Palms Hotel Conversion Turned Down, Appeal Likely

A plan to convert the Palms apartments at 504 Matheson St. to their historic use as a hotel was denied by the Healdsburg Planning Commission Tuesday night, on a unanimous 5-0 vote.

Though there was some interest in the proposal, which would have returned the building to its historic use, ultimately zoning issues over available parking proved insurmountable.

The big pink complex at the corner of Matheson and University streets currently serves as an 11-unit apartment building, and several units including kitchen and suite configurations.  

Historically, however, the Palms has been a hotel, built in 1903 as the Crocker Sanitarium with spa, health club, retreat and hotel -- "care for everything from constipation to the liquor habit," according to consultant Brian Heim, who presented the owners' application for a zoning variance.

Their proposal was to convert the 11-unit apartments into a 12-unit hotel, with an additional unit for an on-site manager.

Marc Mezzetta and Dolores Gamba purchased the property in 2007 and tried once before to convert it to a hotel, according to senior city planner Lynn Goldberg. This time, a substantial request for a conditional use permit was presented to convert the building to a "residential visitor lodging" as well requesting the parking variance.

The 11 apartment units at the location currently fall short of parking requirements, Hein noted, and the multi-unit residential use of the complex is itself at odds with the neighborhood's "historic overlay district" designation.

Returning the building to its historic use as a hotel would actually decrease the parking requirements from 20 spaces to 14 -- residences are projected to use more parking than hotels - but both numbers exceed the currently available six standard parking spaces, four of them in the front courtyard facing Matheson.

The proposed remodel, by architect Catherine Austin, would have taken out those parking places and relocated most of them in tandem slots on the University Street side of the property, behind the building.

In their place, the front courtyard would have a fountain reminiscent of that visible in old photographs, plus other structural amenities and landscaping to preserve the historical character of the property -- as well as create an appealing Healdsburg lodging.

Public objection to the plan came from neighbors Jon and Elizabeth Worden of the property immediately behind the Palms on University, who said their house was apparently built on the lot where the Crocker - Palms parking area was.

"It's a much different neighborhood than it was at the time," noted Jon Worden, himself an architect and former planning commissioner.

"We oppose it not only because of the physical aspect of the project," Worden said, "but the philosophical aspect: How do we keep our community as a real place?"

The current use of the Palms as apartments provides "a starter building for the community," he said, characterizing it as reasonably affordable housing for new members of the community who go on to more permanent residences or buy houses in the area.

His wife objected to the potential late-night disturbance of the proposed spa in the back corner of the lot, the irregular noise of cars being moved in and out of the tandem parking area (which would necessitate a valet-type service), motion-sensitive lighting and other conditions that would create "an unpredictable situation."

"I don't think I heard one time the word 'neighborhood' in the presentation," she added.

When the members of the planning commission began to weigh in, it soon became clear that while they had some sympathy with the Wordens' concerns, it was both the requested parking variance and the loss of residential housing that proved most insoluble.

At present, it's not uncommon for drivers in the several parking spaces currently on the main courtyard to back into Matheson to leave the complex, as Heim pointed out. But backing into University Street -- a much busier and more narrow thoroughfare -- was apparently unacceptable.

Commissioner Jeff Civian noted that "The number one responsibility of the Planning Commission is to look after Health and Safety," and on that basis he could not support a variance that relied on backing out onto University Street.

Vice Chair Jerry Eddinger agreed, pointing out that while parking is already an issue, losing 11 residential units is also a problem. "There are not low income by law, but affordable by price," he said. "We need to be really careful not to push the neighborhoods out of the neighborhood."

The city planner's office had counter-proposed retaining some of the front courtyard parking, though noting the available spaces would be reduced from four to three as one of them needed to be ADA compliant. To do so, however, meant the proposed fountain could not be built -- a condition which the developers seemed reluctant to accept.

"I agree it would be nice to have that fountain," said commissioner Phil Luks. "It would also be nice if I had a full head of hair."

At the end of the meeting the motion to deny was proposed, and passed unanimously by all present.

After the meeting Heim and his colleagues were clearly disappointed. "We understood the concerns that were verbalized," said Heim. But he added that most of the concerns are either currently existing, such as parking problems, or are not presently prohibited -- a spa could be added right now to the apartment complex, he noted.

Despite the concern over "affordable housing," Heim noted that it is neither the current status of the property nor the legal responsibility of the owners of the to provide affordable housing.

The owners have 10 days to decide if they want to appeal the decision to the City Council.

"It's very likely that we will be filing an appeal," Heim said.