential neighborhood and that they will continue to be overwhelmed with commercial business structures. Now, all along Fred Waring up until that point, there are structures for commercial office. None of them are 30' high and certainly none of them with a tower that reaches to 42'. One Quail place is not that high, which is backing up against that project. They don't know that the church wouldn't consent to allowing that driveway to be opened for traffic during the week with the business clientele. Ms. Rogers has not heard anything about how high the parking structure will be, how tall. Basically, if they are to accept business parking in a church parking lot where it is normally very quiet, they should have some assurances as a neighborhood that they will be taken care of as far as the driveway, either eliminated all together or that they will be assured that the road will never be reopened. MR. MARK GREENWOOD addressed the traffic and access concerns. Public Works Condition No. 12 does address the Fairhaven Drive driveway. It does point out that it is for emergency use only. To define emergency use that means an official emergency vehicle, police, fire, etc. The driveway will need to be gated, not just chained. The gate would have to be of substantial iron Nod 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2000 or steel, something similar to what is on the street now. It is the intent that commercial traffic not use Fairhaven. Mr. Drell asks, about there being a barricade on Fairhaven. Mr. Mark Greenwood stated that the street is barricaded and the two church driveways are chained at the church's desire. The balance is that if they leave them down, public traffic will use their parking lot and tear it up. They generally keep at least one of those driveways chained. Mr. Drell asked, long term, once it's absolutely clear that Fairhaven is going to stay closed, would it be appropriate, with the senior project conditions it had a provision for the vacation of Fairhaven and the construction of a permanent cul-de-sac. Mr. Greenwood stated that there is a problem of one house fronting on Fairhaven that makes the legal process of vacating very difficult. It could be done, but the one house would be trapped on the Fred Waring side of the closure. The owner has been adamant that they do not want to be on that side of the closure. There has been no reasonable way to get them a driveway. Commissioner Campbell asked if it is the house that is next to the Jehovah's Witness? She believes it is empty. Mr. Greenwood stated that he believes it is a rental, but the owner has made it clear that he does not wish to be on the Fred Waring side of the barricade. Vice Chairperson Lopez asked if the applicant would like to address the comments. PASTOR KEN SAVAGE, Pastor at the University Baptist Church, understands that they can open the cable for their own people to exit the services. That's what they have done and have been very careful. Except for times about every other week someone would in one way or another, take the cable down, so they have to put it back. Or in cases when people move the rocks that they put out so they can drive by on the curb. It's to their advantage to not to have traffic going through there. They don't want traffic going through there. They've tried to insist that they would like their people to be able to exit north at the time of the services other wise there are left turns onto Fred Waring which is very high traffic and very unsafe for the congregation. Commissioner Campbell asked if there has been any problem on Sundays with the neighbors when the congregation exit that way? 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2000 Pastor Savage said that there hasn't been more than ten people who exit that way. But they'd like to give them that option since it very unsafe to make a left turn. Commissioner Campbell asked if there had been any complaints when the congregation does that on Sundays? Pastor Savage has not had any complaints come to him. In fact, he stated that he's not even sure those who take the cable down aren't those who live in the neighborhood. If so, he'd like to know who they are. Commissioner Jonathon asked Pastor about how in the staff report it shows University Baptist Church (Pearl Industries). Is the church Pearl Industries? Pastor Savage said no. Commissioner Jonathon asked if the church owns the property. Pastor Savage stated that their region, American Baptist Churches of the Pacific Southwest that actually holds title to the property. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Pearl Industry is the regional church. Pastor Savage said no. That is the % acre was sold by the church to Pearl Industries. Commissioner Jonathan stated that the church is located directly adjacent. The church has services on Sunday, but do you have any other activities other than Sunday? Pastor Savage said yes. There are certain things during the evenings and small group meetings during the week at different times. Nothing major happens during the week, at this point. Commissioner Jonathan clarifies that there is limited evening use during the week and limited small group activity during the day. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2000 Vice Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone would like to address any of the comments made previously. Mr. Sweet would like to reassure Judy Rogers that through the process, they had no intention to open Fairhaven. That they would do everything they could to promote the well-being of their neighborhood, which they have made an effort to do. Commissioner Campbell asked if Mr. Sweet would be in favor of eliminating the driveway, that as the Pastor has said that he'd like his people to use that driveway on Sundays. Mr. Sweet said that is an issue between the Pastor and the neighborhood. It's the intention that none of the office project people use that driveway and that some sort of barricade would be required. Commissioner Campbell clarified that a barricade, more than the chain that is currently there. fir.. Mr. Sweet commented that they would use whatever type of barricade that is required. In the mind of Mr. Sweet, that driveway doesn't exist and the facility would be operated as such. Mr. Drell, in a question for Mr. Greenwood, stated given the Public Works condition number 12, it seems to preclude the use from the church, the driveway on Sunday. Mr. Greenwood answered that they understood or at least tried to look ahead at the neighborhood's concern about the commercial project and came down on the conservative side saying the driveway would have to be closed. If the church, project and neighborhood could come to an agreement, than they are certainly willing to comply. They are just trying to make sure that there is no impact to the neighborhood and this condition assured that absolutely. If there can be a softer position that makes everyone happy, then that is fine with them. Mr. Sweet commented that he feels they have gone over all the issues of the project and that is certainly the highest and best use. All up and down Highway 1 1 1 or Fred Waring Drive, in our city, there is not one building with the Spanish California Mission architecture. They all tow 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2000 believe this is a beautiful project in an excellent location. Mr. Sweet would respectfully request that this be approved tonight. Vice Chairperson Lopez closed the public hearing and asked the commissioners for their comments in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. Commissioner Campbell stated that when looking at the area, Fred Waring, and all the changes that are taking place, this project works very well in that particular area. Mr. Sweet has the right setback, which will be voted on later, building is 24' and setback is 25'. As far as the tower element is concerned, at 42' and the distance from Fred Waring, she doesn't think it's objectionable. As far as the cross on the top of the Baptist church, probably some people don't even notice it when they drive by, unless they look up-at it. Some of the complaints we've had from one of the neighbors, actually their front yard faces north with the back yard facing south. Yes, if they are sitting in their back yard, looking east or west, anything built there will impair the view. But she doesn't feel there is.any ground to stand on as far as that is concerned. She is in favor of the project, as it will improve that area. Commissioner Jonathan is substantially in agreement with Commissioner Campbell. Although he does have some major concerns. He likes the color, architecture, appearance, and he can live with the height situation. He has major problems with the parking. He understands using a parking provision, but when they are relying on 50% parking from another property. He feels it is a misuse of that provision, even a dangerous use. One reason is that even if the employees could be-convinced to go to the lotnext door, which is very difficult to do with tenants. This is not a small project, over 64,000 square feet. He's not sure if that can be policed. Even if it could, clients are not going to feel invited to park at the church. Mr. Sweet commented that this is one big project, but clients aren't going to feel that. So they may be left with a project that has half of the required parking. Furthermore, he's not convinced that the church can be relied on in the long term, because one cannot know what the next five or 20 years hold, that the programming might change. Before you know, it there will be demand for day use by the church. Again, that is a very untenable and nonfeasible situation. He is very concerned about there being a very significant parking shortage. This is too big a project for the size of the parcel. If it wasn't for the parking situation, he'd be in favor. 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2000 two Commissioner Finerty commented that there are definitely some pluses to the project. Changing the general plan and zoning to office professional makes sense. Improvements in the parking lot and the carports make sense. Putting the power poles under ground will take care of an eye sore. She cannot live with the height. The height limit is 25'. She agrees with Commissioner Lingle from ARC. The rules are here for a reason and we should live within them. She prefers the original plans. The tower does not fit, in her opinion. It looks as though it comes out of nowhere. A 24' building could be done in a nice architectural style, keeping it at two stories. Even if that were to happen, the parking problem would still exist. She shares Commissioner Jonathan's concerns with 50%. It does not seem reasonable or like it will work. She is against the project. Vice