Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0805 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY - AUGUST 5, 2003 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Campbell called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Finerty 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: Steve Smith, Planning Manager Dave Erwin, City Attorney Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Assistant Planner Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the July 15, 2003 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the July 15, 2003 minutes. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Finerty abstained). MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 2003 V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION None. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. V11. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 02-07 - PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge Lots 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Palm Village Garden Tract Unit No. 2, 73- 610 Santa Rosa Way. APN No.'s 627-101-026, 027 and 037. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner '. Tschopp, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. Vlll. 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. CUP 03-16 - DANIEL J. SULLIVAN, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow the operation of a 900 square foot retail wine store for off- premises consumption and accessory on-site wine tasting in an existing multi-tenant commercial retail building at 73- 360 Highway 1 1 1 , #1 . 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 2003 Mr. Urbina explained that the proposed retail wine store with accessory wine tasting would be located at 73-360 Highway 1 1 1 on the north side of the frontage road. The multi-tenant building had a 21-space parking lot in the rear with access via an alley. A conditional use permit was required for this use because the Zoning Ordinance requires that any business selling alcoholic beverages or liquor for on-site or off-premises consumption required a conditional use permit. The tenant space was approximately 900 square feet. Staff did a parking survey of the area and found that there were always some vacant spaces on the Highway 1 1 1 frontage road. The parking lot in the rear was used mgstly by employees. The accessory wine tasting portion of the business would be located in a small room in the back with a table. There wouldn't be any chairs there. The purpose of the wine tasting was to allow customers to sample the different types of wines available for purchase. Staff recommended approval, subject to the conditions in the draft resolution. Chairperson Campbell asked if the one parking lot belonged to McGowan's Restaurant. Mr. Urbina said yes, the whole L-shaped parking lot belonged to McGowan's. Using the plan on display, he also pointed out the parking lot that belonged to the 21-space parking lot servicing the multi-tenant commercial building where the proposed wine tasting was proposed. It was mentioned that McGowan's was open for lunch, at least during the season. Mr. Urbina clarified that he didn't see any signs posted that said that parking lot was for McGowan's customers only. He said there were typically always parking spaces available within 50 feet along both sides of the frontage road. The frontage road was two-way so there was parallel parking on both sides. Commissioner Tschopp noted that this study was conducted during July when McGowan's is closed. But during the season or at any other time of year when McGowan's is open, parking there at lunch time was a problem. It was a serious problem. He wasn't opposed to the proposed use, but he disagreed with the analysis being conducted in July. In addition, McGowan's was closed and there wouldn't be 22 spaces there from 11 :00 a.m. to 2:30 or 3:30 p.m. during the season. Mr. Urbina clarified that 22 spaces was the requirement for the entire building. He r� acknowledged that Commissioner Tschopp's point was well-noted but 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5. 2003 they did the parking survey at this time of year because this was the time of year the applicant filed the application. If finding a parking place on the street became an issue, he suggested that perhaps the applicant should post a sign on the front of his business informing customers that there was a parking lot available in the rear of that building to serve customers. Commissioner Jonathan said he was actually going to suggest that be made a condition. But he was concerned about the parking survey. He said he went onto the internet and noted that on July 23, 24 and 25 the high temperatures were 106, 105 and 104. He didn't think too many people were going to taste wine at 4:15 p.m. when it was 105 or 106 degrees outside. When staff did the parking surveys, they weren't done utilizing a proper scientific method. There was a certain level of judgmental decisions that had to be made such as what days and what time of day. They have had situations where staff went to look at something and the adjacent store was closed. In this case, yes, he goes to McGowan's at lunch and had to park on the adjacent parking lot because there weren't spaces on the street and the McGowan's parking lot was full. He noted that it was a great place and it was very popular. So if they were to do a parking survey in January or February at lunch time, there would be a different result and they would be having a different conversation. His point was that apart from this application, when staff does parking surveys, if they were going to rely on them, then they really needed to make an effort to make them more comprehensive, more scientific and, as much as possible, more objective. He clarified that the comments didn't speak necessarily to this particular application, because he wasn't sure they had a problem, but he did want to address the survey itself. