Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 96-59 PP-CUP 96-5 APN 640-071-001,008 and 009 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT I . TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II . REQUEST: Consideration of an appeal to a decision of the Planning Commission approving a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and precise plan/conditional use permit request by Rick Muro for an 18,489 gross square foot, two story athletic club on the vacant property at the northwest corner of Monterey Avenue and Fred Waring Drive, also known as APN 640-071-001, 008 and 009 . III . APPELLANTS : City of Palm Desert/ Rex McDaniel City Council Call-Up 72-915 Glorianna Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 IV. CASE NO: PP/CUP 96-5 V. DATE: August 22 , 1996 VI . CONTENTS : A. Staff Recommendation B. Discussion C . Draft Resolution No. 960 '6 / 1 D. Planning Commission Minutes involving Case No. PP/CUP 96-5 E . Planning Commission Resolution No. 1752 F. Planning Commission Staff Reports dated June 18, July 2 and July 16 , 1996 G. Related maps and/or exhibits A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council deny the appeal and affirm the action of the Planning Commission in the matter of Case No. PP/CUP 96-5 . B. DISCUSSION: May 15, 1996 Mr. Muro filed this application for approval of a precise plan/conditional use permit to construct a two story athletic club on the vacant property at the northwest corner of Monterey Avenue and Fred Waring Drive. STAFF REPORT PP/CUP 96-5 AUGUST 22 , 1996 The matter was before architectural review commission on June 11, June 25 and July 9 , 1996 . The building architecture and size continued to evolve through each ARC meeting. July 9 ARC granted preliminary approval subject to some changes to the landscape plan and continuing the window treatment around the rest of the building. The major change at that point involved elimination of the second story element at the corner of the building at Fred Waring Drive and Monterey Avenue . The application was before Planning Commission at three public hearings on June 18, July 2 and July 16 , 1996 . The original staff recommendation was denial of the request because there were only 81 parking spaces while code required 119 spaces . Over the three hearings the plans changed to include a two level parking structure with 124 parking spaces . The building also grew to 18 , 489 square feet, but the 124 parking spaces are adequate to comply with parking requirements of the ordinance . With all of these changes in architecture and parking staff was still concerned because of the potential impacts on the residential neighborhood to the northwest . Specifically, staff was concerned as follows : i) additional pass-through traffic which the athletic club could create, ii ) overflow parking going into the residential area; iii ) expanded hours of operation from 6 : 00 a .m. to 9 : 00 p.m. and how they might impact the residential area . The City traffic engineer completed a traffic impact study of the proposed facility (dated June 25 with addendum July 16 , 1996 ) . The study was limited to the extent that the available traffic generation data in the ITE Generation Manual for health or racquet clubs is based on only nine case studies and that although the average trips generated per member was . 4 , the most active club generates 12 times as many trips per member ( 1 . 86 ) as the least active ( . 12 ) . Using the . 4 trips per member and the 1500 members predicted by the applicant, 210 additional trips were predicted for Acacia as a result of the project. With existing traffic volumes projected to be 337 ADT, the project would increase traffic by 62% . Peak hour traffic would increase from 30 to 56 cars, an increase of 87% . Although the report concludes that from a traffic operational point of view these volumes represent a good condition, the report points out that there is a potential for significantly higher traffic rates based on the range within the ITE data. 2 STAFF REPORT PP/CUP 96-5 AUGUST 22 , 1996 Based on the traffic engineer' s report, staff concluded that given the prime location and high quality of the proposed facility, the likelihood of traffic generation rates exceeding the ITE average was quite high. Although with the project average traffic increase, Acacia will continue to meet good traffic operational standards , a sudden increase of 60% to 80% in a residential neighborhood resulting from commercial activity represents a significant environmental impact requiring mitigation when measured from a quality of life standard. Very simply, the major portion of the traffic on a residential street should not result from commercial activity. The most obvious mitigation would involve closure of Acacia directly north of the proposed project . Similar street closures were requested by residents and successfully implemented by the city for the neighborhoods adjacent to the southwest and southeast quadrants of the Fred Waring/Monterey intersection. In the July 16th addendum, the city traffic engineer analyzed the impact of a medical/dental office on the site, the most logical alternative to the project . Although less impacting, the result was a potentially significant 45% increase in traffic on Acacia which would require similar mitigation. The subject neighborhood is currently served by three streets to Fred Waring, one to Monterey and two at Park View. While creating some inconvenience to residents, closing one or more streets to Fred Waring would allow adequate access via Arboleda and Park View. If it were designed today, the subject neighborhood would include no more then three access points . At the July 11, 1996 city council meeting, Sharon Howard presented a petition signed by many neighborhood owners/residents requesting that Fairhaven, Adonis and Acacia Drives be closed at Fred Waring Drive to eliminate existing pass through traffic . July 16 , 1996 planning staff recommended approval to Planning Commission of the revised athletic club proposal subject to conditions which included closure of Acacia Drive. At the three Planning Commission hearings many people spoke in favor and in opposition and submitted comments in writing. The written correspondence is attached as are the minutes of the hearings . 3 STAFF REPORT PP/CUP 96-5 AUGUST 22 , 1996 At the July 16 , 1996 Planning Commission hearing, even with the changes which had been made and the conditions suggested by staff, the nearest residential neighbors were still very much opposed to the athletic club so close to their neighborhood. Mr. McDaniel , the closest residential neighbor, commented among other items that if the use has the potential to have so many impacts that we need to close the street to reduce the impacts, then we shouldn' t have the project at all . Other residents continued to oppose the athletic club for a variety of reasons and indicated that even if the club is not approved or built they still want the streets closed. In the end the Planning Commission on a 3-2 vote (Beaty and Campbell opposed) approved the requested precise plan/conditional use permit for an 18, 489 square foot athletic club subject to conditions recommended by staff and conditions added by the maker of the motion for approval . July 25, 1996 the department received a timely appeal from Councilmember Benson and subsequently the matter was re-noticed and re-advertised. July 29 , 1996 the department received a second timely appeal from Mr. McDaniel . Along with the appeal Mr. McDaniel submitted a letter challenging the adequacy of the CEQA review. Specifically, Mr. McDaniel expresses concerns as follows : i ) The CEQA review did not address the impacts the wall mitigation would have on the community as a whole . ii ) The street closure would impact traffic circulation ( section 16 .d) , public service access (police and fire service) ( section 17 ) , and aesthetics (extra signs ) ( section 22 ) of the Initial Study. Mr. McDaniel concludes by requesting that an environmental impact report be prepared and that the matter be referred back to the planning commission for review and public hearings . Staff discussed this new information with the city attorney' s office. The city can continue processing the project and the mitigated negative declaration can be expanded to address Mr. McDaniel ' s concerns . This has been done and is included as Addendum #2 to the Initial Study. The project as conditioned addresses all the impacts identified by Mr. McDaniel . 4 STAFF REPORT PP/CUP 96-5 AUGUST 22 , 1996 Staff has amended condition #14 of the Planning Commission Resolution in the draft resolution attached to your report . The change to the condition requires the applicant to enter into an agreement to provide for long-term maintenance of the landscaping which will be installed. The change involves entering into the agreement . Prepared by: Steve Smith Reviewed and Approved by: Phil Drell /tm CITY COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED DENIEDOJ� �4 �44u �� �J 6. RECEIVED OTiIER ' MEETING DATE Ala L AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: VERIFIED BY: Original on File with City Clerk's Office 5 "•• 3/91 , CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA • Z'b��..(=ti i1 : ti • o'� ai Al'' APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION (Name of Committee/Commission) Case No. PP/CUP 96-5 Meeting Date: July 16, 1996 Name of Appellant Rex E. McDaniel Address 72-915 Gloriana Dr., Palm Desert, CA 92260 Phone: ( 619) 346-0351 Description of Application: Written statement, public statement, documents, maps, charts. Reason for Appeal: Deprivation of property ownership rights, devaluation of property, invasion of privacy and unlawful encroachment, all caused by official disregard for . the Palm Desert Municipal Code, official disregard for the California Environmental Quality Act and official duplicity. • (- � lX E;'M2'DANIEL 07/29/96 Signature of Appellant Date • FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Date Appeal Filed: / 7-Z Fee Received: Treasurer's Receipt #: Received by: ter( .7 Public Hearing Set For: ,%e,/c Action taken by the City Council: Date: Sheila R. Gilligan, City Clerk /' 43-827 Acacia Dr. t _ Palm Desert, CA 92260 August 21 , 1996 RECEIVED Re: APN 640-071 -001 , 008, 009 Case No. PP/CUP 96-5 Palm Desert City Cda)c@�tiG 22 Pill 1 115 Mr. Walter H. Snyder 73-510 Fred Waring Dri.-McCLERt\ _ Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mr. Snyder, Upon receiving a copy of the posted agenda for the regular City Council meeting to be held on Aug. 22 , 1996 , I became aware that the sole appelant to the proposed two story athletic club to be located at the Northwest corner of Monterey and. Fred. Waring Drive, is Mr. Rex McDaniel. While it is true he is the only one who has filed an appeal , he is by no means the only appelant. He is backed by at least75% of the neighborhood in question. The issue has been before the Planning Commission prior to the June 18, 1996 meeting. I have been personally involved in appealing the project since May. ( see enclosed letters dated June 10 and July 16) Further, I have spoken and addressed the Commission on June 18, July 2, and July 16. I own and live on the property located on the NW corner of Acacia Dr. and. Gloriana. I am adversely affected by the project for the following reasons: 1 ) TRAFFIC Acacia Drive is a through-way for traffic going between Fred Waring and. Parkview, by all drivers who want to avoid the Fred Waring- Monterey intersection. Previous traffic studies (several years ago) showed about 300 vehicles/day use Acacia Dr. A recent study was held the week of July 22 , and a smaller one on August 12. The July study is somewhat negated because southbound traffic on Monterey could not right turn onto Parkview due to construction at the corner. Also , during that week the temperatures rose to 117° and the humidity was excessive. In this type of weather, residents make fewer trips. The fitness center with its anticipated membership growth would add 900 and 3000 vehicles/day to the area. Further, the City has been instrumental in locating 4 popular shopping centers on Fred Waring west of Monterey. They are: Trader Joe' s; Waring Plaza; 111 Town Center Way; and Desert Crossing. Other popular venues which draw heavy traffic to the area are: Palm Desert Town Center; the Metropolitan movie complex - Cinema 10; the McCallum Theatre; the College of the Desert Street Fair; and the College of the Desert itself which has close to 10,000 students. The Fred Waring/Monterey intersection handles current traffic fairly well, but those drivers who wish to avoid the very long lights make turns and use Acacia Drive (primarily) and other streets in the neighborhood. For the City Council to approve a facility which would increase the number of vehicles/day by 900 to 3000, is simply unacceptable. The noise would become unbearable and the streets and neighborhood unsafe. 2. 2) HOURS OF OPERATION They are:6AM to 9PM, 15 hours/day, 7 days a week. In addition, employees arrival prior to opening, and departure after closing to the public, add another hour. The facility must be cleaned - so add another 2-3 hours onto an already long day. This means that traffic would flow in and out of the facility for over 18 hours a day. This type of traffice movement from early morning until late at night is not acceptable to a quiet neighborhood. The amount to traffic and the hours it moves through the neighborhood will have ginegative impact on our envircinment. 3) LIGHTS High pressure sodium lightsare projected and must be adequate to insure the safety of all participants. The type and number required would also adversely impact our night sky. The sky is already impacted by the lights from the shopping centers, especially Desert Crossing. We never have a dark night anymore. Plam Desert has a fine fitness center located in the Park about one mile away.I see very little publicity for it, but judging from the number of cars, it is popular, and for a nominal fee. Why would the City encourage one which will be in competition to their own? Further, the College of the Desert(only a half-mile away)has aerobics, jazzercize and a weight training facility which is in operation from 8AM to 8PM 5 days a week. These are extremely popular activities to all people of all ages for a nominal enrollment fee. How man fitness centers are needed in a one-mile radius??? The neighborhood, officially known as the Palm Dell Estates, is bordered by Monterey Ave. , Fred Waring Drive, Fairhaven and Parkview. It contains about 53 residences. As outlined in my July 16 letter to the Planning Commission the neighborhood has addressed the situation and about 75% are opposed the the proposed athletic club. If for some reason, after considering the TRAFFIC, HOURS and LIGHTS, you approve the project, then the residents and myself want Acacia Drive closed to through traffic. Sin erely, Y P cc. Mr. Richard Kelley, Ma or ro tem. iana Ia Mar Ms. Jean Benson, Councilmember Mr. Buford Crites, Councilman Mr. Robert Spiegel, Councilman enc. 1 ) letter dated June 10, 1996 2) letter dated July 16, 1996 3) result of neighborhood. survey July 16, 1996 43-827 Acacia Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 July 16, 1996 ref: Case No. PP 96-5 Mr. Stephen Smith, Planning Manager City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 Dear Mr. Smith; During the week of July 7, 1996, Sharon Howard and I circulated a petition in our neighborhood, to close Acacia Dr. and Adonis at Fred Waring with a black wall, and Fairhaven at Arboleda with a carded gate. The cards being held by the residents. The petition drive resulted in some interesting facts. As best as I could determine, there are 53 residences in the Palm Dell Estates- the neighborhood in question. My percentages can be adjusted if a more accurate nember is determined. However, it will not significantly affect the results. 1 ) 38 signed the petition to close the street 2 would have signed- objected to wording 75% want the streets closed 2) 16 sent letters opposed to project and/or traffic 14 ae/initelyloppooseactodtn epro ec d to project and traffic 57% 3a 3) 2% 1 opposed to street closure - unsure if opposes project 4) 7% 8 vacant or not home at time of survey If 75% (3/4) of a neighborhood are opposed to a proposed development, then it would behoove the Planning Committee and City Council to back its citizens and aid in relocating the proposed development. The nearly empty shopping center at One Eleven Town Center Way is agressively seeking tenants. There are ' For Rent' banners in every storefront window that is empty. It is near the current proposed site and has adequate parking and lighting. Fred Waring Plaza and One Eleven Town Center Way are two projects in close proximity to the project that have a high vacancy rate within 2 to 5 years of being built. I would like to propose that the City Planners and Council require an occupancy of at least 5 years with a renewable request for and additional 5 years. None of the residences surveyed want to see another empty building in 1 or 2 years! We do hope you will listen to us, and honor our reauests ! Sincerely, Diana La Mar enc: copy of residences surveyed .,7'tiz99 fh 7&6' >'/ 3'7 "r :. . '-\.* ..\`\\‘ ' - Mill • _c/6 pit . , 50 s5,5 10. A ""'-,. -r/ ` . r_ 1. .,f� q/ 6 < 4G� � tali 49 n � ---- • WE - h 0 t6 .� fit: M 9 h al:t5 ' • r^4 iipAt b cif, A e I d L F/7�/ . b 1 $ . o �6I 4 r`'' c F - • o',9 -W 3 o Lam,/ / am/ A - �. r -11 _ . 0r9 LG .5 0t(S a ? . \S • ,c�,•\, �' 11111 /.4. . OA') CD ' itir ii ) s ni p i - -) 91 ''J� Q 1. 9 , ins o ,.)� 'a-s� �0� 1 0 • !xz Ak s . �.� 1 s �;01 > D� �� 4 4. P?''`" 5 �1 ` c. • 11 i , JOFLI �' 8r �1 pq l 0 /` 6S h0 9 f 43-827 Acacia Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 June, 10, 1996 ref: Legal Notice Case No. PP 96-5 Mr. Stephen Smith, Planning Manager City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 Dear Mr. Smith; This note is in reference to the Rick Muro two story athletic club proposed for the vacant NW corner of Fred Waring Drive and Monterey Ave. 1 . Traffic and Parking (a) Acacia Drive is a VERY well travelled street by motorists attempting to avoid the lights at Monterey and Fred Waring as well as Parkview and Monterey. Fed EX, UPS and Sparkletts trucks are seen many times a day. Further a schoolbus with young and also handicapped children stops at the Acacia Dr. entrance to the Desert Pointe apartment building. There have been collisions with injuries at the intersection of Acacia Dr. and Fred Waring. Autos entering the parking lot to the 73-880 Fred Waring professional building, stop to left turn and the cars behind them have to react quickly to hopefully avoid a collision. The plans call for another busy driveway for the project on. the East side of Acacia. The increase in traffic will generate and increase accidents. (b) During the tourist season, people attending the College of the Desert Street Fair on Saturdays and Sundays park their cars, motorhomes, vans etc. on Acacia, Gloriana, and Arboleda. January, February, and March are the months with the greatest number of vehicles. This period will generate the highest volume of members using the fitness center. Mr. Muro stated to me that he is projecting a membership of 1200. Most vehicles carry one person. The neighborhood simply can' t handle the extra traffic and parking problems. (c) The fitness center is scheduled to be open from 6AM to 9PM. The hours of 3PM to 9PM generate the most traffic down Acacia Dr. (d) Only 81 spaces for parking are allocated. 119 spaces are required . Where are the other 38 spaces going to be?? On the street??? (e) The 6AM to 9PM business hours of the fitness mart are NOT suitable for a residential area. The businesses fulfilling the 0/P zoning are usually open from 8AM or 9AM to 6PM. The traffic ends and the street quiets down. The wheelchair-bound student seen leaving the school bus is frequently seen with her 2 dogs , travelling Acacia Drive and the neighborhood. She and others who do so would definitely NOT be safe with the increased traffic. ti 2. , LIGHTING High pressure sodium lights are to be installed. Being a Black-Sky advocate (I 'm on the board of the Astronomical Society of the Desert - a College sanctioned organization) I find the the thought of more pink light appalling! The Desert Pointe apartments has ruined my view of the East sky. The lights reflecting off the building walls and mountain behind Desert Crossing Shopping Center have innundated my west sky. How many hours will the lights remain on after 9PM? How high will they be? 3. Stability Mr. Muro has moved his fitness center twice in the past several years. He moved from a location on El Paseo to a location east of Portola in the Ruth Chris ' Steak house building. After the project is built will he move again? Most likely. We will then have another vacant building in the area. The shopping centers are filled with vacancies. Palm Desert could become a ghost city. 4. Architecture Many of the newly completed 0/P buildings on Fred Waring and Monterey are of a low-key South-West style. They blend in along the 'Scenic Corridor' of Fred Waring Dr. The Mediterranean style buildings such as the Darr Eye Clinic and the 73-880 Fred Waring Dr. building are in good taste and relatively inconspicuous. Mr. Muro ' s two story edifice definitely would not be , and in fact, an attention getter. 5. View On behalf of the tenants of the Desert Pointe apartments whose units overlook the vacant lot that the proposed fitness center is to be located, its height would preclude any southern view from these sites. When the current tenants move out, these apartments would be extremely difficult to fill. (see photo 21a) 6. Financing I have no idea of the cost of building the project or what financing has been arranged. However, I have lived in the desert since 1977 - a period of 19i years, and have seen many housing/ condominium go up for auction because the financing went dry. Many of the shopping centers built in the 70' s, 80' s and 90' s are empty or have a high vacansy rate. No one can predict what will happen here, but this is too important a corner to have an empty, vacant building. The homeowners will have again, another unused, empty structure to view. 7. Zoning This area has been zoner Residential with a limited Office/ Professional zoning since about 1956 or 40 years. The limited use of space dedicated to Office/Professional has been in keeping with this centrally located quiet neighborhood. I am VERY opposed to a variance in the zoning for a business that will disrupt the quiet nature of this neighborhood. There are other locations nearby ie. large shopping centers- which already have large parking areas and very large 2-story buildings that are empty. These locations are certainly more suitable for a fitness center. Sincerely, /6 ,. ,; I/A. enc: 11 photos Diana La Mar n� �r R E: -McDaniel 72-91 , Gloriana Dr. 96 F P2Im ese-rt-? CA 92260 August 22 , 1996 City of Palm Desert `-LEH S 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Honorable Mayor and City Council : This is in support of my appeal to the Planning Commission' s approval in Case No. PP/CUP 96-5 . My letters in strong opposition to the project are part of the official record as attachments to staff reports dated June 18 , 1996 and July 16 , 1996 and to my appeal dated July 29 , 1996 . A summary of my objections includes: 1 . The authorization of this athletic club in an office professional zone is a violation of the zoning ordinance. Any attempt to justify the project requires a calculated indifference to the facts of the case. 2 . The required wall system, which is considered by the planning department to be a vital mitigating factor, has not been evaluated as part of the overall project as required by CEQA. 3 . Any wall system which would permit construction of the club as proposed and still mitigate the harmful effects on the residential community as a whole, would simply con- centrate and amplify those harmful effects on my residential property. 4. Instead of shielding or seperating my property from the offending land use, the wall system would JOIN MY PROPERTY TO IT AND MAKE MY PROPERTY A PART OF IT. 5. This unnecessary invasion of my property would unreasonably interfere with my ability to maintain, use, develop, and enjoy my residential property. A commercial fence attached to my property like a leach would substan- tially depreciate the value of my residential property. I urge the Council to disapprove the action of the Planning Commission in this case. Respectfully, 1REX E. MC DAIEL • RECEIVED Rex E. McDaniel 72-915 Gloriana Dr. '96flUG 16 Pm 3 26 Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 August 15 , 1996 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE The Honorable Walter H. Snyder Mayor, City Of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA. 92260-2578 Dear Mayor Snyder: I am taking the liberty of addressing you personally because of my profound concern for the rule of law and the fact that the decision of the Planning Commission in Case No. PP/CUP 96-5 makes a travesty of the Palm Desert zoning ordinance. The ordinance clearly specifies the type and nature of land uses permitted in an office/professional zone. Clearly, a health club, by name and nature, is not permitted. In paragraph 25. 78 . 010 , the ordinance clearly forbids the planning department and planning commission from making any alterations to land use regulations. I know that the land involved in this case poses a special problem to the city and to the developer. I know, also, that illegal means cannot be justified by an attractive outcome. I will make my case as a violated home owner through normal channels. In the meantime, I beseech you to consider the ramifications of this wholesale abandonment of land use control . Respectfully, fEE. MC DANIE Aug. 15 , 1996 Dear City Council Members : RECEIVED In regard to case number PP/CUP 16- G 16 AM 11 t13 R IT'S CLERK'S Whether or not this project is permitted , we, as a neighborhood, are very united in our desire to have current and future "pass- thru" traffic controlled and or eliminated in the neighborhood. The City has addressed the "pass thru" traffic on Joshua Street , on San Nickolas and Catalina at Monterey Ave, in the neighborhood south of Fred Waring between Acacia and Fairhaven as well as some areas around Portola and Alessandro. We are asking that Acacia and Adonis Drives be closed off by install- ing block walls and that Fairhaven be closed with a carded gate . We suggest that Fairhaven and Adonis be closed at the northerly property line of the Jehovah Church. This would prevent the "pass thru" traffic generated by the church members . At Acacia Drive perhaps a wall could be angled from the north side of the driveway into the apartments to the southerly property line of the McDaniels residence. If the driveway into the apartments was made into an exit only the residences of the apartments would have access to Fred Waring without going thru the neighborhood Also the need for gate cards would be eliminated to those people living in the apartments . We have a very nice neighborhood here and most of us know our neighbors and care for our property and neighborhood . We all do understand that there will be progress and growth. We are only asking that you do the best you can for us . Respectfully submitted, Sharon Howard 43866 Adonis Drive 568-0293 2578.010 ft Chapter 25.78 authorized agent of the owner of the property on which the variance is being requested; VARIANCES AND ADJUSTMENTS C. Address and legal description of the property, D. Statement of the precise nature of the variance Sections: or adjustment requested and the practical difficulty or 25.78.010 Purpose. unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the zoning of the 25.78.020 Application—Submittal objectives regulations that would result requirements. from a strict or literal interpretation and enforcement ofthe specifiedregulation,togetherwith any other data 25.78.030 Investigation and report. � i � Po pertinent to the findingsprerequisite to the grantingof 25.78.040 Hearing responsibility. P q 25.78.050 Public hearing. a variance or adjustment, prescribed in Section 25.78.060 Action of the planning commission 25.78.010; or zoning administrator. E. An accurate scale drawing of the site and any 25.78.070 Findings. adjacent property affected, showing, when pertinent, 25.78.080 Appeals. the contours at intervals of not more than two feet,and 25.78.090 Determination by city council or all existing and proposed locations of streets,property lines,commission. uses,structures,driveways,pedestrian walks,off- 25.78.100 Effective date of variance or street parking facilities,and landscaped areas; adjustment. F. A list of all owners of property located within 25.78.110 Lapse of variance or adjustment three hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the 25.78.120 Revocation. subject property. The list shall be keyed to a map 25.78.130 New application. showing the location of these properties; 25.78.140 Variance or adjustment related to G. The director of environmental services may re- quire additional information or plans, if they are nec- plans submitted. essary, to enable a determination as to whether the 25.78.010 Purpose. circumstances prescribed for the granting of a variance or adjustment exist. The director of environmental J� A. Variances and adjustments from the terms of services may authorize omission of any or all of the this title shall be granted only when,because of special plans and drawings required by this title if they are not circumstances applicable to the property, including necessary. (Ord.99§ 1 (part),1975:Exhibit A§25.39- size,shape, topography, location or surroundings, the 5.02) strict application of this title deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. Any variance or 25.78.030 Investigation and report adjustment granted shall be subject to such conditions The planning division shall make an investigation of as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized each application that is subject of a public hearing and shall not constitute a grant of special privileges incon- shall prepare a report thereon which shall be submitted sistent with the limitations upon other properties in the to the planning commission,and made available to the vicinity and district in which such property is situated. applicant prior to the public hearing. (Ord. 99 § 1 B. The power to grant variances and adjustments (part), 1975: Exhibit A§ 25.39-5.03) does not extend to use regulations. flexibility to the zoning regulations is provided in the conditions use 25.78.040 Hearing responsibility. provisions of this title.(Ord.99§1(part),1975:Exhibit A. Applications for adjustments solely for the fol- A§25.39-5.01) lowing regulations shall be heard and a determination shall be made by the zoning administrator: 25.78.020 Application—Submittal requirements. 1. Building site area; Application for a variance or adjustment shall be 2 Building site width; filed with the planning division on a form prescribed by 3. Yards; the planning commission and shall include the follow- 4. Off-street parking regulations. ing data and maps: B. All other variance applications shall be heard A. Name and address of the applicant; and a determination shall be made by the planning B. Statement that the applicant is the owner or the commission. 469 i `y1 pi,, ©mv, (pq P, 1[i ED ID'GgGin -tie.-.7 I TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. PP/CUP 96-5 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider an appeal to a decision of the P1Annina Commission approving a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and precise plan/conditional use permit request by Rick Muro tor an 18,489 gross square foot, two story athletic club on the vacant property at the northwest corner of Monterey Avenue and Fred waring Drive, also known as APN 640-071-001, 008 and 009. U I PP.-7 S.P. -It- Q. - ���Aa' ' _ SL-I___ .R.-22 r�� .r� ' AHD - __ _Q.r•� ,, ig VT, SUBJECT PROPERTY ildi ��.► . . .14 iii m i 1 t.t • 1•DIADa De wc�a►ur rnt�ret ' cJ . �N a AREA OF PROPOSED n SHARED USE PARKING • �` ;+ _ l/ I Van .v ,SHARED - r_ - iIlEO NARINO DIIIVE 4( ' " BOOMAlt .�1. . bi I��IMuluI:.�s1/IPi11UI MAP s SIMI I .E E.Lt 3 I l wir olitliai, . �i W �l�l, d ...,E . . ` 44LI/AV 4 ...pi ,, : 0 ■11.•��ii/inOlb �Si r S ` t, , I 71 , T u Ft- -R-- ---. R 11 : I i 1 - ii- , i �, ! q 1 .� .n..... SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, August 22, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, '/3-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the planning commission (or city council) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk August 1, 1996 City of Palm Desert, California 4i., G II fili .,. -- --• /dpiii . , .....% ,../, ,, ,,,, \*.j4t , affizmca EIGZGQ7) �1,,,,, PZ O a=a:(2,3 , i; j, , D I 4, -N5-/ I1C , , ,,i• 11 ii. ! , .t..... . ._ ., • -i._:;i,- • . ", . . THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A HEALTH CLUB AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER MONTEREY AVENUE AND FRED WARING DRIVE IS A VIOLATION OF THE INTENT, PURPOSE, SPIRIT, AND LETTER OF THE PALM DESERT ZONING ORDINANCE. Did you know. . PALM DESERT ZONING ORDINANCE This is "a regulatory zoning ordinance to govern the uses of land and the density and intensity of development." Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance, pp 339 PP/CUP 96-5 -- Two Story Health Club "The property on which this new facility is to be constructed is presently vacant and is zoned O.P. (office professional) ." Community Development Staff Report dtd June 18, 1996 OFFICE PROFESSIONAL ZONE "The office professional designation is intended to allow for a mixture of administrative or professional offices which, by their nature, are of relatively low intensity and, therefore, are compatible with adjacent residential zoning." Palm Desert General Plan pp III A 10 Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance pp 385 Chapter 25.25 OFFICE PROFESSIONAL ZONE Sections: 25.25.010 Purpose_ 25.25.013 Permitted roes. 25.25A11 Development standards. Pertnined uses in the O-P zone shall be as follows: 25.25Al2 Precise plan of design. A. General offices; 25 25.013 Permitted uses. B. Medical offices; 25.25.014 Permitted uses subject to C Laboratories (medical and dental). (Ord. 273 conditional use permit. (part),1981) 25.25.015 Site size. 25.25.016 Building heights and setbacks. 25.25.014 Permitted uses subject to conditional 25.25.017 Second-story windows. use permit. 25.25.018 Nonconversion. Permitted uses subject to conditional use permit in any O-P zone shall be as follows: 25.25.010 Purpose_ A. Profesdonal schools; The purpose of the office professional(O-P)zone, B. Business col' is to ciAtcify and set standards for those businesses, C Art galleries; offices,administrative or professional land uses which D. Art studios; by their nature are of relative low intensity and,there. E. Financial institutions; fore,when properly located and designated,are corn- F. Commercial parkin& pantile with adjacent residential zoning and the devel- G. Churches (Ord. 343, 1983: Ord. 273 (part), opment therein.(Ord.273(part),1981) 1981) 25.25.011 Development standards. The development standards set out in this chapter shall apply to all developments in the office profes- sional zone.(Ord.273(part),1981) The health club "by its nature" is incompatible with adjacent residential zoning. It is very high density. A two tier parking facility is required to provide enough parking. It is very high intensity. Normal operating hours are from 6am to 9pm seven days a week. A health club or athletic club or anything similar is not among the normal (permitted) or unusual (conditional) uses authorized. The Community Development staff reviewed these facts and reported this conclusion to the Planning Commission: F. CONCLUSION: The ordinance permits as outright permitted uses professional offices and professional business schools as conditional uses. This use holds classes and as such was deemed to fall within the conditionally permitted use area of the O.P. zone. Private recreational facilities are also a conditional use in the adjacent R-2 and R-3 zones. Community Development Staff Report dtd June 18, 19.96 In plain, honest language this gobbledygook means: A health club is not authorized in the office professional zone. A professional school is authorized. Therefore, we will pretend that the health club is a professional school. This unreal pretext is the justification for the health club! ! ! After introducing this disruptive, incompatible business into the residential community, the Planning Commission pretends to "mitigate" the unreasonable impact on the community by authorizing a wall to be built across a public street to accomodate the developer. (A road block to protect the community from traffic would be completely different in configuration and placed in an entirely different location.) In the final analysis, the business operation was changed not a bit. The noise, lighting, traffic congestion, extended hours, etc. are exactly the same. The only things that have changed is the nature and character of the community. Obviously, someone or some group in city government wants this project to go through. There is ample provision for changing the zoning of the property (if a change is warranted) and proceeding in a straightforward, aboveboard manner. The City Council will hold a public hearing to consider appeals to the Planning Commissions approval of the project. The Council can put an end to this fraudulent charade, but not without public pressure. If you have any thoughts about the health club or the manner in which it was justified, this is the time to make them known to the City Council. By telephone -- 346-0611 By mail - 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 In person - Civic Center Council Chamber August 22, 1996 7:00 PM Prepared by: R. E. MC DANIEL 72-915 Gloriana Dr 346-0351 (All quotes were taken from the Palm Desert General Plan or the Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance (which were purchased from the community development office) or from staff reports prepared for the Planning Commission.) :.4 X-- t ©mv oV fin_um o eseN as%��` 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 Iu-s7 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. PP/CUP 96-5 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider an appeal to a decision of the i P annina Commission approving a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and precise plan/conditional use permit request by Rick Muro tor an 18 , 489 gross square foot, two story athletic club on the vacant property at the northwest corner of Monterey Avenue and Fred Waring Drive, also known as APN 640-071-001, 008 and 009 . PR.-T S.P. t - I �,, I �� u i ►+ rIM� --- - s► - �Wat 1 1 C '. R .- 22 ---y �� .II ... AHD a r s s 16 El SUBJECT PROPERTY 0 ` W V tiii • - : o Ali IJ VP IAIIA OR e wCAlw11 TTItATRt I I �` AREA OF PROPOSED 1\1\14 S .n 1p SHARED USE PARKING FRED WARING DRIVE _ ' " - _ Miliiip cn --.4.a:-.. 0 11.111111111111tatithlinn 110 iiir air ,a„,fi z : mitit irs 4 ' ...... • iff 1/1. 111111 . - ac mi n . r . . - 4447 0 Ilia 0.INN i 1211A110MI M l . W J r-.�-a ...�� i 1 A Ife t i 1 L: _ is 1111111 Liii :a ' - i 1 71/1 7- . ...7........k- - - :r-- • J Y � _ asa c ' - iv li a Joi f r 1 RAIO !RANDI OR. - r � �GN SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, August 22 , 1996 , at 7 : 00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8 : 00 a .m. and 5 : 00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the planning commission (or city council ) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk August 1, 1996 City of Palm Desert, California tvh7k4 • in:414? PasalL D GOC;E//"Ni • Il ' k�, PZ 0 arEaTa3 111 �f. l !.. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A HEALTH CLUB AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER MONTEREY AVENUE AND FRED WARING DRIVE IS A VIOLATION OF THE INTENT, PURPOSE, SPIRIT, AND LETTER OF THE PALM DESERT ZONING ORDINANCE. Did you know. . PALM DESERT ZONING ORDINANCE This is "a regulatory zoning ordinance to govern the uses of land and the density and intensity of development. " Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance, pp 339 PP/CUP 96-5 -- Two Story Health Club "The property on which this new facility is to be constructed is presently vacant and is zoned O.P. (office professional) . " Community Development Staff Report dtd June 18 , 1996 OFFICE PROFESSIONAL ZONE "The office professional designation is intended to allow for a mixture of administrative or professional offices which, by their nature, are of relatively low intensity and, therefore, are compatible with adjacent residential zoning. " Palm Desert General Plan pp III A 10 Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance pp 385 After introducing this disruptive, incompatible business into the residential community, the Planning Commission pretends to "mitigate" the unreasonable impact on the community by authorizing a wall to be built across a public street to accomodate the developer. (A road block to protect the community from traffic would be completely different in configuration and placed in an entirely different location. ) In the final analysis, the business operation was changed not a bit. The noise, lighting, traffic congestion, extended hours , etc. are exactly the same. The only things that have changed is the nature and character of the community. Obviously, someone or some group in city government wants this project to go through. There is ample provision for changing the zoning of the property (if a change is warranted) and proceeding in a straightforward, aboveboard manner. The City Council will hold a public hearing to consider appeals to the Planning Commissions approval of the project. The Council can put an end to this fraudulent charade, but not without public pressure. If you have any thoughts about the health club or the manner in which it was justified, this is the time to make them known to the City Council . By telephone -- 346-0611 By mail - 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 In person - Civic Center Council Chamber August 22 , 1996 7: 00 PM Prepared by: R. E. MC DANIEL 72-915 Gloriana Dr 346-0351 (All quotes were taken from the Palm Desert General Plan or the Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance (which were purchased from the community development office) or from staff reports prepared for the Planning Commission. ) MEMORANDUM TO: PHIL DRELL, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING FROM: COUNCILMEMBER JEAN M. BENSON SUBJECT: CALL UP OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF PP/CUP 96-5 KNOWN AS PINNACLE ATHLETIC CENTER. RICK MURO, APPLICANT. DATE: JULY 25, 1996 This memo is written to request that the subject project be called up for review by the City Council at its meeting of August 22, 1996. Please let,me know if you have any questions. M. BENSO J COUNCILMEMBER i 1 • ,.\,.. . r_, . \ i \ 11 1 A \\ t ______________• __) ,___.____, . . . 4 CITY OF PALM DESERT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Philip Drell, Director of CommunityDevelopment FROM: Richard J. Folkers, ACM/Public Works Director SUBJECT: PP/CUP 96-5 - Additional Traffic Evaluation DATE: July 16, 1996 The following information is provided in response to your request of July 3, 1996. A 20,000 square foot general office use would be expected to generate approximately 425 trips per day. A 16,000 square foot medical-dental office use would be expected to generate approximately 550 trips per day. This would result in approximately 55 AM peak hour trips and 58 PM peak hour trips for the general office use or 43 AM peak hour trips and 65 PM peak hour trips for the medical- dental office use. These trip generation rates are based on data from the ITE Trip Generation Manual. If trip distribution is assumed to be similar for all of the uses in question then, the general office use would be expected to generate 150 trips per day, 19 trips in the AM peak and 20 trips in the PM peak on Acacia Drive. The medical-dental office would be expected to generate 193 trips per day, 15 trips in the AM peak and 23 trips in the PM peak on Acacia Drive. Based on the available data, the proposed athletic club would be expected to generate 60 additional trips per day on Acacia Drive as compared to the general office use or 17 additional trips per day on Acacia Drive as compared to the medical-dental office use. T.le existing traffic volume data was obtained in 1992. Alt,lough evaluation of recent counts in residential areas does not indicate that there has been substantial growth in traffic volumes, a 3 percent per year growth factor could be applied to the existi,ig counts. This would result in current estimated ADTs of 337 on Acacia Drive and 238 on Arboleda Avenue. Extensive data collection is scheduled in the near future for this area in response to a petition to close or gate several streets in the area. A 50 percent increase in the ITE trip generation rate for a racquet club use would be expected to generate an additional 315 trips per day on Acacia Drive. When added to the estimated 337 current trips this would result in a total of 652 trips per day on Acacia Drive. This volume of traffic on a residential street is typically considered to represent a "good" condition for traffic operations. Traffic volumes between 1000 and 3000 on residential streets begin to result in concerned residents and volumes over 3000 on a two lane residential street typically result in frequent requests for various improvements. CHARD J. FOLKERS ACM/PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR cc:Joseph S. Gaugush, Engineering Manager Mark Greenwood, Transportation Engineer P 9 • • • • 3/91 „.4.4.4s 4fJ at) CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA j ti APPLICATION TO APPEAL F°It A:WA° .. •" DECISION OF THE PLANNING 03MMISSION (Name of Committee/Commission) Case No. PP/CUP 96-5 Meeting Date: July 16, 1996 Name of Appellant Rex E. McDaniel Address 72-915 Gloriana Dr., Palm Desert, CA 92260 PhOne: ( 619) 346-0351 • Description of Application: Written statement, public statement, documents, • maps, charts. • Reason for Appeal: Deprivation of property ownership rights, devaluation of property, invasion of privacy and unlawful encroachment, all caused by official disregard fob • the Palm Desert Municipal Code, official disregard for the California Environmental Quality Act and official duplicity. //,f'i, 1af-, 07/29/96 PP Signature of Appellant 10(X E. MC DAIEL Date FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Filed: 5 Date Appeal F ed: Fee Received: �°,PP � d�.