Chairperson Lopez is having a difficult time with both situations. He is concerned about the height. At 42', it is well above anything around there. The second issue is the parking. In a situation like this, with the size of the property and the land use, for someone to park their car far way would be in the heat of the summertime, to get the covered parking. The rest of the year, they will park as close as they can to the offices. Coming from a similar situation, trying to have people follow a parking guideline, without continuous policing, it is almost impossible to enforce. There is too much on the property right now. He is opposed to the project. Vice Chairperson Lopez asked the commission for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, instructing staff to prepare a resolution of denial for adoption on November 7, 2000. Motion carried 3-1 (Commissioner Campbell voted no). B. Case No. CUP/PP 00-11 and DA 00-02 - SCHMITZ ENTERPRISES, INC., Applicant Request for recommendations to the City Council of approval of a conditional area permit/precise plan, development agreement and negative declaration of environmental impact for a 23 room residential care facility for the elderly on a 24,150 square foot lot on the west side of San Rafael Avenue, 420 feet north of San Gorgonio Way, 44-555 San Rafael Avenue, APN 627-141-019. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2000 Mr. Smith explains the plans, colored site plan, colored elevations are on display. This is a request for approval of a conditional use permit. As indicated, the property is a vacant irregular shaped lot on the west side of San Rafael. It has a frontage of 120' by depth of 220', with an area of 24,150 square feet. The applicant proposes a 23 room residential care facility for the elderly which will provide room, meals, and personal services. The architecture is contemporary with heights ranging 12' - 14'. This is a low profile, single story building. The parking lot, at the southeast corner, will park eight cars. The applicant's intention is to not permit the residents to own vehicles. The parking lot will serve staff and visitor parking purposes. The lobby and entry faces the parking lot with a lounge, dining room, kitchen, laundry and linen area in the central area. The corridor runs east and west off of the lobby area to the 23 rooms. As noted in the report, project data table, the property is currently zoned R-3. The project doesn't meet those standards. Staff also took a-look at suggesting going the senior overlay route. The project does not meet some of those standards either, although to a lesser degree of nonconformity with the S.O. Specifically room size, density of the project and parking are the three areas of nonconformity. In the past, the city has looked at affordability as a justification for varying from certain standards. In return from varying from standards, the city has required a guaranty that the affordability provisions will continue for the life of the project. The applicant is currently requesting 44% increase above the density that would otherwise be permitted in the senior overlay district. At this point, staff was unable to find enough situations for examples to bring a recommendation. Because there are all of these various ends running askew, staff is looking for direction from commission. The applicant is present so he can discuss his view of the project and how affordable he can make it. In discussions with staff, the applicant had indicated that he thought he could bring in a project at about $500 a month under what Hacienda de Monterey is offering. When staff checked with Hacienda de Monterey and the Villas at Palm Desert last week, staff found that they were offering services in the range of $2000 a month. Staff felt that this project should be coming in at around $1500 a month. In discussions with the applicant today, he may be having difficulty achieving that $1500 level. He can discuss that with you tonight. The question that staff has for commission is that once you hear from the applicant, is this something you wish to pursue? If so, how should we approach it and define the affordability provisions for this project? Staff has outlined four possible directions on pages two and three. 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2000 Vice Chairperson Lopez asked what was the procedure for this type of application? It does not appear that this went through ARC. Mr. Smith said that this did go through two or three meetings at ARC and was ultimately approved with the change of the roof style from tile to the metal seam roof. ARC was not inclined to approve the earlier versions. It was not directed to the metal seam roof, but when it was presented, it was deemed acceptable. Vice Chairperson Lopez clarified if the metal seam roof was approved and by what kind of vote. Mr. Smith said that it was approved and believes it was unanimous. Vice Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. HARRY SCHMITZ, the applicant, has built a number of senior apartments in Palm Desert and owns some other properties, which would accommodate this type of facility. For clarification, he thought that the property was zoned R-3 with S.O. overlay. Mr. Drell commented that it is not. The original implementation of the Palma 11111"" Village zoning in 1985, although the plan designates the site as acceptable for senior