Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0907 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - SEPTEMBER 7, 1993 7 :00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE WSW I . CALL TO ORDER Chairman Spiegel called the meeting to order at 7 : 00 p.m. and congratulated Commissioner Beaty on his 25th anniversary. II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Beaty led in the pledge of allegiance. III . ROLL CALL Members Present: Bob Spiegel, Chairman Paul Beaty Diane Cox Sabby Jonathan Carol Whitlock Members Absent: None Staff Present: Ray Diaz Gregg Holtz Marshall Rudolph Tonya Monroe Paul Shillcock IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the August 17, 1993 meeting minutes . Action: Moved by Commissioner Cox, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, approving the August 17, 1993 minutes as submitted. Carried 5-0 . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION: Mr. Diaz summarized pertinent August 26, 1993 city council action. VI . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PP 92-5 - TED LENNON, Applicant Request for approval of a first, one year time extension for a 479,000 square foot retail complex on 50 acres on the west side of Highway 111, south of Fred Waring Drive. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 1993 B. Case No. 382 C (County Plot Plan NO. 12840) - J. DONALD OLSON/THE FOX COMPANY, Applicant Request for approval of a first, one year time extension for construction of a maintenance facility for Avondale Golf Club on the northeast corner of Avondale Country Club adjacent to Frank Sinatra Drive. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adopting the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . VII . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case No. GPA 93-3 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for recommendation of approval to city council for a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and an amendment to the General Plan Land a.n Use and Circulation Elements . Mr. Diaz stated that staff would like the item continued to September 21, 1993 to allow staff more time. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Cox, continuing GPA 93-3 to September 21, 1993 by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . B. Case No. CUP 93-3 Section 4 - RONALD ODEKIRK, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to construct and operate a 20 acre multi-use, pay for play, recreation facility to be located on 20 acres of City of Palm Desert owned land zoned R- 1-M located on the southeast corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue. Mr. Diaz noted that the commission with a 4-1 vote approved a similar facility on Hovley Lane on 20 acres owned by the 2 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 1993 vow city. The matter was called up by city council and at that meeting council voted to deny the conditional use permit at that location and instructed staff to look into section 4 as a possible location for this facility. The matter before the commission was the hearing on the section 4 location. He said the case number was the same with the addition of the section 4 specification. He explained that the proposed location for the facility was on the southeast corner of Portola Avenue and Frank Sinatra Drive. Section 4 was the area bounded by Frank Sinatra to the north, Country Club Drive to the south, Cook Street to the east, and Portola Avenue to the west. On the north and south of the proposed project the property was zoned PR-5; to the east portions were zoned R-1-M and PR-5 and to the west the property was zoned PC (2 ) community commercial which allowed community shopping centers . Mr. Diaz stated that the R-1-M zone was a mobile home/manufactured housing zone established by the city back in the early 1980 's . The purpose of that zone was to allow manufactured housing so that it could be precluded from the R-1 zone; since that time that "loop hole" had been closed, but the R-1-M zone remained. It allowed residential development up to seven units per acre and public parks and recreational facilities with a conditional use permit. He noted that there was a letter submitted that claimed a change of zone should be required for this particular case. The present ordinance did not require a change of zone. The project was similar to that approved on Hovley. He stated the applicant could give more detail on the project, but it would include three softball fields, soccer fields, volleyball facilities, basketball facilities, and parking. He noted that in the area to the south a future conference center and golf course site was identified. There was a preliminary land use plan for the commission that was done by PBR for C.T. Golf, Inc. , that was part of the group the city had been negotiating with to plan all of section 4 . The area for the sports park was called out on their plan, but placed a little differently on the latest plan. He said that the final location could be recommended by commission. He indicated that the proposal fit in with the overall plan for the area: 36 holes of golf, club house, hotel, commercial facilities and some residential facilities that would be timeshare units, and a medical office on Country Club Drive on two 5 acre parcels abutting the property which was already zoned office professional on the northeast corner of Country Club and Portola. He stated that before commission was the land use issue, although the commission might be curious about the final leasing and economic issues . The question the commission had to ask itself was if the city were to 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 1993 build this, own and operate it and not lease it to anyone, ark was this a good location and what would be the conditions of approval . He noted that conditions of approval were attached to the resolution recommending to city council approval . The only differences were the hours of operation--staff recommended that the closing hour of operation be 11 : 00 p.m. because there were no residents around this particular development. The applicant could address that issue. He also noted that there was a condition of approval for public works department (#16) that read that the proposed site access and circulation plan would be approved by the director of public works prior to commencement of construction or issuance of a grading permit. He said that the reason this condition was worded this way was that staff did not receive the plan until late Friday and public works department could not be expected to give comments that quickly. This condition assured that this issue would be addressed. With regard to the fire department conditions, there was a similar condition, #20, that the fire department would review the plan dated September 3, 1993 to assure that no new conditions were required and if they should be required, the applicant would implement said requirements . He felt that it was important for the fire department to address the new plan. Those conditions assured that any questions with regard to circulation and ingress/egress off the site for the public or ad+ emergency vehicles would be taken care of. Staff noted that the resolution recommended to city council approval rather than taking final action. Normally the planning commission had final action on a conditional use permit, however, in this case because of the directive given, staff felt it would ultimately end up at the council level regardless of what was decided and secondly, because of that the applicant should have the issue decided as rapidly as possible. The council ' s direction seemed to be asking commission to give them direction and recommendation rather than taking final action. He recommended that the commission adopt the resolution recommending to the city council approval of the conditional use permit, subject to the conditions identified in the resolution. Commissioner Whitlock noted that commission was looking at a land use map and a conceptual proposal from the applicant. She asked if they were not to recommend a site, but only a conditional use permit. Mr. Diaz said that what was before them was the plan for the sports complex. If the commission felt that the layout and plan was fine, but maybe it should be located somewhere else, the commission had the right to give the council their recommendation. Commissioner Cox 4 No# MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 1993 asked for clarification on page 5 under public works conditions; Mr. Holtz said that the conditions were from the previous report and would be corrected to indicate the correct landscaping district and correct street. Mr. Diaz