Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0506 ��'�� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY - MAY 6, 2003 � � 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER . 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE � * * � � * * � * � * � � � � � * * �- �- * � � � * � * � � � � * �- * � � � � � * � I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Campbell called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Tschopp led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sonia Campbell, Chairperson Sabby Jonathan, Vice Chairperson Cindy Finerty Jim Lopez �,,, Dave Tschopp Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the April 15, 2003 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the April 15, 2003 minutes. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Tschopp abstained►. � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 6 2003 � ,� ;..� V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION �i Mr. Drell summarized pertinent April 24, 2003 City Council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. V11. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 03-08 - CHARLES HENDERSON AND LOUIS J. D'AMBROSIA, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment between properties located at 48-884 Mariposa Drive and 48-878 Mariposa Drive. ' Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving PMW 03-08 by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. � � � B. Case No. PMW 03-06 - THE RESERVE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC., Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow lot consolidations within the Reserve (identified as Lots F, G and a portion of B of Tract 27710-1 ) Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving PMW 03-06 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. 's � 2 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 6, 2003 �"' A. Case Nos. GPA 03-02, C/Z 03-01 and PP 03-05 - JAMES AND LUCILLE FEIRO, ET.AL., Applicants (Continued from April 1 , 2003) Request for approval of a general plan amendment from residential (medium density 5-7 units per acre) to office professional, a change of zone from R-1 13,000 to O.P. (Office Professional), a precise plan of design for a 3,000 square foot single storey office building, and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates thereto. The general plan amendment and change of zone apply to three lots on the west side of Deep Canyon Road: 44-605, 44-655 and 44-675 Deep Canyon Road. Precise plan of design applies to property at the northwest corner of Ramona and Deep Canyon Road, known as 44-605 Deep Canyon Road. Mr. Drell explained that the applicant was still working to redesign the project to meet the Public Works street widening requirements. Staff was recommending a continuance to June 3, 2003. � Chairperson Campbell noted that the public hearing was still open from April 1 and invited anyone to address the commission. There being no one, Chairperson Campbell asked for a motion of continuance to June 3, 2003. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, by minute motion continuing this matter to June 3, 2003. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case Nos. C/Z 03-02, PP/CUP 03-03, TPM 31350 and DA 03-01 - JEWISH SENIOR COMMUNITY OF THE DESERT FOUNDATION, Applicant Request for approval of a change of zone from PR-5 to PR-5 S.O. (Senior Overlay), a precise plan/conditional use permit for a 55-unit two-story senior assisted living housing facility, a tentative parcel map to subdivide the site into two � 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 6 2003 � ,:_� parcels, a development agreement to restrict development � and operation of the residential facility and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates thereto for the project located at Temple Sinai, 73-251 Hovley Lane. Mr. Smith explained that correspondence was circulated to the commission from Richard O'Donnell, petitions against the proposal from Marlene LeBost, Henry LeBost, Ross and Diane Bloom, Bruce M. Gottlieb, Patricia Vanderpool, Barbara Jenkins, Josef Braig, a letter from Kevin and Gloria Winter, and a letter from Jerry Wiley. Mr. Smith pointed out the site plan on display and explained that the property was located on the south side of Hovley Lane between Monterey and Portola at the Temple Sinai site. The applicant was seeking approval to permit a 55-unit, two-story senior assisted living housing project on the westerly portion of the property. He said that the project received preliminary architectural approval from the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). � Mr. Smith stated that they received considerable neighborhood response from the circulation of the legal notice. Neighbors questioned project density, traffic, height, noise and other matters. As of the writing of the staff report, the applicant had not and still had not presented an affordable housing program component fo� inclusion in the development agreement. Also at the time he wrote the report, he hadn't yet received the parking and traffic study which was received the day before and circulated to commission at the meeting. Without the completed development agreement information, staff was not prepared to go forward with a recommendation. Accordingly, staff was recommending a continuance of the matter. The purpose of this hearing was to better identify the issues of neighborhood concern. He stated that he would briefly go over the project and then the project architect had a power point presentation to make for the commission. Mr. Smith described the project in detail, including a review of the parking being required and provided. He noted that a parking study had been conducted by Urban Crossroads which was distributed to commission just prior to the meeting as mentioned earlier. He discussed site intensity, height and setbacks. He stated that the building § architecture received preliminary approval from the Architectural Review 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 6 2003 � Commission at it's March 25 meeting. He noted that at the March 1 1 ARC meeting staff expressed concern with the architecture, specifically that it appeared to be more of an office institutional {ook rather than residential. Staff felt the architecture should be more residential in character. ARC granted preliminary approval of the plans that were before the commission. He stated that project landscaping would be consistent with the Desert Willow theme and that also received preliminary ARC approval. Mr. Smith explained that the project required a change of zone to add the Senior Overlay. Senior Overlay was designed to provide increased density and special development standards to encourage the development of various forms of senior housing in the city. When the overlay was created, it was anticipated that senior projects would be requesting densities in excess of 20 units per acre. Due to the significantly lower traffic and other impacts of senior housing, the Senior Overlay allowed those densities based on population per acre. The project as proposed would increase the permitted number of units on the 2.56 acres from 13 units to 55 units. Projects between 10 and 100 units under the Affordable Housing Inclusionary Requirement Mandates must provide a �"""` minimum of 10% moderate income units and 10% low income units. Staff had not received a proposal from the applicant as to how they would address the affordable housing component. Mr. Smith noted that there was also a parcel map being requested to create the 2.56 acre parcel and then the remainder. He concluded and asked for any questions. Commissioner Tschopp asked how big the school was and how many parking spaces it required. Mr. Smith explained that the school serves K- 7. He said that when he was out at the site at 2:55 p.m., in the area of the school and administration section of the Temple there were ten cars parked. Commissioner Tschopp asked if staff knew if the school was at attendance capacity right now. Mr. Smith didn't know and indicated that was something the applicant could respond to. Mr. Drell said that schools typically weren't in session during the services and were calculated as an ancillary use. The peak use was either Friday, Saturday or Sunday and the church use dwarfed the requirement of the school and the weekday use of the school was easily accommodated by that peak. Commissioner Tschopp clarified that here they weren't just talking about a church and � 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 6 2003 � schooi, but a senior project, and school parking could become worse and that was what he was trying to determine. Commissioner Jonathan said he wanted to understand the calculation of the parking, regardless of the actual experience or usage. The facility has 324 existing spaces. According to staff's report, the Temple requirement is 189 and that is what leaves a 134 parking space surplus. He asked for clarification on the calculation of 189. He was reading 86 spaces for the sanctuary and 103 spaces for 3,600 square feet of assembly area. Mr. Smith said that was correct. It was his understanding that they have seating for the 257, plus an area of assembly beyond that. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the demand that staff calculated of 189 did not include the school. Mr. Smith confirmed that it did not. Assuming that the matter would be continued, Commissioner Jonathan asked if staff would calculate the total parking demand for all uses including the school. He understood there would be discussion as to whether or not that requirement was simultaneous, etc., but he just wanted to understand the demand for each component. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the commission was just given the parking and traffic study at the meeting so he had not had a chance to review it, but he would before the next meeting. His question was if staff knew whether or not the parking analysis addressed the parking and traffic impact of the 13 homes versus 55 senior units. He asked if that was addressed in the analysis or if staff had considered that. Mr. Smith didn't believe they did that analysis. He said staff typically looked at 10.1 on a single family residence. Commissioner Jonathan clarified that was 10.1 trips per day on a single family residence. Mr. Smith concurred. Commissioner Jonathan noted that 10.1 times 13 would be around 130- 131 . He asked what it would be on the 55 units. The answer was 191 per day. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the conclusion would be that the traffic impact of 13 residential units would be greater than the traffic impact of 55 senior units. Mr. Smith said that was right. Regarding the architecture, Commissioner Jonathan noted that staff continued to feel that the architecture was not sufficiently residentially oriented. He asked if it would be staff's recommendation that, if the commission agreed with that conclusion, that the design issues go back to ARC for further consideration of what staff's recommendation was, �� specifically with regard to the architecture. Mr. Drell said there were two 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 6, 2003 �" perspectives. If the commission agreed with that position and was otherwise inclined to approve the project, then they could refer it with comment back to ARC for them to look at it. There had been some discussion since that meeting that there might be some virtue in it looking more like an extension of the Temple and not look like housing since the current use of the property was institutional / educational / religious. Having an ambiguous building that looks like an extension of that might be a positive design aspect relative to compatibility. Ultimately it was an aesthetic judgement as to whether they felt it was appropriate or inappropriate and if they wanted ARC to take another look at it. Commissioner Jonathan said he didn't know how he or the commission felt about the architecture yet, so hypothetically if they wanted an architectural redesign, he assumed they would be able to reserve the ability to look at the enhanced or modified architecture before giving final approval. Mr. Drell said yes, especially if it was in response to the input from this hearing. Architectural Commission did not have that input. Mr. Diercks clarified the traffic counts. It was determined that 13 residential units would generate 130 trips and 55 senior units would �"'" generate 191 trips per day. Weekday trips. Mr. Drell said that one trip was from there to a destination and a second trip was counted for the trip back. So one car going to and fro generated two trips. Chairperson Campbell noted that they were talking about the parking spaces for the project having a maximum of 56. She asked about the employees working there including the dining room, the kitchen, the other facilities and how many employees that would entail and how many parking spaces they would be using. Mr. Smith explained that the parking provision in the code assumed that of 55 spaces required, that would also take care of the employee component. He had been running counts at Palm Desert Villas across from the Senior Center at Catalina and San Pascual. It was a 77-unit project and they put in 59 parking spaces. They had been averaging 21 cars in the lot. Today at 3:30 p.m. there were 22 cars. He said they could see the residential component at one place and the employee cars in another area closer to the entrance. He said it seemed the code took that into account. Chairperson Campbell asked if Mr. Smith was assuming that these people didn't all have cars. Mr. Smith said it had been staff's experience. Mr. Drell noted that this is an assisted living project and these were people who needed assistance for � 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 6, 2003 daily activities like dressing, eating and bathing. A large portion didn't have a car to begin with and for better or worse, as the project aged, the number of cars would decrease and the cars that were there typically didn't move very often other than the employee cars. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing. She noted that staff was recommending that this matter be continued to June 3. She asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MS. JEAN CHARRUS, President of Senior Housing Development, addressed the commission. She said she represented the proposed project. She stated that they are a non-profit independent foundation looking to purchase the land at Temple Sinai, but they weren't in partnership with Temple Sinai. She wanted that clearly understood. Their mission statement was that the Senior Community of the Desert was a not-for-profit charitable organization providing a continuum of services to seniors in an environment that promoted � wellness, choice and innovation. This was a project that was thought of some 30 years ago by a gentleman that lived in the desert and died in the desert and left a small amount of money in a trust account which was handled by a trustee. This was the money that was brought to them to think about promoting senior assisted care housing for their citizens so that they would have an environment to grow into their senior years with dignity. She said this wasn't a party house, this was not a transient house, this was not a hotel. These were people who would live and live quietly within this domain. They just wanted to have the ability to provide this kind of an environment for a 55-unit building allowing 20% for scholarship for some people who don't have the means to live in dignity to the end of their days and they wished to provide that opportunity. There weren't cars for everyone living in assisted care housing. That was why the amount of traffic that had been talked about was more than adequate and overstated. She didn't think they would have a need for that much. She was sure that if her mother was living there she would want to visit her and if she came in on � a Sunday or Saturday she would drive a car onto the property to 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 6 2003 �» visit her parent. That was probably the most traffic they would see. From company coming to visit. These people weren't infirm by any means. Assisted care didn't mean nursing care, it meant people who are ambulatory and can function but need some help in perhaps taking their medication and perhaps bathing. But this was not a nursing home. The ambience of the project would be elegant, it would be beautifulty landscaped, and it would be described by Pam Touschner, their architect from WWCOT. Ms. Charrus stated that she herself was a resident of the desert and was very active in this community and would never lend her name to anything she didn't respect or have good feelings about. She thanked the commission. MS. PAM TOUSCHNER, of WWCOT, addressed the commission. She said she was also a resident of Palm Desert. Using a power point presentation, she showed the commission the site and described the project and its goals. She said it was very important that they fit in with the neighborhood, that they work with a campus concept, that they acknowledge the fact that there is a �' school there, and that the type of individuals they were building for provided a synergy between this kind of project and a school and that they work within the codes in terms of height. They didn't want to go any higher than what was proposed, so they knew they would have a very flat, horizontal type building. They really wanted to also acknowledge the concerns of the climate. They wanted to make sure there were overhangs and spaces for shade so that someone could stop and rest. They also didn't want a lot of ramps, stairs or mobility issues. She showed the first floor plan with the landscaping. She said when they started to design this project they wanted to make sure that all the units had access to the outside or some type of balcony if they were on the second floor. At the front door was where they had a drop off and entrance to administration. She showed where the services would be located and that included offices and the kitchen. She described the buildings as fingers with some units. She showed