Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1217 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - DECEMBER 17, 1996 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Beaty called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Ferguson led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Paul Beaty, Chairperson Sonia Campbell Jim Ferguson George Fernandez Sabby Jonathan Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell Steve Smith Sandy Jacobson Mark Greenwood Martin Alvarez Tonya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the December 3, 1996 meeting minutes. Action: Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, approving the December 3, 1996 minutes as submitted. Carried 5-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION: Mr. Drell summarized pertinent December 12, 1996 City Council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. ar. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 1996 VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 96-11 - MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS, INC., Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment for Lot 5 of Tract 27570-3 and Parcel 1 of PM 27563 for the construction of a pool. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 5-0. Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. CUP 96-32 - MICHAEL HOGAN, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow the operation of an outdoor family entertainment trampoline apparatus. Equipment is to be located in a courtyard area, located within the Palms to Pines Shopping Center, approximately 300 feet south of Highway 1 1 1 . Mr. Alvarez directed commission to look at Exhibit A in the staff report. He indicated that Mr. Hogan was seeking approval of a conditional use permit to operate an outdoor trampoline apparatus in the Palms to Pines shopping center. The equipment consisted of two bungy cords and one seat harness, both attached to 20 foot poles. The base of the equipment consisted of a 14- foot diameter trampoline. He noted that Exhibit B showed the site plan and the equipment located in the outdoor courtyard area behind the Palms to Pines Theater. The project would occupy approximately 800 square feet of open space and would exist with other uses such as restaurants, a dance studio and retail sales. The applicant chose this location to attract pedestrians that visit the shopping center. Currently the applicant has a 30-day temporary use permit. Since it is a private recreation activity in the Planned Commercial zone, the business hours would consist of weekdays from 12 noon to 8:00 p.m. and weekends and holidays from 1 1 :00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Staff spoke to the City's Public Safety Department and they stated that additional insurance would not be required since the project was not City sponsored or 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 1996 on public property. Although the insurance was not required, the applicant named the City as an additional insured. There was one letter of opposition received. He noted that the applicant submitted a petition which consisted of various residents and surrounding business owners in favor of the project. Staff recommended approval of the project for a one year period subject to a review at the end of the one year period to see how compatible this use is with the surrounding businesses. Commissioner Ferguson asked what criteria staff used to issue a temporary use permit. Mr. Alvarez stated that staff wanted to make sure the use was in a safe location. Basically the temporary use permit was allowed so that input from the community could be received at the conditional use permit hearing. Commissioner Ferguson asked if there was some reason they couldn't wait until receiving Planning Commission approval before beginning their operation. Commissioner Ferguson noted that there had been several hearings where applicants had begun operation before seeking commission approval and it was irritating. He assumed there was a provision to provide for a temporary use, if it was necessary. He asked what the necessity was for this one being issued. Mr. Drell stated that the applicant wanted to start business to take advantage of being in operation during the season. He wasn't sure if when the applicant went in that he was aware of the required approvals that were needed. He said that it required no physical change to the center and thought the applicant was unaware of the process at the beginning. He noted that staff has approved events similar to this as temporary uses that had no intention of becoming permanent. Commissioner Ferguson asked if the applicant was already operating before becoming aware that a temporary use permit was needed. Mr. Drell replied that he was. Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MICHAEL HOGAN stated that he had no comments. Commission Jonathan asked if this use was simply for amusement. Mr. Hogan replied yes. Commissioner Jonathan asked how Mr. Hogan became aware of the requirement of a permit process. Mr. Hogan said that he went through Cagney Leasing Agency and went step-by-step through what he needed to do. He applied for a business license and then realized he needed a conditional permit after the permit was already set up. He said that he thought it was r.. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 1996 j x someone from Planning Department that made him aware that he needed a permit. He came down the same day to take care of it. Commissioner Fernandez asked what the charge was for a jump. Mr. Hogan replied that it was $4.00 for a jump and it was comparable to a two or three- minute ride. Tuesdays and Wednesdays are family nights with half-price jumps. He said they would work with birthday parties and events like that. Commissioner Ferguson asked if they had an operating history with this type of facility. Mr. Hogan stated that he worked in San Diego, where they have trampolines, and in Mission Beach. Commissioner Ferguson asked what his experience was in terms of injuries. Mr. Hogan said that he worked with a gentleman for three years who has never had an injury. He said that there were check points and they make sure everything is just right. Safety is their number one concern. Commissioner Campbell asked if there was any problem with parking. Mr. Hogan said that he usually didn't have more than two or three people in line at a time. Business had been slow, but he was willing to make the business i work and there hadn't been a parking problem. He said there was a lot of •• parking available around the back. Commissioner Ferguson asked if Mr. Hogan had a chance to review the letter from Mr. and Mrs. Maloney. Mr. Hogan replied that he had. Commissioner Ferguson asked if the Maloneys were present. There was no response. Commissioner Ferguson asked Mr. Hogan to address some of the concerns raised by them in their letter. Mr. Hogan said that as far as graffiti was concerned, the outside was enclosed with a beautiful redwood fence. It was appealing and it was an attraction. People like to stop by and see what it's all about. He felt that it enhanced the Palms to Pines shopping center. It has been dying in the past and it is bringing it back to life again. The Blue Coyote was going in and they would have an outside bar and entertainment. There was a dance studio next to it and with the trampoline in the same area it would bring it all to life. He felt it would be a fun area to hang out in. Commissioner Ferguson asked about increased noise. Mr. Hogan said that since it was only one person jumping at a time, it was more of a quiet ride than a screaming ride. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 1996 MR. ROY YEATS, a resident of Cathedral City and owner of Daniel's Carpet Cleaning Disaster Restoration, said he has been located in Palm Desert for about ten years, so he was familiar with the city. He said that he has known Mr. Hogan for a long time and when dealing with a business like this, they needed someone they could rely on and Mr. Hogan was the type of guy that was a good guy and he worked well with kids. He has brought up the kids in the community for about ten years with his sports program and baseball program and felt Mr. Hogan would be an asset to the community. He said that he has had his kids over there and instead of having the kids hanging out at the mall or roaming the streets, he felt this gave the kids something positive to do and would give them some exercise and was overall something good for the city. Chairperson Beaty closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he concurred with comments by Mr. Yeats. He felt that if more kids were under the supervision of a responsible adult like Mr. Hogan there would be fewer problems out there. He felt that Mr. Hogan was a wonderful role model for children and he knew that any venture of his would be managed quite responsibly. He reviewed the letter from Mr. and Mrs. Maloney and he thought there was a bit of an overreaction there. He didn't feet there would be any significant adverse consequences and he saw some pluses, so he would move for approval. 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 Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1775, approving CUP 96-32, subject to conditions. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 1996 B. Case Nos. PP/CUP 96-28, DA 96-1, TT 28450 and TT 28451 - INTRAWEST RESORT OWNERSHIP CORPORATION, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit for a 310 unit residential vacation ownership complex, Development Agreement waiving certain requirements of the Municipal Code, and a tentative tract map to create a one lot subdivision for resort ownership purposes ITT 28451) and a tentative tract map to separate the golf course parcels from the development parcels all located on property in a portion of Section 4 T5S R6E. Mr. Smith stated that plans and a model were on display. He explained that the Redevelopment Agency owns about 500 acres in Section 4, the area bounded by Cook Street, Portola, Frank Sinatra, and Country Club Drive. In 1994 the Planning Commission and City Council reviewed a preliminary site plan and Environmental Impact Report for the development of that property. That EIR was certified in November of 1994. Tentative Tract Map 28450 is a map to subdivide that 500 +/- acres into 13 lots. He said the lots being proposed are consistent with the land use configuration from the preliminary plan and the EIR as done in 1994. Findings for approval of that tentative map can be affirmed and were delineated in staff report pages 2-4. From a CEQA perspective, the map is consistent with the plan as reviewed in 1994. Impacts were previously assessed. City Council Resolution No. 94-1 19 specified 72 pages of mitigation measures. By condition, those conditions would apply to this tentative map. He said the next item was Tentative Tract Map 28451 . He read from page 4 of the staff report as follows, "Timeshare or vacation club projects are regulated as forms of real estate like condominiums. Therefore they require the creation of a one lot subdivision so that memberships can be sold. This map would create a one lot subdivision for resort ownership purposes." He said this was for Lot 9 of TT 28450. Findings for approving the tentative map must be affirmed and he noted they were delineated on pages 5-6 of the staff report and felt they could be affirmed. For CEQA purposes, the previous EIR considered up to 600 timeshare units on 70 acres; this project was for 310 units on 44.4 acres in the same vicinity. No further documentation was necessary. The precise plan and conditional use permit of the applicant was next. He said the renderings, elevations and the detailed site planning drawings were for them. He said Planning Commission received copies in their packets. He said that Intrawest was seeking approval of phase one of this vacation ownership complex on Lot 9 of Tentative Map 28450. The project would include 61 two-story buildings, 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 1996 r.. five units in each building, for a total of 310 units. Three units on the lower level and two units on the upper level. Some units were configured so that further division would be possible to the point they could end up with