� G Treasurer's Receipt #: Received by: �C• Public Hearing Set For: , '�� Action taken by the City Council: Date: Sheila R. Gilligan, City Clerk RECEIVED Rex E. McDaniel JUL 2 9 1996 72-915 Gloriana Dr. Palm Desert, CA. 92260 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (619) 4 3 6-0 3 51 CITY OF PALM DESERT July 29 , 1996 City Council of Palm Desert Palm Desert Civic Center 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA. 92260 Honorable Council Members : In connection with my appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission in the following case, I wish to record the these facts and circumstances. Case No. PP/CUP 96-5 -- Approval of a conditional use permit/precise plan of design for a 17 ,857 gross square foot two story athletic club on the vacant property at the north- west corner of Monterey Avenue and Fred Waring Drive. Applicant: Rick Muro 74-040 Highway 111 , Suite B Palm Desert, CA. 92260 1 . The Negative Declaration issued on July 16 , 1996 was based on the Initial Study which was attached to a June 18 , 1996 staff report. This was before the time that there was a requirement for a masonry wall with a key or carded pedestrian gate to be installed to close Acacia Drive to all foot and vehicle traffic. 2. An undated addendum to the Initial Report was made public in connection with a meeting of the Planning Commission on July 16 , 1996 . This addendum identified the street blockade as mitigation for environmental problems discovered during the Initial Study, but it did not address the environmental impact of the wall itself or, more importantly, the environmental impact of the wall as an integral part of the larger project. 3 . The wall blocking Acacia Drive , extending from the proposed health club to the fence of a private residence on the west side of Acacia Drive, is to be built in conjunction with, contiguous to, and as a condition of, the construction of the health club. 4 . This addition to the precise plan represents a significant change to the environmental impact of the project. The blockade would have significant impact in the following sections of the Initial Study. Section 16 .d - Alterations to present patterns of circulation and movement of people and or goods . (The stated purpose for the wall is to control the movement of people who frequent the club and, as an incidental side-effect, control the routine vehicle traffic which would otherwise enter the residential community adjoining the health club. This does not take into account many people who now use Acacia Drive but have no interest in the health club and pose no threat to the residential community) Section 17 - Public Services (Emergency vehicles will , at minimum, have one less route available) Section 22 Aesthetics (The placement of the wall in the middle of a block creating a dead-end on both sides , on a street with many approaches will require many traffic signs to warn poeple away from the interruption to traffic-- foot, bicycle, and vehicle. ) In consideration of these facts and circumstances , it is requested that: 1 . An environmental impact report on the entire project, as mitigated, be prepared. 2. The case be referred back to the Planning Commission for review and public hearings . 44(E. MC DIEL 2 RECEIVED J U L 2 5 1996 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT MEMORANDUM TO: PHIL DRELL, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING FROM: COUNCILMEMBER JEAN M. BENSON SUBJECT: CALL UP OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF PP/CUP 96-5 KNOWN AS PINNACLE ATHLETIC CENTER. RICK MURO, APPLICANT. DATE: JULY 25, 1996 This memo is written to request that the subject project be called up for r_-.iew by the City Council at its meeting of August 22, 1996. Please,lett me know if you have any questions. M. BENSO J OUNCILMEMBER StU, _ RECEIVE .' July 30, 1996 AUG - 2 1996 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMEN I iiL"l•`LIVE� CfTY OF PALM DESERT William & Gayleen Percival 98 J U` 3Z Pm L 7 43-795 Acacia Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 ,L�-,+, Ltl\ S •-� City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear City Council Members: We do not approve of the Council's decision to build a two story athletic club on the vacant property at the northwest corner of Monterey Avenue and Fred Waring Drive. Our main concern is the traffic this facility will cause on Acacia Drive between the hours of 6: 00 A.M. and 10: 00 P.M. every day of the week. We agree with the City Council that a beautiful building built on this now vacant corner would be a big improvement, but we do not want a Sports Center that would generate traffic at all hours of the morning and night in addition to regular business day hours. We would like to see an office building complex or some business that maintains regular business hours, and additional traffic that is restricted to regular business hours. Not only will this athletic club generate unwanted traffic between 6: 00 A.M. and 10: 00 P.M. , we anticipate that the young people who use this facility will be driving past our property going at high rates of speed. We will not appreciate the "noise" this facility will cause. This proposed athletic club will deprive us of the peace and quiet and safety we now enjoy in our neighborhood. We are concerned that this business will devalue our property. Our neighborhood now appeals to family oriented people who like the location and the serenity. The proposed wall which will supposedly solve the traffic problem generated by the proposed athletic club will be unsightly and restrict neighborhood travel to Fred Waring. Any business complex built at the corner of Monterey Avenue and Fred Waring that would not disrupt the status quo of the neighborhood would be a much better decision. Sincerely, ‘‘`"G; Ga ieen Percival and William Percival RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST BY RICK MURO FOR A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND PRECISE PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND 18,489 SQUARE FOOT TWO STORY ATHLETIC CLUB IN THE O.P. ZONE AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF MONTEREY AVENUE AND FRED WARING DRIVE. CASE NO. PP/CUP 96-5 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 22nd day of August, 1996 , hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of RICK MURO for Pinnacle Athletic Club for the above project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, has by its Resolution No. 1752, approved the requested precise plan/conditional use permit; and WHEREAS, timely appeals were filed challenging the Planning Commission decision; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 95-105, " in that the Director of Community Development has determined that because the project as conditioned, specifically the requirement to gate and wall off access to Acacia Drive to the north, will not have an adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify approval of said precise plan/conditional use permit: 1 . That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of this title and the purpose of the district in which the site is located. 2 . That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3 . That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this title. 4 . That the proposed conditional use complies with the goals, objectives, and policies of the city' s general plan. 5 . The design of the precise plan as conditioned will not substantially depreciate property values in the vicinity. RESOLUTION NO. 6 . The precise plan as conditioned will not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes . 7 . The precise plan as conditioned will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows : 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the city council in this case. 2 . That the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, Exhibit "A" attached, is hereby approved. 3 . That Precise Plan/Conditional Use Permit 96-5 on file in the Department of Community Development is hereby approved, subject to conditions (Exhibit "B" ) . PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this day of , 1996, by the following vote, to wit: AYES : NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: WALTER H. SNYDER, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 2 RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT A Pursuant to Title 14 , Division 6 , Article 6 (commencing with section 15070 ) of the California Code of Regulations . NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: PP/CUP 96-5 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Rick Muro 74-040 Highway 111 , Suite B Palm Desert, CA 92260 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Precise plan of design and conditional use permit for an 18 , 489 square foot two story athletic club on property at the northwest corner of Monterey Avenue and Fred Waring Drive. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment . A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. PHILIP DRELL DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3 ADDENDUM TO INITIAL STUDY SECTION 16 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION CONTAINED IN JUNE 18, 1996 STAFF REPORT In the period since that report was prepared, public works department has prepared a traffic study which concluded that this project would contribute significantly to the traffic level on Acacia Drive among other streets . The residential neighborhood has submitted a petition requesting street closures at Acacia Drive, Adonis Drive and Fairhaven Drive. In written correspondence to the Planning Commission residents expressed concerns that vehicles from this project would overflow the parking lot onto their neighborhood streets and that the noise from these overflow vehicles would be exacerbated by the extended business hours . MITIGATION MEASURE The June 18, 1996 review required a traffic study be prepared. This has been done and coupled with input from the neighborhood we conclude that the only acceptable means of mitigating these identified impacts is to close Acacia Drive north of the access to the parking structure. This closure would consist of a six foot high wall and pedestrian gate system which would preclude health club attendees from parking on the north side of the wall and walking to the club. As well, any existing pass through traffic would be eliminated. ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO INITIAL STUDY CASE NO. PP/CUP 96-5 JULY 30, 1996 SECTION 16 . d Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods . The initial study should indicate that traffic circulation on Acacia Drive will be altered. As a condition of approval of the Athletic Club it is necessary to close the street to mitigate pass-through traffic from the project and overflow parking in the residential neighborhood. Acacia Drive is a designated local street and its closure may impact on residents and existing pass-through traffic . The neighborhood located west of Monterey to Fairhaven and north of Fred Waring Drive to Parkview is served by six vehicle access points ( 3 access points on Fred Waring, 1 access on Monterey, and 2 accesses to Parkview) . Six access points serve 53 single family lots . Closure of one of these access points is not a major environmental impact . SECTION 17 Public Services As discussed above, closure of Acacia Drive will result in emergency vehicles having one less route available but they will still have five available means of access . The fire department and the police department have both been advised of the proposed street closure and advised that they would still be able to adequately serve the neighborhood. SECTION 22 Aesthetics Closure of the street will necessitate installation of signs advising of the street closure ( i .e . dead-end) . These signs are a common feature on the city landscape and will be limited to the minimum necessary to adequately advise the driving public . The wall will be designed and landscaped to be aesthetically compatible with the neighborhood. GENERAL IMPACTS THE WALL WILL HAVE ON THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE Installation of the wall as proposed and conditioned will eliminate existing and future pass-through traffic on Acacia Drive while still affording adequate access to the residential community. A long standing goal of the city is to limit as much as possible commercial pass-through traffic on local streets . Installation of the wall may also reduce noise levels in the residential community which travel up Acacia Drive from Fred Waring Drive . INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM RECEIVED CITY OF PALM DESERT JUN 2 5 1996 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT TO: Phil Drell , Director of Community Development FROM: Richard J. Folkers, Assistant City Manager/ Director of Public Works SUBJECT: PINNACLE ATHLETIC CLUB - TRAFFIC ANALYSIS DATE: June 25, 1996 Potential traffic impacts to the neighborhood surrounding the proposed Pinnacle Athletic Club have been evaluated. The trip generation rate for the proposed facility was based on evaluation of the available ITE trip generation rates . The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) , and A.M. and P.M peak period traffic figures which were used are based on generation rates for a Racquet Club. The traffic data which is available from similar uses presents a wide range of possible trip generation rates for this facility. Data for Racquet Club is available in the ITE Trip Generation Manual based on employees, members , courts and gross floor area . Data for health clubs is available only for peak period by gross floor area and is based on only one study. Since gross floor area is the only known factor for this project, the basic evaluation sought to utilize this factor. However, the limited data did not yield results which can be relied upon. An evaluation based on membership was then selected, since membership estimates of 1500 had been provided . Analysis of the available data indicates that an additional 210 vehicles per day could be expected on Acacia Drive and an additional 60 vehicles per day could be expected on Arboleda Avenue . This would result in traffic volumes of approximately 500 vehicles per day on each of these streets . ADT' s of less than 500 represent excellent traffic conditions for residential streets and ADT ' s up to 1000 reflect good traffic conditions . An additional 26 vehicles could be expected on Acacia Drive in the peak hour. When combined with the approximately 30 existing vehicles in the peak hour this would result in a total of 56 vehicles in the P.M. peak hour on Acacia Drive . This represents good traffic conditions during the peak traffic period of the day. The potential impacts identified above are based on the available data, which may not accurately reflect potential traffic from the proposed facility. Trip generation for a health club or fitness facility may vary substantially from the Racquet Club use and there is potential for large variation between Health Clubs due to the varieity of available services . Page 2 In discussions with the applicant, the following mitigation measures were identified as possibly relieving the concerns of residents regarding the possible increase in traffic . 1 . Install "Left Turn Only" sign at the project driveway, which would direct all traffic exiting from the facility to Fred Waring Drive. 2 . Include as a condition of approval, a requirement that club members will be directed to use Fred Waring Drive for all ingress and egress . 3 . Allow the project parking lot to be used for overflow parking for the C.O.D. Street Fair which could improve existing conditions in the neighborhood. Traffic distribution and current membership distribution diagrams, and ITE trip generation information are attached. RI HARD J FOLKERS, P.E. MG/rh • PARK VIEW DRIVE 15% 10% y ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC 11 AM ADDITIONAL 19 PM 150 DAILY Q TRAFFIC Q 5 AM c� 7 PM 60 DAILY V N (_ 10% ARBOLEDA AVENUE w ADDITIONAL EXISTING w TRAFFIC ADT=300 16 AM w 26 PM 210 DAILY PINNACLE z M ADDITIONAL O TRAFFIC 100% 45 AM 75 PM 600 DAILY 20% 45% FRED WARING DRIVE 'RAFFIA DISTRIBUTION CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Richard J. Folkers, ACM/Director of Public Works FROM: Philip Drell , Director of Community Development DATE: July 3, 1996 SUBJECT: PP/CUP 96-5 - Rick Wuro inc Thank you for your traffic tedd�odPlanning June Commission 25 , 96 which July w2as u yw2s 1996uded in the staff report presen Pursuant to the discussion at Planning Commission July 2 , 1996 werovide us with a revision of hereby request that the Traffic Engineer p the traffic study to provide the following information: i) Provide an analysis of the project im 16POOOssquarelfoot medical ve to other possible uses for the property ( i .e. office use) . office use or 20, 000 square foot general ii) How current is the existing traffic volume data? Should it be resurveyed? iii) Wonld you consider a^ 50�acia increase Arboleda?the IT IfEnoterwhattisbthe a significant impa tnreshold (ADT and F^ak hour) ? P ILIP DAELL DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PD:SRS/tm CITY OF PALM DESERT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Philip Drell, Director of Community Development FROM: Richard J. Folkers, ACM/Public Works Director SUBJECT: PP/CUP 96-5 - Additional Traffic Evaluation DATE: July 16, 1996 The following information is provided in response to your request of July 3, 1996. A 20,000 square foot general office use would be expected to generate approximately 425 trips per day. A 16,000 square foot medical-dental office use would be expected to generate approximately 550 trips per day. This would result in approximately 55 AM peak hour trips and 58 PM peak hour trips for the general office use or 43 AM peak hour trips and 65 PM peak hour trips for the medical- dental office use. These trip generation rates are based on data from the ITE Trip Generation Manual. If trip distribution is assumed to be similar for all of the uses in question then, the general office use would be expected to generate 150 trips per day, 19 trips in the AM peak and 20 trips in the PM peak on Acacia Drive. The medical-dental office would be expected to generate 193 trips per day, 15 trips in the AM peak and 23 trips in the PM peak on Acacia Drive. Based on the available data, the proposed athletic club would be expected to generate 60 additional trips per day on Acacia Drive as compared to the general office use or 17 additional trips per day on Acacia Drive as compared to the medical-dental office use. T.le existing traffic volume data was obtained in 1992. Alta sough evaluation of recent counts in residential areas does not indicate that there has been substantial growth in traffic volumes, a 3 percent per year growth factor could be applied to the exist,ig counts. This would result in current estimated ADTs of 337 on Acacia Drive and 238 on Arboleda Avenue. Extensive data collection is scheduled in the near future for this area in response to a petition to close or gate several streets in the area. A 50 percent increase in the ITE trip generation rate for a racquet club use would be expected to generate an additional 315 trips per day on Acacia Drive. When added to the estimated 337 current trips this would result in a total of 652 trips per day on Acacia Drive. This volume of traffic on a residential street is typically considered to represent a "good" condition for traffic operations. Traffic volumes between 1000 and 3000 on residential streets begin to result in concerned residents and volumes over 3000 on a two lane residential street typically result in frequent requests for various improvements. CHARD J. FOLKERS ACM/PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR cc:Joseph S. Gaugush, Engineering Manager Mark Greenwood, Transportation Engineer INITIAL STUDY CASE NO. PP/CUP 96-5 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST COMMENTS AND POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES (CATEGORIES PERTAIN TO ATTACHED CHECKLIST) 1 . EARTH a. The project will result in grading to a maximum depth of 14 feet. Such grading will not result in any alterations to geologic substructures . The site is relatively flat so that grading will not create unstable earth conditions . b. As part of the normal grading activity soil will be moved, displaced, over-covered and compacted. This activity will be done per permit and approved grading plans to assure that the site is properly prepared for the structural developments which will take place on the site. c . The site is relatively flat and changes in topography and surface relief will be required to assure proper drainage and avoid increased runoff to adjoining properties . The after condition of the property will result in less water runoff from the property to adjoining properties and better direction. d. The site does not contain any unique geologic or physical features . e . The project as stated previously will result in less potential water damage to the site through proper grading, resulting in the appropriate directing of runoff from the site. MITIGATION MEASURES The City of Palm Desert grading and building permits procedures required detailed geotechnical reports addressing grading specifications and the settlement and expansive characteristics of on site soils . All structures must be designed to UBC requirements to insure that buildings are constructed within the acceptable level of risk set forth herein for the type of building and occupancies being developed. 2 . AIR a. During construction, particularly grading, a potential dust problem is a short term impact. Requiring that the ground be moistened during days in which grading occurs will mitigate this problem. This is required by City of Palm Desert Grading Ordinance. Because the site is already an urbanized setting its development will not result in an overall deterioration of ambient air quality. This conclusion is supported by the INITIAL STUDY CASE NO. PP/CUP 96-5 c. It is extremely doubtful that the project will introduce any new species into the area. In any event the landscape plan will be reviewed by the agricultural inspector of Riverside County to assure that the plants being used do not pose a hazard to agricultural production in the area. 5 . ANIMAL LIFE a. The project may decrease the variety of animal life on the site or force animal life to relocate to other vacant land. b. The site is an infill location in an urbanized area and is not large enough to be habitat area for wildlife. c. See a and b. d. The project site is an infill site and not suitable long term habitat for wildlife. 6 . NATURAL RESOURCES a. The project will obviously use natural resources, but will not increase the rate of usage of these resources . b. All material resources used on the site are renewable. 7 . a & b. No more than normal usage. In addition, since the project will be required to comply with the most current state energy codes energy usage will be less than on previous projects of a similar nature. 8 . The site does not contain any substances that could result in explosion or escape of hazardous materials . 9 . a . As discussed earlier the project will have a positive impact in terms of drainage impacts on adjacent properties . The site itself is in flood zone C (minimal flooding expected) . b. Properties in the area are not subject to unusual geologic hazards . The project will not effect that hazard. 10 . NOISE Construction and subsequent operation of a health club will increase ambient noise level . The increase may be detrimental or create an annoyance to the residential properties to the northwest. 3 INITIAL STUDY CASE NO. PP/CUP 96-5 MITIGATION MEASURES Strict adherence to construction hours and days will be required. Additional measures to mitigate traffic and operational noise will be required. Noise to be mitigated so that noise levels set in the General Plan Noise Element are not exceeded. 11 . LAND USE The project will not alter the present developed and proposed land use in the area. The planned land use for the area is identified as office professional; the project would develop land uses consistent in the office professional land use designation. 12 . OPEN SPACE The site in question is designated as office professional; its development, therefore, will not result in a reduction in the amount of designated open space. 13 . POPULATION a. The project is a health club on vacant land and will not result in changes in location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the city' s population. b. The project will not generate changes in the socio-economic characteristics of the area. 14 . EMPLOYMENT While the project will provide a number of new jobs , in terms of the value as a whole in and of itself it is minor. Most of the jobs created will be filled by residents of the area or those who have come to the Coachella Valley for other reasons . 15 . HOUSING a. The project will not change the housing picture in the community or region. This is based on the conclusions reached in items 13 and 14 . In addition, there is currently being projected several thousand unsold housing units in the valley. b. Development of this type of use will increase the need for affordable housing in the city. The developer will be required to pay the commercial development low income housing mitigation fee ( $1 . 00/square foot) . 4 INITIAL STUDY CASE NO. PP/CUP 96-5 16 . TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION a. The ITE Manual does not specifically address "athletic club" . It does have a standard for "Racquet Clubs" which are described as private facilities with tennis courts , swimming pools, whirlpools, saunas, racquetball and hard ball courts, exercise classes and weight lifting equipment. The use in question has many of these facilities plus several others . Trip generation of this facility, based on the "racquet club" standard, is based on the number of members the club has . Mr. Muro indicated to us a maximum membership of 1500 persons . Accordingly ITE would project to 450 members visiting the facility per weekday with 900 traffic movements . At peak hours between 4 : 0 0 p.m. and 6 : 0 0 p.m. we would expect 100 trip movements per hour. Public works indicates that this additional traffic could impact existing conditions on Acacia. If the proposal receives favorable conditions by Planning Commission and/or City Council a traffic impact analysis will be required to be prepared to identify the level of impact and any necessary mitigation measures . b. There will be a demand for additional parking facilities which will be supplied by the project. c . Except for additional vehicular movements discussed above the project should not generate additional demands on existing transportation systems . d. Principal access to the project will be from Acacia via Fred Waring Drive. e. While the project will create additional traffic it will not be at a level which would result in traffic hazards . The peak hours for this use will not occur at the same time as the peak traffic at the office building to the west. Mitigation Measure Pursuant to item 16 (a) if the project receives favorable consideration, Public Works Department will require that a trip generation study be prepared to determine the level of impacts created by adding 900 vehicles per day to Acacia and to provide mitigation measures to offset the impacts . 5 INITIAL STUDY CASE NO. PP/CUP 96-5 17 . PUBLIC SERVICE a-f . None. The property is presently vacant and serves no productive use. A commitment to urban uses was made as the area surrounding the health club has been developed, and the general plan and zoning maps designated the area for office development. Infrastructure improvements ( i .e. streets , utilities) have been made and are adequate to serve the proposed development. The proposed land use would increase the economic productivity of the land in terms of land efficiency and greater economic return generated from these uses , versus the current state of the land. 18 . PUBLIC FISCAL BALANCE The project will result in a net increase on fiscal flow to the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency and the City of Palm Desert. All property tax generated on the site increased by the improvement of this project will go to the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency. The city will receive 1% of the 6% state sales tax collected from the sales on the property. 19 . UTILITIES All utilities have indicated an ability to serve the proposed development. The power lines which run north-south over the site will have to be relocated prior to commencement of construction activity. 20 . HUMAN HEALTH The project will not create hazard to human health in the long or short term nor will it impact the level of community health. 21 . SOCIAL SERVICES The project will provide a service to full time residents as well as tourists to the area and thus no increase in the demand of general social services are anticipated. 22 . AESTHETICS a. All building setbacks will comply with ordinance requirements. This should maintain any scenic vista or view open to the public. 6 INITIAL STUDY CASE NO. PP/CUP 96-5 b. The site in the present condition can be termed as aesthetically offensive due to blow sand problems . The proposed development must be approved by the Palm Desert Architectural Commission. c. For reasons stated in items 22 a and b. 23 . LIGHT AND GLARE a. New light will be produced but the project will be required to prevent lighting spill over. In addition, the requirement for an engineered lighting plan will assure that this conditions is fulfilled. 24 . There has been no evidence of any archeological or historical significance on this site. In addition, state law requires that should any evidence be found during construction, construction must cease and the site cleared. 25 . Because of the mitigation measures identified herein and required of the project, the proposal will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. SRS/tm 7 CAS: NO.70c1(1 • • EIr7T11OI1IFYTAL SERVICES DEFT. INITIAL STUDY MTVIRON=TAL EVALUATION CHEC=IST NOTE: The availability of data necessary to address the topics listed below shall form the basis of a decision as to whether the application is considered complete for purposes of environmental assessment. ENVIRCI;.^iENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers , possible mitigation measures and comments art provided on attached sheets ) . Yes Maybe No • 1 . Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in 24,.. geologic substructures? b. Disruptions , displacements , compaction, or 4. overcovering of the soil? Change in topography or ground surface relief features? C. The destruction, covering , or modification - of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of \/ soils , either on or off the site? X 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture , or temperature , or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 2, Yes e No 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a_ Changes. in currents, or the course or 1 direction of water movements? • b. Changes in-absorption rates , drainage . patterns, or the rate and" amount of surface water runoff? • c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Alteration of .the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? e. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? J� f. Reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public water supplies? — A 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species , or numbers of any species of plants ( including trees , shrubs , grass , and crops )? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique , rare, or endangered species of plants? MINIM • 4 c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area , or in a barrier to the normal • replenishment of existing species? 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: • a. Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds , land animals including reptiles , or insects )? _ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare , or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? L. • d. Deterioration to existing wildlife habitat, 1 3. Yes Maybe No 6. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in :.the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Depletion of any non-reneWrabie natural resource? _ _ .44 7. En_ erov. Will the prflposai result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? 4L b. Demand upon existing sources of energy, or re- quire the.derelopment of new sources of energy? -4- 8. Risk of Uoset. • ' Does the proposal involve a • risk of an explosion or the release of ' hazardous substances (including, but not limited • to, pesticides , oil , chemicals, or radiation) in • the event of an accident or upset conditions? ' 21 ' 9. E' onomic Loss. Will the proposal result in: a. A change in .the value of property and improvements endangered by flooding? _ X. b. A change in the value of property and impro•.emen:s exposed to geologic hazards \ / beyond accepted community risk standards? �( 10. Noise . Will the proposal increase existing noise levels to the point at which accepted . community noise and vibration levels are exceeded? — ,..,L 11 . Land Use. Will the proposal result in the a teration of the preseft developed or panned land use of an area? • — 7Z 12. Open Soace. Will the proposal lead to a aecrease in the -amount of designated open 4 space? 12 . population. Will the proposal result in: a. Alteration or the location, distribution. • density, or growth rate of the human population of the City? --- .2c . b. Change in the population distribution by . aye , income , religion, racial , or ethnic group, occupational class , household type? X 4. • Yes Maybe No 14. Employment. Will the proposal result in aoditiona new long-term jobs provided, or a change in the number and per cent employed, unemployed, and underemployed? _ 15. House. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in number and per cent of housing units by type (price or rent range, zoning category, owner-occupied and rental , etc. ) relative to demand or to number of - families in various income classes in the City? b. Impacts on existing housing or creation of a demand for additional housing? 16. Transoortation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities , or demand for new parking? _ — c. Impact upon existing transportation systems? ?4„. d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles , - bicyclists , or pedestrians? 17 . Public Services . Will the proposal have an effect upon , or result in a need for, new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas . a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? x c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities , including roads? f. Other governmental services? — 5. Yes Ma Abe No 18. Public Fiscal Balance. Will the proposal result in a net change in government fiscal flow (revenues less operating expenditures and annualized capital expenditures)? _ i - 19. Utilities. . Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the • following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications system? _ _ c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? • e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 20. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: • a. The creation of any health hazard or " potential health hazard? b. A change in the level of community health ' care provided? _ 21 . Social Services. Will the proposal result in an increased demand for provision of general social services? ,Lc/ 22. Aesthetics . Will the proposal result in: a. Obstruction of any scenic vista. or view open to the public? b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? c. Lessening of the overall neighborhood (or area ) attractiveness, pleasantness , and uniqueness? 23. Licht and Glaro. Will the proposal produce new lignt or glare? /4 _ — 24 . Archeological /Historical . Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object, or building? 1 X 6. Yes Maybe No 25. Mandatory Findinas of Siani9`icance. a. Does the- project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment or to curtail the diversity in the environment? ._ b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental .goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future. ) - • c. Does the project have impacts which are indi- vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively shall , but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant. ) .— d. Ooes the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings , either directly or indirectly? initial Study Prepared By: Fitness Mart 74-040 Hwy. 111 Suite B Palm Desert, CA 92260 619.568.0373 June 13, 1996 Mr. Philip Drell Palm Desert Planning 73-510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Phil, First let me thank you for the opportunity yesterday to address the staffs concerns about our proposed Pinnacle Athletic Club project. As stated yesterday, in order to help mitigate concerns, I would be amenable to the use of our parking lot on weekends by the COD Alumni Associations' Street Fair. Re ectfully, k Muro FROM : AFFILIATED WNS I ttuK , ,,,w __ . --Oliphant RECEIVED I &Lizza JUN 13 1996 COMMERCIAL&INDUSI HIAL DEVELOPMI NT C(JINMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT LCAOINO 6 OAL I1 CITY OF PALM DESERT June 12, 1996 CITY OF PALM DESI RT Phil Drell, Community Services Director 73.510 Fred Waring J)rivc Palm Desert,California 92260 Re.: The Fitness Center Corner Fred Waring Drive and Monterey Avenue Dear Mr. Drell: The Monterey Avenue Partneri:hip,owner attic building at 44-130 Monterey Avenue ('The 1>arl Building"), are willing to commit 1K parking spaces as off-site.parking to the above re: p oject. C:onditians of this approval include: a. The use is between the hours of 5•00 p.m. and 94lfl p. m. daily. b. The life of this agreement will he tied to the life of the conditional use permit allowing this project to he used as a health club.. We are in support of this project being approved and we arc happy to cooperate. Sincerely, Qu L Richard R. Oliphant Gmeral Partner Business 0111c0 77-Q00 Avarotn p1 the Stator,Pklm Devon,Ca I POO 610 345-Pees rAX 0111 345.5501 SnIOs 6 Leasing Office 74-040 HIp11wey 111.Clo.l-200 f'Mut hnxarl,Rn IIY160 619 340.0204 VAX 619 341.21108 CITY OF PALM DESERT Interoffice Memorandum TO: Steve Smith, Planner FROM: Steve Buchanan, Supervising Plans Examiner SUBJECT: RICK MURO / PINNACLE ATHLETIC CLUB / PP96-5 DATE: June 3, 1996 Per your request for "Requirements for Comments and Conditions of Approval" , please note the following: 1 . All new and existing overhead electrical distribution lines, telephones, cable antenna television and similar service wires or cables, which are adjacent to the property being developed, o the underground as part of development from shall be installed g P nearest existing pole not on the property being developed per Palm Desert Municipal Code, Section 25 .56 . 110 . The developer or owner is responsible for complying with these requirements per Palm Desert Municipal Code, Section 25 .56 . 130 . 2 . Three ( 3) handicap parking stalls are required for 75 stalls . However, four (4 ) handicap stalls are required for 75 to 100 total parking stalls . 3 . The north side exterior wall shall be one hour fire resistive construction with protected openings . 4 . Childcare is not an allowed use in the basement. 5 . The building is required to be equipped with a monitored sprinklered system. Should a que tions, please contact me. VE BUC SUPERVISING PLANS EXAMINER SB:djw RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT "B" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. PP/CUP 96-5 Department of Community Development/Planning: 1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the department of community development/planning, as modified by the following conditions . 2 . The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force . 3 . Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null , void and of no effect whatsoever. 4 . Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies : Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Desert Sands Unified School District Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5 . That the applicant shall provide for installation of solid waste and recycling enclosures serving all public buildings , per Ordinance No. 612 , said enclosures subject to approval of Environmental Conservation Manager. 6 . The project shall be subject to all applicable fees at time of issuance of permits including, but not limited to, Art in Public Places, TUMF and school mitigation fees . 7 . That pursuant to Resolution No. 90-130 this development shall pay the appropriate commercial development low income housing mitigation fee ( $1 . 00 per square foot) . 4 RESOLUTION NO. 8 . That the landscaping in the parking lot shall comply with the provisions of the Master Parking Lot Tree Plan. 9 . That if the parking lot is illuminated, a light plan prepared by a lighting engineer shall be required confirming compliance with the city' s parking lot lighting restrictions . 10 . That the hours of operation of the health club shall be from 6 : 00 a.m. until 9 : 00 p.m. Monday through Thursday; from 6 : 00 a.m. to 8 : 00 p.m. on Friday; from 8 : 00 a.m. to 5 : 00 p.m. on Saturday and from 8 : 00 a.m. to 4 : 00 p.m. on Sunday. 11 . That all signs on site be approved by the architectural review commission and conform with ordinance requirements . 12 . That the grading and/or street plans provide for compliance with Sunline comments . 13 . That the landscape plan shall be designed and implemented to effectively buffer the view of the parking structure from the streets and from the residential community to the northwest. 14 . Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to these conditions . Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said landscaping for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which agreement shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns . The final landscape plan shall include a long term maintenance program specifying among other matters appropriate watering times, fertilization and pruning for various times of the year for the specific materials to be planted, as well as periodic replacement of materials . All to be consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801) and the approved landscape plan. 15 . That the applicant provide a plan to close Acacia Drive north of the proposed access point to the parking structure. Said plan shall include a six foot high masonry wall, key or carded pedestrian gate and landscape planters on either side. Said wall system to be designed to prevent vehicular and pedestrian traffic flow other than through the keyed/carded pedestrian gate. Keys and/or cards to operate said pedestrian gate shall be provided to those residents of the area northwest of the subject property requesting same. The wall system plan to be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department, Community Development Department, and Architectural Review Commission and implemented by the applicant prior to obtaining a certificate of occupancy. 5 RESOLUTION NO. Applicant shall be required to install approved street closure plan or pay an in-lieu fee equivalent to the city's costs of installation. Applicant shall not be responsible for continued maintenance or liability unless Acacia right-of-way is vacated and is built on private property. 16 . That a six foot masonry wall be constructed along the north property line if deemed necessary by the Architectural Review Commission. Department of Public Works: 1 . Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26 .49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading permit. 