the location of the dining and multi- purpose area that opened to a dining courtyard. There was a pool. � 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 6, 2003 � � She said there was a total of three courtyards that they centered ''� � the units around. Another aesthetic issue was along the side where they placed a bocce ball court and some other types of outdoor activities which go into a walkway that allowed walking for exercise around the project. She showed the location of the school and existing play area that they would maintain and explained that they designed a porch on the first and second floors to allow for people to sit there and engage with the school and watch the kids playing. In the lower play area, kids could play with kids that were visiting or children from the school. She showed the location of the fire access that they were required to have by code. What they did was incorporate what was required for the school and the housing together. It was combined and they reduced the amount of hardscape. They had a hammer head at the end of that fire access. She said it could also serve the residences on the other side and a fire truck to come back out. �� Next came the second floor plan. She pointed out the location of � the roofs of the first floor. She stated that from their property line back to the face of the building, that was 100 feet before the second story started. To the west of the building, she showed the property line and said they were setback 120 feet and an additional 27 feet to the face of the units. The second floor component was exceptionally small and was half or less of the surface area and they had quite a bit of setback from both the street and the residences. The units on the first floor didn't have windows on the west elevation so no one could look out on the residences next door. She said everything was in a north and south direction. She showed elevations facing Hovley and explained that the second story was setback 100 feet from the street. The first story was 1 1 feet and then dotted in behind was the higher element. Next was the east elevation, the entrance to the project, the street, and the second floor component. The balconies were grouped together. It was a shading device that served as an architectural element and also allowed for shading on the ;;� 10 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 6, 2003 �r balconies. She said there were some differences in terms of materials and color. Some of the low walls were block and stone and the base of the building was stucco. On the south elevation, there was a patio where a person could look out onto the school. The second story at that point was 147 feet from the wall of the residence. Ms Touschner showed the west elevation and the second story looking toward the west. She pointed out the closest piece of the building to the residence and all of that was setback 120 feet. She also showed a section through the site as well as the location of the existing one-story housing, the backyard, an existing six-foot wall, and then the 27'8" to the beginning of the first floor of the building and then where they were at 157. That gave them a sense of the relationship. She said there was a person on a second floor balcony and some lines which were the view lines that someone would see standing from those balconies. Anyone standing there was actually looking onto the �oof of the one-sto�y residence. � She then showed a picture of the site from Hovley and a picture of what the building would look like in that location. It was a computerized model and then there was a composite of the two images. It showed the existing landscaping and they wanted to keep the mature trees. They also added new trees. She said that would give them a sense of what the building would look like given the landscaping there now and what they were proposing. She asked for any questions. Commissioner Lopez said he went to the site and looked at the existing Temple and school and what people might see when they were driving down the street. He thought the proposed architecture didn't really fit in with the residential, stucco, red tile roofs that exist in the entire neighborhood. He wasn't sure it really fit in with the Temple and school either. He asked what her intent was when she designed it. Ms. Touschner said they wanted the architecture to match both the surroundings, the Temple and the school. At one point they were using the same colors of the Temple on the building. � 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 6, 2003 :� � Architectural Review suggested that they use the same colors and � just express that it was a different building. That was when they started to look at putting in some walls that had some colors on it. The base color was similar to what was being used at the Temple and on the school, so there was some compatibility there. But then they introduced a new color onto some of the walls to break it up and make it look different. She thought that made it look more residential and was much more characteristic of what happened at these types of projects and apartment buildings. Mr. Smith distributed a material sample board to the commission. Ms. Touschner said that in terms of the red-roofed houses, they didn't have the luxury of the height to do a red roof. To take that particular design element and copy that from the neighborhood wasn't something they were able to do. Homes could actually go to a higher height because of that and allowed them to do that. But they wouldn't be able to do that with the two-story component. � She said they showed the Foundation different drawings and different pictures of built projects so they could get a sense of what they were talking about from an architectural point of view. What kept coming up was contemporary. They were really looking for something that was more contemporary and dealt with the neighborhood. She stated that there were many contemporary homes in that neighborhood and not all of them had red roofs. Commissioner Lopez noted that there was a letter to Mr. Drell with their staff report and Ms. Touschner went through several topics that were discussed at the community meeting. Ms. Touschner explained that they held two different community meetings. One was at the end of February/early March and last week they held another one. What was in the letter were the questions that were asked and she summarized the discussion they had on the additional elements. Chairperson Campbell asked Ms. Touschner how she thought the last � meeting went. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 6, 2003 � Ms. Touschner thought that overall it went very well. They welcomed the opportunity to explain the project. She thought some of the criticisms were really from people who didn't know the project or didn't understand it. If someone didn't know anything about the project, it could be scary. She said there were a lot of comparisons made to other projects in the area or in the city of Palm Desert and they were able to say, no, they were not type of facility. Someone spoke earlier and said these were people who needed help with dressing. She said that was not the case. It was really about medication management and they might need a little assistance in terms of preparing their food and those kinds of things. But if they needed to be helped physically, two individuals taking them out of a wheel chair or anything along those lines, then this was not the type of facility they would be at. She said they welcomed the opportunity to explain what type of facility this was and that these were really active, healthy adults that were just looking for an alternative way of living. Chairperson Campbell asked if any comments were made about the architecture by the residents. �.�,. Ms. Touschner said there was nothing negative. Ms. Charrus stated that she received a letter that she wanted to submit for the record in support of the project Isee Harold Rabin letter attached hereto as Exhibit A►. She also received a number of calls and was happy to give them information about the project. Commissioner Tschopp noted that the Senior Overlay allowed the project to go from 13 units to 55 units. He asked if Ms. Charrus was conducting an economic feasibility study to see if that was going to work economically to fill the units with people age 62 and older. Ms. Charrus stated that going by what currently exists in the desert and other establishments in Rancho Mirage and Palm Desert, she said they were one of the smaller units and it did take some time to establish a reputation and recommendation, which was word of mouth, but there were many people they knew of in the scholarship area that were readily available for immediate housing. They didn't intend to do anything precipitously. They � 13 MINUTES ' PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION _ _ MAY 6, 2003 � would see that they were properly financed and that they have a good fiscal plan and that they do a fund raising campaign. She said they really wanted to do this in a healthy manner so that they meet all their responsibilities to the people who live there and to the neighborhood in general. Commissioner Tschopp asked if she was aware of the difficulties other housing projects in the Senior Overlay have had in trying to fill their rooms. ' Ms. Charrus said yes, but they were on a larger scale and it took a bit longer for them. In this instance, the professionals who gave their estimate thought it would take between six months to a year to accommodate all 55 units. It might take longer, but it might take less, and financially they had to be prepared for that. Commissioner Tschopp noted that the low to moderate income requirements require 20%, or approximately 1 1 units, to be set aside and he asked if she believed that was something that would work. .