nine units in each building, but the basic configuration was for the five units in each building. He noted Desert Springs Drive went north from Country Club and provided access via a long, winding 24 foot wide street that allowed no parking. Along the way there were parking lots as well as parking pullouts for people to be able to drop off their luggage and then move their car to a more permanent parking facility that would be a little further away from the units they are occupying. The two story buildings were laid out in neighborhood clusters. The clusters surround a swimming pool and/or tennis court. Most if not all of the units would have views of the golf course to the north and to the south. After entering the site from Desert Springs Drive, the first building encountered would be the amenity building and sales center. The amenity building had associated with it a theater, change rooms, a lobby, pool, tennis, a hard surface play court and the entrance to the walking trail and public art installations. Page 8 of the staff report detailed the parking provided onsite. A week ago staff met with the applicant and they received a revised site layout which shows a maximum parking option which addresses their concerns. It would provide a total of 689 parking spaces including a separate employee parking facility for 60 cars. The proposal is to place the additional employee parking on part of phase three, east of Desert Springs Drive at the intersection with the main street accessing the development. The project design meets or exceeds minimum code requirements. Staff felt more comfortable with the parking as proposed on the revised plan. He noted that the Architectural Review Commission has seen the proposal twice and granted preliminary approval. They expressed concern with the parking situation and he felt that had been addressed. Findings for approval of the precise plan and conditional use permits were outlined on page 10 of the staff report. Staff felt they could be affirmed. For the environmental review on the CUP and precise plan, as indicated previously the City analyzed the impact of 600 units on 70 acres and this was proposal was for 310 units on 44. Similar mitigation as described earlier would be conditioned on this project as well (i.e., City Council Resolution No. 94-1 19). He noted the next portion of the report dealt with the development agreement. He said that the City's timeshare ordinance requires that the timeshare project be developed in conjunction with a resort hotel of at least 500 rooms and an 18-hole golf course. The proposal at this time did not include the 500 unit hotel project, hence the applicant has been working with the Redevelopment Agency and Planning staff on an agreement which would waive that requirement of the ordinance and allow the project to 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 1996 proceed without providing a 500-room hotel. He noted that Planning Commission received a revised development agreement just before the meeting this evening and this document has continued to evolve throughout the day. Basically it describes unique characteristics of the proposal which distinguishes the project from projects in general and provides the City with equivalent operational and economic benefits comparable to a luxury 500 room hotel. Staff outlined on the top of staff report page 13 the club ownership structure and the direct financial benefits to the City under items A and B. There was a second DDIA being worked on with the Redevelopment Agency. He noted that Mr. Ortega and Mr. Yrigoyen were both present to answer any questions with respect to that document. Staff circulated the legal notice of this hearing to property owners within 300 feet of the perimeter of the site. Mr. Smith said he met with the new General Manager of Palm Desert Greens a week or ten days ago and went over it with him at that time. He said that staff's recommendation was: 1) For TT 28450, adoption of the findings and Resolution No. 1776 approving the map, subject to the conditions; 2) adoption of the findings approving the precise plan/conditional use permit and TT 28451 and adoption of Resolution No. 1777; and 3) a recommendation of approval on Development Agreement 96-1 , by Resolution No. 1778. Considering that the development agreement is going to City Council for approval, staff said that in actuality the action on the conditional use permit and precise plan was effectively a recommendation also because that whole matter would be before the City Council. Commissioner Ferguson said that it sounded like the commission was granting a variance and calling it a waiver. He asked what the difference was between the two and the standards that apply. Mr. Smith deferred to the City Attorney. Ms. Jacobson said that they reviewed this and because it is not exactly a variance and would ultimately be approved by ordinance, it was more like a change of zone in that they were creating a new ordinance and going through a separate procedure, not a variance to the ordinance as it exists. Mr. Drell felt that it was like a variance but this was a type of use where variances were not appropriate, so in development agreements they have the ability to upon certain considerations set special zoning rules by ordinance. In this they tried to delineate the same sort of findings as in a variance and create a list of exceptional circumstances which distinguishes this project from timeshares in general and created a rationale that those things that the applicant is providing are in lieu of the requirement which is being waived. Commissioner Ferguson said that rather than following the existing ordinance they were creating a new one. Mr. Drell said they were substituting a requirement of the ordinance with 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 1996 a different requirement. Commissioner Ferguson asked if that would be applicable to any developer in the future. Mr. Drell replied any developer who fulfills the same set of requirements, meaning those delineating in the Recitals of the agreement. Those who can demonstrate to the City that the characteristics of their project both financially and physically meet the intent and purpose of the provision which is being waived, which in this case is a 500-room hotel, which the City applied due to its anxiety about the history of timeshares and having timeshares associated with major hotels, was felt would satisfy the City's concern. The provisions of the DDIA and the due diligence the Redevelopment Agency has gone through deciding to do business with Intrawest provide the City with the same sort of assurance. Commissioner Ferguson asked if there was a separate ordinance that the Planning Commission was being asked to review or if there was a language change to the ordinance. Mr. Drell stated that a development agreement is a separate ordinance and it is processed and has the effect of an ordinance. Commissioner Ferguson asked if the latest revision the commission received just before the meeting was in effect the ordinance. Mr. Drell concurred. He said that the latest revisions were refining technical points, clarifying references to the Agency as the Redevelopment Agency, and the most substantial one was clarifying that this development agreement applies to the 310 unit project described by the precise plan. He clarified that what was reviewed in the EIR was a 600-unit project and what is before commission now is a 310-unit project for phase one. Commissioner Ferguson noted that on page 12 of the staff report it said that the purpose of the existing ordinance was to allow timeshare, but only when associated with a very, very financially stable company with a reputation in the community that it wished to preserve. He asked if that same standard was applied. Mr. Drell replied yes. Commissioner Ferguson asked if it was staff's recommendation that this meets that criteria. Mr. Drell replied yes. Commissioner Ferguson noted that on page 13 it listed as a direct financial benefit a $12,000 per unit golf privilege fee which is indicated as a one-time fee, yet page 2 of the memorandum to Mr. Drell from Jim Gibbons said that the golf privilege fee would have an escalation clause which will enable the City to keep these fees adjusted for inflation. He asked if it was a one time fee or an annual fee. Mr. Drell clarified that it was a one time fee as each unit is built. As subsequent units are built, that is when the fee is paid and that is where the escalator will apply, while the annual fee is that one unit each year will be subject to that fee forever. Commissioner Ferguson said that if they build a unit in year three of the project it would be adjusted for inflation. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner ... Ferguson asked which golf course they would have golf privileges for. Mr. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 1996 ..r Drell replied the south course, or resort course. Commissioner Ferguson asked who was building the south course. Mr. Drell answered the Redevelopment Agency. Commissioner Ferguson asked what the cost of the south course was projected to be. Mr. Drell deferred the question to the RDA staff. Mr. Acosta addressed the commission and stated that at this point the south course was estimated to cost in the vicinity of about $1 1 million. Commissioner Ferguson asked if the City was responsible for operating that course. Mr. Acosta stated that the agreement with Kemper Sports Management would require that they extend their services, which were now being offered on the north course, to operate the south course as well. Commissioner Ferguson asked if there would be a similar revenue sharing arrangement with the south course as with the north course with Kemper. Mr. Acosta replied yes. Commissioner Ferguson asked if there were any estimates from a proforma as to the projections on an annual basis. Mr. Acosta said that he does not have that information at his disposal. Commissioner Ferguson asked if they had the same indemnity clause against losses. Mr. Yrigoyen stated that the agreement with Kemper Sports Management was outlined as an agreement for the overall course. They broke it up on a per course basis because the north course was coming in line first, but everything that applies to the north course applies to the south course. Commissioner Ferguson asked .r if the City was indemnified against loss. Mr. Yrigoyen replied that for the north course, Kemper Sports Management covers any losses or they make them up out of the revenues or profits from following years. Commissioner Ferguson asked if there was a proforma on revenue. Mr. Yrigoyen replied no, that essentially the proforma they originally had with regard to Kemper on the north course where they outlined a 20% discount was essentially the same proforma for the south course. They anticipated the green fees, as outlined in the north course, would be consistent with those they wanted to accomplish in the south course. Commissioner Ferguson asked if the south course was resort play only. Mr. Yrigoyen replied that the south course was what they called a classified public course. IROC would have rights to play on that course, but essentially it is a public course open for play. Commissioner Ferguson said that if they add up the $12,000 per unit times 310 units, it totals $3,720,000 and asked why they would build an $1 1 million golf course to get back $3.7 million. He said he was assuming it was because of the revenue stream from the proforma that they don't have yet. Mr. Yrigoyen said that the $12,000 per unit amount was one fee they are charging IROC. There were also other fees outlined in the Disposition Development Agreement with them, which is not a part of the Planning Commission's packet at this time. Mr. Drell noted there was also a $25,000/unit land cost which also takes in 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 1996 the increased value. He said this was land that was bought for $40,000- $50,000 per acre and because of the golf course they were selling it for considerably more than that. Part of the value of the development of the golf course was included in the land cost. Commissioner Ferguson said he had no problem with them basically offsetting the land acquisition, but he was trying to better understand the golf side