said that was the planning departments fault, the conditions were taken from the previous location. Chairman Spiegel noted that on the second page of the staff report the hours of operation were to be 5 :00 p.m. to 11: 00 p.m. on weekdays and 8: 00 a.m. to 11 : 00 p.m. on weekends and holidays, but under the conditions of approval on page 3 of the resolution, #9 said the hours of operation from Sunday through Thursday would be from 9 : 00 a.m. through 11 : 00 p.m. and the site would be cleared of customers by 11 : 30 p.m. and Friday and Saturday the hours would be from 8: 00 a.m. to 11 : 00 p.m. with the site cleared of customers by 11 : 30 p.m. He noted that the hours were different. Mr. Diaz thought the applicant was requesting the longer hours and stated that the applicant could indicate which hours he preferred; he explained it was staff ' s intent to give the applicant what he was requesting. It was noted by Commissioner Whitlock that one of the conditions placed on the project when it was located on Hovley was the closure at 10: 00 p.m. and that might have been what created the confusion trying to get it back to the original request of the 11 : 00 p.m. closure. Chairman Spiegel """ stated that he was under the impression that the only place alcoholic beverages would be served were in the restaurant/ pavilion area and now they could be consumed in any location in the park other than in the field. Mr. Diaz said that those conditions were carried forth from the approval on Hovley Lane beginning with condition #13, "Alcoholic beverages shall be served and consumed at specific locations on the premises as approved by the sheriff ' s department. " He noted that there had been discussion on the Hovley project that the consumption of alcoholic beverages should be limited to the restaurant area, but then there was concern that the people might take the beverages and go elsewhere. The condition placed at that time was that the police department would have to approve the plan and location of the consumption of alcoholic beverages . That also went along with condition #14 that no outside beverages be permitted on the premises and condition #15 on the monitoring program, also to be approved by the police department. Chairman Spiegel noted that at the regular council meeting of July 8 on page 21 of their minutes the second to the last paragraph stated that, "With regard to alcoholic beverages, Mr. Odekirk stated that no beer would be allowed on the field or in the dug out and players would not be allowed to drink before the game. In addition, the beer taps would be shut off if there 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 1993 were any minors in the facility. " Mr. Diaz felt Mr. Odekirk �► should address that issue and if he did not have a problem, that could be placed as a condition. Chairman Spiegel noted another item brought up on page 5 was that no rock concerts were planned for the facility. Mr. Diaz indicated that Mr. Odekirk could address that also. Commissioner Whitlock asked Mr. Diaz to explain the 3-2 council vote so that she could have an understanding; she was asking this because they were led to believe that the Hovley site was the only location where this facility could be located and then it was brought back to them asking for a recommendation for section 4 , but on a 3-2 vote. She asked what the objection was of the two council people to not have it in section 4 . Mr. Diaz stated that he believed that the specific reasons for the two no votes for section 4 was that there was opposition to locating this facility on section 4 because it might not be compatible with the section 4 plan and that no matter what was done in the designing, it could not be made compatible. If a particular project was opposed in a particular location, if the commission did not believe that this project could be located there regardless of what conditions or design could go in there, then the commission should vote no. That might have been the sentiment of the two members of the council who voted against section 4 . Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was council concern about the compatibility of this MW project with the rest of section 4; Mr. Diaz replied that it may have been a concern. Chairman Spiegel read the July 8 council minutes, "Mayor Benson stated that she felt the concept was good, however her main concern was the $2 . 8 million and she felt this was not something the city should do in these economic times, whether the project was on Hovley or in section 4 . " He said that it also stated that "Councilman Kelly disagreed with placing the project in section 4 . He said there had been much discussion over the last five years about building a city owned golf course in that area with the conference center, small hotel and residential area around the golf course. He said he did not think the council should determine that the project should go either on Hovley or in section 4 and nowhere else because they had no yet investigated other areas . He said there was a lot of vacant land in the north sphere and felt that something could be done to sink the ballfields down to take care of the wind problems . " Chairman Spiegel felt those were the two reasons for the no votes per those minutes . Chairman Spiegel opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. 6 „'u► MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 1993 MR. RICHARD ODEKIRK, 43-670 Lisbon Way in Palm Desert, asked Mr. Shillcock to speak. Mr. Paul Shillcock said that he had a brief introduction. He indicated the project had not conceptually changed, although there had been some minor changes dictated by the location. The design had not changed; the philosophy of creating a tourist attraction as well as providing recreational needs of the Coachella Valley stayed the same. What was different and created a problem when the commission reviewed the project the last time was that they were no longer 700 or 800 feet away from residential dwellings. He noted that commission spent a lot of time and heard a lot of testimony that expressed concern about the impact of a project like this on residential structures . Based on their calculations, Mr. Shillcock stated that the nearest existing residential structure right now was 2500 feet away. He felt that eliminated a major concern. All mitigation measures discussed on the other site, barring any engineering problems, would be incorporated into this program at the new site. He said this was basically the same project with slightly different parameters and different impacts than it had before. He said that the people who spoke in favor and against the project all felt it was a very important project for the community, but the location was inappropriate. ppropriate. He felt this location was more appropriate. He said that Mr. Odekirk would give a brief presentation for anyone in the audience who was not familiar with the proposal . MR. RICHARD ODEKIRK said that this was his third time before the commission. He stated that they were proposing a 20 acre sports complex that would be unmatched in quality and uniqueness in the world today. He said did not bring supporters with him, but the commission had heard from many of them previously. He noted that they received overwhelming support from the community and from anyone who had been involved in the project. From E1 Paseo Merchants, the Town Center Mall, to hotels and motels, restaurants, churches, school representatives, and the youth leagues for baseball, basketball, football, and soccer. Almost every faction of the community at one time sent a representative to speak to the commission or city council . They had over 40 speakers between those two meetings who spoke in favor of the project. The community also wrote letters and wanted his project. He said he also received enthusiastic, unanimous support from the Chamber of Commerce, the Economic Development Committee, the Parks r.. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 1993 and Recreation Committee, and the promotion committees . Wo The planning commission approved it on Hovley and he was back because the city council sent him there and he was directed by them to work with the golf course development people to find a location in section 4 that everyone could live with. They had done that; they were taking steps to assure that they would be easy to live with for all neighbors . He said they were not using the typical ballpark driving range lighting--their lighting was of the most modern technology: hooded, directional and a spotlight effect and ten feet off the field a newspaper could not be read. The stadium effects with their outfield walls were 20-25 feet tall wooden structure facades that would hold in sound, which would have a big effect on reducing the noise. He said they were doing extensive berming and landscaping; he felt it would be the prettiest landscaped development in recreation today and the berms would help solve some of the concerns heard in the past. As far as the beer issue, he said the commission approved that they had to comply with the sheriff ' s department and they still intended to do that. Regarding rock concerts or any special events, they had no rock concerts planned and never did at Hovley, but any special event which they intend to have had to be approved by the city. The ..r present plan was approximately 2500 feet from any existing housing, which included Palm Desert Greens and they were over one mile away from Desert Falls and the Marriott. The Marriott was not opposing them and said many times that they were glad to have them. Their sound tests had proven that a ball leaving a bat could not be heard over 500 feet away and only up to 500 feet if the person was down-wind. He said the commission approved this facility at Hovley with Portola Country Club only 600 feet away and was satisfied that they were mitigating the noise and other concerns . In terms of the 3-2 council vote, he said there was some concern by Councilmember Kelly who didn't want the project near his golf courses, but they had three councilmen that felt just as adamant that they do belong where they are. He said he wanted to be as up front with the commission as with the council and stated that they were not interested in building this facility anywhere in the north sphere--it was too windy, too far from what they were trying to accomplish and they would not do that. He said he appreciated the support shown by the commission and was in the middle of this situation and 8 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 1993 would work with the commission and answer their questions . Commissioner Whitlock asked if the fields were still going to be sunken; Mr. Odekirk said that at this time that was not their plan. He said it was more expensive to them and in this location that was not their plan. Commissioner Whitlock asked if the barrier provided enough of a barrier for the wind; Mr. Odekirk replied yes, the barriers in addition to the berms which they would install . Commissioner Whitlock noted that Mr. Odekirk indicated he was working with the golf course/section 4 planner; she asked if the layout presented to commission was Mr. Odekirk' s and the golf course planner' s choice. Mr. Odekirk replied no, that it was not his exact choice; they came to them and told them what would work for them. He wanted to be up in the northwest area as they were directed; the proposal brought to Mr. Diaz had some buffer between them and Frank Sinatra--that was where their parking was located and they were down several hundred feet south of the current location, but to cooperate with the golf course people they agreed with the current proposal . Commissioner Whitlock stated that the commission had to make a recommendation to the city council about the location, they were to look at a conditional use permit and asked for clarification on the situation between the plan they were given and the one recommended by the applicant. Mr. Shillcock said that this was a dynamic situation. The instructions given to staff by city council was to find a location near the intersection of Frank Sinatra and Portola on the northwest corner where they could make the facility work in conjunction with the other proposed development in section 4 . They didn't want to create a problem for any other development that might take place there. The land use/ section 4 map was a conceptual design that had been presented to city council as a conceptual item at a study session. What it showed was that there was a way to make the two projects work together through buffering and through creative land use design and the land use planners at that time said that they could make this work. Staff met with the planners after the city council had been provided with the information in order to "fine tune" it. At that meeting what was asked of the developer was that they give the planners the minimum of what they needed--total acreage, any minimum widths which were dictated by the ballfields themselves, so that they could work with it. An architect was chosen to design the golf courses and so they were looking at the design more technically than before. Those requirements were given to the land use planners and they worked with them to come up aw 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 1993 with the second plan. The developer said they wanted to do arr the project and needed approximately 20 acres, 750 feet wide at some point to locate the ballfields and they would do the rest. The plan before the commission was the refinement of the first plan that was done by the land use planners in conjunction with the golf course architect and it was indicated that this was a layout they could live with. Commissioner Jonathan felt this proposal was confused and disjointed from the beginning and had the cart before the horse; commission was told one thing and the council did another thing; commission was on the outside regarding financial arrangements; putting it in the north area brought up other problems and he looked at this project and felt the only way to move forward with it was either to send it to council without comment or have a joint study session. He felt there were too many variables and he felt totally unqualified to get into them. He said the applicant was giving testimony and the first person to speak was a member of city staff; he was not comfortable with that and did not understand that. He noted the applicant had gone through a lot--the project was fine and wonderful for the city and they needed to make it happen, but the location seemed to be a constant "basketball" . He said that he did not want to cause the applicant further delay and under discussion the low commission could discuss alternatives, but to just "jam" it forward would also be a mistake because they would be hearing about other problems that were valid. Commissioner Whitlock agreed that this was a marvelous project, but echoed comments made by Commissioner Jonathan and wanted to hear public testimony and between all of them they could sort this out. She did not want the applicant to feel that there was opposition to the ballfields because she approved them on Hovley and liked the proposal, but a place had to be found that would be agreeable to everyone. Seeing the land use map and the proposed project did not make her comfortable yet--she suggested proceeding with the public hearing to get the comments from the other people in attendance. Mr. Odekirk asked if Commissioner Whitlock was telling him that no matter what happened tonight she was not comfortable going forward. Commissioner Jonathan clarified that this item was going to council anyway so one option for avoiding a delay was to send the project to council without comment from the commission. 10 wo MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 1993 He felt they might be letting the council down because he felt they valued the different perspective the commission shed on proposed projects; on the other hand, if the commission had a problem with the location which might not mean they were against the project but were not comfortable with it yet, could cause a delay, but there were other options . Mr. Odekirk stated that he did not want to leave the meeting with the commission telling him that they didn't want to address the deal; he needed the planning commission's support to make the project go forward and despite the fact that the council did not do what he wanted last time, he needed planning commission's support to go forward. He stated he also wanted to go through with the public hearing and the commission to review the testimony and when it was done, if the commission was not comfortable, there was nothing he could do about it. Commissioner Jonathan noted that what the applicant wanted might not be what was going to happen; ultimately the applicant' s choice might be to send the matter forward to council or get a nay vote. Given those two choices, he might reconsider what he said, but that was up to him. Mr. Odekirk replied that he could address that before the night was over, but he was in a position where he was told to come back to the commission and a couple of times he tried to express that he wanted their recommendation to city council, and while the proposal might not be as clear as the commission usually does things, the fact