� Ms. Charrus said yes, it would. That was what they anticipated � doing and it was the dream of the gentleman who left them the money in the first place. For this to be part of the mix. That was what started them off and she hoped they could get to the point where those numbers would increase in time. Initially they needed paying guests. Speaking from past Planning Commission experience, Commissioner Tschopp said that if this project was approved, he hoped the commission would not see them back in the future asking for the Senior Overlay to be relieved. He explained that the commission has seen other projects built in the Senior Overly come back stating that they can't rent the units because of the age 62 age requirement and requesting to decrease the age to age 55 or provide other relief for them. Ms. Charrus informed commission that she is involved with the Good Samaritans of the Desert and a number of different organizations that were "champing at the bit" and people called her all the time wanting to know if this was their next residence. She said she really was not terribly concemed. They just needed 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 6, 2003 �,,, to be prepared to carry themselves for a logical period of time. She couldn't anticipate the future about changing overlays, but they would make every endeavor to be fully rented and to care for their people in a dignified manner. Chairperson Campbell asked for testimony in FAVOR of the proposal. There was no one. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in OPPOSITION. She noted that she had a Request to Speak card from Mr. Jerry Wiley and invited him to address the commission first. MR. JERRY WILEY, 40-900 Avenida Estrada in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He stated that he had a couple of clarifications for Mr. Smith and Ms. Charrus before getting into his brief presentation. Chairperson Campbell requested that speakers refrain their comments to five minutes. There were many people present and she also requested that they not be repetitious. Mr. Wiley said he understood completely. He condensed his �w presentation from basically seven or eight pages to three, but felt the first clarification questions should not apply toward the five minutes. He asked Mr. Smith how many square feet the p�oposed 55-unit senior housing complex was. Mr. Smith said he didn't know. Mr. Drell asked the architect. Ms. Charrus spoke from the audience and said slightly under 70,000 square feet. In looking at the plans, Mr. Wiley noted that the kitchen, which was a full service kitchen, looked extremely large and asked how many square feet the kitchen area was. Mr. Drell said that while the architect was doing the calculation, Mr. Wiley should proceed. Mr. Wiley asked if the kitchen would serve three meals per day. Mr. Drell said yes. � 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 6, 2003 :� � Mr. Wiley asked Ms. Charrus for the definition of scholarship. Mr. Drell explained that technically, the City defined in the ordinance what affordable housing was, so it was really a City definition, meaning a City requirement, which was most important. That was an issue they acknowledged had not been determined yet, especially in a project like this where historically they've had a hard determining, given the level of services provided, what is affordable. That was part of the reason it had not yet been determined and why they hoped to have a better answer at the next hearing. Mr. Wiley reiterated that what Mr. Drell was saying was that the scholarship and low income meant the same thing. Mr. Drell said that was correct. Scholarship meant assistance; people paying less than market rate for the units. Mr. Wiley noted that in Ms. Charrus' opening statement, she said they would have ambulatory patients there. He asked if that was correct. Ms. Charrus said ambulatory residents. This wasn't a hospital. Mr. Wiley asked if that meant the same thing as a nursing home. Ms. Charrus said no. Mr. Drell explained that ambulatory meant the person was able to walk under their own power. These are people who aren't confined to a wheelchair. These facilities are licensed under the State as residential facilities. They weren't licensed or regulated as medical facilities. They were still on the residential side of land use, not medical. Mr. Wiley thanked them both for that clarification. Ms. Charrus indicated that the kitchen was approximately 2,000 square feet. 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 6, 2003 � Proceeding with his presentation, Mr. Wiley noted that three or four years ago there was a similar proposal before the Planning Commission. The proposal at that time was to build an Alzheimer's senior assisted facility at the corner of West Hovley and Monterey Avenue. With the help of the residents in the area and the commission, that was defeated and he was proud to say there were some beautiful homes there now. He said they were very nice and were $375,000 to 5400,000. That area was known as Hovley Court and he thanked the commission for their expertise and vote in that matter. He believed at that time the vote was 5-0 to reject the PR-5 zone change. Mr. Wiley stated that he received the first letter from Temple Sinai and the first letter to the homeowners about the preschool, and they committed to all the residents that attended that they would be a good neighbor. The second letter he received from Temple Sinai again promised that they would be a good neighbor. He said that in fact Temple Sinai over the past two or three years has been a bad neighbor. The way the church had been a bad neighbor was noise, kids screaming, teachers yelling at kids, parents honking �'' horns and yelling at kids, and increased traffic flow on Hovley. It took the area residents two or three years to get the grass, trees and shrubs planted that the Temple promised would be there before the preschool opened. That did not happen. It took approximately another two years for the church to put in the grass, trees and shrubs. The Air Quality Management District came down and inspected them. Sand was blowing in everyone's pools adjacent to their property. They were warned. He didn't know if they were cited or not. Shortly thereafter they put in the grass. They had violations of the conditional use permit. He said he had a letter from Phil Drell if anyone wanted to take a look at it after the meeting. He said it listed all the conditional use permits that Temple Sinai had committed during that brief two or three year period. Mr. Wiley stated that the proposed PR-5 CUP change was totally unacceptable to the overwhelming majority of area residents. He felt this commercial project should be built elsewhere in a commercial zone. Increased traffic, cars, service trucks, food � 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 6, 2003 delivery for a complete service kitchen, mostly noisy, stinky, diesel trucks. The recommendation of himself and the concerned area residents was no on a PR-5 zone change. No on any conditional use permit and no, no, no to the commercial, two story 55-unit development in their neighborhood. He thanked the commission. Referring to the other Request to Speak card that was turned in, Chairperson Campbell asked Mr. Bob Lea to address the commission. MR. BOB LEA, 40-780 Avenida Estrada in Palm Desert, passed out a letter to the commission. He explained that it was information regarding the proposal and an example of a petition that was circulated in the neighborhood (see the letter and blank petition submitted attached hereto as Exhibit B). He showed the commission a stack of papers and stated that in his hand were 315 petitions against the project. Mr. Lea stated that of those people they were actually able to see, some were for it and some were against the proposal. Ninety-four percent (94%) of the people responding to their survey were totally against this project. � He heard it said that the proposal of the Jewish Senior Community � Foundation had been on the drawing board for more than one year. He thought it seemed strange that none of his neighbors learned of it until just days ago or possibly two weeks ago as he did. Why? Why wasn't the pulse of the neighborhood obtained earlier? Why weren't his neighbors informed? Or developers? Or real estate agents who could fully inform prospective home buyers what was brewing in the