housing, the zone change did not include this area. One reason is that areas that are zoned R-3 already had sufficient density that there wasn't a lot of benefit to be gained for those owners to use the senior overlay. Along with the overlay came the affordable housing restrictions. It is consistent with the general plan to designate it S.O. but it is not presently S.O. Mr. Schmitz asked Mr. Drell if he remembers about eight years ago, this property was approved for a density that would have allowed the density increase in the senior overlay zone. He received an approval for as many as 16 units on this property because it was zoned S.O. Mr. Drell believes it was a different property. The approval was found on this property and it was approved as seven units, unless there is another project. If Mr. Schmitz was lead to believe that this property was approved as R-3 S.O., than that is inaccurate. An action has not been found which was zoned S.O. which is probably not all that critical to this particular application, since this project does not meet the S.O. standards. The issue is whether the project in general is acceptable or can be made acceptable, then the general plan allows the change to S.O. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2000 Mr. Schmitz states the second item to clarify is that originally he thought he could bring it in at $500 under, but that was in a letter to you back in June, which specifically says, "At the present time our proposed project is estimated to have base rates of $1750 - $1950 per bed, as compared to $2250 - $2750 charged in larger facilities." That is what lead you to believe it was $500 less. When the economics and cost analysis were done, it would appear that the figure would be less than $500. Yes, that would be less than anyone else. But they are looking at probably $200 - $400, but not $500. Mr. Schmitz would like to fill the commission in on why he would like to do this project. They feel they are reaching a niche that isn't covered under the present assisted living. The larger facilities out there now, such as the Villas and Hacienda de Monterey, have larger rooms and a different program. It is an institutionalized type of thing. They are running, for lack of a better word, a "Mom & Pop" operation by a very skilled operator who has done this for a very long time. He's not sure if the commission has her qualifications or not. Mr. Drell stated that no, they do not. They assume that it will be run by a qualified person. Mr. Schmitz said she happens to be a nurse, but it isn't required that she be licensed that way. It's licensed by the Department of Social Services, not by the State Health Department. Please look at page 3 of the staff report. It alludes to the city S.O. affordability requirements require 20% of the units to be affordable. If you take 20% of 46 total maximum applicants that would mean that 4 %2 rooms or roughly 9 applicants, would be affordable. The rest would not have to be affordable, rather than the 17 and 6 that the report says. It really should read 18 '/2 and 4 '/2. Mr. Schmitz would support either a change of zone that would establish boarding houses as a matter of right, they are permitted in the R-2 zone, for example, for seniors though. Better yet, maybe an R-3 S.O. zone specifically which would allow boarding houses according to certain standards. Those standards could be worked out to accomplish what one wishes to accomplish, which is the affordability. As far as the area goes, it would be an appropriate use for a single story. There are apartments on both sides. Mr. Schmitz developed two of the apartment projects across the street. It has the proposed Carl's Jr. office building behind it. To the south is the funeral 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2000 home with a huge parking lot. Regarding parking, the ordinance now, as Mr. Schmitz understands it, the parking requirements for nursing homes is one parking space for every four beds, according to the ordinance. If there are 46 beds that would require 10 %2 spaces. The project will have eight. If the car ownership is restricted, it shouldn't be for each and every person in there. Maybe a third should be restricted. Mr. Schmitz would like to have the commission consider recommending what Mr. Drell recommended, which is that this matter be referred to the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee so the commission could come up with an acceptable solution to this. He shutters to think that they would go into rent control on a project like this, it's too small. Rent control never works. However, to base that rent control on what a competitor charges isn't real wise. Commissioner Finerty asked what the approximate size of the room is. Mr. Schmitz answered that they are sufficient for two beds or about 280 square feet, according to staff. Commissioner Finerty asked if that was similar to Hacienda de Monterey's studio. Mr. Schmitz answered no. They have larger rooms. It's a different program. It's institutionalized. Their minimum is 360 square feet. Commissioner Finerty is familiar with their studio and that is very small. She is also familiar with their prices and she also knows that while they are nice, they are by no means luxurious. Please explain how you intend to provide quality with two people in a room, wanting to lower the prices $300 either per room or per person. How do the numbers add up while maintaining what we expect to see in the city of Palm Desert, from a quality stand point. Mr. Schmitz replies that first they have an operator that runs a facility like this, not quite as large. She will give the quality care that is not afforded in an institutionalized place. Secondly, you've seen Monterey. The rooms are a little larger but the rents are more too. 