was that there was enough information presented for them to say that they were moving in the right direction and to work it out. If the commission did not want them to go forward, and they would talk about how far to take that, he said he understood what was being said to him and he did not want to do something that would hurt his situation, but he wanted to talk about it and work something out. Chairman Spiegel asked Mr. Odekirk what the hours of operation would be; Mr. Odekirk replied that they were as written in the report. Chairman Spiegel stated they were written two ways and that was the reason for his question-- 5: 00 p.m. to 11: 00 p.m. or 9 :00 a.m. to 11 : 00 p.m. Mr. Odekirk answered that it was written two ways in there because it was 5 :00 p.m. to 11 : 00 p.m. on week nights and Tam 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 1993 8 : 00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. on weekends and holidays . Chairman too Spiegel asked if the applicant intended the fields to be used by little league during the day; Mr. Odekirk said that yes they were intending the fields to be used for little league and he didn't understand why the chairman was saying that. Chairman Spiegel asked if little league played during the summer prior to 5:00 p.m. ; Mr. Odekirk replied on the weekends yes, but on weekdays never. As far as the beer situation that matter was incorrectly reported in the minutes where he said he would shut down the taps if there were minors in the facility--he said for little league games they would be shut down because there would be minors on the facility. Chairman Spiegel replied that he was only reviewing what they said; Mr. Odekirk said that he read it and it was incorrectly reported on the minutes . Chairman Spiegel asked for clarification that Mr. Odekirk was not interested in moving the project closer to the freeway than section 4; Mr. Odekirk replied that was correct, it would create problems because of wind and the closer to the freeway, the more the sand blew; softball players did not want to play in wind and it could not be mitigated to an acceptable degree. At the border of Frank Sinatra and Portola they could take it and it was not as bad and they could do things to make it work; any further and they could not make it a success and the project would fail out there. ..r Chairman Spiegel stated that he was under the impression there was a complex like this in Lancaster that was adjacent to the freeway where it was equally as windy; Mr. Odekirk said that were some things up there, but they were not doing anything like what they were planning on doing and they were not spending anywhere near the money they would be spending and did not have to have the success ratio they would have to have. He said that the Lancaster facility was known as a sub-park facility. Commissioner Cox asked for clarification regarding the choice of berming and keeping the playing fields at ground level versus sinking it; she asked what it meant for them financially. Mr. Odekirk said that the berms acted not only as a wind help and sound help, but it also helped them with landscaping so that they could landscape above and it was important to the golf course people that they try to hide some of their facility. He did not agree with them, but he worked with them when they did not want the golf course to see as much of their facility and by berming with landscaping, they blocked the view of their facility somewhat. He said that it was also significantly less expensive for them to do it that way. Commissioner Cox said 12 %no MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 1993 that if they sunk it there would be no berming and it would still be visible; the tops of the facades would still be seen. Mr. Odekirk concurred. Chairman Spiegel noted that at the council meeting of July 8 Mr. Shillcock indicated there would be a construction loan from the city of $2 . 8 million which would be in addition to the million dollars that was invested by the developer and the initial interest rate would be approximately two times what the city could earn if the money were invested in 30 year bonds . His questions were: 1) what if $2 . 8 million was not enough and more money was needed to complete the project; and 2) what was the interest rate. He noted that the commission was only to vote on the land use part of the proposal and were not involved in the money, but he wanted those questions answered. Mr. Shillcock replied that the $2 . 8 million was an estimate arrived at based on experience in the industry and costs that were calculated on the Hovley site, so there might have to be some fine-tuning. There were some funds included for contingency in case there were over- runs and it was also based on the fact that since it was being developed by private developers, the city would not be restricted by the prevailing wage requirement the city normally worked with. He believed that was still the case and the $2 . 8 million as an estimate was an accurate number. He said that the issue like the berming was something that had to be calculated because if there was berming being done, they would have to get the material to create the berms from somewhere and so they pushed around what they had and the question was how much they pushed and how many dollars being spent this resulted in and that was the kind of things that would be finalized as they moved forward with the project. He felt the $2 . 8 million was a legitimate amount. The interest rate on the loan was based on gross sales and was an escalating amount with the philosophy that the more successful a developer was, the better the city would do as a partner in the complex. Mr. Odekirk stated that based on escalating sales on their gross income when they hit certain levels it went from five and a half to nine percent. Commissioner Cox asked if the golf course designer was present. Chairman Spiegel replied yes, and indicated they would be given the opportunity to speak. Chairman Spiegel asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . l 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 1993 A lady from the audience asked if the applicant could give a brief description of the activities being proposed for the center. Mr. Odekirk said they were building three softball fields which were being designed by the Disney people as replicas of famous major league stadiums : Dodger Stadium, Yankee Stadium and Fenway Park and they were being designed with facades and Hollywood set type materials--they were not real stadiums and no one would sit in the outfield areas; it was only for design and effect so that when standing in the field, they would feel they were in a major league stadium but in effect they were not. They also had a basketball and volleyball pavilion designed for league play for young adults up to senior citizens in both those areas . They also had fields for soccer and their facility was designed for young adults to senior citizens with limited occasions when little leaguers would be allowed to use their facilities to have their playoff games and championship games and that kind of thing. He said it was designed for adults and would free up the fields for kids to use the other facilities in the city. They had a sports restaurant in the middle of the facility and a batting cage and an area for corporate picnics was planned. MR. WILLIAM E. SWANK, partner in the development immediately north of Frank Sinatra, 55-550 Riviera Drive in La Quinta--(771-3110) . He said he was at a loss for words because he took strong exception to some of the statements made--there were a lot of qualifying phrases made like 2,500 feet from existing residences or no residences there so they could have the hours of operation until 11 :00 p.m. He stated that they had spent over $3 million on architecture and engineering on their project and the engineering was 100% complete and they were ready to record their tract map; their financing had been in place since December but they didn't want to start because they wanted to wait until signs of recovery took place, and did not want to put a lot of real estate on the market at the present time. He said they had done everything possible to work with the city and their plans were unanimously approved by the planning commission, city council, architectural committee and they used quality architects and planners on the project and two of the main consultants were local; the fact was that the project was less than 300 14 arr MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 1993 feet from their residences and 2500 feet was stretching the truth. They were ready to go and had bent over backwards to