of the project. He assumed that the City would see a positive cash flow. Mr. Ortega addressed the commission and stated that the fees that were being talked about were only one part of several fees that were contained in the agreement. There was a land purchase price, the $12,000 one-time fee, an additional $1 .5 million plus escalations that would be paid to support the golf course, and in addition to that there was a $3,500 per unit ongoing public facilities fee. There were at least four fees they have outlined that were all part of the deal. He said it was not just the $12,000 one time fee. Commissioner Ferguson said that he understood that, but those fees add up to $14,880,000 in the first year. If they received $1 ,085,000 every year thereafter, which he assumed would be adjusted for COLAs, the City was not causing them to buy the land and were letting them build on it, so it didn't surprise him that they would charge him per unit, although it was a one-time fee for the land, and he was just trying to understand the golf portion of it and whether it makes sense from a financial standpoint. Mr. Ortega stated that it does and that they have a proforma that has been done by an independent party that shows that not only were the City and the Agency going to get their investment back, but that there is an actual return over a period of time. This was not a typical public/private Redevelopment Agency project where many times the public agency is willing to subsidize just to get the development. This has an ongoing return for the City. There is a $25,000 per unit sales price and then on top of that were the three sets of fees he outlined. Commissioner Ferguson asked what the timeshare mitigation fee was; Mr. Ortega replied that it had nothing to do with the agreement, but was a fee that was created by the City so that things such as vacation clubs and timeshares pay what he called a transient occupancy tax in lieu fee, which was paid up front. The owners, even though they would occupy the unit less than 30 days, were not subject to the daily TOT as they would be if they checked into a hotel. Therefore the City created that fee and that would be applied to any project that would be processed normally, whether there was a subsequent deal with the Agency or not. It was something that the City implemented about 13 years ago. Mr. Drell clarified that it was one of the requirements of the timeshare ordinance which is not being waived. Commissioner Ferguson asked if he could assume that the am $2,325,000 one-time fee for timeshare mitigation is roughly what the City 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 1996 would expect the total of the TOT to equal on a similar number of units on a hotel over the life span of a hotel. Mr. Drell replied no, and explained that it was far less. One of the distinguishing characteristics was that the ongoing $3,500 per unit fee was the big number. Commissioner Ferguson noted that it was listed as a project amenity's fee and he assumed it was for amenities being provided. Mr. Drell replied no, that it was for continued access to the golf course and other amenities, so it was $3,500 times 310 units per year each year. That number was close to similar sorts of revenue that the City would get from a hotel. Commissioner Beaty asked what the green fees would be. Mr. Ortega replied that the green fees were adopted by the City Council at last Thursday's meeting and they vary by season, day of week and time of day. If looking at prime time season for golf course use for this type of course (Indian Wells Resort and Palm Springs built similar golf courses), the prime time use would be from the beginning of the year through April. That is when they get the majority of rounds and revenue. On a weekend which starts on Friday, they have a posted rate of about $1 10. The City Council also adopted a discount for Palm Desert residents and there was a reason that fee was adopted. Number one was that it was lower than the fees, and they did a survey for what is being charged for similar golf courses, and the council also provided a great discount for Palm Desert residents. As an example he said that for prime time January through April, Palm Desert residents that want to play at 12:30 p.m. would be able to play for about $48.00. He said that they would not find that any of the comparable golf courses they could play for that amount of money. Commissioner Ferguson noted that the rates Mr. Ortega talked about were approved for the north course and asked if those would be the rates for the south course. Mr. Ortega replied not necessarily, but their idea was to keep things consistent. The agreement with Intrawest as Mr. Yrigoyen was explaining gives them certain rights to the use of the golf course because they would be paying hundreds of millions of dollars for those rights. He thought that since they had one operator for the total resort it would keep things standard, but that was not necessarily so. They could have different rates. Commissioner Ferguson asked for clarification as to who would be paying hundreds of millions of dollars. Mr. Ortega replied Intrawest, in accordance with their proforma. They have fees that compound starting with next year. As an example he said that the $12,000 next year would not be the $12,000 five years from then. The ongoing amenities fee which was $3,500 would not be $3,500 as they develop the project. They looked at all of that and they have a proforma that they have done and the bottom line was that they looked at all the expenses being put together to do this project and r in doing a deal with Intrawest itself. He noted that the project also contains 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 1996 w. five other hotel sites, a couple for which they have a developer now, and when they add all those revenues they would get all the City's money back plus a continuing source of revenue in the future. Commissioner Ferguson said that when he adds up the one-time fees it comes to about $13 million. The ongoing escalating fee is $1 million, so they are cumulating at $14 million the first year, $15 million the second year and whatever the COLA is and before they get into hundreds of millions of dollars it will take about 100 years. Secondly, in listening to the Intrawest proposal at the joint meeting of the City Council and Desert Willow Committee, he thought one rationale for adopting a special ordinance was to allow them to come in because the financing structure would not allow the type of hotel that the ordinance was written for to come into the valley. If they have four other pads but they are being told by the first developer that there is no way that a large hotel will come in and therefore they have to do this sort of cost-sharing agreement with this resort ownership concept, he didn't see where the hundreds of millions of dollars would come from. Mr. Ortega said that Commissioner Ferguson, as a member of the Desert Willow Committee, was provided with that proforma and those are also available to the Planning Commission. Chairperson Beaty asked if that was an issue that the Planning Commission was to address or if it was a City Council issue. Commissioner Ferguson stated that it was a council issue and it would be a big issue with the council, but the Redevelopment Agency, unlike other applicants, was not a private agency but a public agency and the executive board of the agency is also the appeal authority (city council) and the project was being sold as a business enterprise to diversify revenues to the city and because of its special relationship to the city he felt it was fair to evaluate some of the business aspects of it. That was why he raised those questions. Mr. Ortega said they were there to answer those questions, even though that was not the issue tonight. Commissioner Jonathan noted that Mr. Ortega said that the estimated cost of the south course was about $1 1 million. He asked what the north course was coming in at. Mr. Ortega said that they were not just building two projects here, but a project that has within it pads to be developed by private developers. There were golf courses, a lot of public infrastructure which included streets, internal roads and included separate water lines so that they could use reclaimed water. It has a reservoir and if they were just building a golf course as opposed to a development, most likely they might or might not have been required to do it, but when they look at just the golf courses themselves, they were running $10 to $1 1 million per course. In addition to %NW that there were streets, the water and sewer lines, and the exterior walls and 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 1996 landscaping. Those were necessary for them to be able to extract the kinds of monies that they expect to gain from the sale of the plots for private development. Their agreement with Intrawest was that they would provide them with a ready to build site; they would build all of the infrastructure to the property line and would give them a rough graded pad. They have put all of those costs into the proforma and that is the reason why he could say they are being required to pay not only the one-time fees for the land, one-time fees for access to the golf course and continuing fees for having access to the golf course and for being in that type of surroundings. Commissioner Jonathan asked what the north course was coming in at; Mr. Ortega replied about $10 million. Commissioner Jonathan asked if that was exclusive of the outside improvements like streets, curbs and gutters. Mr. Ortega said that was correct. Commissioner Jonathan said that if he wanted to go into a piece of dirt in the desert, he could build a golf course but he couldn't access it if he didn't have streets, curbs and gutters and couldn't water it if he didn't have irrigation, or light it. The offsite improvements were an integral part of operating a golf course. He asked if those costs were added and how much it would total. Mr. Ortega referred the answer to Mr. Acosta. Mr. Acosta said that if they were talking about just the north golf course, they were accessing the north golf course off of Portola on an interim basis until the entry road was fully developed. The entry road, which is a continuation of Desert Springs Drive to the north to the corner of the project, the entry road was estimated to be $1 .2 million, however, in the $9.5 million Commissioner Jonathan was asking about, the cul-de-sac now named Desert Willow Court which would access the interim club house was included in the $9.5 million estimate. Chairperson Beaty asked if the $9.5 million included the reservoir. Mr. Acosta replied no, that the reservoir was a separate project which would be used ultimately to water both facilities. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the cost of the north course included all of the curbs, gutters, streets, irrigation, electrical, plumbing, clubhouse, etc. Mr. Acosta explained that the north course included the mass grading, tees, fairways, greens, the irrigation and drainage system for the golf course, the irrigation and landscape for the golf course, the lake, rock and water features, the pump station, the mass grading of the five-acre clubhouse pad, the mass grading of the corner parcel at Cook and Frank Sinatra for a future hotel pad, the mass grading for a 15-acre conference center pad, the mass grading of the maintenance area pads and the street improvements off of Desert Willow Court and an emergency access road off of Cook Street to the core of the project as well. That was for the $9.5 million. The reclaimed water reservoir, which was a 2.8 million-gallon capacity reservoir for both golf courses plus the 24 inch reclaimed line coming from 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 1996 r.. Riviera Drive at Cook Street up to the emergency access road and then across the property, both projects were approximately $1 .2 million. The pump station and well was approximately $500,000. The maintenance facility was awarded at $1 .1 million, the permanent golf club house was estimated to cost $5 million. A perimeter landscape and perimeter wall was about $1 .2 million of the project. That should add up to about $26 million when adding up contingencies. Fees for Coachella Valley Water District for the domestic wells they are providing and there were seven of them. Grading fees, TUMF fees, plan check fees, permit fees were about $800,000. All those had been paid by the Agency to City departments and other respective agencies that have jurisdiction over this project. For the development, they were in the neighborhood of $20 million for that. Commissioner Jonathan asked how that compared to either the cost of private or municipal golf courses. Mr. Acosta said that compared to the cost of a private golf course, he worked for Landmark Land Company for five years and their golf courses used to average in the neighborhood of $6 to $8 million, but Landmark was also building $16 million clubhouses for the membership as well. He said that on a public golf course they are required to honor the state regulations for prevailing wage rates which tax them at about a 15% to 25% increase over what the private industry would be paying on similar bid items. He said that they were right in the ballpark. Commissioner Jonathan said that he wanted to explain that his line of questioning was directed at the development agreement which was in essence a financial agreement and unfortunately it was part of the package before the Planning Commission. He said unfortunately because he felt it had little to do with their normal role as planning commissioners. Later on they could discuss their options as commissioners, whether they could just take that aside and say that they don't want to comment on it or whether they want to review it or if they want to implement the mechanism of a study session that they had begun and this kind of material was the exact kind that lent itself to those kinds of informal meetings that they had been having. If they were going to evaluate the financial merits of an agreement, he felt part of what he needed to understand was what the cost basis was; the return was one thing and then the cost or investment was another. Once they understand both sides of the equation, they could evaluate if that makes sense and then comment on the development agreement and send it onto council. He thought that initial question was going to be about a ten-second question and he could see that it was far more complicated then that so he wouldn't pursue it, but while he was not dissatisfied with the answers, he was not satisfied in terms of having the questions in his mind completely answered and he felt there was greater depth to it. Mr. Drell said that the financial agreement, which is the 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 1996 .rr► DDIA, was not before the Planning Commission. The development agreement, which is a zoning matter, was before the Planning Commission. Unfortunately there is a connection and that is that one of the benefits of the projects was contained in the DDIA. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the development agreement refers to the DDIA and it made it a part of it in that sense. Commissioner Jonathan asked if this project as revised was now approved on a condition of 689 parking spaces as opposed to the earlier figure in the staff report. Mr. Smith said that the requirement is that the applicant provide in the first phase of the first phase the parking at the 1 .1 hotel rate, which totals the 680 or so spaces. Commissioner Jonathan said that at 1 .1 , if they build out to ultimately only 310 units instead of 549, 1 .1 times 310 does not equal 689. Mr. Smith replied that it was 1 .1 based on the 509, which gives them 560 plus 75 plus 60 in that they have the 75 spaces around the sales pavilion and the amenity building now, plus the 60. Commissioner Jonathan clarified that as they build a sub-phase, per building, instead of multiplying by five they multiply by nine and that by 1 .1 . Mr. Smith replied yes. Mr. Drell said it was not exactly by nine because they were assuming that, based on their experience, not all of the units were locked out and not all of the units are separated, that only 80% are and that some people do use their two-bedroom t i units, in essence 20 people use their two-bedroom unit and the other people don't. The 509 was what they felt was an equivalent reasonable hotel unit count and trying to fit it into the ordinance. Commissioner Jonathan said that if he understood this correctly, even as the project is built out at the minimum 310 units, it would wind up with 689 parking spaces. Mr. Smith replied that they provided the applicant with the opportunity to come back and request a reduction if they have evidence from an early sub-phase that they are not using all of that parking. They don't want to create a sea of parking out there if it was not getting used. They want to be comfortable in the early phase and perhaps reduce the parking if they have a good showing that they are over parking in the early phases. Commissioner Jonathan noted that burden of proof was on the applicant, they would start out with the higher requirement and he has to show cause for a lower one. Mr. Smith concurred. Commissioner Jonathan noted that part of the parking requirement would be built out with phase three. Mr. Smith stated that on the east side of Desert Springs Drive phases two and three were shown. What they did show was the ability to provide a 60-space employee parking lot on phase three which was part of the 689 total. Commissioner Jonathan asked what would happen if phase three isn't built out or didn't become part of this. Mr. Drell stated that this would be built with phase one. It is on land which was reserved for phase three but it would be built as part of the amenity building and part of the first 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 1996 construction. Commissioner Jonathan asked if it would be a requirement so that as the 310 units get built, so would be the parking. Mr. Drell stated that the parking would build it with the first 60 units. Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. JOHN CANAVAN, the Project Manager and Director of Development for IROC in Palm Desert, stated that all their principal people were present tonight. He said there were many renderings and a model which he believed truly showed the value and the integrity of the project. He said that if any Planning Commissioners had not reviewed this model, he strongly recommended that they do so. He felt it would really give them a vision of what Intrawest was bringing to the Desert. He said that if they would like them to provide a condensed version of their presentation, they would be happy to do so. He said that the principal people present to speak on behalf of Intrawest were Jim Gibbons, the President of Intrawest Resort Ownership Club, Chuck Shepardson of Horton Shepardson who was the landscape architect and had done an incredible job of integrating this project with the structures, Alan Hart of Bacon, McGuyver, Hart in Vancouver who was the main architect who in conjunction with Christopher McFadden of Palm Desert helped create this beautiful project. He asked Mr. Gibbons to address the commission to tell them who Intrawest is, what they do and about the Intrawest Club. MR. JIM GIBBONS, Intrawest Corporation of Vancouver, British Columbia, stated that tonight it might be a good idea to do more than a condensed version of their presentation and do what he would call a modification to the previous presentation that they gave to the Section 4 Committee last week. During that presentation what they did was have a number of the people involved in the project use the boards that have been developed for a storybook presentation and he didn't see a reason why they couldn't follow the same pattern. He said that he would start out by giving them an understanding of who Intrawest is and why they were interested in doing this project in Palm Desert and what the resort club is and why they believe that what they've done is comply with the modified version of the ordinance with respect to a 500-room hotel. He said that Intrawest Corporation is North America's leading developer of Four Seasons Mountain Resorts, the only company 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 1996 on the continent so far to combine expertise in the planning/design/ construction/operation and ongoing marketing of facilities on the mountain with villages at the base. He said that Whistler Blackcomb was their first resort and it was ranked the number one resort in North America and Mont Tremblant is the number one ranked mountain resort in Eastern North America. Currently they have eight different mountain resorts in various stages of development. A couple of them are in California, one at Mammoth and another is a recent acquisition that they made at Squaw Valley. They also have a joint venture with Ralston Purina in Keystone Colorado. They own a resort in Horseshoe North Virginia and they are currently building a 3,000 resident hotel resort in Stratton Vermont. He said that each Intrawest Resort is unique. Each mirrors the climate, geography and the culture of its surroundings. One of the things that have made them a unique company, and he hoped that commission would take the time to review the drawings, is that when they go into a community they don't take Intrawest into the community, but they take the community to Intrawest. Each one of their resorts mirrors the local culture of the community they are in and what they like to do is have the visitors to their resorts leave the city having seen something about the city, not necessary about them. The company demonstrated an ability to think beyond real estate and instead concentrated on enhancing the visitors' experience to each of its eight world-class resorts. In 1994 the Intrawest Ownership Club introduced their first resort club at Blackcomb Mountain and a second club was officially opened in Tremblant Quebec in 1995. The concept of an Intrawest Resort Club was painstakingly researched and carefully developed over a three year period. Much time and effort was spent creating a program that is distinct from a traditional timeshare product of the 1970s and 1980s and which is even a generation beyond the approach being taken by other leaders in the industry. Their system combines the best features of hotels, vacation exchange timeshare country club memberships and also offers the advantages of ownership. On behalf of its members Intrawest's plan is to create a select number of five star resort clubs in prestigious mountain, beach and desert settings in North America and offshore. In support of their application and the fact that they are complying with the modified 500 room hotel qualification in the timeshare ordinance, they believe that there are a number of things that have been taken into consideration. First, it had been dealt with enough with respect to the financial extractions in the negotiations with the Redevelopment Agency where they believe they 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 1996 are making a substantial contribution to the ongoing operation of the City of Palm Desert through the number of fees and access fees and the outright purchase of the land. The first phase of this property, just the purchase price of the land alone is $8 million. In addition to that, they have a unique structure which was something that attracted the Redevelopment Agency and the City of Palm Desert to Intrawest with respect to a vacation club resort hotel which is what they were seeking to have built on this site. Their project is like a hotel in that they have only one owner. The members participate through a trust for the ownership of a clear title for all of the assets of the club. There were no mortgages on any of the properties that are owned and, uniquely to the benefit of the Palm Desert project, when they open they will already have between 3,000 and 4,000 members who will already be owners of the assets seen tonight, which would all be clear title. He said that this sets the club apart and another unique feature was that unlike traditional timeshare, their owners are hotel quests. They have the ability to use the facilities, not only on a weekly basis, but on a day to day basis and check in like any of the hotels in the city. They can use their points to access the facility as a hotel. They run a hotel operation. Intrawest's background is the hotel business. They were one of the earlier people, but they didn't claim to be the only people who have realized that the hotel business is evolving into new kinds of products. Most hotels today being generated in North America are being sold on a somewhat different but somewhat the same basis as what they are proposing tonight in that they usually sell off the individual suites to investors and build what is called condo hotels. Intrawest is probably the North American leader in building condo hotels. They have built and managed thousands of hotel units in Blackcomb, Tremblant, and currently manage more than 600 units in West Virginia, 250 units in Stratton Vermont which will soon be in the 3,000 range, so they don't consider themselves to be in the timeshare business, but in the resort hotel business and they believe they are bringing a luxury resort hotel to the city of Palm Desert. He said that next Alan Hart would give the commission an understanding of how they have made this a Palm Desert project. MR. ALAN HART stated that he would first have Chuck Shepardson address the commission. 