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2000 Commissioner Finerty is familiar with Mannor Care, where they have three beds in a room and she is familiar with their prices. The figures aren't computing. Mr. Schmitz says that the two to a room would be a maximum. They do not believe that there will be two in every room. They think that maybe half will be singles. There will be a few with their spouses and possibly about a third of them might have two per room. He does not conceive carrying 46 maximum people. However, it will be licensed for 46. Commissioner Campbell states that the diagram shows a typical two room module. One room shows a single bed and one room shows a double bed. In the double bed you can have a husband and wife, while in the single, you could only have one person. Mr. Schmitz says that the thoughts were to design it the way it is designed. Legally, technically, you can put two beds in that room. It's a rather large room. Commissioner Campbell asks if they want to put two beds in the room which shows one bed. Mr. Schmitz replies that it is possible to do that. Commissioner Campbell states that the room is quite small for two people and two beds. That would mean you'd have to remove the sofa. Mr. Schmitz replies that the diagram is a typical furniture layout and by moving furniture, there will be room for two beds. Commissioner Campbell says that the room looks fine with one single bed and a double bed that a couple could stay in there, but she wouldn't think there would be enough room for two non-related people living in the one room. Mr. Schmitz stated that if they are talking about $750 a month, one cannot provide a huge room for that person. You can give them quality care, they are only going to sleep there. There is a large dining area, a large lounge area. There are extra curricular activities. 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2000 Commissioner Campbell has her mother-in-law living in one of these homes and she only has a room and bathroom. There are extra activities, but she seems to spend a lot of time in her room. She has a private room. If you have two people who are not social and would like to stay in their bedroom, it's quite small. Mr. Schmitz repeats that he is giving them quality care and the size of the room is really overshadowed by the quality care. It's more important to have a good teacher than it is to have a huge school. It's the same type of thing. Vice Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to step forward. DAVID HALST, owns a 5-unit apartment building just to the north, toward the top of the displayed site plan. His lot, according to the site plan, is very similar in size. His lot has five one bedroom apartments. He doesn't understand how one could put 23 rooms on a similar size lot. Are you looking at a 44% increase in density? Is that what the request is for? Mr. Drell responded saying 44% above the senior overlay, which is above that of an R-3. It allows 16 units for the size of the lot, where the apartment would allow 10. That's 23, so it's 130%. Mr. Halst would like to be a cooperative neighbor, but he has concerns with the density of the project. He does not really like the look of the new project. He was told it would be Spanish architecture with a tile roof, not a metal seamed roof. He's wondering if it would be appropriate to request that there be a hedge or something to privatize the two properties one from the other. His main concern is that they are over developing the lot, since his same size lot has five one-bedroom apartments. Vice Chairperson Lopez closed the public hearing and asked commission for comments in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. Commissioner Campbell would like to make a motion to continue matter on November 21 , 2000 and refer the matter to ZORC. 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2000 Commissioner Jonathan stated that he didn't want to be critical that he tried to find something that he liked about the project, and cannot find anything he likes. He does not like the architecture. It looks more like a warehouse or low budget hotel. He does not like the metal roof at all. The room sizes are atrocious. Many seniors need wheel chairs or walkers and there is just not enough room in there. He feels that it's cruel to justify the size of a room. The density of 23 units, he can't imagine how that would work with this size of lot. Parking for 46 residents, employees, visitors, servicing people with only eight parking spaces? That's inconceivable! What are we getting in return? Not affordability. It is a little bit lower in price. It's apples and oranges. This is not the Hacienda de Monterey. It's not anything comparable. Why are we spending time looking at this? There are no redeeming qualities of this application. He doesn't see any reason to continue it. He would like to make his point clear. This kind of project does not belong in the city. The city has a fine record of things proceeding