2 . Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos . 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading permit. 3 . Full public improvements, as required by Section 26 . 44 and 26 .40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable city standards . Subject improvements shall include, but not be limited to, the installation of two drive approaches on Acacia Drive with the most southerly drive being restricted to right turn ingress only, installation of a minimum six foot wide sidewalk on Acacia Drive and eight foot wide sidewalk on Fred Waring Drive and Monterey Avenue, widening of both Monterey Avenue ( 12 feet) and Fred Waring Drive (7 feet) including traffic signal and drainage system modifications as may be necessary all to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works . If Acacia Drive is closed, widening requirement for Monterey may be reduced or eliminated as determined by the Director of Public Works . 4 . Applicant shall dedicate sufficient right-of-way to provide for the widening of Monterey Avenue and Fred Waring Drive. 5 . Offsite improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works and a surety posted to guarantee the installation of all required offsite improvements prior to issuance of a grading permit. "As-built" plans shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of Public Works prior to the acceptance of the improvements by the city. 6 . All public improvements, private driveways and parking lot areas shall be inspected by the engineering department and a standard inspection fee paid prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 6 RESOLUTION NO. 7 . Landscaping maintenance on Acacia Drive, Monterey Avenue and Fred Waring Drive shall be the responsibility of the property owner. 8 . As required under Section 12 . 16 and 26 . 44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, all existing utilities shall be placed underground per each respective utility district ' s recommendation. If determined to be unfeasible, the applicant shall submit to the city, in a form acceptable to the city attorney, surety in an amount equal to the estimated construction costs for the subject undergrounding. 9 . In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 27 , complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project . 10 . Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans by the Director of Public Works and the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works . 11 . Building pad elevations of the proposed structure are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 12 . A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 13 . Grading permit issuance shall be subject to a waiver of parcel map for parcel consolidation/lot line adjustment first being approved and recorded. 14 . Prior to the issuance of building permits , applicant shall pay Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) at the rate of $5,517 . 60 per 1, 000 square feet of building area ( Indoor Recreational Facility Land Use) . Riverside County Fire Department: 1 . With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plan check, the fire department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Codes , appropriate NFPA standards, CFC, CBC, and/or recognized fire protection standards . 2 . A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible materials are placed on the job site. 7 RESOLUTION NO. 3 . Provide, or show there exists, a water system capable of providing a potential gallon per minute flow of 3000 gpm for commercial structure. The actual fire flow available from any one hydrant connected to any given water main shall be 1500 gpm for a two hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure. 4 . The required fire flow shall be available from a Super fire hydrant( s ) ( 6"x4"x2-1/2"x2-1/2" ) , located not less than 25 ' or more than 150 feet from commercial structure . Distances shall cover all portions of the building( s ) as measured along approved vehicular travel ways . Hydrants installed below 3000 ' elevation shall be of the "wet barrel" type . 5 . Prior to the application for a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original and two copies of the water system plan to the county fire department for review. No building permit shall be issued until the water system plan has been approved by the county fire chief . Upon approval , the original will be returned. One copy will be sent to the responsible inspecting authority. 6 . Comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, adopted January 1 , 1990, for all occupancies . 7 . Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13 . The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front of the building, not less than 25 ' from the building and within 50 ' of an approved Super hydrant. This applies to all buildings with 3000 square feet or more building area as measured by the building footprint, including overhangs which are sprinklered as per NFPA 13 . The building area of additional floors is added in for a cumulative total square footage . 8 . Install a fire alarm (water flow) as required by the Uniform Building Code Sec . 3803 for the fire sprinkler system( s) . Install supervisory (tamper) alarms on all supply and control valves for sprinkler systems . 9 . Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes and shall be clearly marked by painting and/or signs as approved by the fire marshal . Painted fire lanes and/or signs shall be stenciled or posted every 30 ' with the following: No Parking Fire Lane - PDMC 15 . 16 . 090 . 10 . Install a fire alarm as required by the California Building Code and/or California Fire Code. Minimum requirement is UL central station monitoring of sprinkler systems per NFPA 71 and 72 . Alarm plans are required for all UL central station monitored systems and systems where any interior devices are required or used. 8 RESOLUTION NO. 11. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Fire extinguishers must not be over 75 ' walking distance and/or 3000 square feet of floor area. 12 . Install a dust collecting system as per the California Building Code, Sec. 910 and California Fire Code, Art. 76 , if conducting an operation that produces airborne particles . A carpenter or woodworking shop is considered one of several industrial processes requiring dust collection. 13 . All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150 ' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall be not less than 24 ' of unobstructed width and 13 ' 6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is allowed, the roadway shall be 36 ' wide with parking on both sides, 32 ' wide with parking on one side. Dead- end roads in excess of 150 ' shall be provided with a minimum 45 ' radius turn around (55 ' in industrial developments) . Fountains or garden islands placed in the middle of these turn-arounds shall not exceed a 5 ' radius or 10 ' diameter. City standards may be more restrictive. 14 . Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers, guard houses or similar means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the fire department. All controlled access devices that are power operated shall have a Knox Box over-ride system capable of opening the gate when activated by a special key located in emergency vehicles . Devices shall be equipped with backup power facilities to operate in the event of power failure. All controlled access devices that are not power operated shall also be approved by the fire department. Minimum opening width shall be 16 ' with a minimum vertical clearance of 13 ' 6" . 15 . Contact the fire department for a final inspection prior to occupancy. 16 . All new residences/dwellings are required to have illuminated residential addresses meeting both city and fire department approval . Shake shingle roofs are not longer permitted in the cities of Indian Wells, Rancho Mirage or Palm Desert. 17 . Commercial buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city. 18 . All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be submitted separately for approval prior to construction. Subcontractors should contact the fire marshal ' s office for submittal requirements . 9 RESOLUTION NO. 19 . Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws or when building permits are not obtained within twelve months . 20. Other: Upgrade existing fire hydrant to current Super Hydrant specifications . 10 July 30, 1996 RECEIVED William & Gayleen Percival '96 JUL 32 Hi 2 23 43-795 Acacia Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 CIT CLERK'S OH ; City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear City Council Members: We do not approve of the Council's decision to build a two story athletic club on the vacant property at the northwest corner of Monterey Avenue and Fred Waring Drive. Our main concern is the traffic this facility will cause on Acacia Drive between the hours of 6: 00 A.M. and 10: 00 P.M. every day of the week. We agree with the City Council that a beautiful building built on this now vacant corner would be a big improvement, but we do not want a Sports Center that would generate traffic at all hours of the morning and night in addition to regular business day hours. We would like to see an office building complex or some business that maintains regular business hours, and additional traffic that is restricted to regular business hours. Not only will this athletic club generate unwanted traffic between 6: 00 A.M. and 10: 00 P.M. , we anticipate that the young people who use this facility will be driving past our property going at high rates of speed. We will not appreciate the "noise" this facility will cause. This proposed athletic club will deprive us of the peace and quiet and safety we now enjoy in our neighborhood. We are concerned that this business will devalue our property. Our neighborhood now appeals to family oriented people who like the location and the serenity. The proposed wall which will supposedly solve the traffic problem generated by the proposed athletic club will be unsightly and restrict neighborhood travel to Fred Waring. Anybusiness g g complex built at the corner of Monterey Avenue and Fred Waring that would not disrupt the status quo of the neighborhood would be a much better decision. Sincerely, Gay een Percival and William Percival w MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16 , 1996 existing Golf Course Lake for residential use (Lot 4 R.S . ) . B. Case No. PMW 96-23 - ROBERT B. VARNER, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge three lots and create two equal sized lots for Lots 23 , 24 and 25 of Tract No. 23940-3 . C . Case No. PMW 96-24 - DENISE P. ROBERGE/THOMAS LOWE, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to combine Lots 1-4 , Block T, for property bounded by El Paseo to the north, Portola Avenue to the east, Larrea Street to the south, and Prickly Pear Lane to the west . Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, approving the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . ��,''' t. VIII . PUBLIC HEARINGS 47 A. Continued Case No. PP/CUP 96-5 - RI , Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan 14 4'G� of design/conditional use permit for a 4' ✓�G► 17 ,857 gross square foot two story �S/ J �'� athletic club on the vacant property at the northwest corner of Monterey Avenue and Fred Waring Drive. Mr. Drell handed out additional information from the traffic engineer. Mr. Smith explained that this item was continued from June 18 and July 2 to this evening. He said that since July 2 the project continued to evolve and has improved. The building increased in size to a total of 18 , 498 square feet . The parking structure was reconfigured to provide a total of 124 parking spaces , which is sufficient to comply with the ordinance. The matter was at architectural review last Tuesday. With a few minor additional changes , they granted preliminary approval . Some of the things they were impressed with was that the applicant had taken the corner of the 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16 , 1996 building adjacent to Monterey and Fred Waring and reduced the two story element to just a single story element for a substantial portion for that part of the building. They also had some additional vocabulary added to the front of the building where it is adjacent to Monterey and Fred Waring. The landscape plan indicated that they would have an adequate level of landscape treatment to obscure the parking structure, although with it being four to five feet below grade the overall height would not be that high. It would have an overall height of eight feet to the top of the guardrail . With those improvements and the additional parking, planning staff felt they were in a position that if they could address the concerns from the neighborhood in a reasonable fashion, that they would be in a position to recommend approval . He noted that there were still letters of concerns from Mr. Middleton, Mr. McDaniel, Mr. Hein, Diana La Mar and the Reimers . Essentially, the earlier letters of objection still were concerned with pass-through traffic into the residential community, the potential for parking commercial vehicles overflowing into the residential area, and the extended hours of operation having a greater impact on the community. Staff tried to come up with conditions that would mitigate these concerns . The one staff came up with, and it was not the first time staff suggested this, was that the street north of the access driveway on Acacia be closed. It would have a wall and gate system. The gate would be keyed or a touch number pad to give access to the residents north for children going to school or walking along Fred Waring or going to the mall--they could still have that ability. He felt there wouldn' t be any incentive for anyone to park north of the facility in the residential area with the wall . Staff felt that they could address the matter of existing pass-through traffic, the matter of overflow parking, and by putting in the wall that would limit any impacts that might result from the extended hours . From the CEQA review on this matter, staff felt the closure of this street condition was quite significant in that before staff could address the matter of the negative declaration on the project, staff had to be comfortable that they have mitigated all of the impacts . With the conditions staff was suggesting, they could recommend that commission adopt the negative declaration and that commission approve Precise Plan/Conditional Use Permit 96-5 for the 18, 489 square foot two story athletic club. He noted that Sharon Howard of the neighborhood presented a petition to city council last Thursday. Ms . Howard and Ms . La Mar walked the neighborhood and got a significant portion of the neighborhood to support the closure of the streets and they were quite specific in 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16 , 1996 their petition that whether or not this project proceeds they want to see the city close the streets to eliminate pass- through traffic . The city council received the petition last Thursday and referred the matter to the public works department for a report. That would apply specifically to the Adonis and Fairhaven closures in that should the commission proceed and approve the request by Mr. Muro tonight, one of the conditions was that the closure of Acacia be placed on this application. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that in condition no. 15 that Mr. Smith referred to required the applicant to provide a plan to close Acacia Drive and assumed it was up to the applicant to construct the masonry wall and provide gating; he asked about the continuing maintenance of the wall and gate. Mr. Smith stated that in the case of the Downey Savings site, which he was most familiar with, the maintenance falls with Downey and they maintain the landscaping and gates . Commissioner Jonathan asked about the distribution of keys, who did the repairs if the lock was broke, and if those kinds of details would be worked out as part of the plan that would be submitted by the applicant. Mr. Smith stated that in case of the Downey Savings it was all handled through their branch office. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the financial burden would fall on the applicant. Mr. Smith replied yes, but noted that if they were to go with a numbered key padthey wouldn' t need the distribution of the keys . Chairperson Beaty asked for clarification as to where the wall would be placed; Mr. Smith explained that the wall would be south of Mr. McDaniel ' s southerly driveway in that Mr. McDaniel owns the property at 72-915 at the corner of Glorianna and Acacia. He has two driveways onto Acacia. About 30 feet north of the property line between him and the Ray-Al development. Commissioner Ferguson noted that in the traffic analysis dated June 25, 1996 prepared by public works, in paragraph 3 of page 1, and he asked Mr. Greenwood about this at the last meeting, the analysis said that basically the average amount of traffic expected on those residential streets rated as "excellent traffic conditions for residential streets" . He hadn't had a chance to go through the new information the commission just received, but his question was if that opinion changed based on public works ' review over the past two weeks, or if the ADT analysis had changed for Acacia. Mr. Greenwood stated that the July 16 , 1996 report offered a 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16 , 1996 couple of other alternatives . Chairperson Beaty asked if Mr. Greenwood would briefly summarize the July 16 report. Mr. Greenwood indicated that they compared the proposed use to a 20, 000 square foot general office building and to a 16 , 000 square foot medical/dental office building that they might expect to be on this site. Basically, staff found that they would expect the proposed athletic club to generate approximately 60 additional trips per day on Acacia as compared to a general office use and approximately 17 additional trips as compared to the medical/dental office use. Staff also tried expanding on the ITE trip generation data for the racquet club to develop a worst reasonable case for traffic generation and by increasing that by 50% they came up with about 650 trips per day on Acacia by both expanding the existing traffic volumes that were several years old and adding to that this additional traffic . They were dealing with an anticipated possible volume of 650 vehicles per day. That still put them, in traffic operational terms, in the "good" or "very good" range. They seldom received complaints or requests on two lane residential streets that have volumes less than 1, 000 per day. Between 1, 000-3, 000 per day it was common to receive occasional/yearly requests for various services . With volumes over 3,000 per day, it was unusual to not receive requests . This was still below the 1, 000 vehicle per day threshold by a substantial amount. Commissioner Ferguson noted that in the commission packet there was a membership traffic chart for the Sports Club of Palm Desert. He asked if any comparison was done on these figures . Mr. Smith replied yes, but only in so far as they understand the Sports Club has approximately 1500 members, which is what staff is advised that the facility before commission would have at its optimum level . Commissioner Ferguson noted that it showed about one third of the membership visits on any given day. Mr. Smith felt it was in the 35% range. Commissioner Ferguson asked what the base amount of traffic volume on Acacia was with no project there right now. Mr. Greenwood replied that using the existing count that staff has, which was a real count, there were 300 vehicles per day, but the count was four years old. Staff did a quick analysis comparing other residential streets that the city has a count history on to see if they would expect much growth on a typical residential street and they were not seeing any clear pattern, but to prepare a worst reasonable case they applied a three percent per year growth to that and came up with 337 vehicles per day. Commissioner Ferguson said that even if they took a third of the proposed 1500 5 MINUTES - PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16 , 1996 member club and extrapolated the Sports Club data with the increase, they would still be in the "good" range; Mr. Greenwood concurred--they would still be below 1, 000 . Chairperson Beaty noted that the public hearing was still open and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. RICHARD OLIPHANT, 45-500 Navaho Road in Indian Wells, stated that as he listened to all the statistical information it was hard for him to understand why there would be a consideration for closing the street as a result of the approval of this project. He didn' t want to stand before commission and take issue with any of the people that live in that area because if they want their streets closed, that was a separate issue. They rightfully took it to the city council and they rightfully discussed this as a separate issue from their building. He didn' t see that as a nexus for them. If they want to close Acacia, Adonis and Fairhaven, that was their responsibility. If they wanted to maintain those walls and gates they should form some type of special service district in order to achieve it. He felt it was a very unfair responsibility to place on a building that was having an impact on the traffic that was in the very good range. He said he has seen marginal buildings in the city where the traffic has been increased as a result of that approval and here they were not making that kind of impact. He didn't understand why they were being focused on to remedy a problem that they were not creating. It was another offsite cost that would be added to a lot of other offsite costs that already, as suggested by Chairman Beaty, they would talk to the city council/redevelopment agency about for some assistance, but it was just another issue that had to be addressed. This was a very expensive project already, particularly with the parking structure, and putting more burden on it didn' t make this project any easier to do. He said he didn't want to argue with the people that live on Grapevine or any of the other streets--Arboleda or the rest of them in that area. If they want to be private and have accesses only to the north on Fairhaven and Acacia, they could get out onto Arboleda, although this also discusses closing off Fairhaven at Arboleda. He said he didn't want to get into an argument about that because he didn't feel that was his argument. He thought that discussion should be taken up between the residents and 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16 , 1996 the city council . He felt they have met all the requirements of the city, they meet all the ordinance requirements, they bent over backwards to create something that was extra particular on that corner that was going to be very nice and would be a landmark building and an asset to the community. He said he couldn' t understand why a negative declaration couldn' t be issued to them with or without that wall if the traffic stays within the very good range. If they were generating 1500 trips per day, then maybe he would be saying that they should mitigate this and put in the wall, but he was not doing that because that wall was not a necessary part of this project. The concept of them building a wall in a public right-of-way and them assuming the liability and the responsibility for that wall was something that was above and beyond a nexus . He urged the commission to approve the project without the wall or the blocking of the street as an obligation of this project. Commissioner Ferguson asked if Mr. Oliphant had run a cost estimate on the additional incremental cost from a development standpoint to put this wall in and then projected annual maintenance costs . Mr. Oliphant replied no, but he would guess that a wall that size would be around $3,000-$4 , 000 . He didn ' t know what requirement the fire department would place either. The fire department is located on Town Center Drive and they respond to this neighborhood from Fred Waring Drive. He doubted if the fire marshal had looked at this plan. He thought they would need some Fred Waring access to this neighborhood. All of those things had to be worked out in order to achieve closing off the community. It could be done, but there would be mitigations involved in that. He didn' t want to get into the middle of that, that was not their issue. Their issue was simply developing this corner and they were not generating a traffic load or creating any other environmental impact that they need to mitigate because they were not over-loading any street or the water system or sewer system or anything else . Commissioner Ferguson stated that the purpose of his question was to determine Mr. Oliphant ' s concerns and cost was one of them, liability was another, the issue of ongoing maintenance he had no idea what that would be and assumed that would be another one, and asked if those were his three main concerns . 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16 , 1996 Mr. Oliphant agreed that those were their primary concerns . If the wall was there it wouldn' t impact their project because he felt that almost all of their people would be coming in and off Fred Waring Drive. Also, adjoining their property was a driveway to a public parking lot. He asked if the driveway would be on the north side of the wall or the south side of the wall . That also became an issue because that apartment project driveway uses Arboleda and Acacia and it was right next to their property line. Mr. Drell clarified that it was not a public parking lot, it was associated with a specific apartment project and was dedicated for its use. The closure would be south of the driveway of that parking lot . Mr. Oliphant noted that it would actually open north of the wall . Mr. Drell concurred and said it was because the apartment building was a residential use and it would continue to access onto Acacia and Arboleda where most people go now. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MR. DAVID F. MIDDLETON, 72-799 Arboleda Drive, indicated that the commission should have a copy of his letter so he would not go over it again. He was concerned about the additional amount of traffic, not only in their residential area but on Fred Waring and Monterey. As noted in his letter, already on the weekends traffic was so heavy that trying to get out of their area and go somewhere else to do something was very difficult. Even adding a few more trips, even if it was in the good- excellent range, from where they live it was tough and would be intolerable. They already have quite a bit of vacant space around there and he was not happy about adding more vacant space at some future time. As far as blocking the streets, he agreed with Mr. Oliphant that it was probably a separate issue. The through traffic was probably not that heavy, although there were a few cars that try to avoid the intersection at Fred Waring and Monterey and do cut through at a high rate of speed ( 30-45 mph) . He felt that problem was already there and they were trying to come up with a way to try and resolve that. Adding this building would add to the problem because there would be more drive-through 8 MINUTES _ PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16 , 1996 traffic through their residential area. He signed the petition and agreed to block the streets with some reluctance because when they bought there they didn' t choose to live in a gated community. He didn ' t like gated communities . He felt that blocking the streets was like blocking the streets off and results in an expenditure of time and effort on their part to satisfy other people ' s agenda. There would be concerns about police and fire response, visitors trying to get in and out, repairmen, gardeners and activity like that. He stated that he would really like to see this project located somewhere else. Commissioner Ferguson noted that Mr. Middleton said in his letter that his two biggest concerns were traffic and a lack of necessity for another building in the area. He said that assuming that the gym was put there, he asked if Mr. Middleton would prefer it to be there with or without a wall . Mr. Middleton said that if the gym was built, he would very reluctantly prefer the walls . Commissioner Ferguson asked if Mr. Middleton concurred that a wall would help mitigate traffic if the gym was going to be there; Mr. Middleton concurred. Mr. Oliphant readdressed the commission and asked public works staff that if a condition was included to put that wall up as proposed, if there was a necessity for a right-turn lane all the length of their property down Fred Waring Drive to necessitate right turns into Acacia. He said it seemed that they mitigated that, which would be a tremendous expense set aside. Mr. Drell felt that was a good point. Mr. Oliphant asked that if there was no right turn, then why were they widening Fred Waring so wide to make a right turn and if they were going to do that, he asked if they would abandon the street and let them use the area for parking. Mr. Drell said that they would consider that; if it was beneficial for them to utilize a portion of that right-of-way or cooperate with the adjacent property owner to create an entry similar to Sonora and Monterey, that would be perfectly acceptable. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16, 1996 Mr. Greenwood stated that much of that frontage that is targeted as a right-turn lane was also a bus bay for one of the highest volume bus stop locations in Palm Desert, so even if they didn' t do the right-turn lane, there would still be a substantial bus bay across that frontage. Mr. Oliphant felt that the bus bay would not cost them any where near what making that right-turn lane would because they would not have the same conflict with the traffic signals and the storm drains . Mr. Greenwood felt that change was something that they should re-evaluate. Commissioner Ferguson asked what the cost would be for putting in the right-turn lane along the property; Mr. Muro up spoke from the audience and said $191, 000 . Mr. Oliphant P said he didn' t have a cost breakdown, but it was more then a wall . Commissioner Ferguson asked for a ballpark figure, plus or minus $10, 000 . Mr. Oliphant stated that he sent Mr. Drell a line item breakdown, so it would be there someplace, he couldn't remember. Mr. Oliphant said that right now they were making a right-turn lane on Monterey and a right-turn lane for the whole length of the property on Fred Waring. By doing that, that necessitated their turning sharply which takes out the traffic signals, storm catch basins, and generates a big majority of the costs . Commissioner Ferguson noted that Mr. Oliphant said that a bus bay would be significantly less expensive then a right-turn lane. Mr. Oliphant said that they would be just making a turn-in/turn-out. Commissioner Ferguson asked how much less expensive that would be; Mr. Oliphant said he didn't know because he didn' t know what length it would be. Commissioner Ferguson asked if it would be more than the cost of the wall; Mr. Oliphant replied that the turn-in would be more then the cost of the wall . Commissioner Ferguson asked if the savings going from a right-turn lane to a bus lane would be more then the cost of the wall; Mr. Oliphant said that it would be a greater savings then the cost of a wall . Commissioner Ferguson asked if either of those alternatives would be acceptable to him in lieu of the wall . If the commission asked Mr. Oliphant to build the wall, but they gave him relief on the right-turn lane, if it was something he would consider. Mr. Oliphant replied that he would be more apt to consider it. However, one of the big problems he had in considering it was that he didn' t want the on-going liability and responsibility to that wall . He felt it should be a 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16 , 1996 dedicated wall to either some special district or to the city. CommissionerFergusonFer uson said that he was just taking g a monetary value to it assuming it was a development fee and the city took full responsibility for putting it in there and Mr. Oliphant just supplied the money equivalent to developing the wall . He felt that would be far preferable to Mr. Oliphant then a right-turn lane and putting in a bus bay. Mr. Oliphant felt that would be a more equitable trade-off in his opinion. Mr. Drell noted that he would also be able to pick up some real estate. Mr. Oliphant felt that could be a fairly good trade-off also. Chairperson Beaty asked if Mr. Drell was passing judgement on that change. Mr. Drell replied no, that was a call for the traffic engineer. Relative to the possible dedication of the remainder of Acacia, obviously if it was dedicated it was no longer public right-of-way and it would become part of this project. Again, that was similar to the buildings built by Mike Homme where the street was closed and the city vacated the street to the property owner and he made a nice entryway far narrower then would be necessary for a street and gained some real estate and it had worked out very well . Chairperson Beaty asked for comments by public works . Mr. Greenwood stated that what they could offer was that it was something they could evaluate: the deletion of the right-turn lane from Fred Waring onto Acacia, possible vacation of a portion of Acacia was something worth considering, but it was not something he could give a meaningful recommendation on right now. Mr. Drell stated that the language could be changed to give the public works director the authority to make that call without having to come back to the commission. MR. BILL PERCIVAL, a resident of Acacia, one block from the proposed development, stated that he would like to address a couple of issues that hadn' t been brought up as far as the homeowners were concerned. First he wanted to challenge the traffic count in his neighborhood, particularly in the winter time when the Street Fair operates on Saturdays and Sundays . They get thousands of people up and down the streets who park on the street. He didn' t feel that had been addressed. If they add to those figures , most of the people in the neighborhood didn't mind the traffic so much, even though the cars park in front of their homes, but they were talking about the snow bird type of traffic which 11 MINUTES - PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16 , 1996 were mostly retired people that were very courteous, they respect their property rights and they were not a nuisance. He said that he raised three children who were now in their 20 ' s . Young people drive differently then the crowd of people they were talking about that frequent their neighborhood on Saturdays and Sundays and go to the Street Fair. He felt the commission would agree with him on that account. He said they were concerned about not only the traffic but the types of people that are generating that type of traffic in their neighborhood. Commission discussed the frequency of travel in their neighborhood as a sports club as opposed to an office building. He noted that an office building normally closed at 4 : 30 p.m. or 5 : 00 p.m. The sports club would be generating traffic until 9 : 00 p.m. and perhaps later depending on their hours . He felt there was a distinct difference in the time that the neighborhood traffic was being used. The age of the user of their street, the way they drive (and he was not saying that all young people drive poorly) but a high percentage of that age group are being targeting to use the sports club and have the potential of driving much differently then the senior citizens that go to the Street Fair. They lived in a fairly unique part of town. It was an older part of town and was centrally located, but for some reason the lots were very large there and they enjoy a very quiet, serene neighborhood. Theyare blocked byoffice buildings around them, which actually blocks out noise from traffic. He felt the people there have come to enjoy that type of neighborhood and quietness and he felt that the man developing this project, and he knew he lived in Indian Wells, Indian Wells was a very quiet, serene type of neighborhood and if he would compare his neighborhood to theirs, he would see that they enjoy a similar quietness and serenity of life that was important to them. Commissioner Ferguson asked Mr. Percival if the project were to be built, if he was in favor of closing the street. Mr. Percival replied yes . Commissioner Ferguson asked what Mr. Percival ' s address was; Mr. Percival stated that he was on the corner of Acacia and Arboleda, 43-795 Acacia. MR. REX MCDANIEL, 72-915 Glorianna, stated that was on the southwest corner of Glorianna and Acacia. He said his east boundary was on Acacia directly across the street from the subject site. He was the only homeowner in direct physical contact with the site. He figured he 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16 , 1996 was most concerned and most effected by construction. He submitted a letter concerning all of this and he didn't want to retract from that letter and didn ' t see much point in padding it, but he learned at the last meeting that an appearance at this podium was more important and carried more weight then a letter. Therefore he wanted to weigh in with three very elementary facts . Staff, both this evening and in their written report, said that a critical component of this whole operation was a solid block wall across Acacia connecting to his fence. It appeared to him that this critical component is an ample and obvious acknowledgement that this project was so blatantly, outrageously intrusive that the residential area must be protected. Third, he felt it would be a sad, sorry commentary on the system if the citizens had to barricade themselves to avoid evils that this commission has the power to prevent in the first place. The only way the commission could approve this project was to totally disregard his rights in this matter. Commissioner Ferguson noted that Mr. McDaniel lived across the street, he was geographically the closest resident to this property and the proposed wall would tie into his wall . He indicated that he was the one who made the comment at the last meeting that it made a greater impact on him to talk to the person and gage their concerns by having them come down to the podium tonight, rather than just signing a form letter that told him nothing about their individual concerns . He noted that Mr. McDaniel didn't like the project and would like it to go away was one option; the second option was that if the project was going to be built, he asked if Mr. McDaniel wanted the wall or not. Mr. McDaniel stated that with or without the project, a wall was an insult. It was just adding insult to injury. Commissioner Ferguson asked for clarification that if the gym was built, he was still against the wall; Mr. McDaniel replied, yes, in any way. MS . DIANA LA MAR, 43-827 Acacia Drive at the northwest corner of Glorianna and Acacia, said that commission received a letter she had written today addressing the problem. She said that she and Sharon Howard surveyed the neighborhood in person and gave the commission a colored xerox of a plat that showed the numbers and names of the residents they contacted. She said that the plat she had was not too good and she could stand corrected on it, but she calculated that there were approximately 53 residences in the Palm Dell Estates . 13 MINUTES - PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16 , 1996 She said that there might be more--there was some vacant land and there were now some office professional businesses . Out of the 53, which was 75% of the people that were contacted said they either didn' t want the project or if the project had to built they were in favor of the wall . Sixteen people had sent letters opposed to the project and/or traffic and the 14 that she personally contacted definitely said that they did not want the project. The project was still proceeding and being heard even though the people in the neighborhood were not wanting it. This afternoon she called 38 people that were on the petition to close at least Acacia and almost 100% of those people she contacted, and she contacted approximately 29 or 30 of them in person, did not want the project. They all felt that they have lived here and come to Palm Desert for many years , and they had shopping centers that go up and within a year or two every shop was empty and the people ran over to the new shopping center. She was at 111 Town Center recently and they have a banner in every vacant store front and an 800 number to call . They were obviously looking for tenants . There are structures over there, lighting over there, plumbing, paving and it would save Mr. Oliphant at least three quarters of his $3 .4 million that he is investing in this property. The people in the neighborhood don' t want to see another vacant building. If the commission approved it, she asked that commission approve at least a five year mandatory residency and keep the tenant in there and then approve another five years after that so that there would be something there for at least ten years . She said it "blew her mind" to see Waring Plaza lose tenants to a new shopping center and the old Circuit City structure was a huge structure in that area and all they did was move across the street because they needed larger quarters . They needed larger quarters but now that building was empty. That empty building was large and could accommodate this project. She didn't know why Mr. Oliphant was absolutely insisting on building at that corner. That corner was a complicated corner and Mr. Drell addressed the fact that it was a very high rent area. She said that of course it was high rent. There weren' t very many people in the neighborhood that knew that the Estate was leasing to a major contractor who then leased it to Mr. Oliphant, who was then leasing it to someone else or helping to build or investing in it. He wants a return on his money; everyone wants that, but they didn' t need to be greedy. The concerns 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16 , 1996 of the neighborhood needed to be addressed. Mr. Oliphant had no idea of what the streets were or where they were or the location of anything or the traffic pattern, was totally inconsiderate, and all he wanted to do was build his structure. He didn' t want to even admit that 1500 members would generate 1, 050 cars per day, in addition to their 330 that was a very conservative addition and was probably taken during the summer. Every time she turned around she saw a red and white concrete truck going down the street. There was no reason it had to go down their street. It comes from Parkview and it was easier because they didn' t have to stop at the light. They got a lot of traffic because people didn' t want to loiter at the long lights . As far as money or mitigation was concerned, if she couldn't have the project out of there, she wanted the wall . She felt that it was horrendous that someone had to be that greedy and inconsiderate. People in the neighborhood didn't know that it would be a 25 foot high structure. They didn' t know it would be three stories with the subterranean parking structure underground to accommodate the number. She asked why they should go through all of this and asked who would rent it when it went "belly up" . She said that she was very opposed to it and had been in contact with the people in the neighborhood and had a good feeling for what they didn' t want. They didn't want the fitness club and if they had to have it and if it was crammed down their throat (this would be like Rancho Mirage where the voters voted against the La Mirada project, but there was a hotel and golf course regardless of what the little people wanted) . Commissioner Jonathan said that if Ms . La Mar had objections to the proposed application, he wanted to hear what those concerns were. Ms . La Mar stated that she was concerned about the hours of operation and the amount of traffic generated and the increased lighting at night. Commissioner Ferguson asked for clarification that Ms . La Mar was concerned that this was a three story building and the 25 feet in height bothered her. Ms . La Mar concurred. She said it was higher than others and she felt he wanted to build an edifice and while she might sound sarcastic, that was what she was basically picking up on. The height would impinge on the whole view of the corner. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16 , 1996 Commissioner Ferguson said that he specifically asked that the residents in that neighborhood get involved if they cared about it and he really liked the chart Ms . La Mar submitted because he could see who sat where and if they were not on the chart they were obviously farther away. Ms . La Mar said that Sharon Howard should be credited for the color markings . Commissioner Ferguson said that the commission' s role was to balance interests like Mr. Oliphant' s and the residents ' . He didn' t think the city could expect Mr. Oliphant to sit on vacant land and if it a project was properly zoned, with the proper application, proper conditions and hurdles (and they heard that one was $191, 000 just to widen the road a little bit and underground cables ) , and certainly whatever went in there would have an impact on their neighborhood, one way or another, so they were trying to explore ways to minimize that impact. Ms . La Mar stated that with the fitness project as it stands and the architecture, it wasn' t a minimum impact. MS . SHARON HOWARD, 43-866 Adonis Drive, said that at the last commission meeting she understood one of the commissioners to say that he considered the neighborhood to be pretty apathetic, or something to the effect, and that they should get off their butts . Well, that ' s what they did. She walked through the neighborhood and people were not apathetic, they were uninformed. Apparently the legal notification was a very limited area. Not only were people on Adonis , Glorianna, Acacia, and Arboleda concerned. They were concerned way over to San Juan, Mimosa. Not necessarily about the sports club, but everyone was sick and tired of traffic. Their neighborhood was not just exactly like every other neighborhood in Palm Desert. It sat in a unique spot, it got a lot of pass-through traffic from Trader Joe ' s, the Town Center, and everyone that wishes to avoid that intersection. If she understood correctly, the traffic studies seemed to be a little minimal and limited at this time. They live in that neighborhood and they see what goes on and they care about their neighborhood. They would like to have something done about the traffic in conjunction with this project and separately. She noted that Mr. Oliphant said that he should not be held responsible for that wall or for creating that wall or anything to do with the traffic there, but they would be creating additional traffic and they should take some responsibility for the portion of pass-through traffic that their project will cause. 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16 , 1996 Commissioner Ferguson stated that he agreed with Ms . Howard in that he didn't think that the existence of the building would have no impact on the community. He spent considerable time with Mr. Smith going over impacts, particularly at her corner, and a lot of people do cut through their property, particularly on Fairhaven and Adonis coming out of Trader Joe' s . Their fear was that if they blocked off Acacia with simply a barricade, people would go up to Adonis , turn around on Glorianna and go back and park next to the building on Acacia and simply walk over to the facility, which was where the gate and card key concept came from. He knew in talking to Mr. Smith that the thought was not unnoticed that people still cut through and there was a recommendation that the city undertake closure, discussions and studies at Adonis and Fairhaven because those don't have a nexus to the property in question, but there was still a problem there. They weren' t unmindful of the fact that there was still a problem there. The comments about their neighborhood were exactly as he indicated earlier, that if someone like her comes down and stands in front of him, it had a bigger impact on him because they felt strongly enough about it and shared those concerns as opposed to signing a form letter, which gave him no indication as to the feedback from the community. He wanted to raise that point and assure her that the traffic problems had not gone unnoticed. What they tried to do with Mr. Oliphant ' s application was to insure that his responsibility only extends to the additional traffic his project would generate and not what Trader Joe ' s generates, not what the Street Fair generates or whatever sources the traffic might be in the neighborhood, but it had not gone unnoticed at their level . Ms . Howard said that she didn' t think they were asking Mr. Oliphant to be responsible for anyone else' s traffic, but since this has come up they had become far more aware as to the potential for damage to their neighborhood. It was not an easy thing for people to come before the commission. She said she was almost scared speechless already and most people didn' t know that this was the way to proceed. They do have those concerns; none of them were engineers and she didn' t really understand the way the system works so the actual way that these closures would be structured was probably up to someone that has the knowledge, skills and education to do those things . They were just asking that they not be passed over by the system and that the commission clearly hear their concerns . 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16 , 1996 Commissioner Ferguson said that he did and assured her that he welcomed her here tonight and he liked hearing first hand what her concerns were and staff did as well . He indicated that public works wouldn' t close those streets without talking with the residents and giving the professional approach that it needs . MRS. PERCIVAL, 43-795 Acacia Drive, stated that she and her husband decided to move to that area because they like the quiet neighborhood and she loved it that she could get out and walk her dogs at any time in the morning or at night without any fear of being mugged because it was safe and nice. She felt their neighborhood was wonderfully located, but they were concerned about the new sports facility going in. She asked if it was too late to chose a new site for this new sports center. She said she would have been here before if she knew what was going on and she would have written a letter, but she was here tonight to plead with the commission. If it was possible, don' t build the facility. If it had to be crammed down their throats, put up the wall . MR. ROD MURPHY, 72-764 Arboleda, stated that he has two interests in this project. One was the possibility that he would be the general contractor on it. Second was the traffic in the area. The existing traffic in the area was a problem and the commission had heard this from his friends and neighbors in the area. Whether or not this project was built, the traffic situation had to be addressed. People were using their neighborhood to cross over from Parkview to Monterey, particularly on Acacia, San Juan and Arboleda. When they were doing that they were in a hurry and didn' t want to stop at a light, so when they go through the neighborhood, they go through the neighborhood at a high rate of speed and that has upset him and his neighbors . Maybe a few were against the club, but he felt what the commission was hearing was that they were fed up with the way the traffic is going through their neighborhood. If the club was not built, or if nothing was built there, they would still hear from the neighbors now that the had come together to do something about it. Chairperson Beaty asked for confirmation that they had already presented this to the city council . Mr. Murphy concurred. 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16, 1996 Mr. Greenwood said that he wanted to clarify the status of the traffic situation in the neighborhood. There was a petition presented to the city council and council referred it to public works, where they have scheduled some data collection and evaluation of the current situation to try and evaluate the specific request for closures and the other possible alternatives . The traffic evaluation the commission had before them was focused solely on Acacia. The traffic conditions they were hearing about tonight on Fairhaven and Adonis had not been addressed because public works had not been aware of any concerns prior to the July 11 council meeting. They were in the process of trying to resolve those traffic concerns . MS . LYNN WALLACE, a resident on the corner of Fairhaven and San Juan, stated that her biggest concern was traffic. Living on the corner she had two entrances-- one from Fairhaven and the other from San Juan into her driveway. The thing that she had noticed the most was people cutting through Fairhaven and then going to Parkview. They speed around the corner very quickly as she pulls out of the driveway and there had been many times when she was almost hit. She felt something needed to be addressed on that issue. The block walls would be a good alternative. Mr. Oliphant readdressed the commission and stated that they had all heard the concerns of the residents when it comes to traffic in their neighborhood and that was a real issue. He felt it was an issue that needs to be looked at . They were building the last vacant piece of property in that area and being a builder/developer he was used to being called names and referred to as a number of things . He said that was not his nature and they tried to be sensitive to the neighborhood and tried to do a good job. He thought their record of 34 years in the desert would stand up to that. They were concerned about the residents . His own brother-in-law lives on Glorianna and so he had some personal interest there, but this project should not be burdened with conditions that were beyond nexus and if there was a tradeoff that could be generated with the public works department on the right-turn lane, which would seem to become redundant if the commission did want a wall . His real concern about the wall was the ongoing maintenance and liability and that would be a terrible concern. 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16, 1996 Mr. Drell said that he had one comment on the issue of nexus . The traffi c engineer' s study referred to the purely traffic operational impacts of the cars on the street and how much volume of traffic could move up and down the street given its width, etc. The basis of staff 's recommendation was based on the magnitude of change on traffic on Acacia directly as a result of this project and staff saw the potential of the doubling of the current volume of traffic from this one project alone--from approximately 300 cars to 600 cars . While from an operational point it was still excellent and no one would lose a second of time or delay driving down that way, from an impact on the neighborhood of one day having 300 cars and the next day when the facility opens having 600, from a quality of life and an overall environmental concern staff felt that was a significant impact and the nexus was quite clear. Commissioner Ferguson commented they went from an excellent to a good rating by doubling the traffic. Chairperson Beaty closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments . Commissioner Jonathan said that the staff concluded that a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was conditioned on the wall . If the commission was to find that the wall is not an item justified by the application, he asked if staff would reverse it ' s negative finding. Mr. Drell replied that the Negative Declaration does not assign the responsibility for mitigation. it identifies the impact and says that if the impact is mitigated, then the negative declaration could be approved. The commission could make the finding that this project will not have a significant impact on this neighborhood and they could modify the negative declaration. If they remove the condition, then he would assume that the commission would make a minute motion to the city council that they would recommend that the city take on the obligation of mitigating the impact. The alternative would be to assign a portion of financial responsibility on the closure and maintenance on the wall to this project and a portion to the city. Those were the options . If it turns out that street is vacated, then it would be on private property, which the property owner would own in conjunction with the adjacent owner and it would be a wall he would maintain just like he is maintaining walls everywhere else on his project. There wouldn' t be any special liability as opposed to the other walls . Those were the options, but again, staff identified the impact and commission could 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16 , 1996 disagree that it exists . Commissioner Jonathan said that in that case the commission could still find for a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. Mr. Drell concurred, as long as someone was assigned the responsibility of mitigating that impact. Commissioner Jonathan said that if there was a wall on Acacia going from the northern property boundary of the project across to Glorianna, that would leave the apartment ingress and egress completely north of that wall . He asked if that had been factored into the traffic impact and if those residents who were accustomed to just going out Acacia to Fred Waring had been apprised of the impact that such a wall would have on them. He asked if that had been factored into the equation. Mr. Drell said that there would be inconvenience to that entire neighborhood to not have access to Acacia, Fred Waring, Fairhaven or Adonis . These people would be impacted in the same way, no more and no less . The judgement that had been made, like the judgement made in every other residential neighborhood at that intersection, that those residents have come to the city and said that they would rather have the inconvenience of leaving their neighborhood by a more circuitous route in exchange for the elimination of pass-through traffic . It was correct that they didn' t notify all of the residents of the apartments, only the property owners . Commissioner Jonathan felt that they had a good and substantive discussion and he had to express his own concern about having discussion about cost issues . One of the pleasures he enjoyed serving on the commission was that they didn' t really need to deal with politics or cost and they could evaluate what was right for the community or wrong for the community and make their own evaluation of that and if an applicant could factor that into his costs, great. He personally enjoyed not being influenced by cost issues , but simply on the merits of an application, so he didn' t care to get into whether there was an offset for a wall versus a right-turn lane versus a bus stop. He preferred to look at what was appropriate for the neighborhood, city and applicant and make the evaluation on that basis . With that in mind, he thought that the neighborhood probably needed a wall or some kind of mitigation to the traffic, but he didn' t feel their problem was this project, or a medical office that would follow, or an office office, or whatever it might be. The city is growing and they were in a nice neighborhood, but they were not an island unto itself . They were part of the community of the city of Palm Desert and traffic would impact 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16, 1996 them as it does everyone. There were some potential mitigations and one was a wall . He didn' t live behind closed gates so he sympathized with the gentleman who said he didn't want to live behind a wall . Maybe that was not the perfect mitigation. He felt there were some alternatives out there for the residents and for the neighborhood, but they had very little to do with this project. If they looked at alternative developments that could occur on that corner, this wasn' t that bad. They could do worse. Looking at the application he felt it stood on its own merits . He was concerned about what impact there would be if the city chose to put in a wall on the overall traffic circulation and what it would do to the project in terms of the possibility of making more real estate available to it, which might cause a change in design which might be favorable or unfavorable. He felt they might need to continue the application to simply let the issue "play out" in terms of what the city council intends to do about the wall . He suggested for consideration continuing the application, which in his opinion stood on its own merit and there had been a lot of improvements made to the project itself and he was satisfied with it, but the problem he had was that there was mitigation needed for the traffic in the neighborhood and depending what mitigation took place, the changes might affect the project. He felt it might be putting the cart before the horse if they were to vote on the project itself because they might see changes that would impact the ultimate design and layout of the project itself . Commissioner Ferguson said that he thought that the problem with government was that too often it has ignored costs . Causing someone to put in a $191, 000 right-turn lane into a wall was about one of the stupidest things he had ever heard. No one had advocated that, but they just couldn' t not worry about cost and assume that some day the wall would come down and they would have a right-hand turn lane. He said he was sympathetic with all of the things that they have heaped upon Mr. Oliphant in terms of undergrounding and offsite improvements with respect to Monterey and Fred Waring and he said he knew the applicant well enough to know that $3 , 000 was not a big issue with him financially, but he looked at this as the extra straw for the camel ' s back on top of what he felt was a very thinly financed in terms of volume that this establishment would have to do to meet its capital expenditures . The sense he was getting was that it was one step too far and he was sympathetic with that. He said at the last meeting that he thought they had reviewed the application when it went over to Portola and it didn' t 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16, 1996 receive a warm reception at Planning Commission and they limited its use. City Council went one step further. Planning Commission told the applicant they had to file plans by May 1 and pull permits by September 1 and that they had to relocate. Now they were somewhere else on a private piece of property that Mr. Oliphant holds and he understand Ms . La Mar' s comments about the chain of title, who holds that and how much was being paid for those rights, but the thing that he did agree with Commissioner Jonathan on was that the land was going to be developed. He noted that someone said a long time ago that God stopped making land but he didn' t stop making people and they would come, it was just a matter of accommodating and channeling that growth. That was what they were trying to do tonight. He stated that he had no problem with the project, but he was not unmindful that it would have an impact on the neighborhood. He felt that there had been an unnecessary blending of two issues which has had a positive benefit, at least for the public works department and the traffic engineer in that there was a much bigger traffic problem here as well as the incremental increase in traffic added by this project. He said that he supported the concept of a wall and would support having that wall put in place in conjunction with an overall study of the entire neighborhood that addresses the entire traffic circulation problem and he wanted to see the developer incur the financial obligation with respect to the wall without the continuing liability. He felt that could be imposed as a development fee, he could post a bond and when the wall gets built in connection with the overall traffic plan, it could be agreed and understood tonight that the developer would bear that cost. It could be written in as a condition. With respect to whether or not there was a right-hand turn lane or bus bay, the indication from the applicant tonight was that he would be willing to work with traffic and as Mr. Drell indicated the commission could delegate the authority to Mr. Folkers with the understanding that the applicant would agree with the final decision. He stated that he would be prepared to move approval . Commissioner Fernandez stated that he agreed with Commissioner Ferguson. He believed that the applicant went out of his way to meet all of the conditions . Commissioner Fernandez was concerned and sensitive to the neighborhood traffic, but he was in favor of the project and felt it was a good project. Things in Palm Desert would keep growing and they had to look towards the future. 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16, 1996 Commissioner Campbell said that she knew there was a traffic problem there and as far as the project was concerned, there were many empty spaces in Palm Desert available. She would hate to see this building built and in six months or a year have it vacant and not be able to fill it up. She asked if it would be applicable to put in some kind of condition on the building on the athletic club as stated by Ms . La Mar to have the applicant in the building for at least three years and to have that as a condition on the approval . She could see many things happening on El Paseo where a building was empty, people come in and sign a three month lease and as soon as they go in they were putting up a going out of business sign and in three months were gone. She asked if that would be appropriate. Mr. Oliphant spoke from the audience and said that Mr. Muro would be the owner of the building. Commissioner Campbell asked if he could go ahead and state that and put it down on record that Mr. Muro would be in that building permanently since he was the owner of the building. Chairperson Beaty noted that the courts were full of bankruptcy cases . Commissioner Ferguson said that they could say that they want the applicant there for ten years, but felt that legally there was nothing they could do to enforce it. Mr. Rudolph agreed that there was no way they could guarantee a business ' s success and could not condition it around this . He didn' t believe that the commission had the authority to interfere with negotiating the terms between private parties . That became a private contractual matter between them. Commissioner Campbell said that she didn' t want to see the building adding to the other vacant space, but if it was built, she would be in favor of having Acacia walled. Chairperson Beaty said that he would like to see an attractive building built on that corner. He shared Mr. Oliphant ' s concerns about the imposition of the wall and he liked Mr. Ferguson ' s suggestions regarding the liability. He didn' t feel the commission should be judging whether or not the project would be financially solvent or successful . He had questions but didn' t feel they could pass judgement on those issues . He hoped the lot would be developed some day. The traffic increase over that of an office professional use he felt was significant . It might be mitigated by the wall, but he was still not convinced that they have talked enough about the impacts to the neighborhood other than traffic and those issues were with the noise, the hours ( 6 : 00 a.m. to 9 : 00 p.m. ) and he felt this would be an unfair imposition on that neighborhood. He liked the project and the Fitness Mart 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16 , 1996 and agreed that there were a lot of vacancies in the city. He noted that Mr. Muro had said that he had a lease signed in the 111 Town Center that fell apart and he sensed that might be another option. He would reflect back to his suggestion at the last meeting where he would like the city to get involved with Mr. Oliphant and that corner so that perhaps an office professional or some lower impact use could be financially possible. He requested a roll call vote. Commissioner Jonathan clarified that in his comments he didn' t mean to imply that government should over-burden or over-impose itself on the forces of free market. He was simply pointing out that in their role as a planning commission that costs or financial impact on an applicant should not be a consideration. He was simply appealing to the broader perspective of their role and being aware that there is a city council, staff and other avenues for dealing with costs . This commission should not be burdened with those considerations . He didn't have a problem with the way the discussion was going, his only concern would be that he would like to see the project proceed, but if there was going to be a design change as a result of a wall or lane change, he would like to see the project again if there was a significant design change. He didn' t know how much real estate they were considering. Mr. Drell clarified that they were only talking about ten to 15 feet. Commissioner Ferguson stated that he would move that the Planning Commission approve Resolution No. 1752 as stated in their packet, a Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, approving a request by Rick Muro for a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and precise plan/conditional use permit for an 18 , 489 square foot two story athletic club in the 0.P. zone at the northwest corner of Monterey Avenue and Fred Waring Drive, subject to the following amendments : 1 ) That the developer' s contribution to cover the cost of the wall be posted in a form of a security acceptable to the city, a development fee, and that the developer not have ongoing liability and financial responsibility for the wall . Mr. Drell asked if he wanted to add "unless it is on private property" which would occur in the event of a vacation. Commissioner Ferguson concurred and added 2 ) that Mr. Folkers be given the authority to evaluate the need, in light of the wall placement, of the right-hand turn lane/bus bay and give him authority subject to Mr. Oliphant ' s/the applicant ' s consent, or condition their approval subject to their agreement on that issue. 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16 , 1996 Action: Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings . Carried 3-2 (Chairperson Beaty and Commissioner Campbell voted no) . Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1752 , approving PP/CUP 96-5, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 3-2 (Chairperson Beaty and Commissioner Campbell voted no) . Mr. Drell announced that the decisions of the Planning Commissioner were appealable to the City Council . The form could be obtained from the city clerk' s office and must be filed within 15 days . B. Case Nos . CUP 96-19 and VAR 96-4 - SANTA FE HOMES OF AMERICA, INC. , Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit and setback variance to allow the conversion from residential to office use and expansion from 2479 square feet to 4178 for the existing R-3 zoned property at the northwest corner of Portola Avenue and Alessandro Drive . Mr. Smith explained that the commission received an updated site plan in that the applicant was before the architectural review commission at its last two meetings and at its meeting last week ARC granted conceptual approval . Originally the building expansion had been for 4178 square feet. The new total addition would be 4 , 000 square feet . In order to achieve acceptable landscape buffers, specifically on Alessandro and to a lesser extent on Portola, the amount of the expansion needed to be reduced. The applicant has done that and they now have seven and a half feet of landscape area on the Alessandro side which is what is provided on the Alessandro side of the Gregory building on the other side of the intersection. The suggestion of ARC was the installation of street trees planted in the sidewalk on Alessandro before the sidewalk was poured and also put palm trees in the seven and a half foot dirt area. On the Portola side, the city was taking 14 feet off of the lot for future street improvements . He said this would not be done soon because they didn' t have any widening on the west side of Portola to the north of this site . Eventually the street would be widened by about eight feet . That meant that out of the 14 feet they were left with 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 18, 1996 Commissioner Ferguson asked if Ms . Dashefski understood that she was limited to 36 seats . Ms . Dashefski said yes . Commissioner Ferguson indicated that his questions were for the benefit of the public and the record. Chairperson Beaty closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments or action. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez , approving the findings as presented by staff . Carried 5-0 . Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1747 , approving CUP 91-16 Amendment #3, subject to conditions . Carried 5-0 . C . Case No. PP/CUP 96-5 - RICK MURO, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design/conditional use permit for a 17 , 857 gross square foot two story athletic club on the vacant property at the northwest corner of Monterey Avenue and Fred Waring Drive. Mr. Drell explained that not only was there a request for a continuance, but last Friday on examining the map that was used to generate the legal notice it was found that the property in question was identified as only one of the three lots on which the project would be located, therefore, the 300 foot radius took in a smaller area than it should have. Therefore, all those that should have been notified weren ' t. He said it must be continued to give proper notice. Secondly, since some people were notified and could address the commission, he would briefly run over what the project is and what the issues are. It was a 17 , 000 square foot athletic club and by virtue of its design would probably be the premier athletic facility in this particular area. Staff identified two main issues of concern, one being the parking requirement . The applicant could only park approximately two-thirds of the required parking for the use onsite and is proposing that 38 of the 119 spaces be parked offsite in the 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 18, 1996 Darr Eye Clinic parking lot on the south side of Fred Waring in the evening. Assuming the club is as successful as the applicant hopes it is and the city hopes it is, staff saw the potential for intrusion of the space in the early evening hours into the residential area to the northwest, as well as increased loading of left-hand turn movements to and from the facility from Fred Waring which would direct traffic into that area to .exit. Given those issues, staff was not prepared to recommend approval . On the other hand, this is an important intersection of the city which the city and staff would like to see a high quality development on. It has a lot of infrastructure costs which dictate a use which can pay a high rent to pay for the cost of tearing out all the existing improvements, putting in new curbs , gutters and sidewalks, relocating a traffic signal, as well as undergrounding lines and therefore staff had some dilemma in analyzing this and trying to find a way to recommend approval . Mr. Drell felt that it looked like a very high quality facility and was well designed, but staff has concerns about its appropriateness for this particular site. If the commission was willing to consider the 38 spaces which are across the street on Fred Waring, the notice would also have to be expanded from that area since that parking would become part of the project . Therefore, staff would be notifying people on the south side of Fred Waring as well . The applicant has worked hard to answer staff ' s concerns , but the solution might not be this site. Chairperson Beaty noted that there would be a more complete staff report at the July 2 meeting if the item was continued. He opened the public testimony for anyone that wished to speak. MS . DIANA LAMAR stated that she has been a desert resident for 19i years and she has owned the property at the corner of Gloriana and Acacia since February 1992 . She would be directly impacted by the traffic . She said that she teaches photography at the College of the Desert and has been associated with the college for ten years . She is a member of the board of the College Astronomy Association and the Desert Camera Club. She noted that lighting has totally deteriorated since she does photograph the night sky. She could no longer do that, even from the overlooks around the city, because of all the additional lights . This structure would also be generating light. She stated that she gave Mr. Smith a letter on June 10 or 11 and was sure that the commission had read it and would not go back into it, 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 18, 1996 but had some additional concerns which she had not mentioned. This was a family neighborhood. On Acacia and within three houses on Gloriana, Arboleda and Mimosa there were at least 13 youngsters who do not have sidewalks to play on, they roller blade, skate board in the street, and play ball in the street. The apartment building adjacent to the proposed building is federally owned and subsidized housing. There were handicapped and elderly people in that building and the height of the structure would obliterate the view totally of the people on the second floor. They would have no view. She said spoke to the property manager and that was the family section. Some of those people have been there since the building was built. Handicapped and elderly people needed a view to look at the sky. If there were 1200 cars, which Mr. Muro told her was the projected membership, they would go in and out of there at a constant rate. The facility would be open from 6 : 00 a.m. to 9 : 00 p.m. Staff would have to get there half an hour early to open everything and leave half an hour later after they close to secure the building. That would be 16 hours a day that building is open. After that there is a cleaning crew coming in and if there were only two people, it might be one car, but for a three story building (the third story being underground) they would have to have a rather large cleaning crew. They would be having people coming into that area 24 hours a day. Normally that was a quiet street, especially at night. The athletic club would serve food. Mr. Muro plans to have a juice bar. That means fresh vegetables, fresh fruits, etc . Garbage disposals can and do eliminate most of the waste, but they would not eliminate the soft drink containers, plastic containers , napkins and such. They have virtually no rodents , roaches and no stray animals in that area now because it is vacant . She asked where the location of the dumpster would be and noted that people aren ' t too good at closing the lids on the dumpsters because they are heavy. They would attract stray animals and so on. She hasn' t seen any but has smelled skunks, raccoons , dogs , cats, and coyotes come down the street once in a while, so it would be an attraction for them, which there wouldn' t be in an office professional building. She said that she has spoken to her neighbors and they gave her two letters today. They were too shy to come to the meeting and speak. She was very concerned about the amount of traffic . During the season the people going to the COD Street Fair were all over; there wasn' t 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 18, 1996 a parking space available on Acacia from Fred Waring to Park View. Saturdays and Sundays were when the Street Fair was open and on Saturdays and Sundays is when the fitness center would be doing their greatest number of people because people work from 9 : 00 a.m. to 5 : 00 p.m. five days per week and they would go there on Saturday mornings . She knew the city wanted to fill that lot and hoped they would find something that pays a high rent for that corner, but didn't feel the fitness center would fit with the neighborhood. She noted that the old Circuit City building was vacant, there were many shopping centers empty, and if he wanted to build there were vacant lots on Monterey, up and down Fred Waring and across from City Hall which were not family neighborhoods . She took photos which she submitted to Mr. Smith that showed a school bus unloading one of the handicapped children that are in the apartment building. That parking lot entrance is right there. She said they could perhaps move the school bus, but didn' t know. There would be accidents . Later that day she saw another little boy pushing his brother in a wheel chair coming out of that apartment complex. There were a lot of children and a lot of handicapped people in that area. MR. STEVE LAWSON, the operator of the athletic club on Alessandro, said that he wanted to make it a point of record that the parking concern was his genuine and primary concern, not having another competitor in the neighborhood like many might think. Although he wasn' t looking forward to dealing with another competitor, the parking was simply inadequate. All they had to do was come by his club to see how inadequate it is . As a matter of record he wanted to make sure that he took the time to come before the commission to share that with them. The hours they are congested are not the hours commission might think. The worst times are 6 : 00 a .m. to 8 : 30 a.m. and from 4 : 30 p.m. to 7 : 00 p.m. They have a tremendous amount of businesses that close at 5 : 00 p.m. that were very cooperative with allowing them to not only use the parking in front of their building, but their actual spaces . He cooperated back with them from 8 : 00 a.m. to 5 : 00 p.m. by posting signs on his doors telling his customers not to use the other parking lots during 8 : 00-5 : 00 . The parking is his primary concern as many good points that were brought up by Ms . Lamar. That and the fact that he sees left-hand turns 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 18, 1996 specifically in and out of that business being a problem. MR. MIKE HOMME, 46-300 Desert Lily, stated that he owns six commercial buildings along Monterey Avenue. He said that several years ago he was involved with the lots that were now the parking area behind the apartment complex on Monterey Avenue and he didn't know who owns it now, but in those original conversations, and he has no interest with the applicant, there were many discussions about using that parking and the entrance to it on the far south end as an entrance to this property. Also, being involved along Monterey he could fully support Mr. Drell ' s philosophy that a normal office use would not be able to support the burden that that property has placed upon it in terms of the left-turn lanes and bus stop that the city has required. The only uses that are available are uses like this or restaurants who can pay that kind of rent. There was kind of a dilemma there. A normal office use would not support the burdens which were city burdens on the property. Some of the other uses that are able to pay a higher rent would be able to support that property. Chairperson Beaty asked for clarification that Mr. Homme was suggesting that there was extra parkingin the apartment lot gg g P that could be utilized. Mr. Homme said that he had owned all the lots that the parking behind the apartment building was on, then the Redevelopment Agency bought those lots from him. They had several conversations about the fact that that lot could be used in conjunction with these three lots and that lot has a far south entrance which would put them a little further away from Fred Waring and would give a place for traffic to stack up and that lot and entrance could be considered in any application that belonged to that property. There was a tremendous amount of parking on those lots and it was never full . It was redevelopment money that was used to create that parking and that parking should be part of a community parking area like on El Paseo. He didn' t know if that changed when it was given to Riverside to manage and didn' t know the legalities , but that was some of the history of the situation. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 18, 1996 There was no further public testimony. Chairperson noted that the public hearing would remain open and asked for a motion of continuance to July 2 , 1996 . Action: Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, continuing PP/CUP 96-5 to July 2, 1996 by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Palm Desert Water Reclamation Plant No. 10 Percolation Basins, North Expansion, by Coachella Valley Water District. Mr. Drell said that under the special district ' s charter water the district was supposed to advise the city when they were doing a development in the city and the commission makes a determination that what they are doing is consistent with the general plan. This particular site that they are developing is designated for the use they are proposing and is consistent with the general plan. Chairperson Beaty noted that there are existing ponds there and felt the district would be sensitive. Mr. Drell noted that the ponds don' t have a bad odor. There was sometimes an odor problem in that area but it had to do with the pumping station. Commissioner Jonathan said that sometimes it was from the trucks that empty into there. Chairperson Beaty stated that insect control was a concern. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that his office is across the street from them and they had an odor problem. Mr. Levy was kind enough to give the commission a tour of the facility. It was impressive what they were doing with the water and how there was not an odor problem. He felt they are doing good things there. Chairperson Beaty noted that he and Commissioner Fernandez live in that area also. Commissioner Fernandez concurred that they do not have a problem. Commissioner Ferguson asked if Mr. Drell made the determination that this is consistent with the general plan. Mr. Drell concurred. 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2 , 1996 Alcoholics Anonymous . He was glad that Foundation had seen fit to utilize some of its five acres , improve parking spaces which would ease the burden for that entire corner for the property owners for the commercial district, and he was pleased that this was one of those situations where everyone comes out a winner. He thanked the Foundation for their cooperativeness . He said that he would move to adopt the resolution of approval . Commissioner Jonathan stated that he did share staff ' s concerns and appreciated what he felt was a good resolution of the issues . He was glad to see that they could proceed with some good use of that property. Action: Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Campbell , approving the findings as presented by staff . Carried 5-0 . Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No . 1748 , approving CUP 01-82 Amendment No . 3A, subject to conditions . Carried 5-0 . Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff . Carried 5-0 . Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1749 , approving CUP 01-82 Amendment No. 3B, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 5-0 . B. Continued Case No. PP/CUP 96-5 - RICK MURO, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design/conditional use permit for a 17 , 857 gross square foot two story athletic club on the vacant property at the northwest corner of Monterey Avenue and Fred Waring Drive. Mr. Smith explained that this matter was before commission on June 18 at which time it was continued. Staff re-noticed a broader area of legal notices in light of the consideration at that point in time that they would perhaps allow the applicant to use 38 parking spaces located at the rear of the 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2 , 1996 Darr Eye Clinic site at the southwest corner of Monterey and Fred Waring. In the two weeks since the matter was here, the project has continued to evolve. Staff indicated that the public works department conducted a traffic study in this time period. They indicated that the impacted streets have an available capacity to handle the anticipated traffic levels . What the study didn' t indicate or take into account was that they would see a considerable increase in the amount of traffic on the residential streets to the northwest . The city policy in the past has been that they try to avoid that at all costs . In the case of Mervyn' s and Downey Savings , Joshua Road was closed off; in the case of the office professional use directly to the south of this area the streets were closed off and walls were constructed. This eliminated the intrusion of commercial traffic into the residential area . This project has continued to evolve and last week staff heard that the applicant was looking at having a parking structure for the facility. At 4 : 20 p.m. today staff received plans , which were distributed to commission prior to the meeting, which shows a two level parking structure. Mr. Smith stated that he has not had an opportunity to review the plans , although he did discuss the matter yesterday with the architect, Mr. Chambers . Basically as he understood it at that point in time, the lower level parking area would be four to five feet below grade and an upper level a similar distance above grade . They were looking at a total of 116 parking spaces . As well , staff received from Mr. Oliphant a fax last week which describes extra and unusual costs associated with developing a project on this property. Mr. Smith stated that staff was recommending a continuance on this so that staff could look at the plans ; as well , staff would like to present it to architectural review which would meet one week from today. Staff ' s recommendation was for a two week continuance so that staff could review the current proposal . Commissioner Ferguson asked what effect continuing this matter again would have on the proposed October 1st termination date of operation for the current athletic facility on Portola and Highway 111 . He asked when the next meeting was and how long this would delay their ability to pull permits . Mr. Smith said staff ' s suggestion was to continue this hearing to July 16 , which was two weeks from tonight . Commissioner Ferguson indicated that he would also ask the applicant to address that. Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2 , 1996 MR. RICHARD OLIPHANT, 45-500 Navaho Road in Indian Wells, stated that he was one of the three partners that own the leasehold on this lot on the corner of Monterey and Fred Waring. He said that what they were asking from the commission was to consider the use and approve the use subject to the approval of the architectural committee. This had already been through the architectural committee from the standpoint of the building and recommendations were made and the architectural work completed by Mr. Chambers and distributed to each commissioner this evening met the requirements asked of them by architectural review. The only thing that needed to be considered was the landscape and how they handle the elevated garage parking. That they would have to submit to them for recommendations and suggestions . They were asking the commission to make a decision tonight about this use. Approximately five years ago the partnership he was a party to entered into a leasehold arrangement on this lot for the purposes of building a 20 , 000 square foot professional office. They processed it through the city and received the approvals and started through the plan check process . At that time there were a number of issues that arose relating to traffic and had to do with the necessity of having a right-turn lane from Monterey Avenue and widening Fred Waring to make a right-turn lane onto Acacia. They got stuck in the process . By the time the decision was made as to how they could improve this lot to accommodate those facilities , and the negotiation for additional land which the city gave them for the land they were taking away off the lots there were purchasing behind the apartments , some 16 feet so that they could increase their parking, they lost enough land that their office building was only 16 , 800 square feet, not 20, 000 square feet, so they were not able to accommodate their client. The lot has been vacant ever since and would continue to sit vacant because of the fact that there was a substantial amount of improvement costs . They need a fairly intense use and an office use was not the use, particularly in today' s market, to afford the kinds of costs involved in the lot improvements . Secondly, being a leasehold interest it did not depreciate, so there was no fluctuation in the value of the land. In order for them to make this lot useable so that it can be developed and the necessary turn lanes could be generated, they need a use that can afford it. This was the use they felt had the least impact on the surroundings and could be 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2 , 1996 used on this lot . He said that they have been lucky to have a person like Mr. Muro who has about 17 years in this business and has been successful in this business, and his family is in this business . He has also been able to put together the necessary financing to build this building on a leasehold, which in today' s market was almost impossible . This was being handled through the Small Business Administration and Valley Independent Bank. One reason they hadn' t been able to get the parking structure to staff earlier was because they had to do economic studies on it and determine if it was economically feasible to do and whether this was something the SBA would include in their loan. They have now gotten positive answers on both of those subjects , so they know it could be financed and falls within the realm of financial possibility. As soon as they had that word they had the architect, Milt Chambers, put together the drawings and get them to the city as rapidly as possible . What they were asking for tonight was some approval of the use so that they could go forward. Time was of the essence and he felt the commission was aware of that fact. The commission had actually given Mr. Muro until February to make progress with this building to get it built. City council saw fit to move that back to October 1 . However, in talking with individual council members , if there was substantial progress and approvals from this level received, they would be willing to reconsider that issue. He felt it was critical to have the commission' s approval so that they could meet the time requirements . They were present to answer any questions . He noted that he has been in the same position that the commission is in now, in looking at plans that were fairly recent, however, the planning commission essentially did not approve the architectural plans . That was done by the architectural committee and this met those criteria given to them by the architectural committee and they would expect any approval from the commission this evening to be subject to that approval . He also sent a letter; he was one of the owners of the Darr Eye Center and they have ample parking spaces over there, which was verified by the city, and they have dedicated 38 spaces over there from 5 : 00 p.m. until 9 : 00 p.m. so long as this conditional use permit was in effect, for overflow parking. They have no intention of withdrawing that even with the garage. If it was necessary to have that as overflow, they were still willing to step forward and do that . He asked the 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1996 commission to issue the conditional use permit subject to the approval of the architectural committee. He also wanted to address the issue of traffic, since it was the issue primarily put before the commission by planning staff. They met with the public works department and kept abreast with them any issues they might have with traffic. They were in charge of traffic and they have no issues with the traffic, on Acacia or the neighborhoods . It was very unlikely that anyone using this facility would be traveling down from Acacia would be traveling down any of the streets going west because they dead-end. The primary use would be on Acacia and there was already a lot of use on Acacia. He thought the count was about 300 cars per day. This business at its maximum capacity, which was 1500 members, and they would not open with that kind of membership, but over a period of a few years would achieve that, the maximum was about 250 cars per day. That did not double the traffic and Acacia was designed to accommodate more traffic. It has some impact but it was not a negative impact. He said the commission could check with the public works department to verify that. The concept of closing streets was not a concept he personally felt was very good. Palm Desert was a very difficult community to get around in now because a lot of streets were one way or blocked. The idea of having all those residents exit to Arboleda or up to Park View and not have any access to Fred Waring he felt would be very strongly opposed by those people living in those neighborhoods . His project was not the ones generating that issue. It was the Street Fair on Saturdays and Sundays and all the traffic that goes over there and parks on those streets . That has nothing to do with them other than the fact that Mr. Muro has, in writing, pledged to allow his parking spaces to be used on Saturdays and Sundays by the Street Fair because on Saturdays and Sundays he has very few students and is open very few hours . He has a tremendous amount of parking available on Saturday and Sunday, which would become available to help accommodate and relieve the load that they currently have going up and down those neighborhood streets . This would become a positive instead of a negative to traffic. He asked the commission to consider that and didn't feel that blocking streets was a solution to the problem, particularly when they were blocking all three accesses to Fred Waring so that everyone living in this large neighborhood area has to go north or to Arboleda to exit and that would put a tremendous load back onto Monterey 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2 , 1996 and Fred Waring, which was what they were trying to help solve here by improving this lot and making the right- turn lane and making the right-turn lane off of Fred Waring. He didn' t want to create a solution and then create a problem that uses up that solution. He said that both the builder, the architect and Mr. Muro were present if the commission had any questions . Chairperson Beaty noted that the public hearing was still open and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MR. DENNIS CHAPEL, 41-170 Carlotta, stated that he was President of the Desert Contractors Association, and he was heavily involved in keeping work local and when there was a project that involves someone committed to this community and committed to using local contractors , they try and support that person. He concurred with Mr. Oliphant that what the commission was doing tonight was approving a conditional use permit for the use of this and they were still going to be subject to the criteria of the planning department and architectural review. They would like to see this approved and would like to see jobs for their people in the construction industry and would like to see that corner improved. MR. ROB MILLER, 73-840 Calle Bisque in Palm Desert, stated that he was a proud resident of Palm Desert for 15 years and he was also speaking for Jonathan Flike, same address , and his grandson who has been with him the last three and a half weeks . They were both members of the Fitness Mart and were looking forward to the Pinnacle Athletic Club. He was a land use planner and former vice mayor and councilman in San Jose and retired senior vice president of Kaufman and Broad and he lives in Casablanca. He said that this particular athletic club was unique to the Coachella Valley and to Palm Desert in one important respect--his grandson trains there. He is nine and a half years old. In athletic clubs in Nevada, where his grandson is from, and in California at least to his knowledge, they couldn' t find an athletic club that will train a nine and a half year old. Generally the rule is 18 years old. His grandson trains there with a professional , certified trainer, with an owner who is caring and is confident . His grandson has lost six pounds in three weeks and he will lose some more and has gained lots of muscle . He couldn' t go to other gyms that are franchised and get 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2 , 1996 that kind of treatment. This was something that was unique to our area. Chairperson Beaty clarified that no one was questioning the facility or the owner; they were talking about the location of the proposed project. Mr. Miller indicated that he was also impressed with the quality and design. He reviewed the exterior elevations and the quality and cleanliness of the design and the completeness of the facilities, and such. He hoped the commission would give this their best consideration for approval . MR. RICH PRATER, 77-777 Country Club Drive in Palm Desert, stated that he was in favor of the project as a Palm Desert resident and also as a potential employee of this project and in which the age group that this project was targeting could also give the younger generation the opportunity to stay and work in Palm Desert, rather then leaving the valley for other opportunities . MR. DOUG WALL, 43-100 Rutledge Avenue in Palm Desert, stated that as a resident and small business owner in the city, he felt this would be an excellent location and he wanted this commission to approve this project as soon as possible. MR. JUSTIN SILVER, 77-777 Country Club Drive in Palm Desert, stated that he was in favor of the project as a Palm Desert resident and as a potential employee of this project and falling within the targeted age group. He felt a project of this caliber at the proposed location would assist the city, as well as its residents , in a growing field of health, wellness and better living. He implored the planning commission to not let this project pass them by. MR. LOUIS FRANCISCO, a Palm Desert resident, stated that this particular corner was a busy corner. Anyone that goes to Trader Joe ' s or to the mall knows that . The applicant was not asking to put in a gasoline station. They want to put in a fitness center. During the week it opens at 6 : 00 a .m. On weekends they open at 8 : 00 a .m. He felt the conditional use permit should be considered favorably. 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2 , 1996 MR. JAY FORGER, 39-506 Palace Drive in Palm Desert, stated that he was a physical therapist with offices in Palm Springs and Indio . Within the last year he began to rent space from Mr. Muro in his current location. The people he is seeing there are not the type of people usually seen in health clubs . Patients that have had strokes, spinal cord injuries, injured workers (they work closely with the Marriott Desert Springs ) and they have now been able to provide a central location for these people to come to, which makes them very happy. The location Mr. Muro is currently at is a little difficult to find. For people who have impaired neurological problems, or who may be in a wheelchair or have difficulty getting around, the proposed location would be much easier for his patients to find. It would provide a great service for Palm Desert . MS . SHERRY FALLER, 77-650 Michigan Drive in Palm Desert, stated that as a Palm Desert resident and a 5 : 30 p.m. instructor for the Fitness Mart, she would like to speak in favor of this project . The current member traffic created by her traditionally most popular hour was approximately 12 persons during peak season. Therefore, any concerns about overcrowding during this time, even if they doubled their current membership, would be of no consequence. She urged the commission to approve this project. MR. DICK PIERCE, 72-750 Cactus Court, stated that he wanted to speak in favor of this project as a Palm Desert resident. For the rapid population growth in our community he believed a gymnastic facility was planned by these project developers and he felt this was in line with the city' s plans for the needs of the community. Approving this project would once again demonstrate the leadership' s ability to lead them into the 21st Century. He urged the commission to approve this project . MR. RICHARD LEIMKUHLER, stated that he has been a businessman in Palm Desert for 34 years , and he stated that he drives by this intersection twice a day on his way to the office and back and he was a member of the club now. For him to stop there wouldn' t create any additional traffic . He felt this should be approved. MR. MIKE HOMME, 46-300 Desert Lily, stated that he has seven properties within the radius of this property and he was in support of this project . 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2 , 1996 MR. ROD MURPHY stated that he would be the builder on this project and he lived at 72-764 Arboleda, which was in the immediate neighborhood. He and his neighbors would like to see something done on that piece of property. It would help them in the condition of their neighborhood and to do something on that piece of property would require a user as they are presenting to commission due to the infrastructure amounts that are needed for the right-hand lane change and the power lines and the parking situation that exists where the only way they would get enough parking would be with a parking structure . He recommended that the commission give the applicant an approval so that they could go forward with drawings in an immediate fashion. MR. PAGE QUILLING, 72-845 Arboleda, 500 yards from that corner, stated that he had some neighbors come to his house and some of them were voicing opposition to the project, mainly because of traffic . He didn' t see where the traffic would make a difference to him. They said their kids play in the streets and he has two kids, age three and four months old, and he was not worried about it. What he was worried about was what could go on that piece of property. This was a great facility. He didn ' t know Mr. Muro but he knew of him. He would much rather see a project like this that was personally owned by someone in the community other than a big corporation coming in there that really wouldn ' t care. These people were willing to put in the turn lanes and move electrical lines . Palm Desert was full of pieces of property where they have to exit going one way. People would either go out onto the main drags not to drive through residential neighborhoods because they care about not driving through residential neighborhoods , or they wouldn' t. He didn' t care what they put on that property, if people were too lazy to go down three blocks and do a U-turn or go up to where Fred Waring hits Highway 111 and go around where they run back into the college, they would do it no matter what was built on that lot. He didn' t know what the difference was between how many cars are able to use that piece of property and how many cars they were proposing to use that property, but he doubted that it could be many. He didn ' t see anyone building anything worthwhile and putting in turn lanes on that corner for 250 cars per day. He heard that 500 cars a day were going to use that . That was trips in and out . He didn' t think anyone in the community was going to spend enough money 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2 , 1996 where 100 cars a day would be in that place. He recently spent three months in L.A. and grew up there. They wasted a ton of money all through his childhood; they didn' t put in turn lanes or make the builders do it; the city collected the money and now it was gone. There were no turn lanes and no arrows . There is someone willing to put in all of those things and the city should let them. MS . SHARON HOWARD, a resident at the west corner of Glorianna and Adonis, stated that the commission should have several letters before them from the neighbors . Most everyone was concerned about the traffic and almost everything she heard said tonight skirted around that issue. The project looked like a great project . The sports facility was wonderful , but they live there. Most of the people that had spoken did not live on those streets . She has lived there for 16 years and at the time that the offices went in that front Fred Waring between Adonis and Acacia they were concerned about traffic at that time. Someone came up with the idea of posting signs at the exit that permitted traffic only to be by way of Fred Waring. The signs didn ' t work. It was hard to get people to honor a red light much less a sign that says please don ' t exit through the neighborhood. She wanted to see the project continued until there could be some definite proposal to control the traffic through their neighborhood. They were all homeowners there and they care about their neighborhood. She asked that the commission continue this issue so that this could be resolved in a more favorable manner to the neighbors . MS . DIANA LA MAR, 43-827 Acacia Drive, owner of one of the two properties directly impacted with the amount of traffic flow into the neighborhood. She stated that she was not opposed to the fitness center. She felt it was a great idea that people were really "gung ho" for it. From one of the reports she read there were supposed to be some changes in the architecture and she would be going to that meeting to see what the building structure would look like. She wasn' t pleased with how it looked several weeks ago. She received a copy of the June 18 staff report and she had some problems addressed. The letter dated 6-10-96 from Mr. Richard Folkers to Mr. Steve Smith said that the applicant would pay the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee at the rate of $5, 517 . 60 per 1 , 000 square feet . If that was projected 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2 , 1996 for the 17 , 857 square feet, it would cost the applicant over $98, 000 for the mitigation fees . Plus the cost of undergrounding the utilities , which she did at her home . The size and scope of building this building from scratch starting with all the fees , licenses , and construction materials, etc . , she heard was really going to be about $3 . 4 million. Currently there are 300 cars per day going down Acacia per a 1994 traffic study. The membership being at 1500 , with a 30% usage, about 450 cars per day coming in, that would be 900 vehicle trips per day coming in off of Fred Waring or off of Monterey and turning into the building. They have 300 and this would add another 900 . She has a friend who recently took three and a half years to sell a condo in Hidden Palms . The reason it took so long was because her condo was closest to Fred Waring, in spite of the setback and a wall . The only person who was able to be happy with the condo was a hearing impaired elderly gentleman. Everyone else objected to the noise. If she has 1200 trips per day for the 1500 membership, she would be severely impacted with not only traffic, but noise . She read some of the flyers that Mr. Muro enclosed with the June 18 staff report and a three year membership costs about $598, which was about $200 per member per year. At 1500 members, he has a projected growth income of $300 , 000 . If that was her she couldn' t make it. Not to go through all of the building, all of the planning, spending all of that money, and she realized he has partners , but people have to be paid back, interest had to paid, and the help had to be paid. Mr. Muro seemed to be very aggressive and she could see where he would go for 2500 members . If he wanted to make $1 million per year he would have to have 5 , 000 members . She herself wouldn' t even want to try unless she was at least making $500, 000 . With 2500 members to gross $500, 000 , 60% of that in generated trips would be another 1500 cars per day. They would be up to 1800 trips per day and for a quiet, residential neighborhood she felt it was entirely outrageous . It would devalue her property and she wouldn' t be able to sell it or she would have to fence it totally at a great personal expense and she guaranteed that she would do it . She liked the open space and was sure that they could investigate and have someone like the Darr Eye Clinic or the MRI Legal Offices occupy the space on the corner who would generate the same kind of income as the fitness center. There were other locations very close by with lots of parking that could be addressed and moved into 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2 , 1996 with a lot less money. Most of the graphs in the July 2nd traffic report were dated 1991 and the last two pages, 746 and 747 , have a 1986 date. That was ten years ago. The increase in fitness centers from 1986 to 1996 , while she didn ' t know the figures and the city could check with the various gyms around here, but she was sure they have doubled or tripled since then. People were interested in fitness , but they would also go to another location close by, even on the other side of Highway 111 . There were several locations available. She asked the commission to please consider the traffic . If they had to put up a barricade, so be it . At this point in time she would rather seal the street off . MR. TONY LIZZA, a principal in the project and a resident of La Quinta, stated that the subject was location and traffic . He felt that the traffic count at that corner was around 10 , 000 per day and if the 250 vehicle count was reasonably correct, they were probably adding less than one and a half percent to the traffic on that corner during a 12 hour period. He didn ' t think that was very much and wanted to bring that to the commission' s attention. Chairperson Beaty closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments . Mr. Smith noted that the commission received letters that were distributed before the meeting. There was a letter in favor from Dale Linda Echols, nine letters in opposition--Dr. Bruce Baumann, Roberta Steleman, Rafael Oliveras, someone on Arboleda, Patrick Misho on Acacia, Robert Ramirez on Acacia, the Schmitzs on Acacia, Lisa Sanders, and Rafael Lopez on Arboleda. Chairperson Beaty noted that there was some development going on at the corner of Portola and Fred Waring right now that might have a similar problem with high costs of utilities and asked who was paying for those improvements . Mr. Greenwood stated that it was a city project . Chairperson Beaty said that it seemed like the laning was a significant problem with the proposed lot and wondered if a similar proposal could be presented so they wouldn' t have to have such a high intensity use on this corner. Commissioner Ferguson asked Mr. Greenwood if he stood by the numbers in the traffic study. As he read the report, it said that the site as improved with increased traffic was on the 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2 , 1996 cusp between good and excellent in terms of traffic flow. He asked if that was accurate. Mr. Greenwood stated that if membership was to be 1500 members and if this site was to generate traffic similar to those previous generators available, this is what they could expect. As the traffic analysis indicated, staff was not all that confident that they have data that represents this site . Commissioner Ferguson asked, in Mr. Greenwood' s opinion, if there was anything more that would be served by a continuance that would allow him to come up with a better prediction of traffic flows . Mr. Greenwood stated that staff would not be able to come up with any additional predictions, this was all the data that was available to them. Mr. Drell indicated that they were attempting to get some data from some of the other local clubs in terms of their attendance patterns . Commissioner Ferguson stated that he thumbed through the letters , both pro and con, and in looking at the traffic flow, and as indicated by the Chairman his primary concern was for the traffic . He felt the facility was wonderful and thought the testimonies to the business enterprise had been wonderful , but they were here on an issue of traffic . Based on his experience and concerns and in discussions with staff and the owner of the property, it seemed highly likely that at a peak hour in the evening people wanting to travel eastbound on Fred Waring would be unable to do so when exiting the property, which would cause them to turn right on Acacia and right on Arboleda and then right again on Monterey and then left on Fred Waring to head eastbound. He felt that was one of staff ' s big concerns . One thing he looked for closely tonight was comments from people who were sent notice within 300 feet of the property as properly re-noticed to include the outer perimeter of the parking structure, to see how many people got off their rear ends and came down here and were worried enough about the traffic . Interestingly enough more people from those two streets spoke in favor of the project then against it . He was talking about Acacia and Arboleda. This didn' t take into account the letters they received. There was an intense amount of interest in this site and facility, but as to the narrow issue of traffic and the increased burden on Acacia and Arboleda, according to his notes there was one woman from Adonis , one from Acacia who spoke out against it, and two that lived on Arboleda that were in favor of it . The rest were simply letters . He felt this was a traffic issue and he and Mr. Greenwood have talked at length about the reliability of these studies and nothing would be served by a continuance that would allow staff to provide any additional input as to that site. He realized there were other health club facilities but wasn' t sure what 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2 , 1996 could be gained there. The problem he had, and it was a question for staff, was that as he understood it they have never prepared findings to support approval or drafted a resolution or entertained conditions for approval in that the first time this came up before it was continued and the staff recommendation was for denial . Mr. Drell said that was correct . The commission if it so chose could by minute motion make some findings and direct staff to prepare a resolution of approval with those findings for adoption at the next meeting. Commissioner Ferguson stated that the other question he had was the representation by the property owner that the only issue that remained was the architectural commission review of the plans that were submitted. He asked if that was accurate. Mr. Drell stated that, assuming staff ' s analysis of the parking structure determined that it was an operable parking structure, the project would be providing the required parking requirement for the use as defined by the zoning ordinance. They would be providing in addition to that the excess spaces available across the street . There was a traffic study from the traffic engineer which makes an assessment of the impact on that neighborhood in that they have evaluated all the pertinent issues . The commission has the information and they could make a decision. Commissioner Ferguson said that he wanted to ask the property owner or developer about the limitations on the October 1st deadline . As he understood it the applicant had until February of 1997 to relocate the facility. That was by changed council to October 1, 1996 . He believed that the g applicant was supposed to submit plans by May 1, 1996 and pull permits by November 1, 1996 . He didn ' t know what their current construction implementation schedule was or how long it would take them, even if they were to approve it tonight to complete their facility, but asked how a continuance to July 16 would adversely affect their implementation schedule. Mr. Oliphant stated that it would affect it quite a bit because what they could do if they had approval tonight, even though the conditions had to come back to them on the 16th, that would allow them to have the architect to have the drawings scheduled onto the architectural committee ' s schedule and to start the project forward. Without an approval this evening and a postponement to the 16th, they couldn' t do anything. They were just "dead in the water" for two weeks . They couldn ' t have the architect spending time and money if they were unsure what the outcome would be . The two weeks became very critical in the critical path of this project. What they needed to do, once they had approval , then 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2 , 1996 they have the opportunity of going back to the council for reconsideration. They cannot reconsider if there was nothing to reconsider, so once again this particular approval became extremely important . Commissioner Ferguson noted that the council wouldn ' t meet again until their second meeting in August. Mr. Drell stated that they would have a meeting on July llth, but the deadline to get on that agenda was today, unless it was deemed an emergency item. Commissioner Ferguson asked if they would be going before council under any scenario; if the commission continued the case for two weeks as opposed to them being approved tonight, it seemed that the October 1 , 1996 date was skeptical . He asked if he was wrong about that . Mr. Oliphant agreed that the October 1st date was skeptical . Their only opportunity to make that date go away to another date was for them to take some kind of approval that showed the council that there was movement here and that they should have a reason for reconsideration. If there wasn ' t a strong reason for reconsideration, the October 1 date was the date. Commission' s approval would be the reason for reconsideration. Chairperson Beaty asked if the applicant has ever asked the city for assistance for funding because of the unusual nature of this location. Mr. Oliphant said they had, but without a development on that corner there was no way for them to go to the city and make a request. For example, the undergrounding was being done now by the city on a contract with them so that at the date that they do develop that lot they were indebted to the city for the cost of undergrounding. They did that because they can' t build on the lot until the wires were undergrounded because they go across the center of the lot . The other improvements, Monterey and Fred Waring, there had been no incentive for the city to go forward with that without their project going forward at the same time. There may be some opportunity for some assistance from the city when they do go forward, but at this point in time there was no ability for them to get assistance because they had no project. Chairperson Beaty asked if the applicant concurred that the costs involved were a significant factor in who could use that lot . 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2 , 1996 Mr. Oliphant stated that there were two things that created the unusualness in this lot : one was the unusual offsite costs in order to develop the lot and secondly, the fact that it was a leasehold lot . It ' s value never changes and was very difficult to get any kind of financing. This was a unique situation where an owner wassothat the Small going to build his own building h t Business Administration would come in and do the financing or would guarantee it . Chairperson Beaty asked for questions or comments . Commissioner Campbell stated that she would like the architectural review commission to actually look over the plans received today in regards to the parking structure. Also, she didn' t know if the architectural review commission ever approved the building. Mr. Drell replied that they didn ' t, but they suggested some changes to the elevations . Staff didn' t receive the plans until this afternoon, but originally the building was all going to be two story with a partial basement . It appeared that the applicant has dropped more space into the basement and had now created just a one story for the portion of the building on the corner. He also created some differences in the elevation. Commissioner Campbell asked if the child care facility was underground or at ground level . Mr. Drell stated that it had been moved to the ground level since the exiting requirements for a child care facility didn' t allow for it to be in the basement . The plans were now showing it on the first floor. Commissioner Campbell stated that she would be in favor of having the plans go to the architectural review committee first and would instruct the public works department to come up with a solution to the added traffic through the residential neighborhood and then come back to the commission either July 16 or August 6 with the results . Chairperson Beaty asked if that was motion; Commissioner Campbell replied that it could be. Chairperson Beaty asked for other comments . Commissioner Jonathan asked when the architectural commission meets . Mr. Drell replied next Tuesday. Commissioner Jonathan asked if this would be on their agenda. Mr. Drell replied yes . Commissioner Ferguson noted that they kept talking about having public works look at the traffic . He asked if there was anything for public works to do at this point which they 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1996 haven' t done already. Mr. Greenwood stated that with the limited data they have available, they painted the most accurate picture that they could. The picture indicated an increase in traffic volume from 300 vehicles per day to 500 vehicles per day, which if that was true would still be excellent traffic conditions for any residential street . So if they considered 500 vehicles per day to be a problem, they would need some definition as to what they wanted staff to pursue . Commissioner Ferguson indicated that the staff report the commission received for this evening stated, "What the traffic study does not address is the appropriateness of putting in a commercial use which will effectively double the existing traffic level on nearby residential streets . " He asked if that was accurate. Mr. Greenwood agreed that it was almost a doubling of traffic on a residential street, but the traffic study identified that even with that doubled volume this was still not a problem. Commissioner Ferguson asked Mr. Smith what he was getting at when he wrote that sentence. Mr. Smith stated that he lives on a similar street that probably sees 200 cars a day and if they doubled the traffic volume, he would notice it "big time" . Commissioner Ferguson noted that there was some discussion about capping certain streets . He asked if that was something that could be studied further if a continuance were granted. He stated that he was trying to understand what would be accomplished by putting this off for two weeks . Mr. Smith stated that capping would have to be addressed by public works , but on past occasions it has been a practice of the city that they don ' t impose a doubling of traffic onto a residential neighborhood. Allowing staff to review the revised plans would also be one benefit of delaying the case for two weeks . Staff has not reviewed the revised plans because they received them at 4 : 20 p.m. this afternoon. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would like to get a feel for the relative impact. Based on the traffic analysis , he asked how staff would categorize the impact relevant to alternate uses of that property, i . e . office professional . Mr. Greenwood said that they did some cursory comparisons and it appeared to be that this use would generate a 10% to 20% higher traffic volume then the office professional use. Mr. Drell stated that because of the visible location and the burden on the site they assumed a more intensive office use such as a medical office and it was about 80% of the traffic volume . A more traditional lower impact office use would be about 60% . He said Commissioner Jonathan was correct in saying that they couldn ' t compare the traffic of this project to the traffic generated by the dirt since ultimately there 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2 , 1996 was a permitted use of the property and that property would generate impacts and would have similar distribution of trips as this project . Somewhere around 20% would be the increase as a result of this conditional use permit as opposed to a typical permitted or likely permitted office use on this site. He noted as an example that the 210 daily trips on Acacia with a medical building as projected would be closer to 175 or 180 as opposed to 210 . That meant an extra 30 or 40 cars per day on Acacia. At peak hour an extra four or five cars at the peak hour at 26% . Commissioner Ferguson stated for the record that he was probably the leading critic of the current site that the Fitness Mart now occupies on Portola and Highway 111 . His thought at the time was that if the applicant could come up with the funding and the location and the building, he would have his blessing, and he does . He was impressed by the plans and thought that within reason he has done all that could be expected of him and what they have asked of him and he wanted this to be in the record so that if the council does review this prior to the commission meeting again, that they would know that his criticism of this has been removed and he gave his compliments to the applicant for the effort put into this . On the other hand he was loathe to undercut staff and their efforts to evaluate blueprints and plans . His sense was that this was going to wind up going to the council for an extension on the October 1st date in any event, whether they approved it tonight or at a later date. Out of deference to staff and to those citizens on Acacia and Arboleda that might want to come and want to be heard on this, he would be willing to support a continuance . Chairperson Beaty stated that if they approved the case tonight they would make it subject to architectural review approval and that would delay it one week anyway, so they may only be talking about a delay of one week and he would also be in favor of a continuance. Commissioner Fernandez agreed with Commissioner Ferguson that the planning staff should review this and come back on July 16 . Chairperson Beaty also asked staff to take a look at the issue that he raised earlier. If there was some city assistance provided like at the corner of Portola and Fred Waring, if that was possible if that would open it up and give them a few more alternatives uses to consider. Mr. Drell stated that that would be coming from the Redevelopment 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1996 Agency and Mr. Oliphant was correct wheil h e said he has that until antil approved project, it was hard to get assistance. Chairperson Beaty noted that there wasn ' t an approved project at Portola and Fred Waring. Mr. Drell replied that it was a matter of priority. Chairperson Beaty noted that money was being spent there and he understood that it was city money. Mr. Drell stated that there was a particular constriction at Portola and Fred Waring that doesn ' t exist at Monterey and Fred Waring. The issue was that the Redevelopment Agency didn ' t want to get into providing financial assistance to a project until the city has made a decision that they want the project to occur at that location. It would give Mr. Oliphant a much stronger hand when he talks with Redevelopment. Chairperson Beaty felt that it appeared that those developments needed to be made no matter what project was built. He asked if there was a motion. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would go ahead and yield to the indicated majority for a continuance, but he didn 't see a need for one. It took a unique combination of factors to result in the development of this parcel and he felt that, the applicant has successfully accomplished those requirements . There wasn' t an ideal development that wouldn ' t impact the surrounding residents at all so they had to look at it not in a vacuum, but in its relative impact.- and eventually that dirt would be developed. When they loo'ned at the balance of the city as a whole, to have that corner undeveloped was a blight that was inappropriate. That was a very visible corner and it would be an addition to the overall city in the grander respect to have t'nat corner developed. The applicant has successfully made that possible with a minimum of adverse impact to the existing residents . They had to look at the impact in its rEdative terms and relative to other potential uses and, the impact was negligible. He was sorry they were going to delay the potential development of that parcel, but since there appeared to be a majority for continuL.11(e, he would yield to that . Commissioner Ferguson added that he hoped the owner, developer and the applicant would take notice of the comments tonight and he would like the record to also reflect that the city was holding up the application tonight, not the applicant at this point, notwithstanding the late submission of blueprints, and he hoped that the council , if this became a subject at their next council meeting, recognized the work that has gone into this and recognized that the city has delayed the project, but Chairperson Beaty' s comments were 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2 , 1996 well taken that before the project could get to architectural review it would be a week. It meant a delay of a week, but it allowed input from a broad base of sectors and they would ultimately move forward with a quality project that everyone would have an opportunity to participate in, including the staff . Chairperson Beaty reopened the public hearing and asked for a motion of continuance. Action: Moved by Commissioner Fernandez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, continuing PP/CUP 96-5 to July 16, 1996 by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . C. Case Nos . C/Z 96-4 and PP 96-6 - REAL PROPERTY ASSOCIATES, Applicant Request for approval of a change of zone from PC(4 ) Resort Commercial to PC(2 ) District Commercial and approval of a precise plan of design for a 9200 square foot retail commercial center on the north side of Highway 111 approximately 505 feet east of Deep Canyon Road, located between the new Lucky site and Embassy Suites . Mr. Smith explained that the property was a separate piece of property that was left out of the Lucky development at the northeast corner of Deep Canyon and Highway 111 . It has been a separately held parcel for some time. Basically it was between Embassy Suites and the Lucky site. In actual fact, 15 feet of the Lucky site extends down on the east side of this site. When Lucky' s was approved they were conditioned to provide driveway connection points at the southwest corner and at the northwest corner of this parcel . The applicant has come in with a plan that implements those connection points and proposes development of 9200 square feet of retail commercial . At the time the Lucky' s site was rezoned from PC-4 to PC-2 , staff attempted to include this parcel . This commission at that time wished to reserve the opportunity to review it at a future date; that date was now. Staff was recommending in favor of the application. Parking complies with the code provisions, architectural commission reviewed this with a few minor modifications . Essentially they were looking for an upgrading on the east elevation of the 23 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1752 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST BY RICK MURO FOR A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND PRECISE PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND 18, 489 SQUARE FOOT TWO STORY ATHLETIC CLUB IN THE O.P. ZONE AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF MONTEREY AVENUE AND FRED WARING DRIVE. CASE NO. PP/CUP 96-5 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 18th day of June, 1996 , hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued to July 2 and July 16 , 1996 , to consider the request of RICK MURO for Pinnacle Athletic Club for the above project; and WHEREAS , said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 95-105, " in that the Director of Community Development has determined that because the project as conditioned, specifically the requirement to gate and wall off access to Acacia Drive to the north, will not have an adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared; and WHEREAS , at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify approval of said precise plan/conditional use permit: 1 . That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of this title and the purpose of the district in which the site is located. 