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. DAN SULLIVAN, 42-510 Lima Hall in Bermuda Dunes, addressed the commission. He stated that he read the staff report and would comply with any requirements. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Sullivan was the tenant or the owner. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 2003 Mr. Sullivan said that he was the tenant and confirmed he would be new to that location. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the parking situation concerned him or if he felt there would be adequate parking for his clients. Mr. Sullivan explained that he was in the retail business right now located near TGI Fridays and has been in retail in Palm Desert for 14 years. People come in for five or ten minutes. It wasn't long- term parking. He believed with rear parking, it wouldn't be a big issue. For people going in and out on the frontage road, that would help. But it wasn't a sit-down bar where people would come in and sit down and have a glass of wine. It was mostly retail. The tasting bar was just to enhance the sales. It wasn't a time- consuming part of the business. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Sullivan thought it would be positive for him or the building owner to post a sign saying that there was additional parking available in rear. Mr. Sullivan said he planned to do that and he would not object if that was a condition. Chairperson Campbell asked how many employees Mr. Sullivan would have besides himself. Mr. Sullivan said it was mainly just him. For 14 years he had used one or two people. It was a pretty simple operation. Chairperson Campbell asked for testimony in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no testimony and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Campbell asked for commission comments. Commissioner Tschopp stated that with the added condition of posting adequate signs to direct parking to the rear parking lot, he would be in favor of the proposed application. Commissioner Lopez concurred. He agreed with the condition regarding additional parking in the back. During the prime season, he hoped this I tow wouldn't create a burden and wished the applicant luck. He was in favor. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 2003 Commissioner Jonathan concurred. Commissioner Finerty stated that she would move for approval with the additional condition for signage. Chairperson Campbell also concurred. 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. 2216, approving CUP 03-16, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case No. PP 01-07 AMENDMENT #1 - THE FOUNTAINS, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to the approved precise plan to replace 52 assisted living units and a 21-unit Alzheimer facility with 31 single-story casita units, a single- story clubhouse (multipurpose) facility, and a 10-unit assisted living unit wing at the Fountains at the Carlotta at 41-505 Carlotta Drive. Mr. Smith explained that the Fountains at the Carlotta was requesting an amendment to their previously approved project on Carlotta Drive. He recalled that in August of 2001 the applicant obtained approval to expand the then existing facility onto the 7.7 acres on the west side of the property. At that time they received approval for 84 new units--32 casita units and 52 assisted living units. The 32 casita units were currently under construction in the northwest corner of the site. The 52- unit assisted living portion was going to be located in the southwest corner. Also, relative to the approval in 2001 , there was some consternation concerning a third access point at the northerly entrance. Council ended up requiring the northerly access. It was under construction at this time. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5. 2003 tow Due to changing market conditions, the applicant was requesting an amendment from the 2001 approval. They wished to replace the 52 assisted living units and the 21-unit Alzheimer facility with 31 additional casita units, a clubhouse facility of 3,700 square feet, and a new assisted living wing with ten units. The new 31 casita units would be very similar to the present ones under construction: one and two bedroom units, 963 square feet to 1 ,200 square feet, two bedroom two bath units. The clubhouse facility included a fitness center, massage facility, locker room, library, and a 1 ,000 square foot multipurpose room. With respect to the clubhouse facility, the elevations indicated a 25'4" high structure. The limit in the zone was 24 feet. The roof pitch would be adjusted to bring it into compliance. Site circulation and access would remain the same. He said parking was adequate. On the entire site there would be a total of 377 parking spaces. The total required per code was 315 spaces. Mr. Smith said staff seriously considered requesting the applicant to eliminate 30 or 40 parking spaces and turn them into landscaped area, but the overage on tow parking was in the area that had already been constructed. They were just about right on in the new area, so staff didn't come to a logical conclusion on that. The site would have a surplus of 62 parking spaces. ARC at its meeting of June 24 and July 8, 2003, granted preliminary approval to the casitas, the clubhouse, and the proposed assisted living wing. He indicated that the proposal was a Class 32 categorical exemption for CEQA purposes. He stated that the new project would be less intense and would comply with all code requirements. Staff recommended approval. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the area near Carlotta Drive where the ten new units were going in was previously going to be developed. Mr. Smith said no. Commissioner Tschopp reconfirmed that was a new area that was going to be developed. Mr. Smith concurred. Mr. Smith stated that he had colored elevations available for view. Commissioner Jonathan asked Mr. Smith to point out the area where the approved 52 assisted living units would have been located and indicated those were being replaced with 31 single story units (in the same location, but a different configuration). Mr. Smith concurred. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 2003 Commissioner Jonathan noted the clubhouse would be to the right of that and then the ten-unit assisted living unit which was the new construction in terms of a place that didn't exist before. Mr. Smith concurred. Chairperson Campbell indicated that the new addition of the ten units was attached to the present building and she asked for confirmation that it would be one story. Mr. Smith said yes, for the most part it would be 13 feet in height and then would go up to about 19 feet on the pitched roof element. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. MARVIN ROOS, of Mainiero, Smith & Associates at 777 E. Tahquitz Canyon in Palm Springs, addressed the commission. He stated that they have been working on the project from its inception and had been working with the applicant on the final engineering. From the early parts of the project, there were questions about the overall market in the area. The balance of assisted and independent living units, etc., were felt at the time to be about where the balance needed to be, but there had been a lot of assisted living units built recently and the first phase of the casitas was pretty much sold out. The sales had been very strong. The change to the main structure with the ten assisted living units was to keep the balance where it was now in terms of assisted living and independent units. They hoped this would respond well with the market. The overall impact on the project site was about the same. He said they were beginning to implement all the conditions of approval. Most were well underway and they were working through those details. He said they didn't have any questions or problems with the staff report or conditions. He noted that the precise number on the clubhouse building was subject to change. They might enclose some of the breezeway areas which were now open depending on air-conditioning units, but the actual functional spaces would not increase over the 3,768 that they had, but they 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5. 2003 r.. might have a couple hundred square feet more in terms of breezeway enclosures, etc. Mr. Roos informed commission that there were others present at the meeting, including the manager of the project, if the commission had any technical questions about the operations and how those conditions were going. He said they had a public session with the community and invited the neighbors. They had a few people come out and ask some questions about the status of the project and the proposed changes. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Tschopp asked if Mr. Roos anticipated that the number of people living in the facility would change dramatically from the prior plan. Mr. Roos said it was about the same, maybe a little less. Commissioner Lopez noted that one of the issues on the previous layout with the Y-shaped building was where the emergency vehicles would go taw to pick up and drop off people. For the new section in the lower left-hand corner, he asked where an emergency vehicle would go to access those facilities in an emergency. Mr. Roos thought it would depend on the type of call. They usually went to the circle area, which was where it went in the past. They kept the disconnects. He pointed out where the traffic would access the site and the service area. It would still be in the area talked about before for the facility itself. There was no change to that. Commissioner Jonathan said that with the proposed configuration, the Fountains at the Carlotta would end up with a combination of independent living units, assisted living units, and the skilled nursing units. He asked if they were dropping the Alzheimer's facility completely. Mr. Roos said yes. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the staff report cited market conditions as the reason and asked if they determined that there was a lack of demand for Alzheimer care. He was curious because the 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5. 