Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0318 �1��� MINUTES �`.. . __ PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION '�- , . TUESDAY - MARCH 18, 2003 * * * * * * * * * * * * # * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Campbell 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: Cindy Fine�ty, Chairperson Sonia Campbell, Vice Chairperson Sabby Jonathan Jim Lopez r•• Dave Tschopp Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer Phil Joy, Associate Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the February 18, 2003 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the February 18, 2003 minutes. Motion carried 5-0. � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 ar% V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent March 13, 2003 City Council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS MRS. KIM HOUSKEN, 73-237 Somera in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. She stated that as a planning commission, they could not be expected to know in detail the Palm Desert Municipal Codes. To effectively . perform their duties, they needed to expect that they were getting accurate and complete information regarding code interpretation and compliance from Planning staff. With regard to Mr. Beauvais' Conditional Use Permit Nos. 02-14, 02-15 and 02-16, it appeared that there was misinformation in the staff reports that could have effected their decisions. She said she could go into great detail as to how the three units failed to comply with Palm Desert Municipal Code, but she would just highlight a few of the areas. Lot coverage was never addressed by staff. By her calculations it was .r exceeded on both of the Portola houses. With the inaccurate site plans provided by Mr. Beauvais, it was hard for her to calculate lot coverage on both the San Marino houses, but they might also exceed lot coverage limits. It was a grave distortion to call a carport a gazebo-like structure. The Califomia Building Code was very clear in classifying garages and carports as Group U occupancies. The Palm Desert Building Official laughed when she asked how a carport could be considered a gazebo-like structure. He said it wasn't. In regard to the attached structures that were needed for the new building on the Portola house, she consulted a professional planner who interpreted the idea that an attached unit would be structuraNy connected somehow to the main unit, perhaps even sharing a foundation or common walls. That person said that a decorative feature like a trellis would not magically create an attached unit. With regard to the tandem parking on the San Marino house, that was a violation of Palm Desert Municipal Code 25.58.060 which only allowed � 2 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 W.. tandem parking spaces by mobile homes. She was curious why that wasn't brought up by staff. She was very discouraged at these inconsistencies in the staff report and she was hoping more oversight would be built in somehow so that the Planning Commissioners would have accurate information on which to base their decisions. She thanked the commission. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PP 01-27 - RICK JOHNSON COMPANIES, Applicant Request for approval of a first one-year time extension for a precise plan of design to convert three single family dwellings into professional offices and parking lot. The project is located at the west end of Guadalupe Avenue at Monterey Avenue, 73-026, 73-031, 73-040 and 73-041 Guadalupe Avenue. r, Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, 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, 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 No. HPR 03-01 - DORI CREE, Applicant (Continued from March 4, 2003) Request for approval to construct a driveway and 15,043 square foot building pad on a 5.12 acre lot in the Hillside Planned Residential District west of the storm channel, south of Southcliff Road, APN 628-120-013. ... 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 ; Chairperson Campbell noted that the public hearing was still open and asked for a staff report. Mr. Smith informed commission that that afternoon staff received a revised proposal moving the proposed pad westerly. For those on the site last week, they looked at that location and submitted a revised proposal and asked for a two-week continuance to allow staff to review it and come back with a recommendation at that time. Commissioner Finerty asked if in view of the change in the application if the applicant was going to have some sort of signage out there where they could look at the elevation at 560 or where Ms. Cree was proposing the new pad to go. Mr. Smith said it was staked off out there, at least it was last Tuesday when he was out there. He confirmed it was at the 560. Commissioner Finerty asked if it would remain that way until the next meeting. Mr. Smith said he didn't ask that question, but they were just stakes in the ground with the number written on them, so he didn't think it would be an issue. Commissioner Jonathan stated that his appointment with Mrs. Cree was � canceled because she knew she was going to be continuing the matter. He asked if she would be contacting the commissioners who did not have an opportunity to see the site so that they could do so. Mr. Smith said he would talk with her. Chairperson Campbell noted that there was an article in the Desert Sun on March 15 regarding the stringent dust regulations on the Valley's horizon. She asked what that would do to the road on the west side of the channel that is presently all dirt. Mr. Diercks indicated he hadn't seen that article. Chairperson Campbell stated that Aurora Kerr, CVAG's Director of Air Quality, just brought this up that all cities should be conforming to new construction and to the present dirt roads we have in the valley cities, as well as in parks. She pointed out that the Homme Park parking lot didn't have any asphalt and created dust. Mr. Diercks said it was something he would have to look into and get back to her on. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There being no one, Chairperson Campbell asked for a motion of continuance. ' 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 �... Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, by minute motion continuing Case No. HPR 03-01 to April 1, 2003. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case No. CUP 03-01 - CARL VOCE, Applicant (Continued from February 18 and March 4, 2003) Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a 9,500 square foot cancer/chemotherapy/internal medicine medical office in the office complex located at 73-712 and 73- 726 Alessandro Drive. Mr. Smith explained that this item was continued from March 4, 2003 to allow the applicant to submit additional information and give staff an opportunity to evaluate that new information. Staff met with the applicant on Monday, March 10, and at that point they provided an original floor plan which was ,,�, included in the staff report. That plan showed the original proposal as a 9,500 foot medical office facility. The main difference was that plan did not include the research facility that was shown on the plan which was on display. That revised plan occupied 10,294 square feet in two buildings. A doctor's office and two exam rooms had been removed from the main building. That area was replaced with the research center. The doctor's office and two exam rooms had been moved to Suite 6-4 in the next building. Staff reviewed the revised floor plan with a view to determining the maximum number of employees that coufd be expected. The applicant has been saying 20 employees. Mr. Smith said he found space for at least 16 employees, plus in the medical research area one additional investigator for a total of 17. A copy of the letter from the oncologist who would be operating the research center which explained the personnel was included. Next they got into a fairly detailed discussion on the operation of the three facilities at the proposed location. Starting with the infusion area, there would be a maximum of six chairs in that area. The applicant was careful to note that this would not be a daily checkup location. The operator, Desert Medical Group, currently operates six other locations in the valley and they expect those services to be provided in Bermuda Dunes and Palm Springs. .. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 '� � In response to this, staff included in the draft resolution conditions limiting the number of chairs to six and prohibiting the daily checkup operation. The intemal medicine area in the facility would be performing colonoscopies and sigmoidoscopies. From the information staff was able to obtain, the limitation on this aspect, in that they were talking about one doctor doing the procedures and limiting them to two per hour, so they had the potential in this portion of the facility for six patients at any one time. Two in prep, two in recovery and two in the procedure itself. Relative to the research operator, they gave staff fairly detailed information. They were talking about four studies with seven patients in each for a total of 28 with an average of 10 visits a year for a total of 280. They expected to have them on hourly appointments, so staff was able to factor that in. The applicant then provided a flow chart showing the operation. The commission received a copy of that in their packets. That confirmed that between 10:00 a.m, and noon on most days would be the peak. That showed 12 patients in the facility with 20 employees for a total of 32. Based on the 10,294 square feet, they have an assumed parking provision of 38 spaces and staff ; concluded that with proper conditions to assure continued operation � consistent with that described, staff recommended approval, subject to the conditions. He said that they came up with one last condition. In the event that parking became a problem in the neighborhood, they wanted the ability to request the appointment books to make sure that they are operating consistent with what they described to staff. Staff understood the narnes would have to be redacted out, but felt this would give them an opportunity to see if they were operating in accordance with the information given to staff. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Jonathan noted that in the original report going back to February 18, the staff report indicated that the applicant has 34 spaces allocated to them. He asked if there was an agreement for the shared facility that the owner has so that there were only 34 spaces allocated to the applicant. He asked if that was what Mr. SmitF� meant in the earlier report. Mr. Smith explained that they weren't talking about the same size of building. They were looking at an increase from 9,500 to �0,300 approximately. That took them up to 41 spaces. It was reduced by the unusable area in the building. Commissioner Jonathan clarified that he wasn't referring to the calculation. The staff report indicated that there was different discussion on z the computation of how many were required and how many were available. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 �. It was a specific statement indicating that the applicant "has 34 spaces allocated" in the parking lot. He noted that some owners have a parking agreement where there are specific spaces allocated to specific tenants. He was asking if this tenant had 34 specific spaces allocated to them, or any other number. Mr. Smith said no. Commissioner Jonathan asked if he was misinterpreting that statement. Mr. Smith said that statement was an attempt to say that based on the size of the area being leased, of the 128 spaces in the project as a total, they would have an assumed right to 34. Now they were saying that number is 38. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the additional condition was discussed with the applicant and if they agreed with it. Mr. Smith said he hadn't discussed it with them. Commissioner Tschopp said that in reading staff's report, it seemed that a large assumption was made based on the applicant's information that only one doctor would be at the facility. That seemed to correlate into the number of employees and number of customer visits. He suggested that if they were looking at that additional condition, they might want to add in there something about the number of doctors that would be �„„ at the facility, working out of the facility, at any one time since that seemed to be the individual that controlled everything else. Mr. Drell said they have a statement of how they would run the business and that includes the one doctor. So they were incorporating as a condition that all the details they describe are the rules. Mr. Smith agreed they should add a condition to limit the number of physicians. Commissioner Tschopp said that the statement was that the quantity of the services that could be performed was limited to two per hour based on one doctor at the facility. If they had two doctors, there would be considerably more employees and more people visiting the facilities. So he thought that would be a good condition. Mr. Drell agreed. He said they needed a very specific exhibit which lists all the details that have been described about the operation. He said they should incorporate the flow chart itself. It said how many employees and how many patients they would be taking at any one time. That flow chart is what they would use to measure against the appointment book to see how many patients they were taking in at any one time. Basically the flow chart should be the measure and should be incorporated as Exhibit A to the conditions. � 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 s Commissioner Finerty asked if the flow chart took into consideration the number of trials. Mr. Drell said yes. it has clinical tests and included the people coming in for the clinical tests. Commissioner Finerty asked if the clinical tests were for the research facility. Mr. Drell said yes. Commissioner Finerty said she had done some research into the issue. They were stating that there would be four contracted oncology studies a year. She said that was an extremely low number. Most facilities do many more studies than just four. The average number of participants in each study was between five and ten. In addition, the E-mail the commission had stated that the patients in these studies would be coming in monthly for these visits and that was not necessarily the way it worked. It was usually governed by what they call the American Society of Clinical Oncology which set forth guidelines as to the nationally accepted standards. Some standards said that patients needed to be looked at weekly, some said monthly, and they had no guarantee as to the number of trials nor did they have whether the protocol for that particular trial would necessitate patients going in weekly or monthly. If they came in weekly, that would have a dramatic effect on the parking again. Commissioner Jonathar� said he didn't see in the staff report the required number of parking spaces under the ordinance if this was treated as a medical use, which it is. Mr. Smith said that it would be approximately ten more, so instead of 38 they would need 48. Mr. Drell clarified it would be 20 more. It would be six per 1,000 instead of four per 1,000. Mr. Smith concurred. Commissioner Jonathan asked if that was assurning a 15% reduction. Mr. Smith said 8°/a. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the requirement was for somewhere around 58 and the spaces available were about 38, so they were looking at about a 50% shortage. Mr. Smith said it was 20 or 21 spaces. Chairperson Campbell said she also considered that a medical building and the new ordinance required six per 1,000. She asked if they were going to have the 58 spaces, what business could locate in the remaining vacant space since there would be a shortage of 20 spaces. Mr. Smith said general office use. Mr. Drell said if the applicant had the 58 spaces he wouldn't be before the commission. They would just be entitled to medical use as a matter of right. The reason for the conditional use permit was to see if the character and operation of this particular medical use could fit into the allocated spaces, which was the 38. That's what all this information was about. The conclusion they had to reach to approve this was to say that 38 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 �.. spaces are adequate for this particular use as described. That is what this process was about. If the commission concluded that he really needs 58 spaces, then they probably wouldn't approve it. If they determined that he could live with 38 based on how it was described, then that would be the basis for approving it subject to the conditions. Chairperson Campbell indicated that the public hearing was still �en and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. LARRY LYLE, 40520 Posada Court in Palm Desert, said his firm was representing the Voce family in the Alessandro Plaza project. He said they have reviewed the report prepared by Mr. Smith and agreed with it. He thought Mr. Smith did a very good job explaining how the tenant was going to use this location. The proposed tenant, Desert Medical Group, had a very good reputation in the valley. As was mentioned, they have six locations. He said that as part of their due diligence as brokers, they called ,r,�, several of their landlords. They didn't get one negative response about this company. Everyone was very positive. He thought that was important because it seemed there was concern that they were