2 . That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3 . That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this title. 4 . That the proposed conditional use complies with the goals , objectives, and policies of the city' s general plan. 5 . The design of the precise plan as conditioned will not substantially depreciate property values in the vicinity. 6 . The precise plan as conditioned will not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes . PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1752 7 . The precise plan as conditioned will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows : 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case . 2 . That the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, Exhibit "A" attached, is hereby approved. 3 . That Precise Plan/Conditional Use Permit 96-5 on file in ne Department of Community Development is hereby approved, subject to conditions (Exhibit "B" ) . alm PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED tt a his 16thular meeti day f July of 1996h by te the Desert Planning Commission, held on following vote, to wit: AYES : FERGUSON, FERNANDEZ , JONATHAN NOES : BEATY, CAMPBELL ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE (47?<-mil / PAUL R. BEATY, Cha person ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, Secretary Palm Desert1Planning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1752 EXHIBIT A Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070 ) of the California Code of Regulations . NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: PP/CUP 96-5 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Rick Muro 74-040 Highway 111, Suite B Palm Desert, CA 92260 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Precise plan of design and conditional use permit for an 18,489 square foot two story athletic club on property at the northwest corner of Monterey Avenue and Fred Waring Drive . The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significan4- effects, may also b found attached. 7- 1 n 9 )1,1—ILA July 16 , 1996 PHILIP DRILL -�3ATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1752 EXHIBIT "B" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. PP/CUP 96-5 Department of Community Development/Planning: 1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the department of community development/planning, as modified by the following conditions . 2 . The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to' ll in forcelcipal oP whichdinances and state hereafter may be in force. 3 . statutes now 3 . Construction of a portion of said prt shall commence unless an extensionhof in one year from the date of final approval oval shall become null , void time is granted; otherwise said app rand of no effect whatsoever. 4 . Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies : Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Desert Sands Unified School District Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the department of building and the suset contemplated y at the time of issuance of a building permit herewith. 5 . That the applicant shall provide for installation of solid waste and recycling enclosures serving all public buildings , per Ordinance No. 612 , said enclosures subject to approval of Environmental Conservation Manager. 6 . The project shall be subject to all applicable fees at time of issuance of permits including, but not limited to, Art in Public Places , TUMF and school mitigation fees . all 7 . That pursuant o Resolution commercialNo. developmentthis delowvelopment ncome shhousPng the appropriate mitigation fee ($1. 00 per square foot) . 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1752 8 . That the landscaping in the parking lot shall comply with the provisions of the Master Parking Lot Tree Plan. 9 . That if the parking lot is illuminated, a light plan prepared by a lighting engineer shall be required confirming compliance with the city' s parking lot lighting restrictions . 10 . That the hours of operation of the health club shall be from 6 : 00 a .m. until 9 :00 p.m. Monday through Thursday; from 6 : 00 a.m. to 8 : 00 p .m. on Friday; from 8:00 a.m. to 5 :00 p.m. on Saturday and from 8 : 00 a .m. to 4:00 p.m. on Sunday. 11 . That all signs on site be approved by the architectural review commission and conform with ordinance requirements . 12 . That the grading and/or street plans provide for compliance with Sunline comments. 13 . That the landscape plan shall be designed and implemented to effectively buffer the view of the parking structure from the streets and from the residential community to the northwest. 14 . Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said landscaping for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which agreement shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this condition and agreement run with the land and 'ind successors and assigns . The final landscape plan shall include a long term maintenance program specifying among other matters appropriate watering times, fertilization and pruning for various times of the year for the specific materials to be planted, as well as periodic replacement of materials . All to be consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801) and the approved landscape plan. 15 . That the applicant provide a plan to close Acacia Drive north of the proposed access point to the parking structure. Said plan shall include a six foot high masonry wall, key or carded pedestrian gate and landscape planters on either side. Said wall system to be designed to prevent vehicular and pedestrian traffic flow other than through the keyed/carded pedestrian gate. Keys and/or cards to operate said pedestrian gate shall be provided to those residents of the area northwest of the subject property requesting same. The wall system plan to be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department, Community Development Department, and Architectural Review Commission and implemented by the applicant prior to obtaining a certificate of occupancy. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1752 Applicant shall be required to install approved street closure plan or pay an in-lieu fee equivalent to the city' s costs of installation. Applicant shall not be responsible for continued maintenance or liability unless Acacia right-of-way is vacated and is built on private property. 16 . That a six foot masonry wall be constructed along the north property line if deemed necessary by the Architectural Review Commission. Department of Public Works : 1 . Drainage fees , in accordance with Section 26 . 49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading permit . 2 . Signalization fees , in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos . 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading permit. 3 . Full public improvements , as required by Section 26 . 44 and 26 . 40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable city standards. Subject improvements shall include, but not be limited to, the installation of two drive approaches on Acacia Drive with the most nstsoutherly drive being restricted to right turn ingress only, mini'•'m six foot wide sidewalk on Acacia Drive and eight foo n of both Monterey Avenue (12 feet) wide s ids=walk on Fred Waring Drive and nd Fred Wa;'ing Drive (7 feet) including traffic signal and drainage system modifications as may be necessary all to th ailsfaction of the closed, widening Director requir requirement Dfor Works . If Acacia Drive Monterey may be reduced or eliminated as determined by the Director of Public Works . 4 . Applicant shall dedicate sufficient right-of-way to provide for the widening of Monterey Avenue and Fred Waring Drive. 5 . Offsite improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works and a surety posted to guarantee the installation of all required offsite improvements hall priorttto issuance of a grading permit. "As-built" plans to, and approved by, the Director of city. blic Works prior to the acceptance of the improvements by toe 6 . All public improvements, private driveways and parking lot areas shall be inspected by the engineering department and a standard inspection fee paid prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1752 7 . Landscaping maintenance on Acacia Drive, Monterey Avenue and Fred Waring Drive shall be the responsibility of the property owner. 8 . As required under Section 12.16 and 26 . 44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, all existing utilities shall be placed underground per each respective utility district ' s recommendation. If determined to be unfeasible, the applicant shall submit to the city, in a form acceptable to the city attorney, surety in an amount equal to the estimated construction costs for the subject undergrounding. 9 . In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 27 , complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. 10 . Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans by the Director of Public Works and the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works . 11 . Building pad elevations of the proposed structure are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 12 . A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of a grading permit . 13 . Grading permit issuance shall be subject to a waiver of parcel map for parcel consolidation/lot line adjustment first being approved and recorded. 14 . Prior to the issuance of building permits , applicant shall pay Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) at the rate of $5 , 517 . 60 per 1,000 square feet of building area ( Indoor Recreational Facility Land Use) . Riverside County Fire Department: 1 . With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plan check, the fire department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Codes, appropriate NFPA standards, CFC, CBC, and/or recognized fire protection standards . 2 . A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible materials are placed on the job site. 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1752 3 . Provide, or show there exists , a water system capable of providing a potential gallon per minute flow of 3000 gpm for commercial structure . The actual fire flow available from any one hydrant connected to any given water main shall be 1500 gpm for a two hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure. 4 . The required fire flow shall be available from a Super fire hydrant( s ) ( 6"x4"x2-1/2"x2-1/2" ) , located not less than 25 ' or more than 150 feet from commercial structure. Distances shall cover all portions of the building(s ) as measured along approved vehicular travel ways. Hydrants installed below 3000' elevation shall be of the "wet barrel" type. 5 . Prior to the application for a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original and two copies of the water system plan to the county fire department for review. No building permit shall be issued until the water system plan has been approved by the county fire chief. Upon approval, the original will be returned. One copy will be sent to the responsible inspecting authority. 6 . Comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations , adopted January 1, 1990, for all occupancies . 7 . Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front of the building, not less than 25' from the building and within 50 ' of an approved Super hy-', :nt. This app.l ;es to all buildings with 3000 square feet or 1- re building area as measured by the building footprint, including overhangs which are sprinklered as per NFPA cumulative t otallng squarea of footageditional floors is added in f 8 . Install a fire alarm (water flow) as required by the Uniform Building Code Sec. 3803 for the alarms on alle supply and sprinkler s control( ) Install valves for supervisory (tamper) sprinkler systems. 9 . Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained d as ire lanes and shall be clearly marked by painting approved by the fire marshal. Painted fire lanes and/or signs shall be stenciled or posted every 30 ' with the following: No Parking Fire Lane - PDMC 15 .16 .090 . 10 . Install a fire alarm as required by the California Building Code and/or California Fire Code. Minimum requirement is UL central station monitoring of sprinkler systems per NFPA 71 and 72 . Alarm plans are required for all UL central station monitored systems and systems where any interior devices are required or used. 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1752 11 . Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10 , but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Fire extinguishers must not be over 75 ' walking distance and/or 3000 square feet of floor area. 12 . Install a dust collecting system as per the California Building Code, Sec . 910 and California Fire Code, Art. 76 , if conducting an operation that produces airborne particles . A carpenter or woodworking shop is considered one of several industrial processes requiring dust collection. 13 . All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150 ' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall be not less than 24 ' of unobstructed width and 13 ' 6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is allowed, the roadway shall be 36 ' wide with parking on both sides , 32 ' wide with parking on one side. Dead- end roads in excess of 150 ' shall be provided with a minimum 45 ' radius turn around (55' in industrial developments) . Fountains or garden islands placed in the middle of these turn-arounds shall not exceed a 5 ' radius or 10' diameter. City standards may be more restrictive. 14 . Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates , barriers, guard houses or similar means , provision shall be made to facilitate access by emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the fire department. All controlled access devices that are power operated shall have a Knox Box over-ride system capable of opening the gate ..:Len activated by a special key located in emergency vehicle. Devices shall be equipped with backup power facilities to oL rate in the event of power failure. All controlled access devices that are not power operated shall also be approved by the fire department. Minimum opening width shall be 16 ' with a minimum vertical clearance of 13 ' 6" . 15 . Contact the fire department for a final inspection prior to occupancy. 16 . All new residences/dwellings are required to have illuminated residential addresses meeting both city and fire department approval . Shake shingle roofs are not longer permitted in the cities of Indian Wells , Rancho Mirage or Palm Desert. 17 . Commercial buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city. 18 . All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be submitted separately for approval prior to construction. Subcontractors should contact the fire marshal ' s office for submittal requirements . 9 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1752 19 . Conditio ns subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws or when bu ilding g permits ermits are not obtaine d within twelve months . 20 . Other: Upgrade existing fire hydrant to current Super Hydrant specifications . 10 --P111111 1 40 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 11, 1996 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Gregory, seconded by Commissioner Holden, to grant final approval of the elevations and landscaping plans for the two model units only subject to the applicant incorporating adequate solar protection on the east and west elevations . Motion carried 6-0 . 2 . CASE NO. : PP/CUP 96-5 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : RICK MURO for PINNACLE ATHLETIC CLUB, 73-462 Shadow Mountain Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATUPE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of prel4minary architectural and landscaping plans LOCATION: 72-960 Fred Waring Drive ZONE: O.P. Steve Smith presented the plans noting that the matter will be before the planning commission on June 18th for approval of the precise plan and use. He noted that the property is zoned O.P. The building is being designed only for a health club facility on three floors, two above ground. MS. DIANA LAMAR, property owner at 43-827 Acacia Drive, was present and addressed the commission. She indicated that she was impressed with the surrounding southwest style architecture that had been used on the office buildings in the area as well as the landscaping and felt that the massive architecture of the proposed building did not conform with the surrounding buildings . Commissioner Gregory asked that discussions on the architecture be held over until the applicant and architect arrive. Commission re-addressed this item at the end of the agenda as the applicant still had not arrived at 1 : 45 p.m. Mr. Smith informed the commission that it was a 25 ' high structure with two stories above ground and one story below ground. Mr. Buchanan indicated that the day 5 4111 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 11, 1996 care center in the basement could not be approved. Commissioner Holden indicated that there are no other buildings along Fred Waring Drive that are two stories where the two story elements stayed the same along the entire building. He added that there was an 8 ' side yard that is 120 feet long on the north side of the building that will eventually become a storage area as he felt it would not be landscaping that will be maintained. Commissioner Connor felt that the building lacked undulation and detail . Mr. Smith indicated that the building was 30% over on the lot coverage for the parking provided. Commissioner Urrutia felt that the use could dictate a very fun type of architecture but he did not think it did in this case . He felt that it was too ma-sive and too boxy and that it looked like a warehouse tha,t had been embellished some . Commissioner Urrutia added that being two stories and seeing the roof line at the second level with no horizontal break-ups did not help either. Commissioner Urrutia discussed his concerns with the lack of parking because of his experience being directly across the street from the Sports Club in Palm Desert. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Urrutia, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to continue the request to allow the applicant to revise the plans addressing their concerns as indicated above. Motion carried 5-0-1, Commissioner Gregory Abstaining. 3 . CASE NO. : CUP 96-18 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : McFADDEN & McINTOSH ARCHITECTS for CAM' S CORNER, 73-929 Larrea, Suite 1A, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of preliminary architectural and landscaping plans for fuel station/convenience store LOCATION: Northwest corner of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Road 6 :IP MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 9 , 1996 2 . CASE NO. : PP/CUP 96-5 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : RICK MURO for PINNACLE ATHLETIC CLUB, 74-040 Highway 111, Suite B, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of revised preliminary architectural and landscaping plans for health club facility LOCATION: 72-960 Fred Waring Drive ZONE: O.P. Steve Smith presented the revised plans showing the altered architecture. The plan now includes a two level parking structure providing for 124 parking spaces . The lower level would be approximately four feet below grade . The architect, Milt Chambers, explained the changes noting that everyLning on the corner had been lowered to 14 feet. Conu..issioner Urrutia asked if everything, including the parking structure, would be stucco. Mr. Chambers indicated that everything would be stucco. Commissioner Urrutia suggested that he look at material other than stucco for the parking structure because of the maintenance that would be involved. He added that stepping the building down was a great improvement. Commissioner Urrutia asked if there was something more that could be done along the Fred Waring Drive side, i .e . planters along the parking level, because he would like to see the cars screened more. Mr. Chambers indicated that he would be adding more palm trees and showed where vines would be planted. Commissioner Connor indicated that bougainvilleas were hard to rely on for screening because the maintenance is usually not done properly at a level higher than someone' s reach. Mr. Chambers asked about increasing the height of the retaining wall in the front to bring the grade back up. Commissioner Urrutia noted that the windows in the building stairway were deep set which was a nice approach to provide some needed relief and suggested that it be continued throughout the building, especially around the windows. Commissioner Connor agreed and felt that if the windows could be set back more it would give some relief to the flatness of the building. 4 r 1 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 9 , 1996 Commissioner Urrutia asked how the entrance worked from the parking structure. Mr. Chambers explained the pedestrian ramps to the different levels of the building. Mr. Smith noted that the applicant has overflow parking available at the property at the south side of the intersection. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Urrutia, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to approve the revised preliminary plans subject to additional landscaping treatment along Fred Waring Drive where it is adjacent to the parking structure and continuing the depth design elements around the windows . Motion carried 3-0 , Commissioners Gregory, Holden and O'Donnell Absent. 3 . CASE NO. : CUP 96-19 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : SANTA FE HOMES OF AMERICA, INC. for PORTOLA PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING, 74-170 Highway 111, Suite B, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of revised preliminary plans for residential conversion to office use and expansion LOCATION: Northwest corner of Portola Avenue and Alessandro Drive ZONE: R-3 Steve Smith presented the revised plans noting that the application before the planning commission will also include an application for variances to the setbacks from Alessandro and Portola Avenue. He indicated that they are proposing a 5 ' setback on the Alessandro side and that the public works department is requiring a 14 ' street dedication for widening. Of the 14 feet public works will use 8 feet in that the curb will be moved to 2 feet back and then a 6 foot sidewalk. They will be left with 6 ' of right-of-way along with the 5 ' building setback. Mr. Smith felt that under the circumstances staff did not feel that the setbacks would be out of character with the buildings across the street on the Portola Avenue side. The required setback on the Alessandro side is 15 feet and they are asking for a 5 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE : July 16 , 1996 continued from June 18 and July 2 , 1996 CASE NO: PP/CUP 96-5 REQUEST: Approval of a conditional use permit/precise plan of design for a 17 , 857 gross square foot two story athletic club on the vacant property at the northwest corner of Monterey Avenue and Fred Waring Drive . APPLICANT: Rick Muro 74-040 Highway 111, Suite B Palm Desert, CA 92260 I . BACKGROUND: This request was before Planning Commission at its June 18 , 1996 meeting when it was continued to allow staff to re-notice the application including the possibility of using 38 parking spaces on the west side of the Darr Eye Clinic after 5 : 00 p.m. on weekdays . On July 2 , 1996 the applicant appeared before Planning Commission with revised plans providing a two level parking structure and parking for 116 cars . At that time staff recommended ha continuance to permit the matter to be reviewed by staff and • i Architectural Review Commission. In the interim the plan has continued to evolve . The current plan was presented to ARC at its July 9 , 1996 meeting when it was given preliminary approval subject to some minor amendments which will be presented later. II . ANALYSIS : The revised plan provides for a total of 18 , 489 square feet of building with 124 on-site parking spaces . As well , the applicant has access to 38 overflow spaces after 5 : 00 p.m. on the site at the southwest corner of Monterey and Fred Waring. Staff is satisfied that we have achieved as much as we could hope to with this project on its own site . The revised plans have eliminated the second story on the portion of the building at the corner near Monterey and Fred Waring. Building elevations as required to be revised by ARC will result in fun, interesting architecture on this property, one of the most prominent locations in the city. Landscaping will be sufficient to enhance the building and obscure exposed views of the parking structure . It STAFF REPORT PP/CUP 96-5 JULY 16 , 1996 hi hest point should be noted that the parking st ructure at its g will be 7 . 5 feet above the adjacent street. and improvements the nearby neighbors have Even with these changesMr. not accepted the project. Recent letters from Mr. Middleton, McDaniel and Mr. Hein are attached. Concerns continue to be : i) pass through traffic in the residential ve community les) on parking of commercial vehicles ( i . e e ii) residential streets) ,m, will have a greater iii) extended hours of operation to 9 : 00 impact on the communitywould a general office use or tha n medical office use (copy attached) July 11 , 1996 Sha ron Howard submitted a petitionthat connecthd council requesting that the three streetssenDrive) be to the city and Fairhav • e (Acacia, Adonistraffic in WaringDrive through to Fred future pass th g closed to eliminat e existing and i ned by the neighborhood. The petition for street closure was signed the 38 residents representing 34 properties . One resident opposed closure . t council received the petition and referred the matter to The city public works department for a report. 2, 1996 meeting planning staff requester! that Following the J�� ty public works , who prepared the traffic study which was att ached to Y the Jul 2 staff report, indicate the age h the tra sfi c counts and express their level of he°closuref of the street(s) until a tintent had been to delay certain threshold of additional traffic into do soe would residentialna Ho e neighborhood became a reality. nearby other very real concerns which had° beeni intor the expressed by neighbors ( i .e. overflow parking going neighborhood and extended business hours and related pass through traffic) . It became evident to planning staff that all t ree concernsrs could be addressed if we were to require this applicant ct a wall and gate system across Acacia Drive north of the access driveways to the Ray Al office prioruilddings and to oeof ais cebuilding. This wall system to be in place This wall system would ricate of occupancy for the main building. provide pedestrian access to the south to neighborhood residents who would be issued a key or c half a d. A similar lmilelto theswestts t Joshua Road at Fred Waring approximately 2 STAFF REPORT PP/CUP 96-5 JULY 16 , 1996 Doing this wall system now accomplishes several improvements as follows : i) it will eliminate any existing pass through traffic which uses Acaciat ii) overflow parking from the health club will no tsfin d t its area way into the residential area beeen the pedestrian gate ause only residwill have key or cards to op to iii) the extended hours of the as y thewill create a barrieli impact on the neighborhoodin evening w As well , the members leaving the facility in the Fred Waring have only one direction to exit ( i .e. Drive) the From a planning staff perspective, this condition requiring system to close off the street is a required mitigation measurewe impact identified in the Initial Study l of a significant on this project, planning staff is which is the basis for the Negative Declaration of Environmentalon Impact . With this condition approval of the project. Without this condition recommending PP the adequately the project or an equivalent commitment by the to adequate mitigate the identified significant imp cannot be approved and staff would Declaration as prepared ect. recommend denial of the pro j project For the Lecord we received 30 form letters support=-•lg the pro j and contending that traffic generation "will be insignificant" . None of these letters were signed by residents of the area to the northwest of the site. We will include a copy of the letter for review by commission. The others are available for review in the case file. III . CEQA REVIEW: staff been reviewed for compliance with CEQA (see Thepro project has 1996) . With appropriate conditions it is freport dated impacts created by this project can be reduced to a leveleft that any Accordingly, we will recommend of insignificance. certification of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impac t o provided that Acacia Drive be closed tnorthhofis thebe aac access tonthf e health club. Staff is recommending the project approval . 3 STAFF REPORT PP/CUP 96-5 JULY 16 , 1996 IV. CONCLUSION: The plan as presently proposed is a substantial improvement to the earlier versions which were presented to commission. Parking complies with the ordinance and we have an available overflow lot. Architecture has improved and been given preliminary approval by ARC . Building impact at the corner has been reduced by elimination of the second story, and with the closure of Acacia Drive we feel the remaining concerns can be addressed. V. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve Case No. PP/CUP 96-5 , subject to conditions . VI . ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft Resolution B. Legal Notice C . Plans and Exhibits Prepared by _ Ste Smith Reviewed and Approved by Phil Drell /tm 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING RCOMAMISSSIONOV NG OF HA CITY OF PALM DESERT, CAL REQUEST BY RICK MURO FORN DpRECISE NEGATIVE PLAN/CONDITIDECLARATION ONAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AWO STORY USE PERMIT AND THE18,489 O.P.SQUARE ZONE ATOO HE TNORTHWEST ATHLETIC CLUB IN CORNER OF MONTEREY AVENUE AND FRED WARING DRIVE. CASE NO. PP/CUP 96-5 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm hold a duly Desert, did on the 18th day of June, July 1996 , tod California, 2 and 16 , public hearing which was continued to July cons ider the request of RICK MURO for Pinnacle Athletic Club for the above project; and WHEREAS,ty said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for No Implementation 95 105 th t the Director f the California Resolutionproject asr Environmental Quality Act, of Community Development has determined that and wall off access conditioned, specifically the requirement to gateoff on the to Acacia Drive to the north, clarati n of Environmental adverse Impact has been environment and a Negative De prepared; and public hearing, upon hearing and considering all WHEREAS, at said of all interested persons desiring to testimony and arguments, if any, facts and be heard, said planning commission dod find the f said precise plan/conditional reasons to exist to justify approval use permit: 1 . That the proposed location of hise�. tle and the purpose of conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the district in which the site is located. 2 . That the proposed location of the con i ted or ma ntainal use and the nd conditions under which it would be op health, safety, or erwill not be detrimental to the publicproperties or welfare, or be materially injurious to pro P improvements in the vicinity. 3 . That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this title. 4 . That the proposed conditional use complies with the goals ,objectives , and policies of the city' s general plan. The design of the precise plan as conditioned will not substantially depreciate g reciate property values in the vicinity. unr ly 6 . The precise plan as conditioned o will properteain able interfere with the use or enjoyment ur oses . vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful p P PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 7 . The precise plan as condit ioned will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the NOW,City of Palm Desert, California, as follows : 1 . That the above recitations are true the commission andthisrcase, and constitute the findings of 2 . That the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, Exhibit "A" attached, is hereby approved. 3 . That Precise Plan/Conditional Use menPermit is96-5he on file ile in the Department of Community P subject to conditions (Exhibit "B" ) . PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 16th day of July, 1996 , by the following vote, to wit: AYES : NOES : ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PAUL R. BEATY, Chairperson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT A Pursuant to Title 14 , Division 6 , Article 6 (commencing with section 15070 ) of the California Code of Regulations . NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: PP/CUP 96-5 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Rick Muro 111 , Suite B 74-040 Highway Palm Desert, CA 92260 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Precise plan of desory gn ntandtcod nditi nal use permit for an 1E ,489 square Avenue and Fred Waring property at the northwest corner of Monterey Drive . The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures , if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects , may also be found attached. July 16 , 1996 PHILIP DRELL DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3 PLANN ING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT "B" CONDITI ONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. PP/CUP 96-5 De artment of Community Development/PlannincT: with 1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the department of development/planning, as modified by the following conditions . 2 . The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations ordinancesorth and state andherein chfederal are in addition to all municipal or be in force. statutes now in force, or which hereafter may of said project shall commence within 3 . Construction of a portion unless an extension of one year from the date of final approval shall become null , void time is granted; otherwise said approval and of no effect whatsoever. 4 . Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies : Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Desert Sands Unified School District es ll Evidence of said permit or clearance of building the andabove safetyeatlthestime be presented to the department of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5 . That the applicant shall provide for installation of solid wastte enclosures serving all public buildings , P and recycling � approval of Ordinance No . 612 , said enclosures subject to Environmental Conservation Manager. 6 . The project shall be subject to all applicable fees at time of issuance of permits including, but not limited to, Art in Public Places , TUMF and school mitigation fees . 7 . That pursuant to Resolution No. de0-130 velopments d ow lopncome shall housPng ay the appropriate commercial square foot) . mitigation fee ( $1 . 00 p 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 8 . That the landscaping in the parking lot shall comply with the provisions of the Master Parking Lot Tree Plan. 9 . That if the parking lot is illuminated, a light plan prepared by a lighting engineer shall be required confirming compliance with the city' s parking lot lighting restrictions . 10 . That the hours of operation of the health club shall be from 6 : 00 a.m. until 9 : 00 p.m. Monday through Thursday; m from : 0t0urday m. and to 8 : 00 p.m. on Friday; from 8 :00 a.m. to 5 : 00 p• from 8 : 00 a.m. to 4 : 00 p.m. on Sunday. 11 . That all signs on site be approved by the architectural review commission and conform with ordinance requirements . 12 . That the grading and/or street plans provide for compliance with Sunline comments . 13 . That the landscape plan shall be designed and implemented to effectively buffer the view of the parking structure from the streets and from the residential community to the northwest. 14 . That the final landscape plan shall include a long term among program specifying other matters appropriate watering times , fertilization and pruning for various times of the year for the specific materials to be planted, as well as periodic replacement of materials. All to be consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801) and the app e landscape plan. 15 . That the applicant provide a plan to close Acacia Drive north of the proposed access point to the parking structure . Saida plan an shall include a six foot high masonry wall, key pedestrian gate and landscape planters on either side . Said wall system to be designed to prevent vehicular and pedestrian traffic flow other than through the keyed/carded pedestrian gate . Keys and/or cards to operate said pedestrian gate shall be provided to those residents of the area northwest of the subject property requesting same . The wall system plan to be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department, Community Development Department, and Architectural Review Commission and implemented by the applicant prior to obtaining a certificate of occupancy. 16 . That a six foot masonry wall be constructed along the north property line if deemed necessary by the Architectural Review Commission. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. Department of Public Works : 1 . Drainage fees, in accordance eaid with Section to 26ssuance the.49 of Palm almgDadeng Municipal Code, shallP permit. 2 . Signalization fees , in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos . 79-17 and 79-55 , shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading permit. pu blic Full improvements, as required by Section be26 . 44ins and e26 .40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall n accordance with applicable city limited standards . installation of two shall include, but not be drive approaches on Acacia Drive with the most nstut southerly drive a being restricted to right turn ingress only, t minimum six foot wide sidewalk on Acacia Drive an d eight foo ngide sidewalk on Fred Waring Drive and Monterey Avenue, of both Monterey Avenue ( 12 feet) and Fred Waring Drive (7 feet) including traffic sigthe l an sadt sfa tion drainage softthe Directorsons of Public y be necessary all to Works . 4 . Applicant shall dedicate sufficient right-of-way to provide for the widening of Monterey Avenue and Fred Waring Drive. 5 . Offsite improvemer' plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works and a surety posted to guarant^ , the installation of all required offsite improvements hall priorsu tto issuance of a grading permit. "As-built" plans to, and approved by, the Director of Public Works prior to the acceptance of the improvements by the city. 6 . All public improvements, private driveways and parking lot areas shall be inspected by the engineering department and a standard inspection fee paid prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 7 . Landscaping maintenance on Acacia Drive, Monterey Avenue and Fred Waring Drive shall be the responsibilityof the property 8 . As required under Section shalnd l of the Palm Desert placed underground Municipal Code, all existing utilities per each respective utility district' s recommendation. If determined to be unfeasible, the applicant shall submit to the city, in a form acceptable a to constructio the city n the subject , surety in an amount equal to the estimated undergrounding. C 27 , omp 9 . In accordance with Palm De sprt ecifications spal Phallodbe hsPbmit ed c to lthe grading plans and 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. 10 . Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans by the Director of Public Works and the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works . 11 . Building pad elevations of the proposed structure are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 12 . A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 13 . Grading permit issuance shall be subject to a waiver of parcel map for parcel consolidation/lot line adjustment first being approved and recorded. 14 . Prior to the issuance of building permits, applicant shall pay Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) at the rate of $5, 517 . 60 per 1, 000 square feet of building area ( Indoor Recreational Facility Land Use) . Riverside County Fire Department: 1 . With respect co the conditions of approval regarding ...he above referenced plan check, the fire department recr'mmends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Codes, appropriate NFPA standards, CFC, CBC, and/or recognized fire protection standards . 2 . A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible materials are placed on the job site. 3 . Provide, or show there exists, a water system capable of providing a potential gallon per minute flow of 3000 gpm for commercial structure. The actual fire flow available from any one hydrant connected to any given water main shall be 1500 gpm for a two hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure. 4 . The required fire flow shall be available from a Super fire hydrant(s) ( 6"x4"x2-1/2"x2-1/2" ) , located not less than 25 ' or more than 150 feet from commercial structure. Distances shall cover all portions of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travel ways . Hydrants installed below 3000 ' elevation shall be of the "wet barrel" type. 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5 . Prior to the application for a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original and two copies of the water system plan to the county fire department for review. No building permit shall be issued until the water system plan has been approved by the county fire chief . Upon approval, the original will be returned. One copy will be sent to the responsible inspecting authority. 6 . Comply with Title 4 of for the hall California litocc or is Code of Regulations , adopted January s . 7 . Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13 . The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front of the building, not less than 25 ' from the building and within 50 ' of an approved Super hydrant. This applies l buildings with 3000 square feet or more building area as measured by the building footprint, including overhangs which are sprinklered as per n forPA 13 . The a cumulative botadll squareuilng area of additional floors is addedfootage 8 . Install a fire alarm (water flow) as required by the UnifoInstall Building Code Sec . 3803 for the fire sprinkler system(s) . supervisory (tamper) alarms on all supply and control valves for sprinkler systems . 9 . Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes anc' shall be clearly marked by painting and/or signs as approved by the fire marshal . Painted fire lanss and/or signs shall he stenciled or posted every 30 ' with t' s following: No Parking Fire Lane - PDMC 15 . 16 . 090 . 10 . Install a fire alarm as required by the California Building Code and/or California Fire Code. Minimum requirement is UL central station monitoring of sprinkler systems per NFPA 71 and 72 . Alarm plans are required for all UL central station monitored systems and systems where any interior devices are required or used. 11 . Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Fire extinguishers must not be over 75 ' walking distance and/or 3000 square feet of floor area. 12 . Install a dust collecting system as per the California Building Code, Sec . 910 and California Fire Code, Art. 76 , if conducting an operation that produces airborne particles . A carpenter or woodworking shop is considered one of several industrial processes requiring dust collection. 13 . All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150 ' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall be not less than 24 ' of 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. unobstructed width and 13 ' 6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is allowed, the roadway shall be 36 ' widede . D wit h parking on both sides, 32 ' wide with parking on end roads in excess of 150 ' shall be provided with a minimum 45 ' radius turn around ( 55' in industrial developments) . Fountains or garden islands placed in or 10 'n daameter theCetyustandardssmay shall be not exceed a 5 ' radius more restrictive. 14 . Whenever access into private property is controlled througshuse of gates , barriers , guard houses or similar means , p robe made to facilitate access by emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the fire department . All controlled access devices that are power operated shall have a Knox Box over-ride systemkem capable of opening the gate when activated by a special wiey located in emergency vehicles . Devices shall beequipped allrt . backup power facilities to operate in the event of power All controlled access devices that are not power operated shall also be approved by the fire department. Minimum opening width shall be 16 ' with a minimum vertical clearance of 13 ' 6" . 15 . Contact the fire department for a final inspection prior to occupancy. 16 . All new residences/dwellings are required to have illuminated residential addresses meeting both city and fire department nt ap ioval . Shake shingle roofs are not longer permitted cities of Indian Wells, Rancho Mirage or PQitu Desert . 17 . Commercial buildings shall have illuminad addresses of a size approved by the city. 18 . All fire sprinkler systems , fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be submitted separately for approval prior to construction. Subcontractors should contact the fire marshal ' s office for submittal requirements . 19 . Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes , ordinances , laws or when building permits are not obtained within twelve months . 20 . Other: Upgrade existing fire hydrant to current Super Hydrant specifications . 9 David F. Middleton 72-799 Arboleda DR Palm Desert, CA 92260u PIS i i:. . -.�..1 r' ' '. July 8 , 1996 City Council of Palm Desert Palm Desert Civic Center 73-510 Fred Waring DR Palm Desert , CA Dear Honorable Council Members: gym on the Icorner recently le Waring a dlan Acacia about 100 meters f construct a private om my house. corner toldof Fredh gym have daily vehicle traffic of 500 cars. I am the gy If this is true, I must strongly object to this plan. I nave two reasons: the first is the increaseedtraffic, anditheo next dis the n in lack of necessity for another building COD, four churches, three office Our neighborhood is surrounded by and five major shopping mini-malls, a large apartment complex, centers. The last one, Desert Crossing, has resulted in an unbearable increase in vehicle traffic. On the session d weekens, with tlethe s COD swap meet in 'progress, churchiby e hostag the running all around us, we are practically held ossitag toget out t_,=,nendous level of traffic. It is nearly imp _f our own neighborhood. In addition, be^_=.'ase thettrafficerlighion _ t -ystem is so badly coordinated, vehic �es avoiding of Fred Waring and Monterey routinely sFPed through our neighborhood streets , making them un..afe for children. I do not believe we should be subjected to another increase in traffic when the major estreetsand dent ltraffic control system are inadequate to handle th w. Second , as bad as the traffic is , it would o l be worse if more ofthe buildings around us were occupied Barate.l higher at "The Mall You armely For aware, of course, of the develop center , Trader Joe's, Town Known as Marshall's." That shoppingnp of space availabl . Center, and the Mervyn's center, have lllntalso has plenty of-- The Palms-to-Pines Center, on Highway I think it better on the space. If a gym must be built somewhere , highway, where one expects commercial development. I am therefore imploring you to spare our neighborhood from the disaster. of "development. c ificeeed ourhe private lives traffic to enrich or building. We do not want to sa someone else . R spectfull -, A RECEIVED Rex E. McDaniel 72-915 Gloriana Dr. J�II 11 1996 Palm Desert, CA. 92260 (619) 346-0351 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT July 10 , 1996 Chairman, Planning Commission City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA. 92260 Dear Sir: This letter concerns the proposed health club as outlined in your Case No. PP/CUP 96-5. My home is located on the southwest corner of Gloriana Drive and Acacia Drive. The north ween t faces Glorianaland Fred and Waring the eastern boundary is on Acacia be Drive. The attached sketch andshows otherits developmentsln relation to the proposed health club My lot has a driveway on Gloriana leading to my attached garage. It so ras a ovidesrforwoff-street on 1parkingnoflatr my recreational backyard. Thihi p vehicle as required by city ordnance. In addition, there is a circular drive in the front yard with access to both Gloriana and Acacia. I paid dl city aossessment tgulewhen ltthese driveways were installed and I have read all of the lette�3 submitted in opposition to the proposal and heard all of the objections presented in person at these public meetings. I submitted a letter prior to the June 18 meeting of this commission expressing, general gpn rd l annty, manner , my objections. The matters concerning on-street parking, intrusion of pass-through traffic cedc intosiness o the residential areas, building design, lighting, extdays and hours , etc. , are 1tooputnanaendvto1d thisJdiscussion They were, I believe, sufficient a long time ago. The fact that the proposal is still being considered compels me to communicate my objections in a more personal and emphatic manner. When I purchased my single family residence sixteen years ago it was enclosed on all four sides with lots zoned R-1 . A most obvious and fundamental right that comes with vthe e ownership of private property is the right to privacy. governmental agency from dog oncernedcatcher, withcthelprotection, to cofnsuch to court is , or should be, right. 1 ed when My right in this regard was re-zonedsomewhat and off�ce buildings theproperty to the south of mine was were constructed. The parking lot for these buildings connects with the full length of my backyard fence. The normal noise of car engines , doors, and radios, is a distraction. The regular racket of a trash truck tending a dumpster and a power blower sweeping the lot is a disruptive nuisance. The cars add to the traffic on Acacia past my house and driveway. My right was further eroded when the property to the northeast was re-zoned and the city-owned parking lot was built to accommodate the Desert Pointe Apartment. An enntrancTeri exit driveway to the lot is situated directly east of my yard. e traffic on both streets adjacent to my house is naturally increased. At night, the cars leaving the lot illuminate my house and yard. If the plan being considered is approved by this commission, one-half of my PRIVATE PROPERTY will be surrounded by PUBLIC PARKING faLOTS. thathat allunpleasant parkingprospect lots1are made DESIGNEDSTOely FUNNELworse the h TRAFFIC TO MY DOORSTEP. I will be personally, physically, and continually impacted by the LIGHTS , NOISE, AND CONGESTION which are the natural consequence of this proposal. The early-in-the-morning and late-at-night operating schedule and the business necessity to maintain a steady flow of heavy traffic, will create an assault on my peace and quiet that will proceed during every waking hour of every living da::. Every time a vehicle leaves the club during darkness, it will sweep its headlights across my house and yard. Every time traffic backs up on Acacia with cars attempting to enter Fred Waring, it will be lined up along my property and blocking my driveway. Every time an impatient driver honks his horn, it will bother me more than the air-conditioned driver being honked at. Every time tires squeal with someone trying to catch a momentary break in Fred Waring traffic, it will hold my attention until the time for the crash has passed. Every time someone decides to park at the curb rather than seek out a spot on the parking lot, he will park next to my house. At this time a parking structure is under consideration. It is to be centered on the lot on and parallel to Acacia. One level is to be below grade level and the other about five feet above lot level . This may satisfy some need for parking but it is nothing but detrimental to me. 2 From my point of view, it is simply an elevated platform to encourage public observation of my backyard. I object strongly to its design and location. There is some sentiment for building barricades to protect the residential community from unwanted traffic . This may benefit the community, but it would do me no good and great harm. The barrier blocking Acacia would be anchored on my east boundary. My private property would then become an integral part of a barrier designed to control the general public. The barrier would deny me direct access to all parts of my own property. To take my car from my garage on Gloriana to my backyard on Acacia would require me to take some round-about route. The barrier would do nothing toward restricting traffic next to my house . Any system of controls which allows traffic to reach the health club parking lot would of necessity allow it to reach my property. They are on opposite sides of the same street. All home-owners to the north and west of the propose site would be adversely effected to one degree or another at some time or another, but nobody will be effected to the extent and intensity that I would be if this plan were approved. I am the only one in direct contact with all three of the parking lots described above. I am the only one in direct contact with the project under consideration. Therefore, I do not expect anyone to lodge these same objections. Neither do I intend to sacrifice any of the freedoms and prerogatives I now enjoy Dimply because I am the only one in such jeopardy. The only way this plan could be approved would be with total and mistaken disregard for my rights in this matter. EX E. MC ANIEL 3 1 - Single family residence, 72-915 Gloriana Drive 2 - Site of office/professional buildings with entrance/exit driveways indicated. 3 - City-owned parking lot with entrance/exit driveways indicated. 4 - Proposed site of health club with entrance an exit driveways and elevated parking structure indicated. • .N ?II a. • P. • . _ .,‘ .p. .01110S6 . . . III 1ag , l 01;017;iial ?lit a 061116'' if la -7-t- I O am 1 0 s . • ..r. s Fitt SO LT s ri. L. MAMA LAi . 12 s . g 4- • alb. /% A ti — „..._.._.__--— fii A I _ ir. c. k \) \NP \I_ \ C 7/7 ci?6 ' � tC1Ii? L1.1L_c�L , �L -1( �-• [ . ki '',_ ` t. RECEIVED C c c , Rat* � V' JUL 11 1996 727 C cr Fla itia.A.L.A 0,4i0-(_ Y c OMMUNIT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1/4cralti* p.4.4- Ost_ , Yi' 71,6 DCfTY OF PALM DESERT l NZ 6_,L 41„, ak,c:--CC • (LI 64- . Oielke-A-i ftereloil ---7?- c) CiPt.6.6-6e(a ac,F , ,4 a,,,, ),,,,& e, w t i8) , ca.:.. '111-04. al atz-EQ ik) t (ALI L eav\-14-ct. '7144-t, _,L. 01..„0 F.AsX , wcut..,;,A. A' ' 1 r re..-„*-rizt- ZtQo 4&Q :i/(.,4- „LI dia_ orkeit,to-c,' te_ct_4_e ,,e,,_ _ tl-itZe_ th-f Gt_c_ (7( itc4.(.L.6{--. , 4, tiL, ff:,./26,-,,,,i6, - � 4 J ti.'-el-4-4-) 44-44-4e 1 ii41441/40 . ---1 - wa C-ro 000Cie Utet/cAek_' 74,4-1:ti ge a2746,77,- -,, OIL 6- put (_L,,,s ; _01--(0,f. tte,..124( th orm-r-44-4-- r.Lk, ,,q ()ask_ (.L.,i2CC(4,k-et a-4 all-Bt.-44 , at 1 FLAseQu(k)ci,_ . .11,04' urt, L,(( ..e.(frpk_LAA- ci3 .17-C• ^ 6„ trip_ ri, 10. aL_,, -t-&-f--t:L. (i-tjeA 62-t4, - catz4i2ee temli T:L_ 44_k_i L-- C)-- --(--1-ee-etLA' 1 , -ii..,-clizit } id-a-IAA_ _ A....... 7a-ato cV-\elik-6-0-6.0ac_ GAY- . � � � q�z 6ce 'ti� �Y�.Q-L ) C July 3, 1996 Phil Drell, City Planner Steve Smith, Asst. City Planner 73-510 Fred Waring Drive - 8 1c c6 Palm Desert, CA 92260 mui"DEVEIOPM GlrYA�,''_ OPP�NDES To whom it may concern, I am writing this letter to endorse the proposed Pinnacle Athletic Club on the Northwest corner of Fred Waring and Monterey Avenue. As a resident, and someone who frequents that intersection, I feel the additional traffic that the proposed project will generate will be insignificant based on the current levels. Thus, I urge the planning department to recommend, and the commission to approve, the proposed project at this location. Sincerely, (.2 r7 y L! (6,74 (ELL}Oz.`z(-Sf �� �r2Z Cn� • Land Use: 492 • Racquet Club • . • Description Racquet clubs are privately owned facilities with tennis courts, and other facilities often including - swimming pools and whirlpools, saunas, racquetball and handball courts, exercise classes, and 1 weightlifting equipment. _ - v ' . j N • Additional Data • Information on transit trip ends is not available. C Information on person trip ends is not available. Information on truck trips is not available. Information on vehicle occupancy is not available. Peak hours of the generator: Weekdays 6:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M. Weekends 9:00 A.M. to 11:00 A.M. and 3:00 P.M. to 4:00 P.M. These studies were conducted in the late 1970's at sites throughout the west coast and in Connecticut. The clubs surveyed ranged in size from 160 to 4,000 members, 6 to 14 courts, and 2 to 20 employees. Source Numbers 90, 92, 95, 113, 158, 214 • .i_. Trip Generation, January 1991 712 Institute of Transportation Engineers — �%or v I v r.r �492) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs:. Members On a: Weekday Number of Studies: 9 Average Number of Members: 897 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Trip Generation per Member Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.40 0.12 - 1.86 0.75 Data Plot and Equation 1,600 1,500 _ 1,400 1,300 1,200 13 W 1,1 00 _ , 1,000 ............. I- m 900 800 _ is 700 _ 600 CD 500 400 _ X ,a'� 300 X X ,'�, 200 _1 X X X 100 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 X = Number of Members X Actual Data Points Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Not given R2 = Trip Generation, January 1991 722 Institute of Transportation Engineers . 41 \ ►Mtn . _ &a) 1 -r i Racquet Club (492) Average Vehicle Trip Ends n a: Wembers eekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Number of Studies: 8 Average Number of Members: 892 Directional Distribution: Not available _ T Trip Generation per Member Standard Deviation Average Rate Range of Rates 0.04 0.01 - 0.24 0.21 _ C Data Plot and Equation - 160 i 150 _ 140 130 _ to 120 _ V -' UC.I 110 _ a 100 _ f- - m 90 U m _80 > , a) 70 2 60 _ X , 0 - X Q 50 _ II - XX F- 40 ,/ 30 _ `' 20 _ . . .X. ,X,i'' _10 . .X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ...... .. .... .... 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 X = Number of Members ------ Average Rats X Actual Data Points Rz = ".. Fitted Curve Equation: Not given Trip Generation, January 1991 724 Institute of Transportation Engineers 'r. %. uG< LAUD I (492) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: . Members On a: Weekday, ill A.M. Peak Hour of Generator Number of Studies: 6 I Average Number of Members: 895 Directional Distribution: Not '� I U available Trip Generation per Member lI Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation I 0.03 0.01 - 0.10 0.16 Data Plot and Equation 120 i • 110 • 100 90 W 80 a) 70 L 80 0 • 0 O) 50 El' 0 Q 40 II I; X R, I 4 20 • j X • I 10 X I 0 I 0 I 1000 2000 3000 4000 14 I i•' ; X = Number of Members 'u: ii i, X Actual Data Points 11 •, ---- s Rat, Fitted Curve Equation: Not given R2 =_ . Mi i`4j ,i i l iLi ' Generation, January 1991 ' 725 Institute of Transportation Engineers II! . o3x ` cc �e-M = 4� JP iiiihitti Racquet Club (492) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Members On a: Weekday, P.M. Peak Hour of Generator Number of Studies: 10 Average Number of Members: 844 Directional Distribution: Not available Trip Generation per Member Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.05 0.01 - 0.24 0.22 Data Plot and Equation 200 190 180 _ • 170 _ • 160 150 C 140 _ W a 130 - 'i H 120 _ 1 U 10 m 100 90 - 80 0 70 60 X II X X 50_ X 40 _ X 20 X X' X 10 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 X = Number of Members X Actual Data Points Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Not given R2 _ ,... Trip Generation, January 1991 726 Institute of Transportation Engineers R quet Club 492) li li ,,. Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Members On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. ., Number of Studies: 7 Average Number of Members: 819 Directional Distribution: Not available t 3 Generation per Member t Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation I 0.02 0.00 - 0.08 0.13 f i : a Plot and Equation 80 , 70 _ I I 60 _ ; so I i ) r 40 =1 • 30 i� I t I f � II 20 _ xX ��• X X e,fi�t0X •III tl 0 0 ' 2000 3000 4000 ;I X = Number of Members1X Actual Data Points Average Rate ' ; Fitted Curve Equation: Not givenR I ; . ! 114 neration, January 1991 723 Institute of Transportation Engineers ' I L .1 Fcc uet Club (492) 1, , :i Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Members ; On a: Saturday , 1 Number of Studies: 6 Average Number of Members: 895 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting j ip Generation per Member i ! Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation I 0.32 0.08 - 1.67 0.73 1 i i ita Plot and Equation 1 1,300 1,200 j 1,1 00 I r I , i 1,000 _ i y j j i J+ - 800 { I I� ! i 700 I j ! ' 600 _ r ! l n I 1 1 500 x l I i !� 400 ! l l 300 _ I x Y 1 200 _ X X ! 'i :j ' X 100 _ 0 . 0 1000 2000 3000 g000 X = Number of Members X Actual Data Points - Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Not given R2 _ **** ! Generation, January 1991 727 Institute of Transportation Engineers i 1 1 ` ;j acquet Club i (492) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Members Av On a: Saturday, Peak Hour of Generator Number of Studies: 7 Average Number of Members: 819 i Directional Distribution: Not available Trip Generation per Member Trip Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.05 0.01 - 0.21 0.23 Data Plot and Equation Data 200 , 1 90 - 180 - • „' 170 160 :. , ' 150 , .,. V0 ' , ,' LI/ CO c 140 _ .,' '0 , Ili130 ,' ' a -C . ' a. 120 ,„ 1-- = , a) > < , , ' 0 II ,' , II I- 50 1 X 1 X ' 40 2 , ,'. , x ,• 30 , , XX x ' 20 - '- • 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 X = Number of Members X Actual Data Points Average Rats Fitted Curve Equation: Not given R2 = **** Trip Generation, January 1991 728 Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Ge . i • (492) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Members On a: Sunday .. 1 1 , Number of Studies: 6 Average Number of Members: 895 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Ip Generation per Member Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation . . ; 0.33 0.10 - 1.59 0.72 ata Plot and Equation 1,400 • 1,300 1,200 1,1 00 , „ u) a 1,000 c , • „ D. 900 Ti 800 C 700 a) -- ,, • > . CD 800 = :13 ' ---' • I 11 , 500 X i 1 400 „ X 300 , X X -' X 1 1 200 - X . 1 100 , ' . - 0 ' 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 X = Number of Members i . , • , ! X Actual Data Points Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Not given R2 _ Men* ) Generation, January 1991 729 Institute of Transportation Engineers 1 yi. • .i' . . --- -'492)V I - e ' verage Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Members Average On a: Sunday, Peak Hour of Generator Number of Studies: 7 Average Number of Members: 819 Aver Directional Distribution: Not available Generation per Member Trip Genera Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation _ Averag, 0.05 0.01 - 0.18 0.22 _ 42., Plot and Equation Data Plot ar 200 700 • 190 ' • . .. • 180 ' • 170 _ 600 .4 - . 160 150 140 C W 500 _ . 130 - a 120 I— a)110 U L 400 _ 100 m 90 a) 01 80 X 70 _ a)> 300 X_ Q 60 II 50 X ,R,' I— >OC • 40 X 200 _ . 30 _ X X - 20 _ X 10 0 100 t '0 1000 2000 3000 4000 6 X = Number of Members X Actual Data Points Average Rat X Actual Fitted Curve Equation: Not given R2 ="" Fitted CL 1 eneration, January 1991 730 Institute of Transportation Engineer TuP Generation, ... Sports Club PALM DESERT MEMBERSHIP TRAFFIC 7-3-96 (Wed. ) 7-4-96(Thurs. ) 7-5-96 (Fri . ) 7-8-96(Mon. ) 5 : 30-6 : 30am 33 closed 37 33 6 : 30-7 : 30 38 closed 22 35 7 : 30-8 : 30 40 45 30 43 8 : 30-9 : 30 46 43 56 48 9: 30-10 : 30 24 57 29 27 10 : 30-11 : 30 25 40 28 29 11 : 30-12 : 30 42 21 29 44 12 : 30-1 : 30pm 20 closed 35 26 1 : 30-2 : 30 21 31 28 2 : 30-3 : 30 26 20 30 3: 30-4 : 30 55 27 57 4: 30-5 : 30 58 41 60 5: 30-6 : 30 46 50 51 6 : 30-7 : 30 21 25 29 7: 30-8 : 30 16 15 15 8 : 30-9 : 30 16 15 18 9 : 30-10 : 00 1 0 2 TOTALS : 528 206 490 575 • 73-600 Alessandro • Palm Desert, CA 92260 • (619) 340-3060 • FAX (619) 340-6002 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: July 2, 1996 continued from June 18, 1996 CASE NO: PP/CUP 96-5 REQUEST: Approval of a conditional use permit/precise plan of design for a 17 , 857 gross square foot two story athletic club on the vacant property at the northwest corner of Monterey Avenue and Fred Waring Drive. APPLICANT: Rick Muro 74-040 Highway 111, Suite B Palm Desert, CA 92260 I . BACKGROUND: This request was before Planning Commission at its June 18, 1996 meeting when it ,was continued to allow staff to renotice the application including the possibility of using 38 parking spaces on the west side of the Darr Eye Clinic after 5 : 00 p.m. on weekdays . II . DISCUSSION: Wednesday, June 19 , 1996 revised notices were sent to property owners in a wider area. As of the writing of this report we have not heard from any additional persons . We have been advised that the applicant met with public works staff and decided to add a parking structure. As of the writing of this report we have not seen this revised plan. In the interim period staff have looked at the 38 spaces at Darr Eye Clinic to see if they in fact are available after 5 : 00 p.m. They are basically open and available. We looked at the area four days at 5 : 00 p.m. and of the 38 spaces on average ten spaces were occupied. As well, public works department has conducted a traffic study, copy enclosed, which concludes that the impacted streets have available capacity to handle the anticipated traffic levels . What the traffic study does not address is the appropriateness of putting in a commercial use which will effectively double the existing traffic level on nearby residential streets . As a policy the city tries to limit any traffic flow from commercial uses to residential areas . In fact, in the case of the residential neighborhood to the south connections to the office STAFF REPORT PP/CUP 96-5 JULY 2 , 1996 professional/commercial areas to the south, east and west were closed off . A similar analysis for this residential area would result in Acacia being closed north of the gym parking lot, Fairhaven Drive and Adonis being closed at Fred Waring. All access to the neighborhood would be from Park View and Monterey. This would also serve to eliminate existing pass-through traffic . This would be a drastic step to take to accommodate one corner property. On Wednesday, June 26 , we received a fax from Mr. Oliphant which included a breakdown of the extra and unusual costs related to developing the site, copy attached. The letter also indicated that Mr. Muro was working on a parking structure which would provide all 119 parking spaces on site . As of the writing of this report we had not seen plans for this structure, how it impacts on architecture, site layout, and site access among other matters . Considering that we have not yet received a plan showing the parking structures we have no alternative but to recommend that this matter be continued to a date certain. III . RECOMMENDATION: That Case No . PP/CUP 96-5 , Rick Muro, be continued to July 16 , 1996 so that the parking r_ :. ucture proposal can be evaluated by staff and reviewed by Arc' itectural Review Commission. Prepared by Stev ith / 1 ice' Reviewed and Approved by Phil D 11 /tm 2 FROM : AFFILIATED CONSTRUCT '"N LA..; INc icL• - Richard R. Oliphant ts1 77 coo Avenue of the States Palm Desert, California 92211 Telephone (619) 345 2626 Facsimile (619) 345 5501 Facsimile Tr, n,�1ru�SsiO/aR S'l><r�1 Date: June 26, 1996 To: Phil Drell, Community Services Director Fax: (619)341 7098 Re: Pinnacle Athletic Club You should receive 4 page(s). including this cover sheet. If,you do nut receive all Pees, call (619) 345 2626 MESSAGE This is the cost breakdown for the "extra and unusual" costs to complete the improvements on Fred Waring and Monterey. These costs are gor+crated by the widening for • right turn lures. The entire project has a cost of approximately $3.000,000. We have completed the cost studies for the parking structure and Rill is now discussing ii with his lending sources. It is his current plan to park all 119 cars on site. The presentation to the planning commission will be with all parking on-site. This project is very important to Rick and to'Tony Lim and myself. It will be a use that will make that corner work. Without the Athletic Club. we will have to look for some other intense use that can afford the cost of the corner. I believe this is the highest and best use currently possible. Let's make it fly. FROM : AFF 1 L 1 ATEU CONSTRUCT I I'M w i w., I G.-• "- ---- n i C7Pg�cn 5 T ,-0 z0z00 , 5.4 1 . it. iv 3 r- b � *a - h QD I i m 6 ' lit u3 r P. i ; g § i 8 ch y 1T v p a mm zgg 9- Eg t888 88888 8 1 i i ). › i _, � § �' �'� , 1 IIIAA= on ! , i 1 �i ' � g + 1 •i j I I1 111 11 i I i , t) " N � I a 1 0 P03 1 'itil is t 401 licol§ t8t (8F-) 7 § EIPP. § I § 18§§A "tilg . , :15 ! , i .. I 4, N 11 - -- ------- ---- -- - ----- PROJECT COST MODEL FITNESS MART REPORT r 1 FRED WARING/MONTEREY AVE DESCRIPTION QUAKUTY VMR ORIGINAL ADJUST REVISED - --- BUDGE( BUDGET HAB[ZSST$:-- - - - OFF-SITE: 0 DEMOLITION: i Sit* r GRADING: �38670 S8,t370 Import, export R h 525,500 $25,500 Fine • PAVING. Asprart arc Base -� . S 14,450 $14,450 Weed Killer • Tack cat, slurry -i CONCRETE: inn Flaty orfk $14,450 Ct rt.s, G� _s $14 450 LAN standards 512750 $12 750 Trast enclosure • D Morurnert sign base 5 .750 STRIPING AND S:GNIItiG $5,500 S5.500 TRAFFIC CONTROL u.1 SEWER IMPROVEMENTS. 400 $3,400 o laterals(sib to curb; Manholes Septic system ij Adjust mannoles to grade WATER IMPROVEMENTS: Relocate fire hydrant u Ptovids detector check PTV, FDC, service FOC =ire Hydrants zo Water service(doJr siicAnigatiar Adjust valves to grade w STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM: DryweLs eattn Basins P7pe,�aiis $�2 7� $12,750 tL cr E 0 tr it PAGE 3 PROJECT COST MODEL FITNESS MART REPORT*1 FRED WARINGAIIIONTEREY AVE. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT ORIGINAL ADJUST REVISED COST BUDGET BUDGET SITE ELECTRICAL: r--`--, g Epp Tram Signals , Pins srzndatcs ; Landscape ligroin; I lolly services LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION. • Piariing Urigalion 90 cay manienanoe $132,220 00 0132,220 a n n n 7 �1•►t .C.4...r :fit y f....eZ• LA:. O V II S�rz 1.c..-T�_ . l ; h V 0 et F €.c_c>GG L"Te 16 T 1s Y' . Z.Sty ZO V W _ J It L.L Cr E O et lL PAGE 4 43-866 Adonis Dr. and 43-824 Adonis Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 RECEIVED Mr. Stephen Smith, Planning Manager City of Palm Desert JUN 18 1996 73-150 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT Dear Mr. Smith; I am the owner of the property at 43-866 Adonis Dr. and 43-824 Adonis Dr. I wish to voice my opposition to the proposed athletic club at the N. W. corner of Monterey Ave. and Fred Waring Dr. We have a nice family neighborhood , and the largest percentage of the homes are owner occupied . We do not need to have another "Fairway Drive" in Palm Desert. Several years ago when the office project that fronts Fred Waring Dr. , between Acacia Dr. and Adonis Dr. came up for review, our neighborhood accepted the project with the provision that traffic from the businesses not be permitted to access the offices from our neighborhood, or leave through the neighborhood. Two signs were posted - but there is ZERO enforcement or control. There are several large empty buildings that may be available, and there are vacant lots close by in more appropriate area -ie. between the Baptist church and Quail Place; across from City Hall; across from the McCallum Theater; and on Monterey Ave. east of the Town Center. Lets put what we already have built, to use. We do NOT want more people, cars or lights in our neighborhood! I feel we are entitled to preserve our quality of life in the neighborhood. Sincerely, Sharon Howard SH/dlm �� ti1�--� t� l l.'ZL LL' �C' - - j G ••-v-• • v 5(atEun „4n JUN 18 1996 72-799 ofJoLuLa �s• COMMUMTYDEVELDPMENTDEPARTMENT aLm eaLifosrsia 92260 cmroFPAWDESERT RECEIVE 60i /96 '96 JUG.1 18 PM5 07 CITY CLER;('S C;;; 46," f?Cer,If_ 3— Siv .,L. r -r• �C aa,L- e_e `� C (v cec l oL ,L —,C A A—0 t - icu () JUN 1 8 1996 COMPITYDEVB.OPIENTDEPARTieff CITY0FPALLIDr dc<7;d4, 7 , „et/ ZE-122 ,L, • ZtEA_d • 2FILtz_ le12.,cy7_eAty ev . q 00 lb.,d_A-ate4z- , , • ,,w7la ei_ou- • • PA-Vgdjf cy _,atiLLY LJ 40-e zvc _r) 2 72, ND RECEIVED JUN 18 1996 fe / Cup COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Re CRY OF PALM DESERT Carra4554.14- cr, MEMBERSHIP DIST RJIB JTlON PALM SPRINGS 1 % RANCHO M I RAGE • 13% A LIV1 4 1 6 4 % BERMUDA DUNES DESERT 2% INDIAN LA QUINTA INDIo WELLS 8% 5% 7% CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: June 18, 1996 CASE NO: PP/CUP 96-5 REQUEST: Approval of a conditional use permit/precise plan of design for a 17 ,857 gross square foot two story athletic club on the vacant property at the northwest corner of Monterey Avenue and Fred Waring Drive. APPLICANT: Rick Muro 74-040 Highway 111, Suite B Palm Desert, CA 92260 I . BACKGROUND: A. GENERAL: Pursuant to direction by planning commission and the city council Mr. Muro is actively pursuing a replacement location for his existing athletic club which is presently operating at Highway 111 and Portola under a conditional use permit which expires October 1, 1996 . The property on which this new facility is to be constructed is presently vacant and is zoned O.P. (office professional) . In 1989 the property owners Dick Oliphant and Tony Lizza obtained approval from Planning Commission for a 16 ,700 square foot general office building with 59 parking spaces . The structures were a blend of 1 and 2 story buildings . Due to various delays after the Planning Commission approval and other competitive factors, the proposed tenants moved on and the project approval expired. B. CURRENT REQUEST/USES : The request at this time is for a conditional use permit to permit the use requested and a precise plan of design to build the 17 ,857 gross square foot building (basement 4,424 square feet, ground floor 6, 171 square feet and second floor 7 ,262 square feet) which will house the Pinnacle Athletic Club. The facility will include: Approximate Square Feet Aerobic Area 1800 Gyms 2800 Cardiovascular 1400 Racquetball 1600 STAFF REPORT PP/CUP 96-5 JUNE 18, 1996 Approximate Square Feet Locker Areas 3200 Physical Therapy 200 Club Offices 300 Lobby 400 Salon 900 Pro shop 400 Child care 1050 Reception 150 Juice Bar 300 Storage/Laundry 120 Climbing Wall 360 and will operate from 6 : 00 a.m. until 9 : 00 p.m. Monday to Thursday, 6 : 00 a.m. until 8 : 00 p.m. Friday, from 8 : 00 a.m. until 5 :00 p.m. on Saturday and 8 : 00 a.m. until 4 : 00 p.m. on Sunday. C. ADJACENT ZONING/LAND USE: North: R-2/apartments South: O.P. /professional office East: P/McCallum Theatre West : O.P. /professional office To the northwest is a single family residential neighborhood. D. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Office Professional . II . ANALYSIS : The applicant is proposing to construct a first class athletic club on one of the most prominent corners in the city. The architecture and landscaping was presented to ARC at its June 11 , 1996 meeting where it was continued with the applicant directed to address several architectural issues as follows : i ) lack of movement in roof line ii ) look at adding horizontal breaks in roof line iii ) reduce massiveness of building on the corner with minimum setbacks iv) create undulation in elevations v) add detail to architecture 2 STAFF REPORT PP/CUP 96-5 JUNE 18, 1996 vi) create a "fun architecture" to reflect the fun use of the facility A. SITE PLAN/ACCESS/PARKING: The property has frontage on three streets - Fred Waring, Monterey and Acacia. The building is to be located at the southeast corner of the property set back 15 feet from both Fred Waring and Monterey property lines, a total of 26 feet from the curb on Fred Waring and 28 feet from the curb on Monterey. The parking lot is to be adjacent to Acacia and takes both its accesses from Acacia. There will be no access from Monterey or Fred Waring. Code Requirements in Chart Form Code Requirement Provided Front Setbacks 15 ' from Monterey & each 15 ' Fred Waring Drive Side Setbacks 5 ' 8 ' Rear Setbacks 12 ' 150 ' Building Height 25 ' 25 ' Lot Coverage 50% 20% Parking 119 119* Landscaping 15% 22% *Includes 81 spaces on site and 38 on the property on the south side of Fred Waring ( i .e. behind Darr Eye Clinic) . B. REQUIRED PARKING: The code requires one parking space for every 150 square feet of gross floor area for health studios and spas (a total of 119 off-street parking spaces) . The submitted plan provides for 81 parking spaces and takes its access from Acacia.. There will be no access from Monterey Avenue or Fred Waring. There is some street parking available on Acacia. June 12 , 1996 staff met with the applicant, his architect and the property owners and explained that without 119 off-street parking spaces which the code requires, staff could not recommend approval of the application. The applicant felt 3 STAFF REPORT PP/CUP 96-5 JUNE 18, 1996 that with 81 on-site spaces plus 10 spaces on the lot on the south side of Fred Waring Drive plus available street parking, that the total would be more than he would ever need. It was explained that area residents had expressed concern with Street Fair parking taking place in the neighborhood and they didn't wish to see any additional intrusion of commercial uses into their residential neighborhood. Staff could not recommend the project based on using any street parking to meet the parking requirement. We also discussed reduction of the building size but Mr. Muro indicated that he had already reduced it from 22,000 square feet and even by reducing it we could not increase the amount of parking significantly. Mr. Muro also indicated that he would have the same number of members and daily visits even with a 20% smaller building. The outcome of the meeting was that Mr. Oliphant and Mr. Lizza, who also own the property at the southwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Monterey, are now prepared to offer 38 parking spaces at the north end of that lot for use by the athletic club operator weekday evenings from 5 : 00 p.m. until closing (see attached letter) . This would create a total of 119 off-street parking spaces available to the athletic club. As well, Mr. Muro indicated that on weekends during the Street Fair he would be prepared to offer a portion of his 81 space lot for use by Street Fair patrons to attempt to reduce the impact on the area streets . The Municipal Code at Section 25 .58 . 320 allows for joint use parking where operating hours do not overlap and Municipal Code Section 25 .20 . 030 which applies to R-3 zones which this site was zoned at one time allows off-site parking lots to be used where they are within 300 feet of the subject property and subject to approval of a conditional use permit. Whenever we have used this provision in the past it has been for a parking lot that is available 24 hours a day ( i .e. GTE on Highway 111 with its parking lot on the north side of Alessandro) or where there has not been an overlap of hours ( i .e. Andreino ' s Restaurant and the veterinarian clinic next door) . Any consideration of using the second parking lot after the building there closes can only occur after it has been properly and legally noticed in that there are residents who live behind that parking lot. As well, we need to conduct a survey of this parking lot to see if the parking spaces being 4 STAFF REPORT PP/CUP 96-5 JUNE 18, 1996 offered are in fact available for use by another use during these hours . C. AREAS OF CONCERN: Shortly after we mailed the legal notices the owner of the residential unit at the northwest corner of Acacia and Gloriana came to the counter to review the plans . Another resident visited on June 10, 1996 . They expressed the following concerns : i) That vehicle traffic using the facility will pass through the residential neighborhood to the north. ii) That the hours of operation of the health club would be drastically different than a typical 8 : 00 a.m. until 5 : 00 p.m. office use. iii) That if enough parking was not provided then the cars will spillover into the residential area to the north. They presently experience street fair parking on weekends . iv) The lighting of the parking lot will be intrusive in the R-1 neighborhood. Ms . Diana La Mar and Mr. Rex McDaniel submitted written statements of opposition, copies enclosed. D. RESPONSE TO CONCERNS: i ) Most vehicles will access the site via Fred Waring and Monterey. Leaving the site may be a different situation. During peak traffic periods it will be difficult to access Fred Waring eastbound. The more likely movement is north on Acacia to Arboleda and out to Monterey. This would appear to be an impact that can't be mitigated, however, Mr. Muro has indicated that he would encourage his members to exit only south bound on Acacia. This would be part of the member' s agreement with the club. Of course enforcement would be another matter. Public Works Department has required that a full traffic study be prepared if this project is to proceed. ii ) The club would need to operate earlier in the morning and later at night then a typical office use. 5 STAFF REPORT PP/CUP 96-5 JUNE 18, 1996 iii) The club will provide 81 on site parking space which should be adequate for all but the peak period. From 5 : 00 p.m. until closing an additional 38 spaces are to be available at the Darr Eye Clinic parking lot. This will serve to move patrons away from the residents to the northwest of the club. The question we cannot answer is if people will use these spaces which are across an arterial street or whether they will use street parking which may be more convenient. iv) The lighting of the parking lot can be controlled through the city lighting ordinance. As well, it can be conditioned that the lighting be turned off by 9 : 15 p.m. or earlier when the last person leaves the building. E. INTENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT During our meeting of June 12, 1996 part of our discussion involved the intensity of development being proposed and how it would be considerably more intense than a typical office use ( i .e. traffic, parking, hours of operation) . The owner made an argument to support a higher than normal use on this property and indicated he would submit a written statement delineating the costs involved in developing this property. Specifically, there will be street improvements on two arterial streets, undergrounding and relocation of power lines , traffic signal relocation, bus shelter construction and other required improvements . As well, there may be intersection modifications necessary at Fred Waring and Acacia depending on the outcome of a trip generation study which Public Works Department has indicated it will require if we are going to proceed with this project. As is discussed in the CEQA responses to the environmental checklist later in this report, this development has the potential to add 900 vehicle movements per weekday to Acacia Drive. This is based on a 1500 member club size. The ITE Trip Generation Manual projects 450 visits per weekday and hence 900 vehicle trips . During peak hours of 4 : 00 p.m. until 6 : 00 p.m. ITE indicates we could expect 100 trips per hour. Mr. Muro disputed these numbers and felt they would be much lower. 6 STAFF REPORT PP/CUP 96-5 JUNE 18, 1996 As well, Mr. Oliphant and Mr. Lizza indicated that they had a professional office project approved on the site in 1989 , but due to delays by the city following approval by the Planning Commission and development of a city sponsored office project that their tenants had gone elsewhere and they were unable to develop. In conclusion then the applicant/owners expressed that a more intensive use of the land is warranted in this instance due to: i) high cost to develop the site ii) past delays by the city iii) competitive disadvantage created by city office project F. CONCLUSION: The ordinance permits as outright permitted uses professional offices and professional business schools as conditional uses . This use holds classes and as such was deemed to fall within the conditionally permitted use area of the O.P. zone. Private recreational facilities are also a conditional use in the adjacent R-2 and R-3 zones. As discussed previously the ordinance allows for joint use parking where the uses do not overlap. As well, the ordinance for R-2 and R-3 zones allows offsite parking if it is within 300 feet of the site. In this instance we have an offsite lot making up 32% of the off-street parking and the offsite parking is available only after 5 : 00 p.m. The proposal is marginal in many ways . There are just too many opportunities for this use, if approved, to come back to haunt us . There are too many questions remaining. i) We know 81 parking spaces will not be enough for a successful athletic club operation (that is 32% under the ordinance requirement) . Will the members arriving when these 81 spaces are full use the lot across Fred Waring Drive or will they use residential streets? ii) Traffic leaving the site to go east and/or south will have to make a difficult left turn onto Fred Waring Drive. Will members do this movement or will they go north through the residential area then east to Monterey? As well, Public Works Department is requiring a traffic study before this project proceeds, if it is approved. Will this study require that the median 7 STAFF REPORT PP/CUP 96-5 JUNE 18, 1996 island on Fred Waring be connected and thereby prevent left turn from Acacia and prevent left turns from east bound Fred Waring? iii) The longer than usual business hours will bring people to the site earlier and later in the day. Will these people arriving as early as 6 : 00 a.m. and leaving as late as 9 : 00 p.m. create an impact on the residential neighborhood? In order to approve a conditional use permit the commission must affirm each of the following: A. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of this title and the purpose of the district in which the site is located; B. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; C. That the conditional use will comply proposed with each of the applicable provisions of this title, except for approved variances or adjustments; D. That the proposed conditional use complies with the goals, objective, and policies of the city' s general plan. Staff is not convinced that item 'B' can be affirmed due to the questions above. Accordingly staff will recommend denial of the request. If commission feels that it can affirm item 'B' above then the appropriate action is to continue the matter and direct staff to re-notice the application including use of the parking lot at the southwest corner of Fred Waring and Monterey from 5 : 00 p.m. until 9 :00 p.m. G. CEQA REVIEW: The proposal has been reviewed for compliance with CEQA. Staff is recommending denial of the application. Accordingly no further CEQA documentation is necessary. If commission chooses to approve the request then a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact would be prepared for certification. 8 STAFF REPORT PP/CUP 96-5 JUNE 18, 1996 III. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the findings and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. denying Case No. PP/CUP 96-5, Pinnacle Athletic Club. IV. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft resolution B. Legal notice C. Comments from city departments and other agencies D. Plans and exhibits Prepared by Q 2t-Ze" e e Smith Reviewed and Approved by--AI, AI, Phil Drell /tm 9 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A REQUEST BY RICK MURO FOR A PRECISE PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST BY RICK MURO FOR APPROVAL OF A 17 ,857 SQUARE FOOT TWO STORY ATHLETIC CLUB IN THE O.P. ZONE AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF MONTEREY AVENUE AND FRED WARING DRIVE. CASE NO. PP/CUP 96-5 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 18th day of June, 1996 , hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of RICK MURO for Pinnacle Athletic Club for the above project; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 95-105, " in that the Director of Community Development has determined that because the project is not being recommended for approval, no further documentation is necessary; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify denial of said precise plan/conditional use permit: 1 . In order to meet the parking requirement of the ordinance the project includes the joint use of 38 parking spaces on property located south of Fred Waring Drive. Due to the inconvenient location of these spaces members can be expected to first park on the residential streets . 