neighborhood? He asked why. Two. He heard it said that there was a need for senior assisted living facilities. That might or might not be true. But he could say it was a terrible thing that someone would deliberately choose to build in the middle of an upscale new residential neighborhood. No businesses were on Hovley Lane West from Monterey to Portola. There was only the Temple and the elementary school. The nearest commercial building was a mile away, a shopping center on Country Club and Monterey. He didn't believe that the valley has been that fully developed that there was only one piece of land remaining and that property was on Hovley Lane West. � <� 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 6, 2003 � Three. He heard it said that the facility needs to be build on Temple property because the land could be purchased much lower than elsewhere and subsequently the rents charged would be lower. However, the government subsidized units also alleviated the problem anywhere the facility was built, not just on Hovley Lane. Even so, those weren't valid reasons to build a commercial building in a 100% residential neighborhood. Property was available in other areas of the city and in the valley where similar facilities were already located. Four. He had heard it said that the residents of the senior assisted living facility wanted to be located near school children to watch them play. He said watching them play was one thing, but children at play typically scream with high pitched voices and make excessively loud noises. These were irritating, disturbing and annoying to one's ears and nerves. He said he knew because he heard them during the school hours and it wasn't very relaxing. He thought that most other senior citizens would agree with him. Five. He said he had in his hand petitions signed by over 300 �"` people, about 315 in the neighborhood that strongly opposed this proposal. They canvassed the Hovley West neighborhood and in that canvass they found that 94% of the people adamantly oppose the construction of a senior assisted living facility in the neighborhood. Most of them were absolutely furious about the proposal. Many stated that they would not have purchased a home here had they known such a facility was to be built. They want the zoning to remain as their neighborhood now is, PR-5. They knew that traffic and noise would increase greatly and they were afraid to see what could be on the horizon later on. They were also aware that once such a building was erected, the door was open for expansion of more buildings on Hovley. That was totally unacceptable. In summary, no matter what the arguments were for building the facility, one for seniors needing assisted care, it simply didn't belong, nor did it fit in this neighborhood. If it did not fit, then neither minor flaws in language or refining details on definitions of low income housing changed their position whatsoever. The results of any further studies or delays were moot. He stated that � 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION _ MAY 6, 2003 � he was strongly against the proposal. And not just him, but more than 300 of his neighbors. He thanked the commission. MR. ERNIE SHAFFER, 40588 Diamondback Drive in Palm Desert, informed commission that his street was immediately north of the project and was curiously omitted on all of the maps he had seen at the meeting. He stated that he was present in a dual role. As a resident of the community and also the Executive Director and General Manager of Brighton Gardens of Rancho Mirage which is an assisted living and skilled nursing facility. He thought it was a beautiful project. Being in the business for 22 years, he saw the vision and thought it needed to be built, just not in this location. He stated that he was before City Council about four years ago almost saying the identical things that Ms. Charrus said this evening. Believing that there was a need, believing that they would fill the senior living facility within six months to a year. However, they have been in operation for over 2.5 years and they remain between 50% and 60% occupancy. � Between December of 1999 and December of 2000, over 450 „� assisted living units became available between the cities of Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage. They were all struggling. The need is there, but it wasn't being filled in the assisted living facilities. This area had an abundance of home care and there was also an economic status that allowed people to stay at home with companions, 24-hour care, home care, etc. To add another 55 units, even 55 units, would not make sense in an already saturated market. He noted that Marriott International opened Brighton Gardens of Rancho Mirage. The feasibility study they did when they began the project showed that it would take until the year 2005 for them to fill it. In other words, Marriott was willing to subsidize for five years knowing that was how long it would take to fill. Marriott sold all of its senior living properties about two months ago. If Marriott International couldn't make a go of it, not only in this market but across the country, he was curious how anyone else could. He was personally familiar with two owner- operators in the Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage area that were currently going out of business. 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 6, 2003 � Another issue he wanted to address was the definition of ambulatory. This facility would be licensed by the Department of Social Services and being intimately familiar with Title 22 which was the California code that governed senior assisted living facilities, the definition of ambulatory didn't mean they couldn't walk. The definition of ambulatory meant they have the ability and the cognitive status to remove themselves from a dangerous situation in the event of an emergency in the building. They did not need to be ambulatory in the sense that they could walk. He also wanted to clarify that 2.5 years ago when Brighton Gardens opened, they had several "independent" seniors. He was here to tell them 2.5 years later that it was nursing care. It was going to continue to be nursing care. The residents that he cared for in his assisted living project were the skilled nursing residents of five years ago. He has been in this business for 22 years and had seen the trends. Even if it didn't start out as a nursing facility, it would end up as a nursing facility. Traffic would include commercial deliveries, employees based on `�""' the amount of residents and he anticipated between 35 and 40 employees, give or take per shift, family members and visitors. And there would be a lot. Emergency vehicles, home health, visiting nurses, medical staff, pharmacy deliveries, and he said the list went on and on. At this point he was opposed to this project as a homeowner and as an assisted living operator. He thanked the commission. MS. DEBBIE PERRY, 40800 Avenida Estrada, addressed the commission. She said there were a couple of issues she wanted to discuss that she had heard at the meeting. Her backyard backed up right to the synagogue. She wanted to make it very clear that the children she heard had never screamed. The children she heard were extremely happy, they were very well adjusted, they played, they learned from their teachers, and it was a pteasant environment to hear them. What disturbed her terribly as a parent and grandparent was to put an adult facility on the same property as a children's school. With the employees and the people living � 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 6, 2003 there, she didn't think they had a right to be on the facility as children that were learning in a school environment. She didn't think the facility belonged in their community. But she thought the synagogue had done a beautiful job in the way it had built this facility, maintained the facility and the children that went there were delightful. She thanked the commission. MR. LARRY HADDOCK, 40755 Avenida Arcada off Hovley Lane West, addressed the commission. He said he wanted to point out a few things. First of all, if this council rejected the Alzheimer's center along Monterey on its own separate parcel, which he believed was quite a bit bigger parcel, he asked why the council would even consider approving this project as it was proposed to be crammed onto this small section of property between the Temple and the existing homes behind a well area. Secondly, he didn't think it was any single issue that would kill this project, but it was a combination of issues they had to take i into consideration. All the issues together demanded that the :� project be denied. He thought the planners had a lot more studies ,,,� to complete and when they completed these studies, they would find they didn't do ample homework on what it would take in the ingress and egress area. They wanted to share the driveways with the Temple for fire trucks which was required when someone was having some sort of heart failure along with the other emergency response vehicles, ambulances, the delivery trucks, and the food