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 1996 j MR. CHUCK SHEPARDSON, with the architectural firm of Horton, Shepardson & Associates in Palm Desert, stated that they were currently under contract with the City of Palm Desert on both the north and south courses and with Intrawest to provide integration for the landscape design throughout the whole development. He stated that he would briefly like to describe the character of the project and touch on some of the items that Mr. Smith ran the commission through as to the layout of the whole development. He said that he was sure that most of the commissioners have seen the construction taking place on the north course now. The whole overall flavor for the Desert Willow project was to create a true desert experience, unlike most of the resort developments in the Desert. The north course is intended to be a core course with no development around it and is to be a true natural desert course. They are importing a lot of that look and were not working around existing vegetation, but the whole idea is to let that material they are installing turn to its natural state. Whereas the south course will have a lot of the same palettes used on it, it is intended to have more of a resort flavor to it and a more refined desert palette and be a little neater in appearance. In turn that was what attracted Intrawest to this project. They went out and saw what was happening in the north course and fell in love with that whole natural flavor out there and thought that would be a great experience to share with the owners of their club. In turn they hired them to provide the integration between the two so that it would seem like the whole development was designed and built as one and not as two separate entities between the City and Intrawest. He said that he would introduce the commission to some of the main features they are designing for both the golf course and for the Intrawest development. What they are doing for the main entries as shown on the model was bringing some of the native foothill features, meaning the topography and ruggedness of the surrounding mountains, down into the desert floor. They wanted to create a canyon-like effect as they drive up into the project itself and create a sense of arrival once they get to the high point, which was the intersection into the main development. Some of the main features they would be bringing into the project are the palm canyon oasis features found in the local foothills, which he felt were described very well in the renderings. The renderings showed the entry into the Intrawest development looking back at the main amenity area. There was an oasis feature and there would be an opportunity to actually get into that area and walk through it and it would lead visitors into the 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 1996 main activity and amenity area of the resort. There was also another rendering showing a view of one of the palm canyon oasis features looking from the golf course up to the amenity building itself. Both of these features would tie together and down into the golf course and drain into the main body of water, down in the holes below the sales pavilion and would also act as the irrigation lake for the golf course. There would be some great integration between the two projects. A lot of the features would carry out into the golf course and into the development. When they started laying out the whole site they developed some guiding principles that they followed to lay out this whole development. He thought that Mr. Smith noted some of them as far as the clustering of the neighborhoods, the meandering of the road, the topography they have incorporated as shown on the model, and they were putting those into a booklet form and would be using them as principles on how they designed this whole development and they also see the same principles being used by the operational staff and sales people to pass along to the owners/members of the club so they can understand their principles in designing this facility and their thinking behind it, which he felt would help them understand and enjoy the natural characteristics of the project. He thought Mr. Smith did a great job in describing the layout of the project. He mentioned the placing of the neighborhoods in clusters around a central courtyard and basically provided different views and different angles of viewpoint from a golfer's experience, not just seeing rows of condos lined down fairways which are typical of a lot of private developments here in the valley. He felt it would provide a great experience, some ins and outs throughout the borders between the golf and development itself. Also, he felt the central parking areas throughout the development basically were put aside to try and encourage pedestrian access throughout the whole development, which they feel is an integral part, for people to get out and experience the native desert vegetation they were putting in and around the development. There was also a great view of one of the neighborhood courtyards looking from the golf course back to it. One rendering showed how the buildings were set behind the landscape and how they were a backdrop to the landscape and not a dominate feature. He felt that was an overview of the character of the project. He said that he would turn the presentation over to Alan Hart to go over the main architectural flavor of the project. um 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 1996 MR. ALAN HART, Bacon, McGuyver & Hart, stated that in terms of architecture, what they tried to achieve was a blend and having a memory of many styles of the desert (mission style, pueblo, adobe and southwest architecture). When people came to this development, he wanted them to have images that would click in from other things they have seen without saying this is Spanish or one of the other styles. That was one of the key things they tried to learn. One of the important things they learned over the past seven months and in working with the local consultants was to really understand the fine balance between the different components of the different styles and approaches. When they first came, the plan was very Spanish, quite white with barrel the and so on. It had lots of grass and water. He thought they learned that is not what the desert is about. The mural behind the commission was what really motivated the colors, tones and setting. He felt the desert was a beautiful place and he wanted to flaunt it and take the character of the tones and colors of the desert and the texture of the desert and exploit those. The entry road was described and they tried to bring a part of the mountainside into the development and when coming up through there, visitors would come through a canyon and on the left side would be an entrance and it would be a desertscape with green trees that are naturally found here. They have tried to create an architecture that fits into the desert so when looking across the terrain, there would be dunes, rocky outcrops and peek-a-boo views of the buildings when passing by. The central courtyard was defined by arbors which created an arbor which they defined as the town square. It meant the center of the community. They took that as an imagery and used that as the focus for the community center. He showed the location of the community center, the marketing center which would eventually be turned into six units (and was part of the count) and the arbor which connected the elements and defined the central area and central oasis. When coming in through the main entry road, you would pass through the arbor which would become a very low key gateway. He said this was not a gated community and would be open and there wouldn't be a guard. It would open to allow people to drive in. The other arbor acts as a gateway transition into the neighborhoods. It also provided shade between the main parking and connecting to the amenity building and marketing building. That lead to the turnaround and drop off area and amenity building. The tower was the main lobby and reception area. In the center part of the amenity building were the community facilities. It end 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 1996 would be family oriented. He said there was a pool, a sports court that has a light teflon and steel structure over it and two tennis courts around the facilities for the families. There was also an area for golf cart parking and they were promoting golf cart use because they want to reduce the amount of vehicular traffic in the resort. One thing that was essential for Intrawest Resorts was to try and create a pedestrian experience. The only way to do that was to get people out of their cars and it behooved them to work out a parking management plan and to prove that the plan is doable and is the right way to go. At each of the haciendas he noted that they allowed for between two and six spots for parking and that could be expanded because they were tucked into the dunes. In the sales center they tried to set it back from the edge of the hill so that it would not dominate the golf course, but at the same time because it was 25 to 30 feet above the golf course it provided a fabulous view. In terms of the architecture of each of the buildings there were three towers. One was a concession stand to be operated by Kemper. The others were on the amenity building and marketing center and would be attractive. As a key element of the amenity center they have the palm canyon coming right up so that the experience of someone arriving to the amenity building would be to allow them to come into the front lobby and look through at a view that would be similar to indian canyons and would interest and excite people to get to the actual natural source. There was another feature that would be passed every day by resort members and seen by people on the golf course. He said they tried to come up with a form so that each building would relate to one another in a village-like character. One of the key components of the design was the vertical chimneys which were outdoor fireplaces and really focused on outdoor living. They focused the design on a pool in each of the neighborhoods so that everyone's main focus was out toward the golf course and to the pool. There were sitting areas with the outdoor fireplaces for the chilly evenings which they felt would keep people in their neighborhoods. The materials they were working with are adobe, the roofs on the amenity building and marketing center would be copper and copper facing on the lower portions of it with complimentary metal roofs on those as well. The units would have a metal roof that would have a patina of an etched copper. He said this would not be a green copper, but a desert etched copper and a bronze color. The colors they were planning to use were drawn from the hillsides and would sit comfortably into the landscape. ow 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 1996 Mr. Canavan readdressed the commission and said that he would like to add that when he was first approached by Intrawest, he specializes in high end residential homes in the desert and he primarily built 19 homes in the Vintage Club in Indian Wells and he knew how to do one thing and one thing only and that was to build a first class project. When he was approached initially by Mr. Gibbons he was somewhat surprised that he would come to him. Mr. Gibbons said he wanted someone who was the best and only knows how to do the best and that is what they would do for the city of Palm Desert. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project. MR. CHARLES PERON, a resident of Desert Falls at 74 Oakmont, stated that he would like to know more about the hotel planned on the corner. He asked if it was going to be 500 rooms. Chairperson Beaty stated that was not before the Planning Commission tonight and he suggested that Mr. Peron talk later with Planning staff. ..r Mr. Peron asked if they were planning to build a hotel eventually. Chairperson Beaty stated that they were not talking about that issue at all this evening. Mr. Drell indicated there was no application before the City right now for a hotel. Mr. Peron stated that they brought up the hotel issue first. Commissioner Ferguson clarified that the City has an ordinance that if someone is going to propose timeshare units, they had to have a 500-room hotel and these people don't. Chairperson Beaty said that it was being waived for this project. Mr. Drell stated that there were pads being developed and the original conceptual plan for this project included pads for hotels, but they have yet to receive an application for one and when they do, they would have hearings like this and legal notices would be sent. Chairperson Beaty closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments and/or action. r 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 1996 Commissioner Campbell said that she had a question for Mr. Ortega in regard to the fees for the south course for the guests of the haciendas. She asked if they would be paying the regular fees on the south course like the north course as everyone else or if they would receive a discount like Palm Desert residents. Mr. Ortega stated that in exchange for the financial package that they worked out for them and the series of revenues he talked about, the agreement is for: 1) that they have priority up to certain months to book tee times and then to the extent that they haven't booked them, the City's operator would have the right to book those tee times and until seven days before the City has the right to book all unbooked tee times. There is a provision that their members and guests will get a 20% discount off the posted rate, which really has nothing to do with discounts that the council may decide it wants to give Palm Desert residents for the same course. For example, on the very same course the council may decide to give Palm Desert residents a 30% discount. For the north course the council decided that Palm Desert residents will receive a 25% discount. The IROC members and guests would receive a 20% discount off the posted rate. Commissioner Campbell asked if the discount applied to both the south and north courses. Mr. Ortega replied that it was only for the south course. They have no priority rights to use the north course. They can use it just like members of the public can. Chairperson Beaty asked if the cost of the units had been determined. Mr. Gibbons stated that a typical high-end hotel purchased in the last ten years in North America would be at about $100,000 per room. He felt it was very important for the City of Palm Desert and the residents of the public who were present and were interested to understand the nature of what they are trying to create here. The nature of what they are trying to do is in line with the project in Scottsdale Arizona called Boulders and also a proposal that has been shelved a few times but which he believed was going ahead in Scottsdale by the Four Seasons hotel chain. Each of the units they are proposing would be in the $250,000 range. Chairperson Beaty asked what they would sell for. Mr. Gibbons stated that the nature of the way the product sells is that people buy the ability to rent it so they would by buying a membership and a membership was in the range of $12,000 to $15,000 each. Chairperson Beaty asked if that would give them a week or two. Mr. Gibbons said yes, that it was like a timeshare, except it was much more flexible. Another reason they were able to provide the City with reasons why this is an exception to the ordinance in place is that their members don't buy a 1 /50th portion of a title or have 50 people on a title they have to deal with. Their members buy the f., ability to book hotel rooms and as their lifestyle changes and they start out as 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 1996 r■ a young couple and require a studio unit, they can accommodate them nicely. Later they might need a one bedroom for them and one youngster and as they grow older they could use a two-bedroom unit and then go down the other side again and would start downsizing again. They would also have the ability to change locations and they would have people visiting here that have purchased their memberships in other club locations. He thought it was important for the people in the city of Palm Desert to realize that this will be a world class project. Chairperson Beaty asked what the nightly or weekly rates would be if for a member of the club. Mr. Gibbons said that as an example, currently at the club which they value about the same on a point basis at Blackcomb, during the prime time they are renting rooms for $450 to $500 per day. That was to the public, not members. It will be a high end project and something that people will want to come and take a look at. Commissioner Ferguson thanked Mr. Gibbons and Intrawest for doing a remarkable job of putting together an impressive proposal. He said the same could be said for Mr. Hart for the architecture, McFadden McIntosh, Horton Shepardson, and Mainiero Smith. Having watched them develop as a member of the Desert Willow Committee he felt it was impressive to say the least and their responsiveness as to the concerns of the City he felt was impressive. In terms of the land use aspects of this application, i.e., the tentative tract maps, a precise plan, CEQA review, and a conditional use permit, he personally didn't have a problem with any of that. In terms of the type of use being proposed reminded him of the Camelback Inn in Scottsdale which started out as a condominium-timeshare and has been a five star hotel for the last 20 years. It is enormously popular. In terms of having something the equivalent of a hotel, he didn't have a problem with either. What he did have a problem with was being asked to approve a waiver. He was going to take exception with Mr. Ortega and Mr. Drell. The commission has a draft resolution in front of them that says the commission has a draft development agreement which has been prepared which specifies certain benefits to the city for granting the waiver, and whereas the Planning Commission has reviewed the draft development agreement. When he reviewed the draft development agreement, there was no mention of benefits. There was only mention of a Disposition and Development Agreement which the commission has not seen and they were told which was currently being negotiated. When he asked for numbers, he looked at the staff report which had numbers which were unsupported by anything that he could review independently and when he talked to Mr. Ortega about how those numbers added up, they didn't add up for him and he was told they had hundreds of millions of dollars and he hasn't seen those either. wo 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 1996 It would be difficult for him to support a waiver without information or to support a resolution which says that he has reviewed what the benefits to the city would be when he didn't have the slightest idea of what they are. He was told that it was none of his business and if that is the case, then he didn't have any problem voting against this part. If it is his business he couldn't vote on it because he didn't have the information in front of him. Either that was an abstention or a no vote. He didn't want the applicant to feel that was a reflection on their work or the merits of their project. Presumably the council would get the DDIA and the proper information and they would make that decision. Unfortunately he couldn't. As far as the project was concerned and what they were proposing to do, he felt it was very impressive and he felt it would be a wonderful asset to this city if it makes sense to the council from a business standpoint and he complimented them for their work. Commissioner Jonathan agreed with Commissioner Ferguson's accommodations to Intrawest and all those involved. It appeared to be a wonderful project and that eventually when it is built it would be a wonderful addition to Palm Desert. From a pure Planning Commissioner's standpoint, he saw no problem with the project. The problem he did have, similar to Commissioner Ferguson, was the development agreement which references other agreements and financial aspects of this project. He felt he lacked the knowledge and understanding to make a recommendation to council which is what the resolution requires of him. He thought there were a number of choices available: A) the Planning Commission could be left out of that part of the proposal and noted that Planning Commission in the past has sent on part of a proposal to council without comment or recommendation for or against; or B) the matter could be continued, there could be a study session to allow them to develop more knowledge about that aspect of the application. If he were the applicant, he would probably opt for option A and get this moving since the council is the ultimate judge on financial matters. He asked the applicant to address that question and whether they have a preference given those two options. Mr. Gibbons stated that he didn't know what their rights were as opposed to what they are entitled to request from the commission. He asked Mr. Drell for direction. Mr. Drell clarified that the commission could make their recommendation in any form they want. What Commissioner Jonathan was suggesting was that they could choose to evaluate the pure planning aspects of the proposal and 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 1996 those aspects of the development agreement which are purely planning related. Whether physically this project is of the quality of a resort hotel, whether to the extent they understand how the club operates--whether it fulfills the function of a resort hotel; in essence pass on a recommendation of whether the financial details of the DDIA provide the City with substantial or adequate benefit and leave that up to the council. That is option one. They could choose to make the recommendation in that form. Option two would be to adopt and approve a resolution involving the tract maps, precise plan and conditional use permit, continue the development agreement to January 7, which would still be before the council meeting on January 23, so that they could take the next two weeks to get them a copy of the DDIA and make Mr. Ortega and his team available to commissioners to answer questions and present a more detailed synopsis of the financial points of the DDIA for them to make that decision on January 7. Commissioner Jonathan clarified that there were four parts to the application that was submitted to the commission. Three of the parts have to do with development issues: the conditional use permit, the tentative tract maps, and the precise plan. The fourth element is the development agreement. That development agreement addresses other issues and references a Disposition Development Agreement which the commission has not seen. That is part of the reason that it was difficult for him to give a recommendation to council with regards to that fourth element of their application. His personal preference would be to simply not comment on the fourth element and let the council deal with the financial aspect of the application and advise council through approval that the commission approves of the development aspects of the application. That was alterative A. Alternative B would be to postpone this process and let the commission review that fourth element, the financial aspect of the application. He asked the applicant if he had a preference given those two alternatives. Mr. Gibbons stated that if the process wasn't prejudiced by them going to council without the Planning Commission dealing with issue four, then that would be the one he would go for if he could persuade commission to do that. Commissioner Jonathan's opinion was that council would understand their reticence to deal with the financial aspect of the application and would not be prejudiced one way or the other by a no opinion result with regards to that part of the application. 