cooperate with the city and brought the north sector sewer into design and completely designed it without asking for city contribution on that design; they bought additional footage so that Cook Street could go through in a straight pattern instead of having a "Jog" and dedicated the land to the city; they did not need it. They also bought an additional 20 acres to the north so that there would not be a sliver of land between them and the future alignment of the parkway. The applicant was proposing at least 12 lighting towers, although he felt there would probably be 15--one on each outfield and two down each foul line. They would be 75- 85 feet high; the width of the project was equal to two and a half football fields linked end to end anywhere it was looked at. He said their residences were single story and would be affected by the glare, and the applicant was proposing to erect a 25 foot fence immediately across the street on Frank Sinatra. He did not blame the golf course architect--he would not want the project next to his golf course. He did not know how many acres were in the land use plan, but estimated at least 450 acres; no one ever came to him, but he """ expected at least good planning principals to be observed. All that land was there and the only place for this project was at the corner of Frank Sinatra and Portola because there were no residents there--it did not matter that they bought the land and paid for it. He felt the proposal was a bad plan and a bad location. That whole area would be illuminated; people came to the desert and liked the dark sky at night and he had worked in the Palm Springs area since 1968 and the issue then was lighting and now was lighting. Especially when there were proposed lights 65-75 feet in the air. He said the developer stated that he did not want to consider sinking the project because it would cost him too much money. Mr. Swank did not know if there was a fabric structure on the plan or not. He placed his plan on the wall on top of the proposal and distributed a colored copy of his plan' s layout to the commission. He felt the applicant was planning to align their road to the entrance of their development. He said the last time he saw the project there were no baseball fields there, but a conference center on the corner. He supported that, but strongly disagreed with the new plan and the sports facility being tacked on. He felt it was not an integrated plan and had poor circulation. He %or 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 1993 stated that the ballfields should have been placed in MW the center of the property and then they could re-route two holes around the facility. That would not cause a problem. He said that he was told by the developer that the fabric structure was 56 feet tall, which exceeded the height limit by almost double. He stated that they could talk about "state of the art" proposals, but when there were that many lights in the air, night or day, there would be a problem. He said the houses along Frank Sinatra were single story houses and were placed there to take advantage of the view of the valley floor and the hills . He felt they couldn't get any closer to his development if they tried. The applicant commented that they did not want to create a problem for the other development, meaning the golf course, but he asked about his project and all the money he spent on his project. They had their financing and were ready to go and planned to start construction in November or December. He commented that he would like to get some of that 5 1/2% money also. It was said that the applicant and golf course people had to work together; he asked about them working with him. He had been available and would have worked with them, but he wasn' t called. He said that Mr. John Musial of Seastar Communities was in the audience and was his partner on the project and his son, MW who was also a partner in the project, was present. He thought this was going too fast; the applicant stood before the commission and said he had to go forward and the commission should vote on the issue tonight because he had to have approval--he felt that was nonsense and suggested that the issue be restudied. He felt that attitude alone was significant with what was going on. Regarding aesthetics, would the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public or would the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view. He said that 13 clustered towers across the skyline was going to be a real aesthetic problem. He was spending over $300, 000 by city mandate, which they supported, to remove the power lines along Frank Sinatra and to underground them. Now they were going to be faced with more than that and the light poles would be 70-85 feet in the air. He felt the hours of operation should stop at 10 : 00 p.m. ; they should stop at sundown because the people in the desert enjoyed the evenings because that was the most pleasant part of the day. He said they observed the dark sky principal and every country club developer that he knew observed that principle. They 16 r"r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 1993 "" had a driving range, tennis courts, and they were not lighting them, nor were they putting in street lights-- lighting was being taken care of on the buildings because they wanted the dark sky. He asked about the alcoholic beverages; Chairman Spiegel clarified that there would only be beer and wine served. Mr. Swank concluded by saying that they had their financing and were ready to go and pull permits, they worked with the city, their engineering was done including putting the north sector sewer in place to be available for other developers in the north sector and wanted to reserve further comment until others had spoken. MR. JOHN MUSIAL, President of Seastar Desert Communities and a partner with Swank & Company on the Desert Wells Country Club project. His address was 16486 Bernardo Center Drive, Suite 310 in San Diego. He said they had a project with a total value of over $300 million and for engineering and planning alone they had spent more money in real cash than the whole baseball park altogether. One concern evidenced by the planning commission and council previously on the Hovley location was being within 700 or 800 feet of existing housing. As indicated previously, they were in the final stages to pull building permits and break ground and they would have extremely expensive housing within 300 feet of the proposed ballfield. Their project would be a private country club community and their objective was to make it the finest residential community of its type in Palm Desert, perhaps short of Bighorn. He noted the commission was asked not to consider other issues other than land use, and in looking at the land use issue he felt location was a consideration. As indicated, they were very much in support of a world class or very high class conference center there and the overall proposal for the golf course and other facilities planned was a good one. They were not against that in principal, but felt a better location could be found for the ballfield proposal, which would not only aesthetically effect their project, but also economically impact their project negatively. Regarding having noise until 11 : 00 p.m. weekdays or weekends--residents liked noise to quiet down earlier. Further, he had a problem with the alcoholic beverage issue and a great deal of traffic and related noise late into the evening would be detrimental to their project. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 1993 Commissioner Jonathan asked how many feet the single story detached units along Frank Sinatra would be from the nearest portion of the park ( fence) ; Mr. Musial stated that he had not calculated it, but it had to be within a couple hundred feet. At most 300 feet and the ballparks abutted Frank Sinatra within a few feet and their houses were a berm and slight distance from Frank Sinatra; it would be the width of Frank Sinatra plus another hundred feet. MR. TOM PARSONS, Seastar Desert Communities Inc. , 16486 Bernardo Center Drive, Suite 310 in San Diego, stated that his background had been as a sales manager of new home sales projects in Southern California for the past ten years and he was sensitive to the issue of any lit ballfields and sports fields in general . He had experience in Scripps Ranch where an athletic field was proposed to be lit after several neighborhoods had been constructed and in Oceanside, California, there was a proposal to light the elementary school athletic field in the vicinity of residential homes . In these instances and also in Bernardo Heights, a portion of Rancho Bernardo, there was an effort to light some tennis courts at a public park and in all cases there was a tremendous negative response from homeowners whom he felt had a legitimate concern about the disruption of .rr their evenings . Glare factors, hooded down radiating lights, spotlight effects, and all things considered, there was still a real impact to these residents in the vicinity to the fields and those residents were several i blocks in distance from the actual sites, not immediately bordering residences . He felt the impact would be equally damaging to their project in consideration of the tremendous output of the light towers . Commissioner Jonathan asked Mr. Parsons if the damage he was referring to was to the financial impact on the value of the home and did Mr. Parsons feel that if this proposed project was built out and his was built out, if there would be a financial effect on his development; Mr. Parsons replied "most definitely" and the properties he felt had the greatest premiums and location potential compared to this project could end up being the least desirable on their project. MS. MARLENE PISOKOFF, a Desert Falls resident, stated that she wanted to bring up the human or humane dimension. She said that they could speak objectively about what was going in on that part of Palm Desert, 18 i MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 1993 however, there had to be a balance. She felt it was necessary to have a balance or match of types of facilities that go together and she had grave concern for the sports park becoming a part of a residential area of Palm Desert that held within its borders some of the most lucrative, desirable resort and residential property. As a resident and homeowner interested in the welfare of families and children, there was a place within the desert for a sports facility, but she did not believe this was the place. She also questioned what gatherings this type of facility would draw in terms of being presented as a wholesome environment. She had asked the applicant if pin ball would be part of the development and the applicant said they hadn't decided yet, but she did not hear any mention of that sort of activity being part of that project. She said there was more than just playing ball involved here and she also had concern because when there were elements of a sports center, some alcohol, and gambling because when there were sporting games it enhanced the activity of young people to draw upon elements of competitiveness that reinforced a lifestyle not consistent with a value system for people in the park. Although it had been said that it was primarily for adults, she was sure low there would be activities for young people and teenagers to attend in large numbers and when they gathered in large numbers there were many conflicting elements that could take place: some positive and some negative. She felt it was necessary to preserve in the desert a certain style of living that the desert had become associated with and places like in L.A. that for a quick buck chopped up a city and put things in primarily for their immediate financial gain at the expense of others in the long run lost out. She said she would hate to see Palm Desert fragmented in that direction and felt everything had to be weighed out and given its due, but consistent with the last speaker, she saw that as something that was in the same balance perspective of what they had at this time and didn't see the sports park as appropriate for this particular land use. MR. LON RUBIN, representing C.T. Golf, 77-570 Springfield Lane, Suite E in Palm Desert, stated that they were asked by the city council to determine in the overall plan for section 4 of the north sphere that they were working with the city on developing championship golf facilities and additional residential facilities, they were asked to determine whether or not a 20 acre 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 1993 sports park facility would fit and be compatible with the plan. He said this was the first time he had seen that particular iteration of the plan and his golf course architect did some quick calculations and said that it was not 20 acres, but 22 1/2 acres, which might not sound like a great deal to the commission when considering a plan consisting of 540 acres in totality, but each acre was a precious acre when designing a championship golf course, especially one with the direction given to them by the city to create a course that would be meritorious of having a major television tournament on and each acre was precious. At city council ' s request, their planners and golf course architects met with the sports park developers and their planners worked through the night and into the next morning to come up with a plan that would be the least obstructive to them, but was smaller than the plan before commission now. On the basis of the plan they believed they were working with, their golf course architects already started on the routing plans and offered to show the shape of the plan their architects were working on, which was somewhat different. He had some problem when not dealing with the same set of circumstances, but assuming that they were dealing with the same set of circumstances, he wanted to make .r comments that represented the result of their professional planners and golf course architects . They felt that they could implement the plan they saw with modification, notwithstanding the fact that the inclusion of the sports park within the plan did restrict the optimum design of the championship golf course. Could they live with it? The answer was yes, if they had to, but their first choice was for it not to be located on this site. If it was located on the site, he recommended: 1) to relocate the softball facility core complex northerly to the softball edge relationship and that was done; 2) improve the buffering between the sports park and the championship course by implementing a curvilinear parking program; they felt the lowering of the fields for the golf purposes would not be required and that no extensive earthworming and berming would be required but that landscaping would be used to mitigate the view impacts; 3) the other mitigating facts they suggested were utilizing state of the art lighting techniques to insure sports park night lighting was directed onsite and intensify landscape buffering adjacent to outfield facade elements of the sports park to screen the facilities from the championship golf 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 1993 course and make sure to use compatible colors and textures on the back side of outfield facades to minimize visual impacts upon championship golf course; 4) restrict the use of sports park facilities during tournament events, which were 14 days because the activities of the sports park would be incompatible with a major television golf tournament. MR. RONALD ODEKIRK addressed the commission and said that this was Rick' s project and he was the advisor. He said he was a long time developer and commented on statements made by Mr. Lon Rubin; he felt he had been "knifed" because this was Mr. Rubin' s plan and his planner, Mr. Pickett, worked all night to prepare a plan and faxed them a plan which he said they could live with if they just let their parking be in a central location. Mr. Odekirk said he made a drawing and sent it to Mr. Pickett and asked if this plan would still allow what the golf course designer wanted; he replied yes . Mr. Odekirk stated that he did not put the dimensions down there; he made it sound like they were trying to deviously get 22 1/2 acres--these were the dimensions that Mr. Pickett gave to him on his plan and all he did was instead of having the parking spread out on a curvilinear basis, he wanted the parking located near their entrance. He felt they were caught in the middle. His son was directed by the city council to work with the land planner for the whole project and they had a better plan for this that would not create the problems for Mr. Swank. They spent the time with them and tried to work with them and this was the result. As an experienced developer, he agreed with Mr. Swank that this was not good planning, but they were given the direction to work with the golf course people. He said the planning commission should give a recommendation like Mr. Diaz said and direct the city council that the conference center should be on the corner and their proposal should be moved south on Portola. If they did that they would be over a 1,000 feet and probably 1300 feet from home plate to any one of Mr. Swank' s houses and at least 1300 feet from any other house. He or Rick couldn't make them feel comfortable