it, as well it should. As well it should continue to do so, but nothing of this type. Commissioner Finerty wholeheartedly agrees with Commissioner Jonathan. As the staff report indicates, the proposal does not meet the R-3 standards for a variety of reasons, and also the senior overlay it falls short. She is not at all impressed with the architecture. The metal roof is totally unacceptable. The density is a major problem. The room size as she expressed previous concern. The parking will not work, as it would seem to be basically employee parking. She does not see a point in continuing it. She moves to deny the project. Vice Chairperson Lopez agrees with the fellow commissioners. In reading though this, he wasn't sure what to do with the information. There really isn't enough information to make any type of decision, other than what is in the staff report. He feels that it is a very poor decision of how to take care of senior citizens. Even the architecture, he can't find anything redeeming about it. After that, when you start putting that many people in a very limited area, and then requiring that they don't have the use of a car, in California, that's almost an impossible thing to demand on anybody. So the parking problems seem to grow. The affordability part does not have any structure. Part of this is that Mr. Schmitz is looking for some sort of direction for the affordability issue. This is more in line with "item D" in the staff report, that we do not want to consider the project. Although there is a motion to continue, that has not been a second yet. Commissioner Campbell would like this project to be presented to ZORC, for any future development that may come, so there is a 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2000 guideline as to what to do with it. Mr. Drell stated that if this project doesn't go forward, and we're going through this whole general plan review, to then move into a very comprehensive zoning ordinance review, that would maybe be one of the topics too. We'd examine the senior overlay whether there are any adjustments that are necessary. We have yet to achieve an affordable product for residential care. It is a relatively expensive service to provide. In all the deals, they pay the fee. One exception is at Hacienda de Monterey, reserves five units for SSI. They partly cashed out, as part of their corporate philosophy. All of the exceptions have been all exceptions to the senior overlay. Commissioner Campbell withdrew the motion to continue it, but would still like it to go in front of ZORC. Vice Chairperson Lopez said that the motion has been withdrawn with a recommendation to go before ZORC. Is there a motion for denial? Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, directing staff to prepare a resolution of denial for adoption on November 7, 2000. Motion carried 4-0. C. Case No. ZOA 00-09 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for recommendation to the City Council of approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Chapter 25.25.016, setback requirements in the O.P. (Office professional) district, continued from October 3, 2000. Mr. Smith stated that this is an item continued from the last meeting in order that Commissioner Jonathan could be present and move the motion. If he feels it appropriate, than we will not repeat the staff report. Commissioner Jonathan said that would be fine. Vice Chairperson Lopez stated that the public hearing was still open. The applicant was not present, so the public hearing was closed. Vice Chairperson Lopez asked for recommendation from the commission. r 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2000 Commissioner Campbell is in favor, but has a question. When a certain project comes before them and is a great project, but because it lacks 2' of a setback, she does not think that this ordinance should be cast in stone, that they could not make any changes on it. Mr. Drell commented that it will be fairly cast in stone. The good news is that with the exception of the Dr. Shaw building, they didn't act to widen the street into the parkway. All of the buildings have complied with the standard. It is not a hard standard to meet under the existing code with typical parkways. A typical parkway requires 12' - 50' and their height is 24' so it acceptable. The problem is all of the problems involved in getting variances. Just being a nice project isn't grounds for getting a variance. This will be pretty much as hard and fast as any of the other setback requirements. Commissioner Jonathan stated that they do allow many exceptions to height, setback, lot sizes, parking. Mr. Drell said that in our PR zones and planned commercial zones there is a specific section which allows exceptions based on simple merit of the proposal. We don't really have that in the O.P. zone. The only way out with the O.P. zone, the reason why this was an exception is because it doesn't provide that flexibility. Commissioner Jonathan asked if it was a request of variance. Mr. Drell answered that one could request a variance, that being just a good idea isn't grounds for a variance. One would need to show exceptional circumstances, hardship, etc., which are far more difficult. It may not be stone, but it is close to stone. Commissioner Campbell asked if they could include that. Mr. Drell said that a variance could be requestable in every case. One does