service equipment. He didn't think the project took into account any room for growth at all in the congregation of the Temple, in the attendance or expansion of the school, or senior center staff in the future. The numbers they were presenting now seemed to take the parking and the ability of that piece of property to handle the ingress and egress. It was maxed out right now. The Temple had been there a few years, but as people that have been around Palm Desert knew, the previous tenant of that building, Southwest Community Church, totally exceeded the limits of that property after they had been there five or six years. The growth of that congregation � caused traffic and parking to spill out onto Hovley Lane on both 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 6 2003 �► sides of the street. People were parking almost down to Portola and Monterey. They were parking on neighborhood streets on Estrada and other streets. He didn't see how putting this facility on that property could allow the Temple to experience its inevitable growth. He thought it would be irresponsible of this council to approve such a project that would limit or make it impossible for the Temple Sinai to handle its inevitable and almost sure growth as a congregation in the future. He thanked the commission. MR. KURT SHUPE, 40905 Avenida Estrada, addressed the commission. He said Avenida Estrada was immediately west of this project. As well, he said he is a practicing architect in the city of Palm Desert with offices on Fred Waring Drive. He felt this hotel-like structure was really misplaced in his neighborhood. A 70,000 square foot structure in the middle of a neighborhood of single family homes was out of place. He thought the elevations that they saw on display were very difficult to read due to the low contrast and the plans in particular were very hard to discern. But to him they revealed a very block-like structure that was just not �" well suited to the neighborhood where the architectural style of the immediate environment was tile roof, Mediterranean, and it was peacefully residential in nature. To him the complete lack of additional parking would bring them back to the days when Southwest Community Church services brought considerable parking to the surrounding streets of Hovley and Avenida Estrada. When the school on this parcel was built and its roof-mounted mechanical equipment was suddenly visible from his neighbors' living rooms in the adjacent homes, quite a few of his neighbors sold their homes and moved elsewhere. The impact of this two-story project would be much more drastic and it would destroy the peaceful use of their adjacent homes. He thought this project belonged on a much larger piece of land in an area of taller and more densely populated buildings such as on Country Club Drive or Fred Waring Drive. Putting bocce ball courts and service drives immediately behind the yard walls of his neighbors' homes would just destroy their quality of life. � 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 6, 2003 � He stated that he wanted to read a short note from his wife who couidn't be at the meeting. "To whom it may concern at the City of Palm Desert. This letter is to advise you that I am completely against the proposed senior housing project on Hovley Lane West. As a real estate broker in the community, I do not think the project would add to our current property values. The parking does not appear adequate for 55 units plus the Temple services. Please protect our property values by voting against the proposed project. Respectfully submitted, Robin Shupe of 40905 Avenida Estrada." He thanked the commission. MR. JACK MENZIA, 40-780 Centennial Circle in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He thought anything he would say would be redundant. The only purpose for being at the microphone now was to ask the commission if it was possible for them as a commission this evening to not grant a continuance, but kill this project tonight as it was very obvious that the people in attendance strongly opposed it. He asked if it was within their power to not grant the continuance and kill the project tonight so � that they could all go away relaxed. Then he asked if he was going to get an answer to that question. � Commissioner Jonathan explained that it was one of the options before the commission. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone else wished to address the commission. Chairperson Campbell asked if the applicant had any rebuttal comments. Ms. Charrus said she wanted to submit to the council that the mailing list they got was from the city council. The architectural firm made the request and she wasn't sure if it was to the title company or to someone in the city council or city offices for a list of the names of the residents. The first letter they sent out, which was to over 300, many came back because addresses were incorrect or the parties had moved, or the resident/owner lived in another local. Three members showed up. When they decided on a second meeting because a lot of people felt left out, they asked for an updated list and it turned out afte� they made their mailing that they were told there it was incorrect. The left side was not 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 6, 2003 � included and they were given an additional list and that letter was sent out in plenty of time fo� this commission meeting. She said she could not go as a party of one around to the neighborhood and find out every address and name. They asked for a list and the lists were provided and all of the returned mail they got was returned to their architectural firm and they would follow up to see where the errors existed. She stated that she was sorry to hear that Brighton was not doing well. She wished it was. She didn't know how many residents live at Brighton and asked how many people lived there (Mr. Shaffer said 60.) Regarding the argument about the Temple growing, if the church grew to such an extent they built a building down near 1-10 on Cook Street or some place down valley, if the Temple was to do that well, she hoped they would have the same opportunity to move on to a larger parcel of land and build a new unit. The campus concept was not a very strange concept. She said she is a grandparent and enjoys the laughter of her grandchildren. She could understand upon occasion if children were out playing in the �"""' yard that they could be disturbing to the residents. She stated that they have nothing to do with the school nor with the Temple directly. The concept of being on a campus was very enriching. It was enriching to children, it was enriching to seniors and the programming that existed in the Temple could be complementary to the residents besides the programming that the residents would have in-house. It would provide for those that would follow that faith to have a place to go. She said this was a non-sectarian, Jewish sponsored residence. It was open to anyone. To say that this was a pariah in the neighborhood was very unkind to senior citizens. She didn't know how old the people were in the room, but they would all get old some day and they all might need some assisted care. She hoped no one would close the door on the face of anyone that needed it. She said she didn't bring a cheerleading group with her to applaud everything. She really felt that consideration should be given to what they said was their ultimate mission and goal. Being considerate of the neighbors and how they feel, she had no intention nor did anyone on her board, not to be a good neighbor or respect the rights of other people and the way they live. She had nothing but Canadian geese where she lives and � 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 6 2003 3 she would take people over them any day. There were lots of things that go on in every neighborhood that could create a problem and they weren't looking to create a problem. Chairperson Campbell noted that staff was recommending keeping the public hearing open and continuing this to June 3. She asked for commission comments. Commissioner Finerty said she would like to make Mr. Menzia's suggestion come true. She noted that she has been on the commission when many projects like this have come before them and she had raised the issue of saturation several times. She regretted that so many were struggling. But the big issue here was that commercial didn't belong in residential. Period. Therefore, there was no need to continue the application. She commended all of them for getting their group together and for doing a very good job and not being redundant. She was very impressed by Mr. Lea. They were very valid points. Mr. Shaffer as well. She appreciated him sharing his side from the Brighton Gardens point of view. She said the commission didn't have a resolution of denial, but she was prepared to move and direct staff to prepare that resolution. '� � Commissioner Tschopp acknowledged that staff was recommending a continuance, but the applicant had heard the comments and had not yet given the city a housing proposal that was required with the application, so he felt they owed it to the applicant to ask if they v�anted to continue this to be able to make their package complete, or if after hearing the community's comments, if they wanted to have the matter decided right then. Ms. Charrus spoke from the audience and said they would like a continuance. In that case, Commissioner Tschopp thought they should allow a continuance. But he had a few comments. He thought the project was very nice. He thought the parking was adequate and that 30 extra car trips per day was not excessive for a major thoroughfare street like Hovley and which would become worse. He thought the architect had done a tremendously good job on the interior of the proposed development. That would be a nice place for elderly people to live. But .