about the lights, but the planning commission had dealt with the light issue next to Monterey Country Club and with the "state of the art" lighting, that would not be a problem. Sound did not carry as far as they thought it did--they had done a lot of testing which said that a batted ball could not heard over 500-600 feet away. He said they Tam 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 1993 were stuck in the middle trying to make their proposal ..r fit with the golf course. He stated that he was sympathetic to Mr. Swank; the golf course people ignored completely the concern of having Mr. Swank' s residential project right across the street, but they wanted to do what the city wanted them to do. He felt this was a good location and could be compatible with the elements of the section 4 plan. It was not an improper use next to a golf course; lots of golfers were sports fans and would love their proposal . He stated that it did not need to be right on the corner and expressed their willingness to work with whatever the planning commission wanted to recommend. MR. MICHAEL HURDSON, the golf course architect, stated that he wanted to give the planning commission an explanation of why the only place the sports park worked effectively was at the corner. He said it was not a matter of simply moving it into the property and having the sports park work; the reason was that there was a curve in Portola and at that curve was the original location of the ball diamonds and the open area which brought it so far out into the golf course that it restricted the flow of holes between the main boulevard that flowed through the property and the sports park .r area; there wasn't enough room to place the sports park below Frank Sinatra and allow enough room for the golf holes to flow effectively. The compromised plan that was designed was to take the biggest part of the sports park and put it up into a corner so that they were working into a narrow edge and he felt the confusion between the plan presented and the plan they worked on was the curvilinear parking; the plan before commission showed blocked parking. The curvilinear parking plan allowed the golf course to flow, although it still restricted the design and was not an optimal use of the land. Despite suggestions to the contrary, looking at the walls was not in harmony with what they wanted a championship golf course to have as a backdrop. That was the reason the sports park was moved to the corner. MR. BILL SWANK JR. , a partner in the Desert Wells Country Club Development, stated that an issue that was a big concern was the people coming and going, as well as the parking. People didn't just go onto the ballfields right away and the residents would be hearing the noise of the baseballs hitting the bats, people "whooping and hollering" and having a great time and the 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 1993 sound traveled quite a distance and would be traveling toward their most expensive homes that would have the view looking south, so there would be light and noise not only from inside the park but from people coming and going within the parking area. He felt the planning commission should give some consideration to that also. MR. SWANK SR. stated that he was confused because if it wasn't the Odekirk' s plan, then whose was it. He said that the golf course architects did not like it and he felt that something should be done. He asked if this would be subject to the architectural review committee. Chairman Spiegel replied no, that it went from planning commission to city council . Mr. Swank felt a project of this size and impact should be reviewed by the architectural commission. Mr. Diaz stated that this would ultimately have to go to the architectural commission as far as the landscape plan and the exterior. Chairman Spiegel indicated that the interior had already been approved by the architectural review committee. vow Mr. Swank asked about the fabric structure that was 56 feet tall . He said he did not want to repeat himself, but felt this was moving too fast and this was the first time he saw the plan--he had seen different variations of it but this was the first time he had seen this one and he was shocked. MR. RICHARD ODEKIRK stated that this was why he wanted the commission to hear the testimony because he knew this was going to come up and he wanted them to hear this because he was not trying to force a decision tonight, but he wanted direction. He said that he agreed with Mr. Swank and stated that this wasn't their plan, it was the golf course people' s plan and Mr. Rubin and his golf course architects were not the only ones working on it; they had planners working on it and they didn't even tell Mr. Rubin which plan they had done because the one distributed to commission was the out- dated plan. They told them the parking had to be different and Mr. Pickett said okay. Mr. Odekirk agreed with Mr. Swank that they were too close and he would never come to the commission asking them to approve something--they said they were 2500 feet from existing housing and he was referring to Palm Desert Greens and 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 1993 Desert Falls . They were only 300 feet from Mr. Swank' s rf development and he said he was not stupid enough to ask the commission to approve something on that street corner 300 feet away when they had enough trouble with 600 feet with the Hovley project. He said that was why he wanted the commission to hear the testimony because he wanted direction after they heard Mr. Swank' s situation. They were too close and that was not where they wanted to be; they did not want the ballfields on the corner and they probably some other directions they could go. He said he did not anticipate ever getting approved for that and that was not what he asked for. Mr. Diaz asked that Mr. Odekirk confirm that he did not like the plan which he had recommended approval for; Mr. Odekirk said he did not want to be put in that position and he was saying that he could sympathize with Mr. Swank' s position of being too close. That was not his first choice and Mr. Diaz had seen his other plan. The other plan was what the golf course people expected them to do. He knew and felt everyone knew there was going to be some discussion and there were no surprises . Chairman Spiegel closed the public hearing and asked for comments from the commission. ..�r Commissioner Cox stated that she understood Mr. Odekirk's frustration level and wanting to get answers from the commission, but felt there was a real problem with them doing their "homework" . If she was the developer and wanted to do a project, she would have contacted every person that was in the given area whether it was under plan or something that was existing. She noted he said this wasn't his first choice, he would have a better plan--they heard that when he wanted to locate on Hovley. She felt that everyone impacted (Mr. Swank, the golf course and everyone) should be sitting down and talking and bringing up these issues before coming to the commission instead of everyone saying it wasn't their problem and that they didn't like that plan or that wasn't the first choice. She said that they were "chewing this thing apart" and they were getting nowhere. Mr. Odekirk was going through frustration because the homework had not been done; Mr. Swank who was ready to break ground in the next month or two and was adamant that this should not go here; if there was a better plan than tonight, then the commission should have seen the better plan. She felt there was a lot of time being wasted and a lot of people were going through turmoil simply because no one was talking to one another and 24 r► MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 1993 it was always not their fault. If nothing else, that was where they stood--that these people needed to talk to each other to come up with something that was workable. She felt this project was an excellent project that the city needed, but they needed to be adults and mature about this and find a place for it to go. One person could not do that when property all around was affected. Every time they passed it on to council or said that they would continue it, they were not doing anyone any good. There were contractors who wanted the work, people who wanted a decision because of financing and all the commission was doing was listening to everyone fight and she did not see how the commission could do anything right then. Commissioner Jonathan shared those concerns and felt the comments were well put. One thing he was happy about was that finally there seemed to be unanimity--everyone seemed to agree