2003 commission saw that before them periodically and had conflicting testimony about the market demand for it. MS. JULIE FERGUSON, with the Fountains, 2020 W. Rudisill Road in Tuscon, Arizona, addressed the commission. She said that the market study they completed 3.5 years ago indicated there was sufficient market four years out for more assisted living beds in the desert. What became true was the amount of assisted living units that had been built in the last three-year period, the current occupancy rate in assisted living based on their most recent market study was approximately 86%, which meant that the demand still had not caught up with the supply in this market. Therefore, based on the projections their marketing people had given them, plus the amount of assisted living projects on the planning boards in the desert area, there was expected to be no catch up in the market demand for assisted living units in this market for another 12 to 15 years based on their market studies. The Alzheimer's component was pretty much the same thing. The number of Alzheimer's beds introduced into this market were still sitting at about an 81-82% occupancy rate. Therefore, they had some significant concerns about adding more beds to the desert. Their biggest concern was having the number of beds available to accommodate their internal residents at the Carlotta, which was why the ten-bed expansion was on the plan. Based on actuarial studies, market history at the Carlotta as far as the number of independent living residents that move to the various levels of care, as well as industry data, that indicated that 38 beds plus or minus was approximately over a 20-year period for this number of independent living residents as to what they would need to care for their on-site existing residents on average. Commissioner Jonathan noted that their study determined that there was an excess supply of assisted living units and Alzheimer's facilities. He asked if they attributed that excess to the lack of demand or if there were other factors such as cost, affordability, or other kinds of factors that might have influenced that excess inventory. Ms. Ferguson said she was purely speculating, but it was based on the demographic data and a demand issue. There wasn't enough a 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 2003 population that fell within needing those services right now in the desert to fill those beds to a 98% or 95% occupancy. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. She noted that she had a Request to Speak in Favor Card and invited Dr. Schoenfeld to address the commission. DR. HAROLD SCHOENFELD, 41-505 Carlotta Drive, addressed the commission. He informed commission that he has been a resident of the Coachella Valley for 33 years with the last four in Palm Desert and the preceding 29 in Indian Wells. He stated that the commission was facing a new threshold in the history of city planning. In the 18th Century, the Industrial Revolution had a considerable effect on the city environment. The 19th Century saw the invention of the elevator. The elevator enabled taller buildings to be constructed creating the skyscraper era and crowded metropolis. The 20th Century introduced suburbia with the invention of the Model T Ford and $5.00 a day wages. Soon expanding suburbs affected city planning or the lack of it. Now in this century, the 21 st, they found an era of longevity -- man's longer lifetime. This phenomena led to the creation of a new industry characterized as continual care from independent living to assisted living and long-term care with skilled nursing available at any time. He said he was fortunate to be able to reside in one of the senior citizen residences of the leading giant of this 21 st Century, the Fountains. At the Fountains at the Carlotta, their representative council of all of the residents voted unanimous approval of the plans now before the commission. He personally endorsed the Carlotta's revised construction plans because they provided an attractive environment and safe, adequate space for their fiscal, mental, emotional, and social needs. The citizens of Palm Desert were fortunate to have a well planned, rapidly growing city with safe, beautifully landscaped shopping centers and renovated streets that could handle the increasing volume of traffic such as on Fred Waring, Cook and soon to be completed East Hovley Lane and Portola. The commission's approval of the excellent revised construction plans would be a boon to the city of Palm Desert and the ever increasing number of senior citizens of the Coachella Valley who need or would need independent living, 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5 2003 9 3 r assisted living, long-term care, and skilled nursing in one convenient location. Also, the Carlotta management sent letters to 240 surrounding neighbors who were invited to attend a meeting to hear about the revised construction plans. Only four people showed up and the four people represented two households. Therefore, they didn't have any objections from the residents nor from their neighboring citizens, unlike the first meeting two years ago. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone else wished to speak in FAVOR. MS. KIMBERLY WEBB, 75-720 Dolmar Court, addressed the commission. She stated that she was very active last summer regarding this project and received an invitation extended by the Carlotta. She was out of town and was unable to attend. She noted that many residents in their neighborhood through mouth-to- mouth discussions had been extremely disappointed. They were in favor pretty much of the revisions compared to what they were looking at as proposed by the council last year. Her greatest distress was that the residents of their community, those 240 that received notice of the meeting and the invitation, the bottom line was that they felt they had been sold out by the council. They had been there meeting after meeting after meeting and their feelings for the initial project were extreme and they were very concerned. They even had members of the council that were very distressed as they were and the next thing they knew, it was all approved and it was almost under the carpet even though there was so much controversy. She said she wasn't averse to the project as it now stood. She thought it was a better fit for their community. It was surrounded by all single family homes. Her biggest concern was initially there was supposed to be a pass-through drive dividing the two segments there between the new construction and the existing structure. It appeared that they eliminated that which meant all the traffic was still going to be in a circular fashion. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 2003 The homes that bordered the south side, Dempsey Court, Hemingway, Marin, and Freedom Court were all affected by the traffic that entered from the southeast entrance. That was supposed to be limited access and the majority of the traffic was to go through the main entrance, which was the center dividing north and south, as well as the north entrance. So she was concerned about that. They did have family homes going through there. They still had the emergency vehicles entering from the south. There were people complaining about flashing red lights that were coming through their two-story bedroom windows. This was a real concern and those people were very distressed by this and if the commission reviewed the notes there were a number of people complaining. She said that was no longer addressed because they were going to have them come from the north and go south through the middle to the emergency entrance. Ms. Webb also said that the fire services had been very good. They hadn't been going in with their blaring sirens at 2:00 a.m. and they were appreciative of that, but there were the red lights and there was always a paramedic unit and a big engine and they were very loud at 2:00 in the morning and the entire neighborhood could hear those and especially those homes. There was only a six-foot block wall and about 15 feet between where those trucks go through, so she was a little distressed. That didn't affect her directly since she was on a little cul-de-sac, but she felt for the other residents. They didn't show up because they didn't feel that it mattered. They were out in numbers last summer and the commission ignored them. They gave them great hope that something was going to be done and the next thing they knew they had the Alzheimer unit all the way down on the south next to all the homes. There were no other Alzheimer units in the city that was surrounded in a residential neighborhood and they had pointed that out to the commission as well. She said they were in favor of the revisions. She also wanted them to know that they have always been proactive in Palm Desert, they were the gem in the valley as far as a proactive council and they would like to think that they were really representing them. As far as the Alzheimer unit, no disrespect to Ms. Ferguson, but it really came down to the dollars. Medicare 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5. 2003 dollars. They were receiving premium fees for the casitas because they were private pay people, not people who were dependent upon the County or the government Medicare programs. That was the reason for the change. She was in favor, but disagreed. The need was here in the valley, but not in their neighborhood. She hoped someone else would open up a facility that was in a more commercial area and a better fit than their neighborhood. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone else wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one. Chairperson Campbell asked if there were any rebuttal comments. Mr. Roos said no, but he was available to answer any questions. Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Jonathan said that the proposal looked good and enhanced the previous plan. He thought the applicants had done their homework. He respectfully disagreed with the conclusions of Ms. Webb. He thought his Palm Desert neighbors throughout the city knew that both the commission and the City Council worked very cooperatively to represent all the varied interests of their citizens and he knew his neighbors. If they had an objection or were unhappy, they were at the meeting before them and made themselves heard, so he thought the fact that they heard nothing but testimony in favor spoke to that issue. He was in favor of the proposal. Commissioner Tschopp noted that the new wing being constructed on the southeast corner was no closer to Carlotta Drive than the existing buildings to the north. The number of persons using the facility and the units was actually decreased from the previous application, so he was also in favor. Commissioner Lopez concurred. He was in favor from the standpoint that there was a slight reduction in the number of dwellings and he thought the layout was much more appealing. .i 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 2003 Commissioner Finerty also concurred that the layout was much more appealing. From prior testimony they had heard, the assisted living spaces were simply not filling up and there was so much out there they were offering really good deals. It made more sense to her that rather than having a business in this residential that they have the individual casitas in the residential areas. She thought it was a much better mix and was in favor. Chairperson Campbell also concurred. She thought the casitas were more friendly and a more casual environment for the people