not have to grant the ability to do that. The variance route is a difficult route to get exceptions on unless there is an irregular shaped parcel or some extraordinary circumstance which differentiates the property from another not just by simply being a beautiful building. Typically if its two feet into the setback, one could always say, well make the building two feet shallower. Wanting to have a two foot wider building is not grounds for a variance. For that close, we'd just tell them to cut two feet off the building. Commissioner Campbell clarified that 99% of the time we do conform with the setback. Mr. Drell said yes and the only O. P. building that he is aware of that doesn't conform was the Dr. Shaw building. In the C-1, there is virtually no building that applies. On El Paseo, there are probably no buildings that comply. El Paseo has a 5' setback. All of Highway 111 is C-1 with a 5' setback and a 10' parkway, that's 15'. There are very few 15' high buildings on El Paseo. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approval of the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0. 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2000 It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2023 recommending to the City Council approval of Case No. ZOA 00-09. Motion carried 4-0. D. CASE NO. ZOA 00-010: CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for recommendation to the City Council of an amendment to the Municipal Code, Chapter 25.58 (Off Street Parking/ Landscaping of Parking Lots). Mr. Drell explained that this was would be a more specific and ultimately more detailed ordinance and set of guidelines for landscaping parking lots. It was not yet ready so staff was asking for a continuance after the public hearing was opened. Vice Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and noted that there was no one present to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. Leaving the public hearing open, he requested a motion for continuance. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, continuing Case No. ZOA 00-10 to November 7, 2000 by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (No meeting) B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (No meeting) E. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - October 16, 2000 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2000 Commissioner Finerty announced that the Palm Desert Country Club Park grand opening would be Friday morning at 10:00 a.m. F. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) G. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) XI. COMMENTS 1. Commissioner Finerty noted that in the past there have been problems with churches in the middle of residential neighborhoods and cited Southwest Community Church as an example as well as First Baptist Church wanted to expand. The ordinance allows for churches in the middle of residential neighborhoods and wondered if it might be appropriate to have the Planning Commission refer to ZORC to move churches to be located perhaps on the outskirts or edges of residential neighborhoods so that if and when they do grow they wouldn't create problems that have existed in the past. Mr. Drell.noted that currently they were conditional uses, so as a matter of policy he wouldn't recommend another church in the middle of a neighborhood. He said they could create a specific section where in addition to listing it, provide some criteria that would provide more guidance right up front that said conditional uses in these sorts of situations one of which might be frontage on an arterial street or at least a major thoroughfare and things like that. He thought they could come up with some more specific guidance to limit how conditional uses could be approved. That would be a ZORC item. He thought that might apply to churches as well as schools of a certain size. 2. Vice Chairperson Lopez mentioned the Schmitz hearing. Mr. Drell noted that a few months ago Mr. Schmitz appeared before commission with a basic concept and the commission agreed to look at it. Mr. Schmitz received encouragement then based on providing a unique affordable approach and the city would consider varying standards. In fairness to everyone else who had provided senior projects, they ran into trouble when he wasn't meeting the standards or the affordability. The normal items used to counter balance the other were deficient on both counts, but based on the goal of trying to find a mechanism to have affordable residential care was a good one. That was why staff didn't recommend an outright denial. 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2000 ihlw He noted that Mr. Schmitz didn't want rent control or any control on affordability. They couldn't approve a project based on one person giving wonderful care. Commissioner Finerty noted that she would only be there eight hours a day. Commissioner Jonathan pointed out that she might not be there at all. Mr. Drell concurred and said that they couldn't base a land use decision on the personality and skill of one particular operator. If Mr. Schmitz could have delivered on the issue of substantial affordability, then he thought they might have had something to work with, but he couldn't do that. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:43 p.m. PHILIP DRELL, ecretary ST: J ES K. LOPEZ,4i hairperson al Desert Planni C mmission /sm WNW 27