that this plan was no good. That brought up the question of why it was before the commission. That he didn't know. He agreed that they wouldn't reach a favorable decision and what he thought needed to happen was a continuance, have staff get the three players together, have the Swank group, the golf course people and the Odekirks sit in a room and work this out and come back with something that everyone could live with. Then the commission could make a recommendation to council . Mr. Richard Odekirk wanted to address the commission and was informed that the public testimony portion was closed. Commissioner Whitlock concurred and had nothing to add. Chairman Spiegel stated that the city had been pushing the Odekirks around and they had come to them and the planning commission approved the Hovley project; then it went to city council and they did not like the location so they came up with another location in section 4; then the Odekirks came back to them and now city council wanted a recommendation so that it could go back to city council and it sounded like the "buck was being passed back and forth" and the issue was going on and on. His personal feeling was that rather than having it come back to commission again because everyone knew their feelings about location, the cost, etc. , let it go to city council since they would be making the final determination and if they waited another two weeks and all the meetings were held and came back to them, it would just go back to city council anyway. He agreed with Commissioners Cox and Jonathan that there should be a meeting of the people 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 1993 involved prior to it going to city council so that there could be some type of resolution, but did not feel it was necessary for the item to come back to commission prior to the council meeting. His recommendation was that the commission without comment move the item to city council to make the decision because that was where the final decision would be made. Commissioner Beaty said that he had a whole page of questions and comments but once again the public hearing process worked. He wondered if the developer for the project to the north was going to be concerned about the height of the convention center if it was over 56 feet high and was located on the corner--that wouldn't work either. Was the Marriott too high? He felt the situation was very frustrating. He stated that he was strongly in favor of the project, thought there were be no problems with the new location and that it would go forward, but shared some of the concerns that had been expressed. Commissioner Whitlock stated that she agreed with the Chairman that ultimately the decision would be made at the city council level, but the whole process was to begin with the planning commission and they were relied upon to make their recommendation. This time things fell apart, but she did not want to see the project moved on without comment. She said she would like to see this issue resolved and wanted the city to have a sports park and to have this get off the ground and wanted to hear that Mr. Swank, the golf course people and Mr. Odekirk had been able to resolve their issues and get the commission's final input. She felt that was what the commission was there for and part of the process and did not want to see it moved on. Commissioner Cox said that at first she thought she could pass this along without any comment to council, then she reconsidered; she was put in this position to help make determinations and if she passed it on without a comment and put the onus on city council she felt she would not be doing her job. She asked if they would be out of line to do the joint study session to make something happen. She did not want this delayed, but wanted people to do their homework before coming to the commission and putting them in the position of moving the project down 700 feet or whatever; that shouldn't be their onus but something that they should be able to work out. If there were three more meetings on this, there would be three more groups of people that would 26 .� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 1993 NNW be for and against it and they wouldn't have gotten anywhere. She wanted to see some preparation done. Commissioner Jonathan said he started thinking that a joint study session was the solution, but was persuaded that the best thing the commission could do was to continue the project for two weeks to see if the problem could be worked out for the council so that when it got to them it was a resolved situation, rather than them having to deal with it. He felt a study session would be a delay and the most expedient way to deal with it would be to solve the problem at the commission level--it would come back in two weeks, they would direct staff to schedule a meeting with the three players (the Swanks, the golf course people, and the Odekirks) and let them work it out and come back at the next meeting with a proposed project that everyone could live with. He said he would make a motion to that effect. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Cox, continuing CUP 93-3 Section 4 to September 21, 1993 and directing staff to schedule a meeting between Mr. Odekirk, Mr. Swank and C.T. Golf representatives by minute motion. Carried 4-1 (Chairman Spiegel voted no) . Mr. Diaz said he would look at the future hearings agenda and see what it looked like for September 21 . If it was too crowded he would talk to the Chairman about a special time. Commissioner Whitlock said she wanted a final layout that everyone had agreed to so the commission was not looking at three or four different plans . VIII . MISCELLANEOUS A. Update on Request for Determination of Use for a Skilled Nursing Facility in the PC (4) Zone. Mr. Diaz explained that this item was before the commission at the last meeting. After discussion with the applicant and the city attorney, staff felt that the best approach for processing the application was through a development agreement. A development agreement would allow the zoning to be site specific; staff could meet the proposed operator and make sure the site was designed to fit and would go through the public hearing process; the proposal would have to go to city council, and in terms of conditions of approval, the city did not have to meet a nexus requirement for cause and 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 1993 effect. Staff recommended the use of the development agreement, noting that the applicant already had a right to file one. Staff felt this was the best approach because of the location, present zoning, and history of the property. He said that staff would make it clear that the operator of the proposed project should be present at the public hearing. The general consensus of the commission was that the applicant could request a skilled nursing facility in the PC (4) zone with a development agreement through the public hearing process . Action: None. B. Update on Status/Improvement Program for President' s Plaza East Parking Lot Landscaping Mr. Diaz explained that Eric Johnson had been working on a parking lot landscaping program for President' s Plaza East and would come to the commission at a future meeting. He i noted that the proposal did not have funding at this time. Action: MW None. I IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS i None. X. COMMENTS 1 . Commissioner Cox expressed concern about the condition of the awnings along E1 Paseo and asked that staff review the code with the code compliance department to find out what could be done. She indicated that even just cleaning would help and the season would be starting soon. Mr. Diaz stated that he would talk to code and come back to the commission with a report. He noted that Mr. Shillcock was the staff liaison to the El Paseo Merchants Association and suggested that avenue should also be explored. 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 1993 2 . Commissioner Cox noted that in the commercial complex at the southeast corner of Town Center Way and Fred Waring Drive ( i .e. Trader Joe' s) benches and trash containers in a south western style were used and faced store fronts. She felt this concept would be good for E1 Paseo and the benches would provide resting places for pedestrians . She asked that someone look into the budget and into incorporating the concept on E1 Paseo. XI . ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Cox, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Carried -0. The meeting was adjourned at 8 :57 p.m. l�sL�l7 • RAMON A. DIAZ, !Tecwffary ATTEST: maw ROBERT A. SPIEGE , n Palm Desert Plannin Commission /tm VOW 29