really going to do what they said they were going to do. They were. That is the way the company presents itself. That was what the plan said. So the way they wanted to use the facility was the way that would fit the parking requirements as they stated on the flow chart. Mr. Lyle also asked the commission to keep in mind that they do have other locations to do some of the services that might be out of similar types of facilities. The reason they chose their location, Palm Desert being the center of the valley, they have locations in Bermuda Dunes and Palm Springs which could do a lot of the follow-up items that would typically be with these services. So that again should help with the parking situation. He said when they reviewed the items that were on the report, a couple of stipulations that if it was approved, they just brought up a limit on the number of doctors and he didn't know if that was realistic. The way he understood it was that they would have one physician for the infusion area and one for the colonoscopy. But there could be � 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 � � � situations, maybe emergency situations, but he thought the way it was proposed on the limitations was very detailed and he didn't see the tenant doing anything beyond that. But limiting the amount of doctors was a little bit unrealistic. Desert Medical Group would be a very good tenant for their building. They have the space available, they would like to be there, he would like to have them and they were looking for the commission approval. Commissioner Finerty said she would like to respond to Mr. Lyle's statement about limiting the number of doctors and that being unrealistic. She explained that it was very realistic for the job the commission had because if there is a limit on doctors, there would be a limit on patients. When they were dealing with a shortage of parking already, it was very important that it be taken into consideration. She asked if this Desert Medical Group facility would be performing different services than the Desert Medical Group in Palm Springs. Mr. Lyle said the way he understood it they were doing different services. He said that Margie Taft was present and she was "'�' representing Desert Medical Group. But the way he understood it, they hired a new physician that was bringing in things they were not able to do before. They were new services here that weren't done specifically at their other locations. Commissioner Finerty asked for clarification that chemotherapy was not done at their other locations. Mr. Lyle didn't think so, not in the way it would be done at this location. But he couldn't answer that specifically. Commissioner Finerty said she was surprised to learn that Desert Medical Group in Palm Springs was really an urgent care and they have four doctors there and primarily deal with HMO patients. They send all of their cancer patients to Comprehensive Cancer. When he raised the issue that they needed more doctors and thought that was an unrealistic condition, it led her to wonder why they would need more doctors and perhaps it would be similar to how the other facilities were run dealing with urgent care and primary care. � 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 �.. Mr. Lyle said it was something he brought up and he couldn't speak for the tenant, but just hearing a limit on doctors, as long as they stayed with the amount of employees, he thought that was the main concern. But he couldn't speak for the tenant on that if they made that a condition. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone else wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There being no one, the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Campbell asked for commission comments. Commissioner Finerty thought that there was definitely a parking shortage. What the applicant put fo�th in their flow chart and in the two different layouts was probably the best case scenario one could ever expect. But she didn't think it was anywhere near realistic. She thought the trials would increase, the number of patients would increase and the reality was the number of doctors would increase. She thought it was a great service to offer and was certainly needed, but this wasn't the right location for this application. � Commissioner Jonathan concurred. Fundamentally he had two problems with the application. Number one was just a significant parking shortage. The application was for plus or minus 10,000 square feet out of an office complex of plus or minus 33,000 square feet. They weren't talking about making an exception for a small 2000, 3000 or 4000 square foot office that was part of a 33,000 square foot office where they have granted exceptions. They were talking about a really significant portion of the overall office complex. Second to that, the parking shortage was really significant. They weren't talking about a 10% or 15% shortage, they were talking about 38 provided and 58 required. Depending on how they do the math, that was either 30% or 50%. It was a significant shortage for a significant portion of the office complex. If either one of those factors wasn't as significant, then he would tend to be a little more flexible. The second fundamental problem he had was the applicant's request being based on a variety and extensive number of detailed limitations. They were set forth partially in Conditions 6, 7, 8 and 9. He thought they were completely unenforceable. The City wasn't in the business of inedicine. He didn't think they understood what kind of procedures were taking place within those four walls. He also didn't think they should make an attempt to � 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 understand the medical professiqn. They shouldn't be in there looking to see how many tables there were, how many employees have Ph.D. behind their names, what kind of procedures they were doing, how many patients were coming in per hour. That wasn't the City's business and they shouldn't be granting an approval based on those types of conditions. This was clearly a medical use and it called for an office building that was approved for medical use parked at six per 1,000. There was good reason for that zoning ordinance. It was put in place because of the problems that occurred as a result of not having adequate parking for medical use. He thought this was a perfect example of trying to fit a very square peg into a round hole. He thought it wasn't justified. Commissioner Tschopp said that before the meeting he was considering staff's recommendation, thinking the conditions with the addition on the limitation on the number of doctors, it might be appropriate and might work. However, the more he looked at it and at the past case, he agreed that it was approved as an office professional building. If this use was approved, 42% of the building would be medical and 20 spaces short. The flow chart was very nice, but he could say that sometimes customers didn't work according to flow charts and had a habit of inessing things up and making it difficult for staff, so sometimes what looked good on paper didn't normally fit in with people's needs. He also agreed that it wasn't staff's job to monitor something like this or to make it work out later if there was a problem. Additionally, he was confused on how many doctors would be there and since that was the number that generated the number of employees and the number of visits, it seemed like it could grow beyond what was being presented. Relying somewhat on Commissioner Finerty, who has some expertise in that area, her comments had credence, so he was not in favor of the project. Commissioner Lopez said he would have to agree with his fellow commissioners. Especially with regard to Commissioner Jonathan's comments. Looking at the conditions of approval, they were looking at more of a business use than a land use and were trying to dictate how they could conduct their business and how to police it. He wasn't sure that was the right thing for them to be doing. Looking at it at face value, it is a medical use. There was a problem with the shortage of parking. For the staff to have to go look at records, he didn't know if that was something they were supposed to be doing. He thought they were trying to fit this into a situation that wasn't 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 r.. ideal or the right use of this particular building. He wasn't in favor of the proposal before them. Chairperson Campbell also concurred. She was in the dental field for 20 years and ran two dental offices. There was no way staff or the City could monitor how many doctors would be in an office. They ran an office that started with one doctor and ended up with three. Each three had their own patients and it just multiplies. She didn't think it was appropriate to have a police officer sitting in there making sure there was only one doctor working there. Also,the ordinance stated that this was a medical use and required six spaces per 1,000 and they were short parking spaces. So she wasn't in favor at that location. Commissioner Finerty asked for confirmation that there wasn't a resolution of denial in front of them. Staff said that was correct. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner ,`, Tschopp, by minute motion directing staff to prepare a resolution of denial based on the commission's comments to be adopted on April 1, 2003. Motion carried 5-0. C. Case No. PP 02-21 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan to allow construction of a 3.3 acre expansion to the City's Corporate Yard, including a 19,398 square foot stn.icture, located on the south side of 42nd Avenue, 180 feet west of Joni Drive. Mr. Joy indicated that this matter was before the commission briefly during the Hovley Gardens project. It was carved out of the 35-acre Hovley Gardens site and was a 3.3 acre site. As part of the development of Hovley Gardens an eight-foot wall was constructed around this expansion area. This use would allow consolidation of city yard uses that were scattered around the city a little bit right now, particularly in the industrial area. He noted that when Joni Drive was extended, it bisected the city yard into two. �.. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 They also had another city yard around the corner. He said there was also storage here at City Hall that they would like to locate at this facility. The main feature of the expansion was the new corporation building. Using the site plan, he pointed out the location of 42nd Avenue, the extension of Joni Drive and Velie Way. He also pointed out the existing 6,000 square foot building and where the new 19,000 square foot building would be located. He said that came down to a 14,000 square foot footprint with a 5,000 square foot mezzanine on top. There would be covered parking so that all the city vehicles that were out in the sun right now baking during the summer would be under carports. There were also additional carports for use by the existing yard. There would also be a washout facility for city vehicles. The site plans distributed also showed additional landscaping. It was done as part of the Architectural Review process. Mr. Joy said there was a generous 15-foot wide area of landscaping on the side. Mr. Joy explained that the Architectural Commission working with the architect tried to blend the new building in with the existing structure. There would be some repainting and insertion of a canopy in between the two. The main emphasis on the site plan was to put the new building into as close proximity to the existing building as possible so the two could be tied together with a central courtyard in between. The canopy would tie the two buildings together. There were also pop-ups around the windows and doorways to add some architectural interest. There were also some palm trees added to break up the elevation. He showed the commission a floor plan of the building. The storage area included traffic signal equipment for the over 60 signals in the city. There would also be City Hall storage. Roll up doors were provided to allow trucks to go in and out of the structure. Architectural Review Commission reviewed and granted preliminary approval on February 25, 2003. Regarding parking calculations, only a few more employees would be added to the corporate yard in the future. They were adding a considerable amount � of parking to the site and should be well within the demand. There were a � 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 +r.. couple of ways to look at it. It could be characterized as a public utility yard or industrial building. Staff recommended approval of the project. Mr. Joy said that Armando Rodriguez of the Public Works staff was also present as the project coordinator and he was present to answer any questions. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there would be any uses in the new building that were not currently taking place at the site. MR. ARMANDO RODRIGUEZ addressed the commission. He said yes. The main use at the new proposed building was storage. Currently there seemed to be a inefficiency of storage for city records, city equipment and city supplies. Currently the work force was expanding. They were growing out the seams and the storage at the Civic Center was being pushed out to rental facilities. They would consolidate all the storage and that was something they currently didn't have. �... Commissioner Tschopp noted that the entrance/exit on 42nd seemed to be very close to the exiUentrance on Joni Drive. It also seemed to be close to the intersection. He asked if there was a reason they needed two entrances that close. Mr. Rodriguez said the reason they were planning to leave the existing entrance was for administrative personnel and they had a direct view of that area. For safety and to maintain that level of safety, they wanted to have that exit. Traffic on 42nd was not as heavy, so it wasn't a major impact to the intersection. The entry and exit on Joni Drive was currently not in use and they would like to have that for emergencies. Commissioner Tschopp reiterated that Mr. Rodriguez thought it was better to have traffic entering from 42nd as opposed to Joni. Mr. Rodriguez said that was correct. Chairperson Campbell noted that on the plan the new building on the south � side had dotted lines and asked if that was an expansion for that building. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 Mr. Rodriguez said that was correct. He said that Palm Desert is an emerging growth city and is expanding. There was a whole area of the city to the north that was still vacant land. As the city grows, the services needed to grow along with it. The dashed lines were for a future expansibn. Chairperson Campbell asked what they would be using the remaining area for. More buildings? More parking? Storage? Mr. Rodriguez indicated that the most efficient scenario for a corp yard was to have all the workers and administrative staff in one place. They annexed this 3.3 acres with that in mind. Future needs, 15 or 20 years from now, they could definitely put a building in that open space area. This would be instead of opening another yard on the other side of Palm Desert. It was more efficient and productive to have all the workers and management personnel in one place directing the work. Chairperson Campbell o�ened the public hearing. The City was the applicant, so she asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MR. STEVE PANIKOFF, 74-275 Covered Wagon Trail, asked about the setback of the building from Joni Drive. Mr. Rodriguez said that he wouldn't be able to see the new building from Joni Drive. The setback would be 15 feet. Mr. Panikoff asked if there would be excessive noise being generated at the new facility due to maintenance. Mr. Rodriguez said there would be no more noise than what was currently being experienced. Regarding the vacant land the City still has within this property, Mr. Panikoff asked if it would be used for any public use at all or just strictly for City purposes. Mr. Rodriguez said it was for just City storage. Not the general public. 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 �r. � There was no other public testimony and Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Finerty stated that the project was nicely done and understood the need for expansion. She moved for approval. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2190, approving PP 02-21, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. City Attorney Hargreaves requested that a closed session be added to the agenda. He stated that it was inadvertently omitted when the agenda came out. It was to discuss the potential pending litigation with respect to the zoning ordinance and some associated applications by Mr. Beauvais for second units. He requested that the commission add it to ,.., the agenda at this time under Government Code Section 54956.9 (b) Potential Litigation and that they adjourn to closed session at this time. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, by minute motion adding closed session to the agenda pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (b)Potential Litigation. Motion carried 5-0. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION Request for Closed Session: Conference with Legal Counsel regarding potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (b) Threatened Litigation in connection with Case Nos. ZOA 02-02 and associated cases. The Planning Commission adjourned to closed session at 7:55 p.m. CHAIRPERSON CAMPBELL RECONVENED THE MEETING AT 8:13 P.M. � 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 ; � � REPORT ON ACTION FROM CLOSED SESSION. Action: There was no action to report. D. Case No. ZOA 02-02 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant (Continued from July 16, September 3, October 1, November 21, 2002, January 21 and February 18, 2003) Request for approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Chapter 25.21 Second Unit Senior Housina. Mr. Hargreaves explained that there was a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Chapter 25.21. The purpose of the amendment was to make the current chapter consistent with current laws. There had been a significant migration of the underlying state law over the last ten years and it was hoped that this amendment would bring them more consistent with the � current law. � In considering these enactments, they needed to take into consideration the legislative intent of the Second Unit Ordinance, which was basically to make available more housing opportunities in the neighborhood. There was a significant deficit of housing opportunities within the state. State legislature mandated that cities make provision for second units within their single family residential units as a matter of making more housing opportunities available. What they had done, and the commission could see it in the staff report, was analyze the various aspects of the current ordinance and took out requirements in the current ordinance which they felt could inhibit second units on the one hand without really doing much in the way of preserving the single family residential neighborhoods. What they tried to do was make applicants for the second units comply with the same requirements that had to be complied with for a single family residence, whether they were expanding it or adding a non-rentable unit in the back yard. The standards would be pretty much the same with the exception that the rentable second units would need to have covered parking provided, at least one space. If there were two bedrooms, there would be two spaces. If there were three � bedrooms, there would be three spaces. Two of the spaces would have to � � 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 .. be covered and then the other significant addition was the requirement that the primary unit be owner occupied. That was a provision specifically allowed by state law. Other than that, the units would have to comply with the same standards that single family residents have to comply with. There was also a requirement that there be sub-metering of utilities as a way to both encourage energy conservation and keep peace between the neighbors occupying them. He asked for any questions. With the owner occupied language, Commissioner Finerty asked how they would be able to verify that the owner was really living there. Mr. Hargreaves said that it was a difficult issue that they were still studying. What they anticipated was when these applications came in, in order to implement the owner occupancy requirement, they would have to have a deed restriction. So there would be a condition of approval that would incorporate into the requirements that they be owner occupied and also incorporate some provisions for verifying that occupancy. The idea of having a recorded deed restriction would be so that anyone that buys the property would be aware of that restriction. He said that between now and the time it went to City Council or subsequently,they would amplify the owner-occupied requirement `` to incorporate ways to verify and enforce that particular provision. Commissioner Finerty noted that for Desert Willow there was some sort of verification process that people in the city went through. She wondered if there might be something there that could be used and be incorporated to help with this as far as showing proof that the owner is actually living at that residence. Mr. Hargreaves said they could look at Desert Willow to come up with something that would be appropriate for this case. Commissioner Jonathan asked if that would include an annual verifcation procedure. Mr. Hargreaves said yes. Commissioner Jonathan said he had a question on paragraph E. The provision required that the second unit be provided with one off-street parking space per bedroom provided within a garage or carport. He asked if the "or carport" provision was necessary and if they could simply require a garage. Mr. Drell said that the city allows covered parking for a single family home to just be a carport. A garage wasn't a requirement of a main residence. Mr. Hargreaves said that was what they tried to do throughout. To make the requirements consistent with what the city requires of single family residences. ... 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 � � � Commissioner Tschopp asked for confirmation that they would not be able to require an attached dweliing, it could be detached. Mr. Hargreaves said that was correct and that was also consistent with the single family residency standards: Single famify residences were allowed to have detached accessory structures like a guest cottage. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the setback requirements would remain the same as for single family homes. Mr. Hargreaves said yes, as well as the property coverage requirements. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the definition of carport would remain the same as it was prior to tonight. Mr. Hargreaves said yes. Chairperson Campbell noted that the public hearing was still open and asked for any testimony in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MRS. KIM HOUSKEN, 73-237 Somera, urged the Planning Commission to amend its Second Unit Ordinance in a manner that preserved the integrity of single farnily neighborhoods. She supported the staff recommendation regarding covered off-street parking and she was glad to see owner occupancy of the main unit was a requirement. However, she did question several aspects of � requirement C, subsection C, regarding unit size. She thought the City should take advantage of the new California law that allows the City to base the second unit size on a percentage of the main unit. At the back of the staff report was a copy of Assembly Bill 1866, page 7, where it went into detail, Section D, that "a local agency may establish a minimum and maximum unit size requirement for both attached and detached second units. No minimum or maximum size for a second unit or size based upon a percentage of the existing dwelling should be established by ordinance for either attached or detached dwellings which does not permit at least an efficiency unit to be constructed in compliance with local development standards." She said that was critical to prevent these second units from becoming duplexes. She knew that at previous meetings several of the Planning Commissioners expressed concern that a 1,200 square foot house could have a 1,000 square foot or 1,100 square foot second unit built adjacent to it, attached to it, or detached. The amendment presented to the commission tonight would allow exactly � ; `� 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 �r�.. that. If they read Section C of the requirement, Subsection C, it stated that "the floor area of a detached or attached second unit shall not exceed the lessor of the floor area of the primary unit or 1,200 square feet, nor shall the floor area be less than 600 square feet." Again, that would allow a 1,200 square foot house to have an 1,199 square foot second unit. She thought that was ridiculous. She also questioned the requirement of a 600 square foot minimum sized unit. In California the minimum size of an efficiency unit was 220 square feet, which she agreed was somewhat small. She spoke to people in the Redevelopment Department and they said that the City owns property, studio apartments, that are 450 square feet. So if the commission chose not to go on the percentage, she would recommend the minimum size be reduced to perhaps 450 square feet as the City itself owns studio apartments at that size. To her 450 square feet seemed reasonable. But why not go by percentage. The State wasn't allowing the City much latitude here, but they were allowing them to choose a percentage and to her that was � reasonable. An area that hadn't been addressed at all was parking for the main or existing unit. It seemed logical to her that there be adequate off-street parking provided for an existing unit before someone was able to come in and apply for a second unit. She said it seemed they were just adding to the problem as they had seen. She hoped the commission would consider these issues when amending the Second Unit Ordinance and thanked the commission. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mrs. Housken had given some thought in terms of the percentage as to what she felt might be appropriate. Mrs. Housken knew that staff thought 1,200 feet was appropriate. These were so small that these small units would be precluded from having a second unit, so if they were to impose a minimum, she could see why they might want to do it for that instance. In her mind, 30% to 35% would be reasonable. And perhaps a maximum was okay. If they had a large house, it would be more than 1,200 square feet. If was 35% of a large home, they might be allowed to have a larger � 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 � � sized second unit. She wasn't opposed to second units. She has seen them done and seen them done well where people couldn't tell they were there. There was adequate parking and it did provide a need. The instances where she had seen it work well was when it was a mother-in-law type of unit. Someone who was related and not someone coming in that was profit motivated who wants to split houses up and rent them out and use it as rental income. To her that was a whole different thing. She would say 35% was a number she had in her mind. Commissioner Jonathan said he struggled a little bit with that part of the provision and the size. For discussion purposes, using 40% with a 1,200 square foot main home, they were given a minimum of 480 square feet. But what happened when the main home was 5,000 square feet. Then they were setting a minimum of 2,000 square feet. So it could be a sliding requirement. Mrs. Housken said she could see that. Or again, they might impose , a maximum size and perhaps the maximum would be more than � 1,200 square feet. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that the percentage would be for the minimum. Mrs. Housken concurred. Just the way it stood now, the lessor of. It could be the lessor of the 35% of or the maximum size there, whichever was less based on that house size. That's what she could see. She thought it was interesting in the analysis section, Section A, that the purpose of this chapter was to provide a mechanism to help meet the need for affordable housing. She didn't think that was something the City wanted to get into regulating for what is affordable and what isn't. So she questioned the wording there. What is affordable? That was one question she had regarding previous cases. What were the rents being paid on these places and is it affordable? She didn't think that was something they wanted to regulate, but it was listed in there thaf it was to help meet the need for affordable housing. She thought # maybe it would be affordable if it was only a 400-500 square foot unit. � � 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 �.. That might be affordable for someone. But if they were talking about a 980 square foot unit and charging $1,000 a month, to her that was no longer affordable. That was just profit driven. Mr. Hargreaves said that with respect to the parking requirements for the principle unit, the code provides parking standards currently for the principle units and if someone comes in for a second unit, they would be required to comply with the requirements both for the principle unit and the second unit. Mr. Drell said that when projects are legal non-conforming, because they were built often before city incorporation, they may or may not comply with our current codes. Under a legal non-conforming ordinance, what exists can continue to exist and be maintained. All new development must meet the requirements triggered by that new development. If it is setbacks, they must comply with the setbacks. They were not required to bring the entire property up to the current code. The new development which was the second unit would have to comply. What exists for the existing unit is what would exist. Mr. Hargreaves said that if the primary unit existed with a garage and subsequently without permits converted the garage to living space, when � they came in for a second unit space they would be required to restore the garage. Mr. Drell said that theoretically if they would find out they had done that, even if they hadn't applied for a second unit the City would cite them. If this was one of those things that happened before the city incorporated, and even very recently in the County they required only one covered space, so things that were done 50 years ago probably didn't require any covered spaces. It was kind of a detective exercise to figure out if the existing condition was one which plausibly at one time conformed to a code and then became nonconforming because of change in the law or jurisdiction of the City, then that was called legal nonconforming and they were not required to bring those up to code. Commissioner Finerty noted that Mr. Drell talked about garage conversions and the City was out trying to right those wrongs. She asked if that meant that Mr. Beauvais's application number CUP 02-17 where he is using the garage for his personal storage facility and the people in the house didn't have a garage or covered parking, if he would be cited for that. Mr. Drell said he was already proposing the reconversion. For him it was just a matter of just taking the stuff out it. In that case he was proposing to redesign it so that it functions as a two-car garage. Commissioner Finerty asked when he was proposing to do that because the last she heard he wanted 18 months. Mr. y 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 � � � Drell said it was a requirement of the approval. He was proposing it to be a requirement. That particular application was denied. Commissioner Fine►ty noted that it had also been appealed. Mr. Drell stated that as part of his appeal he was proposing, and if staff was asked for a recommendation on that as a condition, the recommendation would be that it has to be converted at the time the second unit received occupancy. But Mr. Beauvais' case wasn't before them right now. Commissioner Finerty stated that she understood that, but was seeing an inconsistency in that there should be covered parking for the main unit and right now that wasn't being provided. Mr. Drell said he had to restore that parking space regardless of what happened to his appeal. Regarding the floor area parameters, Mr. Hargreaves said 600 square feet was chosen because that is the minimum unit size generaliy allowed within single family. Mr. Drell stated that for general purpose multifamily units, the smallest apartment someone could build in the city was 600 square feet. For retirement for senior restricted units they allow studios at 450 square feet. Those are the units the Redevelopment Agency owns. But for non-age ; restricted units the minimum is 600 square feet. Mr. Hargreaves said that as � far as a maximum, in a single family neighborhood a homeowner has the ability to expand his residence up to the coverage determination. To clarify the coverage issue, Mr. Drell noted that an amendment was passed three or four years ago when they were getting many variance requests from Bighom and the Summit where they wanted houses that were considerably larger than the 30% or 35% coverage requirement. As a result of that they added to the R-1 zone allowable coverage up to 50% if approved by the Architectural Commission and it was a matter of looking at the design of the house to make sure there was still adequate yard space and that the house didn't appear to be crowding the adjacent house, etc. Based on the precedent set where they were approving reluctantly those variances for the coverage extensions,they passed an ordinance to take care of it. That same ordinance would apply to second units. Commissioner Finerty asked if the City Attomey wished to comment on the word affordable since the commission didn't know what rents were being charged. Mr. Drell said it was just a statement of general purpose. Commissioner Finerty asked if it would be better to just say it was for housing. Mr. Drell agreed that it should say "expand our housing opportunities." Commissioner Jonathan asked if they were trying to match `� � 24 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 � the intent of the assembly bill to provide affordable housing. Mr. Drell said that there is a legal definition of affordable which is occupants paying no more than 30% of their income including utilities. Commissioner Finerty pointed out that they didn't know if were paying that amount. Mr. Drell said it was not a requirement of the ordinance and was not a requirement of state law. It was simply a description of the intent and purpose of the state law and they could include it or not, it didn't really matter. Mr. Hargreaves said it was actually part of the original Palm Desert ordinance, but they could get rid of that and amend it to say "to provide additional housing oppo�tunities." Cornmission and staff concurred. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone else wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Campbell asked for commission comments. Commissioner Jonathan thought that staff and counsel did an admirable job of amending the ordinance to meet the various objectives, including those stated in Assembly Bill 1866. With the modifications discussed including the „` one to Paragraph A and the general suggestion that they incorporate an annual verification procedure, he was prepared to recommend to the City Council adoption of the amendment. Commissioner Finerty concurred and seconded the motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, secvnded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2191, recommending to City Council approval of ZOA 02-02 as amended. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Case No. TT 31135 - DORI CREE, Applicant Per Planning Commission direction, presentation of a resolution approving a tentative tract map to subdivide 15.44 acres (three lots) into seven (7) residential hillside lots in the +�.. 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 t � � � .1i hillside area west of the storm channel north of Southcliff Road, APN 628-120-004, 007 and 010. Mr. Drell said this was an action recommending approval to City Council. The original intent was ultimately for the Council to review all of these cases in the context of whatever changes they wanted to the ordinance. So that was why staff wanted to keep this one a recommendation to Council and not an approval that would force the Council to call them up. Commissioner Finerty recalled that the Nelbeck application was kind of in the same situation and it wasn't before them. Mr. Drell said he probably should have reminded the commission what staff's intent was, but at the last instant the commission changed the resolution when they adopted it from recommending to Council to approving. That was what he recalled and what the minutes tended to support. All that meant was that the Council had to call that one up to review it along with the ordinance when it got to them. It was adopted at the last meeting. Chairperson Campbell thought they had a resolution of approval last time � that was already prepared. Mr. Drell said that was right. The commission ••� amended the resolution from recommending to Council to approval. That was the commission's action. Commissioner Tschopp said that was what the commission wanted to do. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification on which case that was. Mr. Drell said Nelbeck, the one just on the flat land. Upon questioning by Chairperson Campbell, Mr. Drell clarified that commission directed staff to prepare a resolution. On the other one the commission had a resolution of approval before them and it was amended from recommending to approval. Mr. Drell said that they could do two things here. The commission could delay action on this resolution until it caught up with the ordinance amendment which would be at the next meeting. He didn't see a problem since it was a recommendation of approval and would have to go to Council anyway, so either way it probably didn't matter. It depended on how the commission felt about it. Commissioner Tschopp moved for approval. Chairperson Campbell said that was what they discussed last time and seconded the motion. � � 3 � � 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 i.. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Chairperson Campbell, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Chairperson Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2192 recommending to City Council approval of TT 31135, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). Clerical staff asked for confirmation that the action by the commission was a recommendation of approval to City Council. Mr. Drell said it was adoption of the resolution before them, which was recommending approval. Commission concurred. B. Discussion of Church Parking Standards +... Mr. Drell indicated that Mr. Smith could answer any questions regarding the investigation. Regarding Sacred Heart, Chairperson Campbell stated that she takes her parents there and people park on the street, but there were actually spaces in the parking lot that people weren't using because it was easier. That was the only reason there was more parking on the street. Mr. Drell said they kind of limited their access to the parking lot in deference to the neighborhood, which probably exacerbated that problem since people couldn't get out onto Florine. The bigger problem was they had these single, old major denominations that get bigger and bigger. The other problem was that as the congregation aged, there were more one and two people per car and not the three that the ordinance called for. Using Sacred Heart as an example, Commissioner Jonathan noted that their main sanctuary seats 1,000 people. The requirement under the current ordinance would be 333 parking spaces. Yet they were getting 470 cars according to the counts. So staff's conclusion was that there didn't seem to be a problem with smaller churches, but that there did seem to be a problem with larger churches. He asked why they wouldn't then conclude that the ordinance needed to be modified for larger churches and keep the ordinance �.. 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH '!8, 2003 � the same for up to a certain size, but require additional parking ratios for churches over a certain size. Mr. Smith said it wasn't necessarily consistent across the full spectrum. They don't say to a restauranteur that they are going to be more successful than the average restaurant and in that case they have to provide extra parking. Going in they have no way of knowing which churches were going to be overiy successful. Mr. Drell noted that the Mormon church, which is a large church, doesn't have a problem. Mr. Smith concurred. He said they had 180 vacant parking spaces. Mr. Drell said that Temple Sinai was kind of a large church and it didn't have a problem. The difference was partly the devotional quality of the members which was kind of hard to characterize in an ordinance. Since staff recognized that there was a problem, Commissioner Jonathan thought non-resolution was not the best direction to go in. Mr. Drell asked how severe a problem it was. The fact that people were parking on the street for a couple of hours on Sunday at three or four of the churches, did that justify adding another acre of asphalt to the parking lot. Mr. Smith said that it would also be required of a lot of churches that don't have a problem. M�. � Drell said it might be a problem, but the streets were designed specifically to accommodate cars parking on them. If they don't want cars parked on them, they should make them a lot skinnier. There was a lot of debate about street design and that we do design our streets too wide. He said it might be somewhat of a problem, but was it enough of one to add another acre of asphalt. Commissioner Lopez noted that Sacred Heart was a campus with all the different uses. There was the church with Sunday School. Mr. Smith said staff contacted them about that thinking they were going to have seas of children there which would mean they needed to add in for the number of kids. According to the information they gave staff, the most they ever have is 50 which would account for 16 parking spaces which was not significant. Chairperson Campbell noted that they didn't drive anyway. Mr. Drell said that staff did determine that they should count Sunday School capacity because that was part of the three seats per car. Two of them could be adults and one a child. So really the Sunday School was an extension of the sanctuary. It was just kind of offsite. So they should count Sunday School capacity as part of the seat count for determining parking, but unfortunately : � 28 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 r.. they couldn't identify that the problems that were occurring were because of Sunday School. Commissioner Tschopp said that it seemed to him that in the study they came up with two of the 12 surveyed, or 16.5% have a parking problem. If they added in the two churches that they didn't inc(ude which are large denomination churches, they would have four of 14 which would be almost 29% of the churches having a parking problem. It seemed to him that in some ways they have identified a problem, but they concluded that they weren't going to do anything about it. They were going to see churches come in that want to expand and if they came in to expand to a larger church because they are successful, they were going to expand under the o!d parking codes, which they acknowledge that when a church gets large enough, that is when it becomes a problem. In his mind, now was the time to plan for the future by implementing a code on the parking which would address those expansion plans in the future. Maybe it wasn't more asphalt, but