living there. She was also in favor. She asked for a 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, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2217, approving PP 0 1-07 Amendment #1 , subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. C. Case No. C/Z 03-07 - THOMAS BARNETT, Applicant Request for approval of a change of zone from Office Professional to Residential Estates 40,000 for a subject property located at 77-935 Delaware Place. Mr. Bagato explained that the property was a 1 .02-acre parcel located on the south side of Delaware Place, 126 feet west of Washington Street. Access was currently restricted from Washington because of a barricade installed on Delaware which limited the traffic though the residential area from Washington. In 1997 the property was rezoned from R-3 2,000 (the county standard prior to city annexation) to Office Professional as part of the implementation of the Project Area 4 Specific Plan. The purpose of the change of zone was to provide adequate depth for a buffer zone for professional office between Washington and the residential area. In this area it was anticipated that it would require a depth of about two lots to develop an adequate office complex. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5. 2003 j 1 In March of 2002 a precise plan was approved for a computer payroll Void building just east of the property. They only used one parcel and was able to comply with the O.P. standards with adequate parking on the one parcel. Due to that and the application in front of them, staff felt that with the office professional use already proposed on the one lot, the second lot was not necessary to implement the Project Area 4 Specific Plan. In conclusion, staff felt that with the proposal to build a new home to the RE 40,000 standards, demolishing the existing dilapidated home, and due to the restricted access because of the barricade, this lot tended to blend in with the neighborhood to the east and staff was recommending adoption of the resolution that would recommend to City Council approval of the change of zone. Mr. Bagato stated that for CEQA purposes, this was a Class 5 categorical exemption. Regarding the computer payroll building that was approved, Chairperson Campbell asked if it was going to be one or two stories. Mr. Bagato said it was two stories. Chairperson Campbell noted that if this was changed j to residential, she needed to know if any windows on the second story j could see into the proposed yard because that was a concern that was "+ usually raised. Mr. Bagato didn't have the plans, but he didn't recall any windows. He thought there was a warehouse door. Then there was parking between the two properties, but he didn't know the setbacks. Mr. Bagato stated that with a zone of RE 40,000 the setback from the side yard would be 15 feet. He said the building was not yet under construction and he could contact the architect and have some revisions made to the windows. It had to go back to Architectural Review for a final, but as far as he could recall, there weren't any windows on that elevation. Chairperson Campbell said she didn't want this issue coming back to them since that building was already approved and this was a change of zone. The other people shouldn't have to make the modification when their building was already approved. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. THOMAS BARNETT, 42675 Wisconsin Street, addressed the commission. He said he was present to answer any questions. He said he would like to build a house at this location and live in it. 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 2003 e.. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was none and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Campbell asked for commission comments. Commissioner Finerty said she would move for approval. Commissioner Tschopp seconded the motion. Mr. Smith clarified that with respect to the office building to the east, they would attempt to elicit cooperation from that applicant. If in fact there were windows there, it might be something the applicant would have to live with because that project had standing as an approved project. If there were windows, they would endeavor to get cooperation. Mr. Barnett spoke up and said he believed there were windows there so he planned to put up trees blocking them. He already ordered some Italian Cypress, so he was ready. Chairperson Campbell noted there was a motion and a second and asked for the vote. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2218, recommending to City Council approval of C/Z 03-07. Motion carried 5-0. D. Case No. ZOA 03-01 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant (Continued from June 3, 2003) Request for approval of an amendment to the Municipal Code as it relates to parking requirements for churches and other places of assembly, Municipal Code Section 25.58.310. Mr. Smith noted that in June commission directed staff away from imposing a surcharge on large churches, but felt they should come up `... with language which would take care of exceptional circumstances. They 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 2003 h attempted to do that at this point by adding under places of assembly that the Planning Commission may require additional parking if the commission made the finding that specific operational characteristics of the use would create additional demand for parking. That would apply to all uses which fell under "places of assembly" such as auditoriums, theaters, sports arenas, stadiums, churches and other places of assembly. They also took advantage at this point in time to take libraries out of that category and moved them into "other uses" and then consolidated the current places of assembly in that all of the uses under places of assembly had the same standards, but they were spread out all over the ordinance, so they were trying to do a little housekeeping at this time. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Tschopp said that it appeared that it would address their concerns if they had churches coming in to be built new or to expand, so if they were aware of circumstances that would warrant additional parking, it could be required at that time. Mr. Smith concurred. He said the commission could require a parking management plan, additional parking, and whatever else seemed appropriate under the circumstances they were in at that point in time. Given how theaters, auditoriums and churches could change as to the number of people attending them, Commissioner Tschopp asked if they could have a clause stating in there that if parking became a problem, or they would always be part of a parking plan, or something of that nature. Mr. Smith said the City Attorney advised that they could do that under the parking management plan. Commissioner Tschopp thought that it made sense to have that on places where the congregations could grow significantly, create a problem in the neighborhoods, and for it to be a standard item for in the future if it was a problem, they would be under that parking plan and would have to readdress the city. Mr. Smith said it could be a standard condition that the applicant, in cooperation with the City, develop a parking management plan and that as a provision of the parking management plan, it has at some threshold when they expand beyond a certain number, then it triggered additional provisions. Commissioner Tschopp thought that made sense and was something they should look at so that they didn't run into the same problems in the future and if they did, they would have the means to make them come t in and work out the problem. That was his recommendation. 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5 2003 tow Commissioner Jonathan asked if Commissioner Tschopp was suggesting that it would be something that, if they require additional parking mitigation, that they do it at that time as a condition or if he was suggesting that it be part of the revised code section. Commissioner Tschopp said he would like to see it used in a manner that would give them the most authority to address problems, whether it was a new applicant or someone coming in for an amendment. Commissioner Jonathan said he was going to suggest that the wording be modified slightly in that portion of the code where they said, "require additional parking" and instead say, "require additional parking mitigation" so it would say that, "where a conditional use permit is required, Planning Commission may require additional parking mitigation if the Planning Commission makes the finding that specific operational characteristics of the use creates additional demand for parking." In other words, requiring additional spaces might not be the solution. They might want off-site parking, a parking management plan, and there were a lot of options and staff had been creative in resolving parking issues and he wanted to have the leeway, including what Commissioner Tschopp referenced, to resolve those kinds of issues. Mr. Smith thought the commission would see staff coming in with requirements for parking management plans a lot more frequently. This clause gave them the ability to do that. Commissioner Tschopp stated that he liked the idea of additional parking mitigation because sometimes they didn't want another big parking lot, they wanted other solutions like busing, etc., so he liked the addition of that word. Commissioner Jonathan said that especially applied to existing parking lots where the use has blossomed and they didn't have the option of adding spaces, but they wanted to be able to require other measures from the applicant. So if inserting the word "mitigation" after parking gave them the ability, that was what he preferred. Mr. Erwin suggested that they not only add the word mitigation, but also go a little further and add in "and / or parking management plan." That clearly would let anyone coming in be aware that it was a distinct possibility. Commission concurred. 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 2003 t 7 Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing, there was no one present to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION, and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Campbell asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2219, recommending to City Council approval of ZOA 03-01 as amended. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (July 16, 2003) Chairperson Campbell advised that there was a meeting on July 16, 2003, at which time they had two artists who showed them renditions of monument signs for the entrances to Palm Desert at Dinah Shore / Monterey and Washington / Fred Waring, but the commission voted them down. So they were looking for other artists or different renditions. B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) E. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 2003 XI. COMMENTS None. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 6:57 p.m. STEPHEN R. SMITH, Acting Secre ary ATTEST: �.. SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm `.. 21