� he wasn't enamored by the outside. He didn't think it fit with the 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 6, 2003 �, neighborhood and looked too much like a commercial building. He didn't think it complemented the residential homes in the area. Secondly, economically he didn't think they had done the homework required to have a facility like this built. There was another gentleman that spoke on the points he was trying to raise earlier and the concern was if they build a project like this and it didn't succeed, the applicant would typically come back looking for a lower age limit to hopefully rent it out quicker. If that didn't work, they would want to turn it into an apartment complex and he didn't think that was the intent of the Senior Overlay. When they came seeking a Senior Overlay, they should have done their homework and show they can actually make it work economically and he wasn't convinced they had done that yet. Lastly, it was very difficult to look favorably on a project when they have so much of the neighborhood opposed to it. He didn't think they had done their homework yet with the neighbors in convincing them this is right. They could continue it and he would be glad to hear it, but he hoped they would address his concerns before the next meeting. � Commissioner Lopez thanked everyone for attending. He acknowledged that there was a lot of emotion and passion in the room pertaining to people's feelings toward the project itself. Regarding density, he didn't think this project's density was right for this location. Height and setbacks were probably fine. The areas of most concern included noise, and he knew about that since he had had his mom in a couple of places, and there was a lot of exterior noise from emergency vehicles, etc. Regarding the vehicle trips per day, 13 houses versus 55 and 130 versus 191 , that was an increase and one that was over and above residential areas, but Hovley was a huge street and could easily handle this traffic and it would one day. Because of the way this community is growing, that was a thoroughfare that is very accessible and drivers miss a lot of traffic signals compared to Country Club and Fred Waring and Hovley Lane would continue to get busier. He said he rides his bike down that road and it was nice right now, but it was going to get busier. He stated that the issues before them were difficult issues. Staff was recommending a continuance and the applicant was also recommending a continuance, but he didn't think even continuing this project would make a difference. It didn't belong in this particular location. He pointed � 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNfNG COMMISSION MAY 6 2003 :� out that this wasn't a popularity thing, so he wasn't looking for any applause. Speaking frankly, he said there were moments during the meeting where ladies and gentlemen shouldn't treat other ladies and gentlemen like they did. He didn't think this project, even with a continuance, would find enough support and wouldn't address the questions they had before them. He agreed with Commissioner Finerty that they should request a resolution of denial. Commissioner Jonathan thought it would be unfair to the applicant to not give them an opportunity to really think about the comments they had heard tonight, both from the neighbors and from the commission. He thought that in the interest of fairness and justice they owed it to the applicant, the neighborhood, and the city to give the applications due course. So he thought it would be preemptive and inappropriate to not provide that opportunity. He thought the comments made were largely substantive. He was not a fan of some of the behavior, specifically the applause and snickering. It didn't do them justice. He knew they were good people. Other than that, some comments were substantive. But a few weren't in his mind. To compare this to an Alzheimer's facility was comparing apples to oranges. To talk about the Temple was irrelevant. � The Temple was not the applicant. The 55-unit 70,000 square foot � structure was. Other than purchasing the property from the Temple, there was no relationship. In his mind, comments about the Temple, the behavior of the kids, etc., were just irrelevant to this application. The other comments that had to do with traffic, height, the design, with impact on lifestyle and so forth were relevant to him and he urged the applicant to consider those comments because he thought they had merit. As they look at applications, he thought they had a debt to existing neighbors to insure, because they were there first, that they not be unfairly impacted by a new project. He reminded everyone present that their homes were part of a new project at some point and the commission heard from their neighbors, some of which didn't want them there either. So the commission owed that debt to them, as they did to the neighbors who existed before them. But they also owed a debt to the overall community. Whether there was satu�ation in the market for senior housing, assisted house, he didn't know. No insult was meant, but he wasn't going to trust the �epresentation of a competitor. But they didn't hear anything to the � 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION __ MAY 6, 2003 � contrary from the applicant. So he believed in the forces of a free market place and he hoped the applicant had in fact done their homework and determined that there is a need and demand for the product they are suggesting, but he had not heard anything about that either way from the applicant. The architecture was an issue. He thought that a more effective transitional type of design that took it from a Temple to residential would be more appropriate. So architecture was an issue, traffic, parking, and the various other impacts that would occur. In light of all that, he thought the applicant had now had an opportunity to hear the comments of the commission, to hear the very real concerns of the neighbors, and he was in favor of giving the applicant one more opportunity to address those before he personally arrived at a conclusion. Chairperson Campbell agreed that they should give the applicant another opportunity to answer the questions before the commission, to present a development agreement and to allow commission to study the traffic information the commission had in front of them. As far as the architecture was concerned, she didn't think it was the appropriate � location. It didn't blend in with the neighborhood around Hovley. She thought it should be more blendable and that they needed to really study the traffic pattern and the parking situation. She thought the commission owed it to the applicant to give them an opportunity to address all these issues and come back again. She asked if there was a motion. Commissioner Jonathan noted that staff was recommending a continuance to June 3. He made that motion. Mr. Lea spoke from the audience calling for a point of order. He requested that he be given another opportunity to speak. Chairperson Campbell said no. Mr. Lea argued that he raised his hand earlier wanting to speak. He objected to the fact that the applicant had the last word. Chairperson Campbell explained that the applicant has the last word and was given the opportunity to offer rebuttal comments. Mr. Lea would �.. 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 6 2003 � have the opportunity to speak again June 3. Mr. Drell confirmed that Chairperson Campbell was correct. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Cornmissioner Tschopp, by minute motion continuing this matter to June 3, 2003. Motion carried 3-2 (Commissioners Finerty and Lopez voted no). Commissioner Jonathan explained that the public hearing was continued to that meeting so there would be further opportunity for anyone and everyone to speak. Mr. Wiley spoke from the audience calling for a point of order. He asked if Chairperson Campbell was telling him that he couldn't make a comment at this time. Chairperson Campbell confirmed that was correct. (Note: As people were leaving, staff and the City Attorney advised Mr. Lea that he � had to submit the 315 petitions he said he had if he wanted them to be included as part of the record. He declined to do so.) IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (April 16, 2003) Chairperson Campbell informed the commission that the meeting was mostly informational in nature. B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (April 21 , 2003) Commissioner Finerty said she was unable to attend. � D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 6, 2003 �r E. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) XI. COMMENTS Commissioner Jonathan noted that a couple of ineetings ago he mentioned the parking lot issue at Augusta's. He wanted to go on record that Sunday at 2:20 p.m. he drove by and not only was the Portola entrance to the parking lot closed off with cones and a car, but so was the other street. So both entrances to the parking lot were blocked off. Mr. Diercks said that Mr. Smith mentioned that to him the day before. He looked at it on the way to the meeting tonight and the same thing was happening. Portola was coned off and a car was blocking the side street. Mr. Diercks said he went up to the guy there and handed him his card and told him to have his boss call him and informed commission that there would be a letter written within a week to them. He said he would give a copy to Commissioner Jonathan so that he would know it was done. Commissioner Jonathan thanked him. Chairperson Campbell explained that there was a special occasion on � Sunday. It was a fund raiser for the Animal Sar�aritans from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., so it was a private event that wasn't open to the public. Commissioner Jonathan said that if that was the only occasion that would be okay. Mr. Diercks said that it was that way tonight at 6:30 p.m. There was nobody in the parking. There were only three cars there. So it was something they do all the time. Commissioner Tschopp said they continually did that to encourage people to use their valet parking. Sometimes they didn't even use cones and used cars to block both entrances. Mr. Drell explained that the City's valet permit system required them to make self parking spaces available. They had to get a permit from the City and they would not get that permit if they gave the City a plan which monopolized the entire parking lot. He said they would be in touch with them. He suggested that they research the status of that permit and said technically it should be something they reviewed every year. Mr. Diercks said that each permit is renewed on a yearly basis. They had to come in and pay 525.00. Mr. Drell said that at that time they reviewed complaints and compliance and things that have come up in the past. � 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 6 2003 XIi. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Chairperson Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:54 p.m. � q PHILIP DRELL, ecretary ATTEST: � <<�._,,,�� � � i� , ,...�� ,S'�ONIA CAMPBELL, Chairperson Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm 32 �, 1C � � � i I" � lC��:�'-1iv�.��C.� <t� ��� ������ , ,. �� , HAROLD M. RABIN ,, �.. April 3, 2003 Dear Jean: Thank you for the information you gave me regarding the proposed Jewish Senior Community Housing Development for Palm Desert. My wife and I are active 80 year olds. However, the time will soon come when we will seek a supportive living environment and what you describe would be perf'ect. We have relatives that live in The Weinberg Assisted Living Center in Deerfield (Ilinois and they are extremely satisfied. When our time comes to seek assisted living we would love to have the same type of facility here in Palm Desert. We are leaving for home soon. When we return in November ( would like to become an active supporter of the project. My experience has shown that a Jewish Senior Assisted Living Center is an asset to the entire Community and should be strongly supported. t will contact you when we return. Sincerely yours, � / , Dr. Harold Rabin PhD. � ,�X1 � + I .� �s/nc� � n Y� ���.�� o. � ,�►�.. ��` ,��.� THIS IS A PETITION AGAINST ZONE CHANGES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS TO BUILD SENIOR HOUSING FACILITY, IN THIS NEIGHBORH40D :� � � � The Jewish Senior Community Foundation of the Desert has proposed the building of a 55-unit, one and two-story senior housing facility at the front of the Temple Sinai property on Hovley Lane West. I am protesting this proposed apartment complex planned for Hovley Lane West to be built in the middle of new and recendy built single-family homes in a PR-5 zoning area. Sign and da.te below and bring to the Palm Desert Community Development Department, 73510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260. Name Signature: Address: � Telephoae: � Date: � � Apri130, 2003 Dear Homeowner, �"` You may or may not be aware that Jewish Senior Community Foundation of the Desert in cooperation with Temple Sinai is proposing to build a Senior Housing Project. It would be a 55-unit, one and two story housing facility, located at the front of the temple's property at 73251 Hovley Lane West, between Monterey and Portola, in Palm Desert. The complex would be for residents age 62 and older. Twenty percent of the units, or 11 apartments, are being designated for low-income housing and would then quality for federal grants_ The Hovley Lane West residents do not want an apartment complex on the temple property for the following reasons: 1. The property in question is currently zoned PR-5 for residential use with no more than five houses per acre. Areas zoned PR-5 are given such designations so that homeowners can be reassured that their investment will not be impaired by a development not cc>nforming to the present code. The proposal would change the density to twenty-two(22)residential units per acre. This hig6 density is not acceptable to us. 2. The proposed building will be like an apartment complex but yet it will be more like a commercial basiness venture because, as an assisted living facility, it will be providing restawarn, laundry, nursing care, and other services to its residents_ �""` 3. A venture of this type should not be located in the middle of an area surrounded by residential singi�-famity homes, on and offHovtey La.ne West, with valuations ranging from $350,OOQ to$b0�,000. This complex will impact our property negatively. Either ow values wili decrease, or they may not increase as they otherwise woutd. Our residential neighborhood should not be tumed into a business neighborhood_ 4. The proposed 55-unit building will bring an increase in tratTic on Hovley Lane West. Many different suppliers will be bringing food and supplies(i.e. trucks bringing food items, meats, bakery products, beverages, and others)from very early morning hours and throughout the day_ These trucks will likely be of the diesel- powered type and lazge, loud and noisy. Such trucks, and the number of them, do not belong in our residential area._ In addition, there will be many emergency vehicles responding to medical needs at atl hows of the day and night. 5. The approval of the proposal would be setting a bad precedent in our neighborhood and could lead to other proposals of the sa.me nature_ 6. Thorough envirnnmental impact studies have not yet been made. This includes studies on traffic, noise, lights, sight lines, and others. Unacceptable study results would be another reason this project should not be built in our neighborhood. ��: Imagine the many serious concerns and problems that would be created with this commercial , business venture (assisted care housing project) in the middle of single-family homes such as <� ours. We simply don't believe it fits in our neighborhood. � The nearby communities of Rancho Mirage, Indian Wells, and LaQuinta have not permitted or condoned such a venture within their city limits to date. Why is the Palm Desert Planning Commission seemingly pushing and condoning such a zone change and granting a conditional use permit to allow a negative impact on our bea.utiful community� The residents on Hovley Lane West request that all homeowners join in helping to defeat the proposed PR-5 zone change and accompanying conditional use permit, which would allow this commercial business(assisted care housing project)to be built here_ Twice in the past several years, neighborhood residents have defeated similar proposals. With strength in numbers, we can do it again. Here is what you can do. First, sigo the enclosed petition against tbe housing projeet and return it to the person who persona(ly gives you this notice, or yau drop it off at the Pa1m Desert Community Developmerrt Department, 73510 Fred Waring Dr., Palm Desert, CA 92260. Second, attend the public hearing on Tuesday,May 6,at 7:Q0 p.m. in the Council Chambers at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California. Your presence,joined by many other like-minded individuals,will give a strong message that this neighborhood on streets from Hovley I,ane West are united in their opposition to the proposal. Both husbands and wives should be there. Please ciear your schedule for this date, mark your calendars, and plan on attending_ This is a must meering. Thank you for your important support and help_ You are helping to protect our neighborhood and property values. The Residents of Hoviey Lane West