2 . The proposed use which is to serve up to 1, 500 members has the potential to create 900 vehicle movements per weekday on Acacia Drive, while a typical office use of the same size would be expected to generate only 438 vehicle movements . 3 . Traffic circulation in the area is such that this use can be expected to generate traffic which will circulate into the residential area to the north. 4 . The hours of operation of the proposed athletic club, 6 : 00 a.m. until 9 : 00 p.m. Monday through Thursday, are considerably in excess of usual office use hours . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows : 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2 . That Precise Plan/Conditional Use Permit 96-5 is hereby denied for reasons as specified above and in the staff report dated June 18, 1996 . PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 18th day of June, 1996 , by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES : ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PAUL R. BEATY, Chairperson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 CITY OF PALM DESERT INTEROFFICE MEMO To: Steve Smith From: Brent Conley Re: CUP 96-5 Date: 5-20-96 I recently went to the proposed site and I made the following observations. Traffic traveling southbound on Acacia and attempting make a left turn and travel eastbound on Fred Waring will have a difficult time driving around the concrete divider and not impeding traffic on Fred Waring. I am not in favor of alleyways but possibly a one-way street onto Monterey could alleviate this problem. Also, one driveway into the complex located on Acacia towards the middle of the parking lot might allow additional parking and limit access making monitoring of the parking lot easier for employees and patrons. Finally, street parking should not be allowed on Fred Waring due to possible traffic problems that it could cause. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the project. If you have any q tions please feel free to call me. Brent Conley Crime Preventio RIVERSIDE COUNTY oufoeN,A e.r... /� FIRE DEPARTMENT atMeot PROTE AY ,�_ IN COOPERATION WITH THE _ ' 1. '1' COUNTY ;ri CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY ;�: C ' s"` "^`"� "' AND FIRE PROTECTION s :. ri D RIVERSIDE' ... �., T, F MIKE HARRIS —ti FIRE CHIEF :, V RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE ��4 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE COVE FIRE MARSHAL G�� PERRIS,CALIFORNIA 92370 70- 01 HWY 111 v j TELEPHONE(714)657-3183 RANCHO MIRAGE,CA 92270 �j � ° (6J ifl 996cRN°,0c\ To: Steve Smith 0o Ref: PP 96-5 The following conditions apply to the project: 1. With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plan check, Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Codes, appropriate NFPA Standards, CFC, CBC, and/or recognized Fire Protection Standards. 2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible materials are placed on the job site. 3. Provide, or show there exists, a water system capable of providing a potential gallon per minute flow of: a. 3000gpm for commercial buildings. The actual fire flow available from any one hydrant connected to any given water main shall be 1500 gpm for a two hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure. 4. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrant(s) (6" x 4" x 2-1/2" x 2- 1/2"), located not less than 25' nor more than: a) 150' from commercial structure. Distances shall cover all portions of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travel ways. Hydrants installed below 3000' elevation shall be of the "wet barrel" type. 5. Prior to the application for a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original and two copies of the water system plan to the County Fire Department for review. No building permit shall be issued until the water system plan has been approved by the County Fire Chief. Upon approval, the original will be returned. One copy will be sent to the responsible inspecting authority. 1 • printed on recycled paper • • 6. Comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, adopted January 1, 1990, for all occupancies. 7. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front of the building, not less than 25'from the building and within 50' of an approved Super hydrant. This applies to all buildings with 3000 square feet or more building area as measured by the building footprint, including overhangs which are sprinklered as per NFPA 13. The building area of additional floors is added in for a cumulative total square footage. 8. Install a fire alarm (water flow) as required by the Uniform Building Code Sec. 3803 for the fire sprinkler system(s). Install supervisory(tamper) alarms on all supply and control valves for sprinkler systems. 9. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes and shall be clearly marked by painting and/or signs as approved by the Fire Marshal. Painted fire lanes and/or signs shall be stenciled or posted every 30' with the following: a) No Parking Fire Lane- PDMC 15.16.090 10. Install a fire alarm as required by the California Building Code and/or California Fire Code. Minimum requirement is UL central station monitoring of sprinkler systems per NFPA 71 and 72. Alarm plans are required for all UL central station monitored systems and systems where any interior devices are required or used. 11. Install portable fire extinguishes per NFPA 10, but not less than 2A1OBC in rating. Fire extinguishes must not be over 75'walking distance and/or 3000 sq. ft. of floor area. 12. Install a dust collecting system as per the California Building Code, Sec. 910 and California Fire Code, Art. 76, if conducting an operation that produces airborne particles. A carpenter or woodworking shop is considered one of several industrial processes requiring dust collection. 13. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall be not less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is allowed, the roadway shall be 36' wide with parking on both sides, 32'wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn around (55'in industrial developments). Fountains or garden islands placed in the middle of these turn-arounds shall not exceed a 5' radius or 10' diameter. City standards may be more restrictive. 14. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers, guard houses or similar means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the Fire Department. All controlled access devices that are power operated shall have a Knox Box over-ride system capable of opening the 2 gate when activated by a special key located in emergency vehicles. Devices shall be equipped with backup power facilities to operate in the event of power failure. All controlled access devices that are not power operated shall also be approved by the Fire Department. Minimum opening width shall be 16' with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6". 15. Contact the Fire Department for a final inspection prior to occupancy. 16. All new residences/dwelling are required to have illuminated residential addresses meeting both City and Fire Department approval. Shake shingle roofs are no longer permitted in the Cities of Indian Wells, Rancho Mirage or Palm Desert. 17. Commercial buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the City. 18. AU fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be submitted separately for approval prior to construction. Subcontractors should contact the Fire Marshars office for submittal requirements. 19. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws or when building permits are not obtained within twelve months. 20. Other: Up grade existing fire hydrant to current Super Hydrant specifications. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to the Coves Fire Marshal's Office at (619) 346-1870, located at 70-801 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270. (Rancho Mirage Fire Station #1) Sincerely, Mike Hams Chief mQ True ce.,2 by Mike McConnell Coves Fire Marshal 3 The Fitness Mart 74-040 Hwy. 111 Suite B Palm Desert, CA 92260 June 10, 1996 Paul Beaty, Chairperson City Planning Commission 73-510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mr. Beaty, Enclosed please find our"Sales Description" of the proposed Pinnacle Athletic Club. This information will be presented in pamphlet form to all our potential customers. I have enclosed this for your review in hopes you will identify with the many social and economical benefits of this project for our community. If you should have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact me at 568-0373. Re ectfully, �1ur0 The Fitness Mart Hey, Come on, Treat The ?AC yourself... ...to the Benefit and Highest Point of Fun Membership Guide and Fitness!!! Personal Evaluations vSVC e 4G a o �,�••• Aiiriwass ere:, 1 inX 7litte Exercise Classes vO v 6 eitti�V v k ' }0$. 110��`t` Introducing the Most Complete and ,:E_ r.~` Exciting Year-Round Athletic Club. Physical Therapy Conceptualized Using the Trends for the Future k Q and Knowledge of the Past, kII. •f • G c o s R . q .Q.. Creating a Fitness-Based a` `i , . • Recreational and Social Club Private Training in the Heart of the Valley. LOOK INSIDE<O � The LilteSt B' Soot. of Peak Fun FOR MORE REALLY and Fitness Adventures NEAT STUFF!! WhatsP14gONAATTE4NTi®It atThe �C Remember when life was much simpler? You know, rgilikfill nikil-- 11411—, n, back in the old days, when treadmill's still had safety i ,®. , belts and you could strap on that `ol fat jiggler til your lii ��J 1 , teeth practically vibrated outa your head! Ll Lu — t It used to be when ya joined up down at the local N. -- - - figuretorium ya went in messed around a little, until ya •• ••• • • • • • • • • • • • • know,ya thought yuz done some good and then ya went •• •• •;:•••.. home sat and watched Andy keep Mayberry in order. Well ;•:•::•p'•��♦ times have changed and so has the old ways of doin stuff. "'''' It's time you leaped into the 90's, get with and into the :•••4• . ••••• program. •••.•.•. :• ro am. x•.•r• •w•::• And Programs is just what we got. With u Memshi w would ry, vry happy and enthusiasticyor aboutber givingpe you al computerized evaluation of your present fitness status. This is an di invaluable way to find out where you are now - to help e , motivate you to get were you should be, and could be. i We would love to: Though a series of • evaluations • screenings • basic tests t�•M' •••: and • questions find out what you need to do to be in shape. " • • Then we can recommend the things we feel would best g'6'• 4 achieve the results you want by acquainting you with all •�•�•, • • the new fangled equipment. •;•;•; •� • •;•;•' Here's all you need to do: Call 568.0373 and tell our ' `• •' ` ` ' friendly staff that you need an EVAL and make an •.•.• o•• • appointment The entire thing only takes 20-30 minutes! • 6 • II . • • • • ♦ c • • • • • • • • • • • e tett Ittirtifittlitt ..0.00.0.41 O. • ' ' ' • This stuff is all Free so you better take advantage of it •:• ����ttc 04 *.� • because it really could be the difference between life .:.• •: e or death or at least feeling a whole lot better. `o • 72-960 Fred it arin!; Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 ,c" 619. 568. 03 73 • •••• .••••• • • iii i. • � s e� •UIS • •i ••i•i •:: •••• • At the PAC we don't want to take care of just your outerself ••;• ;••; but also your innerself. That's why we invested a whole bunch • ugt[c o ••: of dinero in this really sophisticated computer equipment (and 40� �G we even know how to use it) so we can take your EVAL info. a‘�Q and interpret it in such a way to Ufestyle Program you. It s\� ; gr didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the only way us jock '�i�itta,' heads were ever gonna get everybody in shape was to create a •.• program that was based on your individual lifestyle. No, we i • do not think we're gonna change you - to stop doin this or quit ••% eatin that, but were gonna work within your comfort level to ••.• • achieve amazing results. We'll take your motivation level, your • availability, your schedule,your eating habits, your abilities and •• disabilities and roll them into a program you can live with. There's nothin dumber than wastin time on some glorified fancy •• smancy workout that you do twice! �• So what were sayin here is we have the staff, the means and • the time to make your efforts rewarding. Ufestyle ', Programming means something different here at PAC. ' :' ;' " • We want to use YOUR Lifestyle to clean up your innerds • and outerds, not our lifestyle. Ufestyle Programming is for everyone from the �., most sophisticated exerciser to the most sedate. _ } For prices and info. just call our friendly staff @ 568.0373 and tell them you would like to chat about Ufestyle Programming. WE Life is just a Game, ,,A _ .n .,'' DELIVER . %E Fun is the Name of the Game .,,,r L Get in the Game! ,w//%//G�ri 72-960 Fred 'filling Dr: Palm Desert, CA 92 260 619. 568. 03 73 . ExercIsQ; CIa55QS !ettce et- vs _ none . eet t they LAC way , ee ee ea e Purpose and Philosophy: We want everyone to make use of our exercise classes. Pretty complicated huh! In keeping with this purpose and philosophy we know that time,type and temperament are the keys to providing a useful program. That's why you'll find during the times,based on our membership, we will teach the types of classes best suited for the temperament of our students. That kinda sounded like a political speech. Let's try that again. We're gonna teach a whole lot of different stuff at a whole lot of different times to accommodate a whole lot of different people. Here's what that entails: All workouts are based on a half hour. Unless otherwise designated. Cardio-Step: Aerobic exercise using Step movements. Cardio-Low: Aerobic exercise using Low-Impact movements. Cardio-Hi: Aerobic Exercise using High-Impact movements. Cardio-Mix: Aerobic Exercise using Step,Low and High-Impact. Cardio-TC: Aerobic Exercise using Teachers Choice of movements. Cardio-Circuit: Rotating Cardio and Weight Training Circuit. Yoga: Yoga, 1 hr. :4€ ►'6 `, Legs: Legs, Shape, Define and Strengthen. Arms: Arms, Shape, Define and Strengthen. -t.,: ;, Abs: Abdominals, Shape, Define and Strengthen. . Stretch: Flexibility, Lengthening and Relaxing,45 min. rg 'l ; Senior-vise: Lite movement, toning and stretching for 4 our beloved seniors. 1 hr. tt I I 1 I 441 4 I 44 42 I 441 4444 ALL THESE CLASSES ARE INCLUDED IN TOUR MEMBERSHIP! NEAT HUH! From time to time we're sure to get a wild hair, so keep an eye out for new and innovative classes, guest instructors and changes. Here are more exciting things you'll find on the schedule: Climb Cert: Learn to Climb and Belay. Spinning: Stationary cycling exercise program. See flyer for details See us at our Service Desk for the latest schedule aC Crf PhyscaLTberapy tr A � it t �- 1T From =Thc��Fric .ndl =For 9cron .Folksc*6, ,/, 1G \� ✓ .' ��V. G PAC is proud to have the top Physical Therapy Group " 4' LU�, Forgeron Physical Therapy associated with us. PAC and gjA Forgeron have combined forces to provide the latest in c _ter modern therapy utilizing our state of the art equipment. a "Hoses Therapy for the most difficult health problems, the injured 6 r Red, weekend athlete and job related injuries. 'Ita ie& are Forgeron and PAC will offer Free injury screening to all PAC t8ae same; members and their Families. So, when that Saturday 5 on 5 r` e' �,Aed:B `�7t with your buddies takes it's toll, you can see us to fix your c' a Aria of-. � knee. Whenever or wherever you have a problem, their here a c, c to answer all your questions and concerns. � t 4Y6 6' 6, c: Here's all you need to do: Walk over to the Therapy offices c. �r in the lobby area, tell them you need a consultation and cc cc e theywill be happyto fit you into their schedule. fr a‘C et et*tC Forgeron has also developed a unique program in working co, e cc' with employers to prevent on-the-job related injuries, 4 back strain, and lowering of workers compensation costs. , � vt D � So stop on by and say hey! ` v If you or someone you know needs help with rehabilitation or an injury you can also once again call our friendly staff @ 568.0373 tt t...t t t t ttre...t_t t t This be included in yo membership! • PAC Rule # 1: Have Fun at All Cost! °P al aa , g � ,- a' y Private.lräinlñg a c��. -- Come one! Come all! to the best workout you'll ever . __ want to sweat to. At PAC people literally come from around '"`I . _ - the world to train with our staff. With a combined Y, `-. t' 1 ,418,657.43 years of experience we can refine, redefine `` a,_' F:`' and energize your lackluster workout and eating program. • _ '' <N` `; , At PAC we believe when you expend a huge - amount of time and effort on something. you must net huge results as your return. If you have %,..v4: the means (here's the sales pitch) we highly F:rii • �- . - suggest you make the investment in yourself. viegipix60%.:LWe're sure (or your money back) that you'll be so excited with your results you'll want to pay us 4%....... double! Well maybe not, but you sure will be happy. '......'::`;' N\ Here's the Lowdown on the Fees: ka•;•.❖: 1 - Personal Training Session $50.00 .. .'�� 3 - Personal Training Sessions $45.00 per session �S ... �� .. , ►����" �: 6 - Personal Training Sessions $40.00 per session 12 - Personal Training Sessions $35.00 per session 1/2 Hour Sessions (at 12 rate) $30.00 per session Some restrictions apply. Rates are based on prepayment and may vary based on availability. Call one of our friendly staff@ 568.0373 for your appointment today. Or you could make a big sign, bring it with you on your next visit, hold it over your head and jump up and down until someone notices you! "GET FIT, BE HEALTHY, THINK YOUNG, DIE OLD." PAC Rule # 2: Come for fun, stay to play, make the most of everyday. 1 I k. Men 11)(4 Sit IA.FeeS Fitness Membership • 1 Year Term yet $99.00 Initiation Fee Plus: $23.00 Gym only or$36.00 Unlimited Racquetball ra Family Add-On - Spouse or children 8-23 living at home $49.00 Initiaton fee: per person Plus: $18.00 1st person dues $13.00 2nd person dues y� $ 8.00 3rd person dues $ 8.00 4th or more (no initiation) Or Unlimited Racquetball Plus: $23.00 1st person $18.00 2nd person $13.00 3rd person -+fig $13.00 4th person or more (no initiation) Peak Membership 3 year membership - No Dues (gym only) Individual - $598.00 Family Add-On - Spouse or children 8-23 living at home $398.00 - 1st person $198.00 - 2nd person $198.00 - Each additional person • Includes 3 Lifestyle Programming Sessions • Includes 6 Guests per year Executive Membership 3 Year Membership - No Dues - Racquetball, Climbing Wall Included Individual - $998.00 Family Add-On - Spouse or children 8-23 living at home • $598.00 - 1st person $398.00 - 2nd person $198.00 - Each additional person • Includes 3 Lifestyle Programming Sessions • 12 Guests per year Senior Membership Non-Term Special Hours 12:00 -4:00pm Monday - Saturday $29.00 Initiation Fee OR Plus: $12.00 Monthly Dues (gym only) Plus: $23.00 Racquetball Included • Either Includes 3 Lifestyle Programming Sessions Additional Memberships and Fees _I I • 3 Lifestyle Programming sessions: Just$50.00, saves $70.00. • 1 Climbing Wall Orientation/Certification - $30.00 I . ;. (Mandatory prior to use). • Children 8 -14 years have access to racquetball and 41 climbing wall only. Ft Day Pass • • 1 Day - $ 10.00 • 3 Days - $ 27.00 " • 5 Days - $ 42.00 J J • 10 Days - $ 80.00 v. • 20 Days - $150.00 $ 5.00/Day to include Climbing Wall $ 5.00/Day to include Racquetball —'—I— I One Month Membership (gym only) I I- Per Person -$79.00 I Unlimited: Including - Climbing Wall, Racquetball Per Person -$99.00 71 . Three Months (gym only) _I-I_ Per Person -$159.00 ....1.71. I—I__ Unlimited: Including - Climbing Wall, Racquetball Per Person -$199.00 I_I Six Months (gym only) —I—I— Per Person -$249.00 —I—I— Unlimited: Including - Climbing Wall, Racquetball �I—I- -1 Per Person - $299.00 Climbing Wall Only (non-member) Per Person -$8.00/Day —I—I_ Spinning Classes 7\—I Per Person - $3 00/Class `. 'Ai"-, 10 Series $19.00Atr . . ,- , - -. are:• Air... : • Child Care % ;' `` 1st Child - $2.00/1-1/2 hrs. t r o--'ilk „: 2nd and Additional Children - $1.00/1-1/2 hrs. ;07k- . K 1 st Child Unlimited/1-1/2 hrs. - $20.00/month ..�� Additional Children/1-1/2hrs. - $8.00 - ; _ > - — Note: Fees are per visit/day, parent or guardian j"- � must be present , .ANN ' SWELL OZ1E COOL SZUFF .* _ ^C . . FOR ALL OUR TOO HIP MEMBERS . . �4 Let's see what we've got: Racquetball - Everyone gets a free lesson, racquetball is back, don't get left out. Kids hours, leagues and tournaments ??? See us at the Service Desk for details. Climbing Wall - Fun, Fun, Fun - If you haven't climbed yet, you haven't lived. What a workout. See us at the Front Desk for details. Peaks Play - PAC's version of Child Care with a flair, the only one of it's kind, soft play, games, arcade, parties, your kids won't want to go home. When they do, they'll sleep for two days. Cardio Theater - The most innovative product that's come along ever, entertains you while you do your cardio. Pick up a set of head- phones at the Front Desk and enjoy all your favorite movies, shows and music. Massage - After your workout or before that candle light dinner, treat yourself and your special someone to a healthy, relaxing and satisfying massage. Take a Sauna, Shower and step directly from the Locker Room into our adjoining Massage Rooms. Dial 568.0373 to make your appt. today. Peak Performance ProShop - This is where you pick up the latest fashions for training, playing, and even partying. Racquetball racquets for rent, climbing equip., towels and even forgotten socks. Check it outl Juice Bar - Have a tough workout? Need some energy? Hungry? Thirsty? Java anyone? Yogurt, Smoothies, Protein Drinks, Vitamins, Waters, the Juice Bars got it all. Stop by today for free samples. : t444444444444444 Some of this is included, somes not, guess the best thing to do is ask! Don't be shy we won't bite, maybe lick, never bite. -2-960 Fred II'tiring Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 619. 568. 03 73 This, of course, is just a small sampling of all the stuff we got for you to do and play with and have fun on and workout to and hang out at. So, in order to, like, see, touch, smell, drool on - L this stuff you need to come experience it for yourself no matter who you are, no matter what you are, no matter even what • — ; kinda dog you own, you owe it to yourself to be a part of <t, PAC's Family. We humbly invite you! THANKI FOR TAKING THE TIME TO PERUIE ALL THE FUN AMENITIEJ LIITED...PLEAJE HOP IN FOR A TOUR. You'll Be Glad You Did. When you visit the Pinnacle Athletic Club we want nothing ;°"M • more than for you to feel comfortable and to that end we have designed a unique way for you to tour our humble abode. When • you enter our facility you will be greeted at the reception desk by our friendly staff and given a self-guiding tour map and head phones thatgive a wonderful description of our facility. This - P h'• • , . way you can slip on your headphones... push play, stop, rewind, fast forward just like being at home in front of your VCR. You'll be able to mosey on through listening at your own pace, ask 1- questions of our staff and pick up literature along the way. This, s- as you'll find is just another way of saving we do things differently at PAC. After your tour, our staff will be very happy to help you choose the best possible program for your needs. No pressure, no hype, no gimmicks just the most simple and OvBTi� c4 innovative way for us to make you feel at home from the a► 1 moment you step into our Club. �Q iQ And Thanks For Stopping In! ttsi 7)cnnacA? ATHLETIC CLUB 72-960 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 MEMBERS: o Cathearal City Indian Wells Palm Springs wi ,iie Coachella Indio Rancho Mirage Desert Hot Springs La Quints Riverside County Palm Desert TIANSIT AIENCY A Public Agency RECEIVED June 4, 1996 JUN - 4 1996 Mr. Steve Smith GpNMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OEPART1 ENT Community Development crtY of PALM DESERT City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 922602578 SUBJECT: Case#: PP 96-5 Name/Title: Pinnacle Athletic Club Location: NWC Fred Waring and Monterey Ave. Description: 17,857 sq. ft., two story Athletic Club. Dear Mr. Smith: Thank you for your recent communication regarding the project described above. Sunline Transit Agency already provides service via route 50 and 111, but would like to recommend improvements. • Recommendations are for amenities which include a concrete bus stop pad, the construction of a shelter with night lighting equipped with a bench, kiosk and trash receptacle. If possible, incorporating landscaping into the scheme of any of the items provided above will enhance the site for the transit user and passersby. SunLine currently has a bus stop located at the proposed development site. This bus stop is a . major boarding and alighting destination for students including a large number of handicapped students attending the College of the Desert and as such we recommend that the current bus stop remain at its location upon any type of development to the area. Again, thank you for the opportunity to make a recommendation regarding this development. Please do not hesitate to contact this department for any other additional information. Sin erely' , Leslie Grosjean Transportation Analyst 32-SO5 Harry Oliver Trail, Thousand Palms, California 92276 Phone 619-343-3456 Fax 619-343-3845 10 ft. 6 ft. /./If 8 inches thick -CEMENT PAD- CEMENT PAD Overall Dimensions Ten (10) feet by six (6) ft Eight (8) inches thick CEMENT PAD will be concrete, reinforced with steel framing. The finished structure will be free of any significant internal air bubbles/jagged edges. Cement pad will have a semi-smooth finish and will weight approximately 1000 pounds. SunLine Transit Agency will be responsible for the maintenance of the cement pad, benches, trash receptacles, and signs. Trash removal will be provided on a daily basis. Any damaged or graffiti covered cement pads, benches, trash receptacles, or signs will be cleaned up, replaced or repaired within a 72 hour period. SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY 32-505 Harry Oliver Trail Thousand Palms, CA 92276-9988 RECEIVED JUN 11 1996 Rex E. McDaniel DEPARTUD72-915 Gloriana Drive COU)AU T fl � Palm Desert, CA 92260 (619) 346-0351 n Chairman, Planning Commission City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Sir: This letter concerns the proposed health club as outlined in your Case No. 96-5. I write as the owner occupant of a single family residence on the southwest corner of Acacia Drive and Gloriana Drive. This is directly across Acacia Drive from the proposed club site. If the project is approved, the "Exit" driveway of the proposed parking lot will be only the width of Acacia Drive away from the driveway which provides access to my back yard. This does not seem to me to be a proper and reasonable use of land zoned for office-professional operations. The health club has more in commom with an amusement arcade than with a real-estate office, an accounting service or even a physical therapy facility. I do not know what criterion is used to define an "O-P" activity, but a business which operates from 6am to 9pm seven days a week and caters to a very high volume of drop-in clients does not seem to qualify. The proposed 119 parking spaces do not appear to be adequate--particularly when the "peaks and valleys" aspect of the business are considered. Any reasonable assessment of of the situation would conclude that on-street parking in the adjacent residential area will be inevitable. The accompanying noise , litter , congestion and blocked driveways should not be imposed on the area residents. The "Exit" driveway of the proposed parking lot dumps traffic onto Acacia Drive, a two-lane residential street. This traffic can turn south and enter Fred Waring Drive when a break in the traffic permits or turn north and drive through the residential area north and west of the proposed site. This would create an objectionable leved of pass-through traffic on the residential streets. This same situation confronted this committee in July 1987. At that time the proposal to construct the office buildings which now occupy the north side of Fred Waring Drive from Acacia Drive to Adonis Drive was under consideration. (Case No. C/Z 87-3 and 1 PP 87-4 - RAY-AL ENTERPRISE) The City Council resolved the problem by erecting a traffic sign requiring all vehicles entering Acacia Drive from the RAY-AL office complex to turn toward Fred Waring Drive. On that basis the project was approved. The sign is still in place and is still reasonably effective in steering traffic away from the residential area. The curent situation is more serious in that it involves much more traffic and early morning hours when children are walking to school (or school bus) on narrow streets with no sidewalks. In summary: The proposed activity does not provide sufficient on-site parking. Even if adequate parking could be provided, The operation would generate an unacceptable level of traffic. Even if the level of traffic would be acceptable during a normal 9 -5 business day and 5-day week , it would not be appropriate during early morning and late evening hours seven days a week. Even if this extended operating schedule would be tolerable in a commercial enviornment, it would not be appropriate in an 0-P zone located in such close proximity to an R-1 neighborhood. I would appreciate your consideration of these concerns. 1));4/1 X E. MC DANIE 2 RECEIVED 43-827 Acacia Dr. JUN 11 1996 Palm Desert, CA 92260 June, 10, 1996 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CRY OFPALMDESERT ref: Legal Notice Case No. PP 96-5 Mr. Stephen Smith, Planning Manager City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 Dear Mr. Smith; This note is in reference to the Rick Muro two story athletic club proposed for the vacant NW corner of Fred Waring Drive and Monterey Ave. 1 . Traffic and Parking (a) Acacia Drive is a VERY well travelled street by motorists attempting to avoid the lights at Monterey and Fred Waring as well as Parkview and Monterey. Fed EX, UPS and Sparkletts trucks are seen many times a day. Further a schoolbus with young and also handicapped children stops at the Acacia Dr. entrance to the Desert Pointe apartment building. There have been collisions with injuries at the intersection of Acacia Dr. and Fred Waring. Autos entering the parking lot to the 73-880 Fred Waring professional building, stop to left turn and the cars behind them have to react quickly to hopefully avoid a collision. The plans call for another busy driveway for the project on the East side of Acacia. The increase in traffic will generate and increase accidents. (b) During the tourist season, people attending the College of the Desert Street Fair on Saturdays and Sundays park their cars, motorhomes, vans etc. on Acacia, Gloriana, and Arboleda. January, February, and March are the months with the greatest number of vehicles. This period will generate the highest volume of members using the fitness center. Mr. Muro stated to me that he is projecting a membership of 1200. Most vehicles carry one person. The neighborhood simply can' t handle the extra traffic and parking problems. ( c) The fitness center is scheduled to be open from 6AM to 9PM. The hours of 3PM to 9PM generate the most traffic down Acacia Dr. (d) Only 81 spaces for parking are allocated. 119 spaces are required. Where are the other 38 spaces going to be?? On the street??? (e) The 6AM to 9PM business hours of the fitness mart are NOT suitable for a residential area. The businesses fulfilling the 0/P zoning are usually open from 8AM or 9AM to 6PM. The traffic ends and the street quiets down. The wheelchair-bound student seen leaving the school bus is frequently seen with her 2 dogs , travelling Acacia Drive and the neighborhood. She and others who do so would definitely NOT be safe with the increased traffic. 2. LIGHTING High pressure sodium lights are to be installed. Being a Black-Sky advocate (I 'm on the board of the Astronomical Society of the Desert - a College sanctioned organization) I find the the thought of more pink light appalling! The Desert Pointe apartments has ruined my view of the East sky. The lights reflecting off the building walls and mountain behind Desert Crossing Shopping Center have innundated my west sky. How many hours will the lights remain on after 9PM? How high will they be? 3. Stability Mr. Muro has moved his fitness center twice in the past several years. He moved from a location on El Paseo to a location east of Portola in the Ruth Chris' Steak house building. After the project is built will he move again? Most likely. We will then have another vacant building in the area. The shopping centers are filled with vacancies. Palm Desert could become a ghost city. 4. Architecture Many of the newly completed 0/P buildings on Fred Waring and Monterey are of a .low-key South-West style. They blend in along the ' Scenic Corridor' of Fred Waring Dr. The Mediterranean style buildings such as the Darr Eye Clinic and the 73-880 Fred Waring Dr. building are in good taste and relatively inconspicuous. Mr. Muro ' s two story edifice definitely would not be , and in fact, an attention getter. 5. View On behalf of the tenants of the Desert Pointe apartments whose units overlook the vacant lot that the proposed fitness center is to be located, its height would preclude any southern view from these sites. When the current tenants move out, these apartments would be extremely difficult to fill. (see photo 21a) 6. Financing I have no idea of the cost of building the project or what financing has been arranged. However, I have lived in the desert _ since 1977 - a period of 19i years, and have seen many housing/ condominium go up for auction because the financing went dry. Many of the shopping centers built in the 70' s, 80' s and 90' s are empty or have a high vacansy rate. No one can predict what will happen here, but this is too important a corner to have an empty, vacant building. The homeowners will have again, another unused, empty structure to view. 7. Zoning This area has been zoner Residential with a limited Office/ Professional zoning since about 1956 or 40 years. The limited use of space dedicated to Office/Professional has been in keeping with this centrally located quiet neighborhood. I am VERY opposed to a variance in the zoning for a business that will disrupt the quiet nature of this neighborhood. There are other locations nearby ie. large shopping centers- which already have large parking areas and very large 2-story buildings that are empty. These locations are certainly more suitable for a fitness center. Sincerely, ,��// n�Jtea enc: 11 photos Diana La Mai • INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Department of Community Development/Planning Attention: Steve Smith FROM: Richard J. Folkers, Asst. City Manager/Public Works Director SUBJECT: PRECISE PLAN 96-05; RICK MORO DATE: June 10, 1996 The following should be considered conditions of approval for the above-referenced project: ( 1 ) Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26 .49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading permit. ( 2 ) Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos . 79-17 and 79-55 , shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading permit. ( 3 ) Full public improvements, as required by Section 26 . 44 and 26 . 40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards . Subject improvements shall include, but not be limited to, the installation of two drive approaches on Acacia Drive with the most southerly drive being restricted to right turn ingress only, installation of a minimum six foot wide sidewalk on Acacia Drive and eight foot wide sidewalk on Fred Waring Drive and Monterey Avenue, widening of both Monterey Avenue ( 12 feet) and Fred Waring Drive ( 7 feet) including traffic signal and drainage system modifications as may be necessary all to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works . ( 4 ) Applicant shall dedicate sufficient right-of-way to provide for the widening of Monterey Avenue and Fred Waring Drive. (5 ) Offsite improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works and a surety posted to guarantee the installation of all required offsite improvements prior to issuance of a grading permit. "As-built" plans shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of Public Works prior to the acceptance of the improvements by the City. (6) All public it ovements, private drivew and parking lot areas shall be inspected by the engineering department and a standard inspection fee paid prior to the issuance of a grading permit. (7 ) Landscaping maintenance on Acacia Drive, Monterey Avenue and the responsibility of the property shall be Y Fred Waring DriveP owner. ( 8) As required under Section 12 . 16 and 26 .44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, all existing utilities shall be placed underground per each respective utility district ' s recommendation. If determined to be unfeasible, the applicant ce table to the City form acceptable shall submit to the City, in a p attorney, surety in an amount equal to the estimated construction costs for the subject undergrounding. ( 9 ) In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 27, complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. shall bepreceded bythe ( 10 ) Any and all offsite improvements approval of plans by the Director of Public Works and the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works . ( 11 ) Building pad elevations of the proposed structure are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. ( 12 ) A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of a grading permit. ( 13 ) Grading permit issuance shall be subject to a waiver of parcel map for parcel consolidation/lot line adjustment first being approved and recorded. ( 14 ) Prior to the issuance of building permits , applicant shall pay Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) at the rate of $ 5 , 517 . 60 per 1000 sq. ft. of building area ( Indoor Recreational Facility Land Use) . RICHARDKERS, P.E. 9 (j e \PP96-05.cnd) • • ..16 • 'r. © o4 (pap� Desert . ...... •01, r... 75310 FRED WARINO DRIVE,PALN DESERT,CALIFORNIA 02260 TELEPHONE(619)348.0811 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOT�C CASE NO. PP -5 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by RICK MURO for approval of a precise plan of design for a 17,857 gross square foot, two story athletic club on the vacant property at the northwest corner of Monterey Avenue and Fred Waring Drive, also known as APN 640-071- 001, 008 and 009. I P�R.-T S.P. , . , .I.- I r U -0110111 ill '.R.-22 aL E-■ AHD __ __, i3SJ ,, SUBJECT PROPERTY ., �►--- •+ o A I.N 1 !I ' l•AI.•. ell AL MCYWU ?MOM 1,/ a ■■Cill/ N Z • FILED WALaiBiii�i DRIVE rR'� r negm_4;4;;; _ ■■■■[y1I III I■■■■IG DI■ 0;41 11 ,.Loma .� s I•f■ IHhII:3 J1*/1l0I■ III Ell�L��s l r 1 t;i4uirirpolii �rI , r ILii�NJ • ILO to '. Ilia"- I-A-) i I i 1 >^� 1t a �I ���/ , , __ . ' L _ 11 • IL; ,�fp i �� ii _ ;1 . • l ii■ a ;ls� a 1 I a ■■�Y■i=1 ► 1 f 1 . I ai. f p ..4c.e seam v - 1 I '1 J4 SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 18, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the planning commission (or city council) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post PHILIP DRELL, Secretary RECEIVED JUN 1 8 1996 commut,,TypimapteirDEpARnaT _ __ -: _ ______IZI_f de--•(2"e-S-' t--)____.____ . ----1. CITY OF Mil DESERT _7 3 -P70,0 -)Lc_-_04- ___ _ f_ __ _ / ,- 1K:- -- - l. )1,,c,t. -2.ta-if2-4d,1.&_. 7-4 -,..-z„--x_ Aee,,4_,•__,.. )--)A-0-.4,--,- _ce..... -., , .._„-fr,..,_ ,,t._ (_---_ _____ , _ 7 3 / 57E5 -7'71_,,,,-( _ L?___)-et-e-r--7., (__9_1 )/L-e- l-c-: -- C_-c-k,c_c , ,_74_-(-44-t, i-er__. fi 7.0___7.C•.7.-.J- _ _—/-=--/-- _- ___e-e..e.,&__,) ___ ,,,c_<___,) __ _ W-_, --- -C- , ---4--it _Iet e_e,..---C-______ _______, ':---c_-_,_ _ _----F2L,e—o-t , -7-.e____;__ad Ei, __,,,L , 4 4-2.4,,,<,__,._c_. • — i---e--07-4--'-te--J2 _, • - -- _e,e-,'(--, __ ,-e)--_4__- _- _ __ - A---e- - .2"-- 171,„-__ ..---- . ---r--e--- 4__-6.-- —"ef--.-- _ ------ e--e —_ - __-72-,:zcz_e_ LL)...eLi...Ls--g----e_-( ___.1k ____ _-&'-- .13- ' -I 1 ---) ___ ek---1 __2-7---_t__---e..—___ ., _1-.---e.L---i2-6-Isi-- --- ._zLc_ee. , --r_*-z___-) • . /7 _ 7 _,C,--z------ --. _ 0---/-e-7 . ,,--- ,_,_,-,,__ L-L-- f.,,.. .,..,. - - •- ... ...) T-L--'f---. 1. _ ,,, _---,-' _ / 2-:-: • 7-- • 14-- ---/c . itcr 4-e72 ;yr7-rfla- 43-866 Adonis Dr. and 43-824 Adonis Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 RECEIVED Mr. Stephen Smith, Planning Manager City of Palm Desert JUN 18 1996 73-150 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT Dear Mr. Smith; I am the owner of the property at 43-866 Adonis Dr. and 43-824 Adonis Dr. I wish to voice my opposition to the proposed athletic club at the N.W. corner of Monterey Ave. and Fred Waring Dr. We have a nice family neighborhood , and the largest percentage of the homes are owner occupied. We do not need to have another "Fairway Drive" in Palm Desert. Several years ago when the office project that fronts Fred Waring Dr. , between Acacia Dr. and Adonis Dr. came up for review, our neighborhood accepted the project with the provision that traffic from the businesses not be permitted to access the offices from our neighborhood, or leave through the neighborhood. Two signs were posted - but there is ZERO enforcement or control. There are several large empty buildings that may be available, and there are vacant lots close by in more appropriate area -ie. between the Baptist church and Quail Place; across from City Hall; across from the McCallum Theater; and on Monterey Ave. east of the Town Center. Lets put what we already have built, to use. We do NOT want more people, cars or lights in our neighborhoods I feel we are entitled to preserve our quality of life in the neighborhood. Sincerely, • Sharon Howard SH/dlr • • k 6 i,k)2c.titi (c - I'? - (" 6 j r�tc:trvtt� �(aLILcrn ol{ud9ins JUN 18 1996 72-799 cAtoLla COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ��rr, 1�tsasf, eaLi f osnia 92260 CITY OF PALM DESERT RECEIVED Co/ik /1G '96 JUN 18 PP1 5 07 /'� CITY CLER;c'S -77 3— 5iv CAL C / e S ft_c, O-- t cLt Cu () JUN1 8 1996 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DE e4-1°1)/V stA-1-:Cr&• ve/6/17X i&E4.2,764-1-4-) -E 6y6(;7A. 122- J- 4-Gee- g/e' ette_g- 16A23Lp- 41!"--y. )b.,ef_Acc(s LI,. 1 - ,x,o--yta c . ./ty,ett.c. eL(A.)-€A-> • 10A-gly ea-Ax/LeA cm4s-xtt." (P.Ludit daczts_,,t1_, 4ttete e-A,C 0.J-cfz-rsae orbee_-fid, ;TZ rl -L-- -T; ri I rN RECEIVED JUN 18 1996 Re 1 f'P / Cop - COMMUNTTY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • CITY OF PALM DESERT LA.) kYL s17) vN-C) e/t? • c) IC N July 30, 1996 William & Gayleen Percival 32 PSIL LJ 43-795 Acacia Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 .. City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear City Council Members: We do not approve of the Council's decision to build a two story athletic club on the vacant property at the northwest corner of Monterey Avenue and Fred Waring Drive. Our main concern is the traffic this facility will cause on Acacia Drive between the hours of 6: 00 A.M. and 10: 00 P.M. every day of the week. We agree with the City Council that a beautiful building built on this now vacant corner would be a big improvement, but we do not want a Sports Center that would generate traffic at all hours of the morning and night in addition to regular business day hours. We would like to see an office building complex or some business that maintains regular business hours, and additional traffic that is re stricted cted to regular business hours. Not only will this athletic club generate unwanted traffic between that the youngpeople who • 0 A.M. and 10 : 00 P.M. we anticipate p P 6 . 0 use this facility will be driving past our property going at high rates of speed. We will not appreciate the "noise" this facility athletic club will will cause. This proposeddeprive us of the peace and quiet and safety we now enjoy in our neighborhood. We are concerned that this business will devalue our property. Our neighborhood now appeals to family oriented people who like the location and the serenity. The proposed wall which will supposedly solve the traffic problem generated by the proposed athletic club will be unsightly and restrict neighborhood travel to Fred Waring. Any business complex built at the corner of Monterey Avenue and Fred Waring that would not disrupt the status quo of the neighborhood would be a much better decision. Sincerely, Mf6-1011r) Gay een Percival and William Percival