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 1996 Chairperson Beaty asked if Mr. Ortega would like to comment. Mr. Ortega stated that they have all that information and they do not prepare the staff report that commission received. If they were to ask him about certain information in the staff report, he wouldn't be able to comment on it. He agreed that there is a lot more financial data, but that was on the financing side and it was his understanding that the Planning Commission deals with land use issues and it was the council wearing their Redevelopment Agency hats that deal with financial issues, not the council sitting as the council that they make their recommendations to. He said either option could be handled since they have the information, it was just that typically the Development and Disposition Agreement follows action by the Planning Commission and they have done that process on several projects. He sited Desert Crossing as an example. It was both a development agreement that dealt with the planning issues and the Agency Board then acted on financial issues. The Garden of El Paseo was another such project. Those were issues that go hand in hand, but it was the city council wearing their Agency hats that deal with financial issues, not the city council sitting as the city council. He said they were available to provide whatever information the commission wanted to make them feel comfortable with the fourth issue. tow Commissioner Ferguson asked if, since Mr. Ortega was the Executive Director of the lead agency on behalf of the City, he had a preference as to whether the commission should just give this to the council or whether the commission should study this and take a look at it. Again, he didn't disagree with what Mr. Ortega was saying, but it was kind of odd and they have a resolution that says they have analyzed the benefits and find that they justify a waiver when they haven't analyzed any benefits. Mr. Ortega said his recommendation would be as agreed by Commissioner Jonathan. He didn't want to imply that the Planning Commission wouldn't be able to deal with the financial issues, but they were rather complex and it was a document that they have been working on for more than a year. They have explained it various times and have found out that it needs further explanation all the time. They could do that, but if they dealt with the planning issues, in other words, if this is a good plan, zoning, design and all of that, and as suggested by Commissioner Jonathan with regard to the benefits that the resolution discusses about why it must be approved as a new ordinance. The commission deals with that and then the city council since it passes the ordinance. He wouldn't have a problem if they did it that way. 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 1996 j Commissioner Ferguson asked if the Desert Willow Committee was going to look at the benefit side of this or if it was just up to the Agency Board. Mr. Ortega said that they have been providing the committee with updates as negotiations have progressed, including full proformas. Only in the sense of land negotiations have any of these issues gone to the Agency Board. Neither the Agency Board nor the council have received this project officially. An application with advertised public hearings has not been submitted to them. The only way they have dealt with it was under land negotiations. They will still have to deal with it. There is a requirement that a report accompany their recommendation and that the DDIA lay out exactly what all the requirements are on the Agency meeting, all the costs and they have to identify all the costs of putting the land together, all the carrying costs. In addition, all the future requirements, for example the requirement to build a resort course, the requirement to operate it and provide the sites, as compared to the benefits. That is a report that as of today is ready that has to be advertised and has to be available for public inspection so that the public can question whether the benefits are there. That is a report that would also be made available to the public at the time that the DDIA is finalized. Their time frame for having that DDIA finalized if they are going to meet the January 23 meeting is to have the DDIA along with that report of benefits and costs in the next three weeks. If they don't have that for whatever reason, since both their attorneys and our attorneys are still working at it, if they don't have it, it would have to be postponed to February, but their plan is not to wait under February because Intrawest has indicated that they want to have the first phase of the units complete by the end of the year, which means that RDA has to provide the infrastructure and the sites and start construction of the site improvements no later than the end of March. Commissioner Jonathan said he had a suggestion for a solution. The way it is worded there are six sections to the action being requested by the commission and by staff of the commission. The final item references the development agreement. On that issue if the Planning Commission sent it onto council without comment and explaining as part of the language that they are sending it along without comment because they have not had an opportunity to review the necessary documents for forming an opinion and make it clear that it is not because they are reluctant to form an opinion, but that they are simply unable to do so at this point and further express to the council that should they wish the commission's input, they would be willing to do so if they sent that part of the application back. ' 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 1996 Chairperson Beaty said that sounded good to him and the commission has certainly indicated the concerns, which would be reflected in the minutes. Commissioner Ferguson concurred completely with that and indicated that both he and Commissioner Campbell sit on the Desert Willow Committee and there were various rotating members of the city council present and in speaking with them in different instances, since the overall scope of this project is upwards of $80 million he wasn't sure they wouldn't want someone else looking at it, but he would leave that up to their discretion. If they want the Desert Willow Committee or Planning Commission to look at it that would be fine. He agreed with Commissioner Jonathan's recommendation. Commissioner Fernandez stated that as a Planning Commissioner he agreed with Commissioner Jonathan and he felt this was a great project and that they have done an excellent job. He felt that Mr. Ortega was correct that they are Planning Commissioners and they had to look at that part of their job and agreed with Commissioner Jonathan when he said they should leave it up to the City Council as far as the financial portion was concerned. As far as the planning issues, he felt this was a great project and would be an enhancement to the city. He thought they could be proud of this project and felt that Planning staff did a good job in explaining the project also. He was in favor and as far as the financial aspects, that was not part of their job and agreed with Commissioner Jonathan's recommendation. Commissioner Campbell felt that IROC did an excellent job on this project and that it would be an asset to the community. Also, she didn't feel that this quality development should be jeopardized just because of the requirement for a 500-room hotel. Also, the quality of people coming into the haciendas would be the kind of people that both El Paseo and the business community needs. If they spent their dollars here that would be good for the city. She concurred with Commissioners Jonathan and Ferguson in regard to the development agreement, but as Mr. Gibbons also stated, if he doesn't want to bring it in front of the commission and would rather just take it to the council, that the commission should accommodate him. Chairperson Beaty called for a motion. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 1996 .rr Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1776, approving TT 28450, subject to conditions. Carried 5-0. 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 Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1777, approving PP/CUP 96-28 and TT 28451 , subject to conditions. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, by minute motion, sending the development agreement to the City Council without comment because the commission was not supplied with the documentation necessary to form an opinion, however, should council wish the Planning Commission to review the financial aspects of the application, the commission would be like to do so. Motion carried 5-0. C. Case Nos. C/Z 96-6 and TPM 28488 - MAINIERO, SMITH AND a/ ASSOCIATES, Applicant Request for approval of a change of zone to PCD (Planned Community Development), master plan of development and tentative parcel map for 270 +/- acres generally located south of Interstate 10, east and west of Cook Street. Chairperson Beaty noted that the commission has had a brief staff report on this item at a prior presentation and staff was requesting a continuance. Mr. Drell concurred. He asked if the commission had any questions. Chairperson Beaty asked if there were members of the audience that couldn't come to the continuation of the hearing which would tentatively be January 21 , 1997. Mr. Smith said that staff was optimistic for January 21 . It goes to CVAG on January 16. Fish and Game might not necessarily have concluded their review at that point, but staff optimistically planned for the 21 st of January. Chairperson Beaty asked if staff would seek an action from commission this evening. Mr. Smith replied no, that staff was not in a position to seek that but suggested that perhaps the commission should hear from members of the public. Chairperson Beaty felt that was a good solution, rt 32 �� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 1996 Chairperson Beaty olened the public hearing and asked if anyone had specific questions that could be answered right now. MR. MARVIN ROOS, Mainiero, Smith & Associates, stated that he appeared before commission before and went over the land use plan and received some good comments back. They've submitted a change of zone with a development plan that would lead to a development agreement on this property and were looking for an exciting north entry to the community on Cook Street. Understanding that some of the freeway oriented business issues were unresolved with ZORC at this time, they understood that aspect of some of the hesitation of staff to move ahead, however he disagreed with the issue with the multi- species habitat. He said that at this time the CVAG process is totally advisory and not mandatory at all. This is a fringe-toed lizard fee area and they would be paying the fee on this property. They may or may not have other issues that would come up at a later time, but there was nothing relative to the CVAG process that was binding on the City or the applicant. It was an advisory process looking at the overall picture. In that regard they do have some timing issues they are trying to move ahead with and he didn't think staff was ready to move ahead tonight, but they would prefer a two-week delay if they could get it and they would like to move ahead as quickly as possible. The overall issue was realizing that some of the precise plan issues with the freeway-oriented business. They would probably have to wait until those issues went through the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee. He said they would like to move at least concurrently with those items as they come through the commission as well so that they could see what the real project would look like with those standards. He said that he realized this would be something new to everyone, including the Planning Commission. They were trying to move ahead as quickly as possible and realized that there were some issues that might be unresolved, even on January 21 , but they would like to move ahead regardless of the CVAG multi-species issues and he wanted commission to let them deal with this separately. MRS. KATRINA HEINRICH STEINBERG, the applicant, stated that she, together with her husband, represent the ownership of the property in question. She indicated that she would like to ask the commission's indulgence in at least seeing a speedier process of this because of just two simple facts. For the past 11 years they have been paying for their 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 1996 Palm Desert properties which primarily consist of evaluations of the 290 gross acres located in that sphere and they have been paying almost $1 1 million in taxes and bond issues. They are finally at the point where this property is developable and becoming part of the newly created freeway-commercial zone, hopefully to be finalized very quickly, but they have a very small item. A gas station site at the northeast corner of Gerald Ford and Cook which is a very high profile site and it is much needed for when the overpass is opened at the end of January or February as presently projected. This site has been burdened with a temporary deed restriction by staff because that is the way the city functions and the way the ordinance is written, that a minimum of five acres has to be planned out and a specific plan approved before the development of the potential gas station can get a building permit. She felt this holding them up again and their possibly losing a buyer of the site by this delay, which was scheduled to close August 30, then November 30, then December 30, and now they were looking at a hearing at the end of January, and she felt it was very unacceptable to them. She asked that commission make an exception and at least free up the gas station site from the temporary deed restriction so that they can move ahead with that particular development and following up with the City until the rest of the five-acre minimum development is done and follow up simultaneously with that. Mr. Drell stated that the problem was that right now there are many aspects of their gas station project that are not permitted by current ordinances and until that is resolved, that is what is holding up the gas station project. It has nothing to do with anything else. Commissioner Ferguson asked if ZORC would be addressing that the next day. Mr. Smith stated that the next meeting would be January 8, 1997. Mr. Drell noted that this application was only filed about a month ago, so to say that they have delayed by not acting in a month on a project of this magnitude is unfair criticism. There are fundamental problems regardless of environmental ones since the nature of the development they really want is still something the City hasn't developed standards for and until we do, he didn't feel that the City could proceed with approval until those standards have been developed. Mr. Drell said there were many issues which were critical to this development which are a radical departure from the way the City has looked at developments for gas stations, restaurants, fast food and signage. Therefore, i 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 1996 �r. they would not be able to proceed until staff is prepared to bring a recommendation to the commission for all of those issues. Commissioner Jonathan clarified that it wouldn't happen by January 7. Mr. Drell said it wouldn't happen by January 7 without question. Maybe by January 21 staff would, at least on a discussion basis, be able to have before Planning Commission discussion of some of these ideas that the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee is coming forth with, which will ultimately lead to an ordinance revision and it would be something included in their development guidelines. Commissioner Jonathan asked if he was understanding correctly that there was an application before the City on City land and they can't process the application because our zoning standards have not been clarified for that area. Mr. Drell replied no, that they are attempting to create a new set of standards for areas around the freeway offramps with different sorts of commercial development standards that might allow more than one gas station or allow signage which is significantly different from those the City allows now which would be visible from the freeway and would allow drive-through restaurants and provide alternate standards specifically designed to take advantage of freeway offramps. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the proposed gas station was not in compliance with present zoning standards, and if it would be in compliance with the modified standards. Mr. Drell explained that the proposal is in the Planned Commercial zone and that Planned Commercial zone requires that any project, whether a gas station or any development, to have at least a five acre planning module. You can't take one acre in the PC zone and develop it without a larger master plan. That is what prevents them--there is a deed restriction. The City allowed them to create through a parcel map waiver a pad for that gas station, but he attached to it a deed restriction that said that they couldn't build on that pad unless it is developed in conjunction with at least a five-acre parcel per the PC-2 ordinance. The existing ordinance doesn't just let them build a gas station. The applicant is proposing a five acre plus project, but it involves aspects which aren't permitted in the PC-2 zone either, so they were trying to create a special zone to allow them to do what they want. As a city they are working very hard to accommodate the desires of the applicant and the special circumstances. Commissioner Ferguson felt they have gone beyond that. He noted they were considering a commercial overlay zone from Monterey to Washington that allowed drive-through restaurants along the freeway, which has never been done, and a whole host of land uses that the City has never previously considered, but is finally saying that maybe they should get some and get people off of the freeway. Mrs. Steinberg has a proposed project that 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 1996 they've actually been meeting with her on at the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Review Committee meetings and they have been using her particular project as a model to build the ordinance around. That was why he was surprised at the criticism. Mrs. Steinberg said that if it sounded like criticism she apologized, it wasn't meant to be. It was meant to be a plea for the Planning Commission to possibly put them at an earlier meeting than January 21 . Mr. Drell said that during the next two weeks there were a lot of holidays and he didn't think there would be a tremendous amount of additional information that staff would be able to bring to the commission and staff didn't like to schedule public hearings and invite people back again and again and still not make decisions. The issue of the environmental review is significant in that with many of the species that are being reviewed, they are operating with an understanding with the resource agencies that they will cooperate with us if we go through these reviews and prepare plans to protect a lot of these species which are on the verge of being endangered and having a lot of significant detrimental impact on the development community if they become j listed as endangered, so they have a sort of gentleman's agreement that says we won't proceed without some sort of consultation. He noted that this is a major project and they are asking for entitlements of some sort on more than 200 acres in the area that is under question. This is not a simple request to build a gas station on a corner. Commissioner Jonathan asked if January 21 was sufficient time. Mr. Drell felt staff would have more information, both relative to potential environmental problems and hopefully on the direction that the freeway commercial is going. Chairperson Beaty called for a motion. Action: Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, continuing C/Z 96-6 and TPM 28488 to January 21 , 1997 by minute. Carried 5-0. 36 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 1996 IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Election of Chairperson Chairperson Beaty said that it has been a pleasure being the Chairperson and he hoped he provided those who came to the commission with concerns with a fair avenue to express those concerns. Chairperson Beaty opened the floor for nominations for Chairperson. Commissioner Jonathan thanked Commissioner Beaty for his fine service as their chairperson and he felt he always treated applicants, the public and staff with dignity and respect and at the same time moved along the meetings very nicely and he appreciated it. In keeping with the commission's precedent for rotating the chairmanship on a seniority basis, he wanted to move for the election of Commissioner Ferguson as the next chairperson. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, electing Commissioner Ferguson as Chairperson by minute motion. Carried 5- �"' 0. B. Election of Vice Chairperson Chairperson Ferguson asked for comments or nominations. Action: Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, electing Commissioner Campbell as Vice Chairperson by minute motion. Carried 5-0. Chairperson Ferguson proposed that all of the committee liaisons be done with one vote. Commission concurred. C. Appointment of an Economic Development Advisory Committee Representative, Appointment of a Liaison for the Civic Center Steering Committee, Appointment of a Zoning Ordinance Review Committee Representative, Appointment of a Desert Willow Committee Representative, and Appointment of a Project Area 4 Committee Representative 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 1996 E t Action: Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, by minute motion appointing Commissioner Jonathan as EDAC representative, reappointing Commissioner Beaty as Civic Center Steering Committee representative, reappointing Chairperson Ferguson as the ZORC representative, appointing Commissioners Beaty and Campbell as the Desert Willow Committee representative, and appointing Commissioner Fernandez as the Project Area 4 Committee representative and Commissioner Jonathan as the alternative. Carried 5-0. X. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE UPDATE None. XI. COMMENTS 1 . Ms. Jacobson informed commission that she would be out of the office until the day of the next commission meeting and any questions should �.rl be directed to Dave Erwin in her absence. 2. Mr. Drell asked if the commission wanted a 6:00 p.m. study session to study the DDIA. Chairperson Ferguson said that perhaps the commission could do it the same way the other study sessions were set up and those who are interested could show up. Commissioner Campbell said that she would be interested. Chairperson Ferguson said he would too. He felt the commission would get questions about it whether or not it officially came back to the Planning Commission because to cost is $81 million. The golf course rates would also become public. This would be a dinner presentation like they have had before. Mr. Drell said they could do that and they would have Mr. Ortega put together a packet. 3. Commissioner Beaty asked if Cam's Corner was appealed. Mr. Drell replied yes, that it was and it would be scheduled for council at the January 9 city council meeting. It was appealed by Mr. Godecke. Mr. Drell noted that the architectural commission did approve an alternative canopy design. arf 38 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 1996 r.. 4. Commissioner Fernandez said he also wanted to thank Paul Beaty for doing a great job as chairperson. XII. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adjourning the meeting to January 7, 1997 by minute motion. Carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:46 p.m. PHILIP DRELL, lecretary ATTE . JAMS Tqaning RGU ON, Chairperson Pal Desert ommission Am 39