maybe it was getting a little more creative and perhaps it was offsite parking. When churches meet on Sunday mornings or Saturdays, a lot of � businesses are closed and there is a lot of empty commercial parking spaces sometimes in areas. Perhaps they needed to find a way to require them instead of parking in residential neighborhoods, which was really the problem, but to bus them from other commercial areas or something of that nature. Chairperson Campbelf didn't think that would work. Commissioner Tschopp said his point was that they needed to do something because churches will grow. So what they were saying is that there is a problem with large churches and if they didn't do something now, they would have more problems with larger churches down the road. Commissioner Jonathan concurred. He thought that staff's investigation confirmed their suspicions that there is a problem. The analysis was further helpful in that it isolated the problems to the larger churches. So now the next logical step wasn't to say they wouldn't do anything about it, but to say they would do something about the larger churches and that was why he suggested some kind of a tiered ordinance which was consistent with others. Commissioner Finerty concurred. It was like what they did for regular offices versus medical offices. Commissioner Jonathan agreed. � 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 Commissioner Lopez asked if they were looking at basing it on square footage. Commissioner Jonathan clarified that it would be on sanctuary size. He didn't know what that number was. He thought they would have to ask staff to go back to the drawing board, but certainly a sanctuary that seats 1,000 is large. A sanctuary that seats 100 is not. Where the delineation was he didn't know and how much additional ratio should be required for the larger churches he didn't know. Mr. Smith noted that they were suggesting a surcharge on larger sanctuaries. Commissioner Jonathan concurred. He agreed with Commissioner Finerty that it would be similar to what they do with service industrial versus warehouse, similar to what they do with office compared to service industrial, similar to what they do with medical compared to office. Chairperson Campbell asked if this would be for new churches. Commissioner Jonathan said yes, new churches as well as expansions. Commissioner Jonathan said his suggestion was to ask staff to continue their analysis and come back with a further recommendation regarding some kind of a resolution along the discussion that just took place with regard to the larger sanctuaries, the larger churches. Commissioner Finerty asked if they � thought they could define larger as 500 or more. Commissioner Jonathan � said he didn't know and was open to suggestions. He thought they would probably end up with around that size. Commissioner Tschopp said he didn't want to complicate the issue, but in large cities when they have events a lot of times they have satellite parking. People drive to that location and then catch a bus to the main event. If they have a large successful church or a large successful stadium down here some day, perhaps that was a way to keep the asphalt, which was a staff concem, in check. He thought it would be nice to draft something that would take into consideration mass transit. Commissioner Jonathan said he was in favor of mass transit and wasn't opposed to a creative approach. For example, they could keep the parking standards the same, but for churches with sanctuaries over 500 or whatever number, that they be required to have satellite space available in the event that they either have special events or in the event, for example, that their regular Sunday morning services are deemed to be a problem for the neighbofiood, so a contingency satellite parking lot available. Commissioner Finerty asked for a few altematives. Commissioner Jonathan concurred. He � � 30 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 �.. wasn't trying to define the solution, but they identified a problem and wanted to work on the solution. Commissioner Tschopp noted that at the meeting of February 18, they were going to condition an applicant to park the employees onsite. He didn't know if there was a way to look at code, or if it was necessary to amend code, but to him employees were going to park where they are told to park. If management tells them to park in the street to free up their spaces next to the building, that is where they were going to go. They had no leverage against the employer. It made sense to him that if they actually had something that required employees/staff to have to park onsite. The difference being that customers would raise objections with a business to get to park closer. He thought it would be good to have it in code that employees had to park onsite and they might see some owners take additional steps to correct a problem because their customers would complain. Chairperson Campbell said that is what she does in front of her store. But there were beauty operators nearby and the owner of that shop parked in front of her store and he was there all day. So she went out there and told him to park � somewhere else or in front of his own store. Mr. Smith noted that the owner of Napas Tapas parked his little car with advertising all over it. Mr. Drell said the problem was there is public parking. They could restrict it. And that was a problem with offsite parking. Unless they restricted the public parking adjacent to the church, people would park there as opposed to parking four blocks away and taking a bus. It was a significant administrative task. He said there is an ordinance which allows preferential residential parking. It was seen in major cities often next to business districts where they take the residential street parking and make it prohibited unless the vehicle has a sticker and the sticker is only given to people who live there. But unless they did that, offsite parking wasn't going to work. Commissioner Tschopp said he wasn't talking about churches, but in other cities when they have events that are regularly scheduled / reoccurring, a lot of times the signs posted would be no parking from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. o� no parking Saturday nights 6:00 p.m. to midnight. Again, it was an enforcement problem, but the concern was the infringement upon residential neighborhoods and thaYs where they should be looking to help out. Along that same issue, Commissioner Jonathan noted that he drives by the Roberge Gallery and Augusta Restaurant frequently and on weekend nights v 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 � � there was a car they parked sideways on the driveway to prevent access into the parking lot. He assumed that was because of valet parking. But he asked if that was supposed to be a public parking lot. He asked how that worked and if they approved it for general public parking. Mr. Diercks asked for clarification on the location. Mr. Smith noted that it was on EI Paseo at Portola. Mr. Diercks said they weren't allowed to restrict any access if it was a public parking lot. The aisle was not supposed to be restricted. Commissioner Jonathan said that driveway was blocked by a car being parked. Mr. Diercks said that wasn't right. Valet parking permits specifically say they aren't allowed to restrict any drive aisles. They are allowed to put in cones for parking stalls themselves, but not the drive aisles. Commissioner Jonathan said this was a regular weekend night. Mr. Diercks said he was in charge of valet parking now, so he would investigate. Commissioner Jonathan said that forced patrons to park offsite and they were trying to provide parking onsite. He didn't know where the off-street parking was taking place, but it could be intruding into those neighborhoods. Mr. Diercks said he would definitely look into it. Commissioner Jonathan thanked him. 1 X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES � A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (No meeting) B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (No meeting) E. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) F. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) XI. COMMENTS Chairperson Campbell asked staff to look into the dust regulations relative to dirt roads and parking lots. Mr. Diercks didn't know if there had been any discussions on that matter, but would initiate discussions. i 32 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 � XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Chairperson Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adjourning the meeting. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:58 p.m. � �`a ~ �--�-,_� �.Q.. PHILIP DRELL, Secretary ATTEST: � �' -���� . SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm �. � 33