Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1102 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - NOVEMBER 2, 1999 rtow 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Jonathan called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Finerty led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sabby Jonathan, Chairperson Paul Beaty, Vice Chairperson Sonia Campbell Cindy Finerty Jim Lopez %1W Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Jeff Winklepleck, Parks and Recreation Planning Manager Martin Alvarez, Associate Planner Mark Greenwood, Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the October 19, 1999 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the October 19, 1999 minutes. Motion carried 5-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION iww Mr. Drell said there were no pertinent October 28, 1999 City Council actions. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 s i t .■i VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 99-6 - PEARL DEVELOPMENT LTD, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to adjust lot lines between two lots north of Fred Waring Drive, west of Fairhaven. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising I only those issues he/she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. CUP 99-8 - CAESAR'S EMPEROR, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit for a 10,000 square foot restaurant and, after 9:00 p.m., a bar, lounge and nightclub with dancing including live music and disc jockeys in the building located at 72-600 Dinah Shore Drive. Mr. Drell informed commission that staff had been contacted by the applicant's attorney who stated that the applicant's Father was seriously ill and he was not able to attend this meeting and was therefore requesting a continuance for two weeks. Commissioner Finerty requested clarification on the age. If it was 18 or 21 and if the commission had the authority to go to age 21 in condition number three of the staff report. Mr. Drell stated that theoretically the commission could impose any condition. Apparently Caesar's Emperor didn't have a hard liquor license. They served beer and wine which allowed age 18 not 21 . They mi 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 r.. weren't required by ABC to be 21 , but as a commission he thought they could apply conditions in excess, technically, of the conditions supplied by the court. Commissioner Finerty asked if they could determine if they in fact serve pizza until 2:00 a.m. Mr. Drell said that was a question that would have to be asked of the applicant. Mr. Hargreaves said that on the age issue there would be an issue of preemption of the State law that he would have to look into. He asked Mr. Drell if the agreement was that it would be age 18 or 21 . Mr. Drell said the agreement turned out to be 18 and the confusion had to do with whether he had a full liquor license and when they realized he didn't, it got changed to 18 and it looked like 28. In talking to Doug Phillips, he said the proper number was 18, at least that was the understanding amongst the parties in the court. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public hearing was left open. Chairperson Jonathan asked for a motion. Action: how It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, continuing CUP 99-8 to November 16, 1999 by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case No. CUP 99-14 - RV'S OF MERRITT, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow outdoor sales and display of recreational vehicles within an existing shopping center parking lot located at 72-300 Dinah Shore. Mr. Alvarez stated that he included Exhibit A in the commission staff reports while illustrated the proposed location for RV's of Merritt's request to display and sell recreational vehicles in the parking lot area directly north of Petsmart. He pointed out that it was separated by the Costco shopping area and parking lot and the former Home Base store and parking lot area by the main drive access coming off from Dinah Shore. The applicant was requesting approval to conduct outdoor sales of 25 vehicles. The area had 72 parking spaces which throughout the week of October 25 were completely vacant on all site visits. The hours of operation would be 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. seven days a week. As background he explained that the property is zoned PC-3 which would allow outdoor sales with approval of a conditional use permit. This 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 applicant has in the last year and a half-conducted temporary sales approved through the city's temporary use permit process and had operated successfully within this area without conflict to parking or any other conflicts with the adjacent property owners. Staff was recommending approval subject to conditions stated in the draft resolution. Those conditions included approving the conditional use permit for a one year period subject to renewal based on the Director of Community Development's review for compatibility with the adjacent properties and also included a condition that if and when the vacant property to the west, directly adjacent to this parking lot area, ever developed that all outdoor sales and display would cease. This area was currently under utilized because of the 4.5 acre vacant pad. Staff added that condition to potentially mitigate all conflicts within the shopping center. When that pad develops all RV sales would cease. Chairperson Jonathan noted that the staff report indicated that the parking survey was conducted and to see the parking survey. He asked if the commission had a copy of the survey. Mr. Alvarez said he was going to include it, but on all the visits, all spaces were vacant. Chairperson Jonathan asked if he visited the site during the weekend. Mr. Alvarez said he visited it on Saturday and it was vacant. He was there about 3:30 p.m. on Saturday afternoon. Chairperson Jonathan noted that there would also be an oral report on additional survey work conducted on October 30 and 31 . Mr. Alvarez said that was this last weekend. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. MICHAEL A. SASSI, the Manager for RV's of Merritt, stated that the proposed location would be 72-300 Dinah Shore. He said they operated at this location last year and were there for six months. He believed the additional advertising, the motor homes on display were new coaches and they handled a variety of well built and known line of motor homes that did draw a high quality customer. Their clients were 40 and above. Average income was $60,000 to over $100,000. A lot of their clients were Costco shoppers. They met them at RV parks to promote the area and they did very well last year and were looking forward to another good year. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 r.. Commissioner Campbell noted that one of the conditions of approval was that they couldn't have more than 25 vehicles at any time. She asked if that would be a problem. Mr. Sassi said no. Commissioner Lopez said that he did visit the area last year and asked if there were 25 vehicles there at that time. Mr. Sassi said he doubted that they had that many. He also doubted that they would have 25 this year. He would rather ask for a few more just in case. They carried about a $5 million inventory and had two locations plus a show team that traveled the RV parks in the area. It took quite a bit of revenue in motor homes to fill that. He thought it would probably be closer to 18-20 which would leave ample parking spaces for clients. Commissioner Finerty asked if there was a reason why RV's of Merritt was r.. located in Cathedral City and chose not to open up a business in Palm Desert. Mr. Sassi said they would love to open up a business in Palm Desert. They were seeking out developers right now to find a permanent location for the first full-time dealership in the Coachella Valley. Their lot in Cathedral City was sufficient for summer time use. In the winter time their inventory would get up to $5 million or more. That was quite a few coaches and he didn't have the room in Cathedral City, nor the room to expand there. That was why they were looking in Palm Desert. He also lived close by and liked this area a little bit better. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Jonathan for commission comments. Commissioner Campbell said that if this was only a conditional use permit valid for one year, she would move for approval. Commissioner Finerty said she would disagree. She thought that having operated here in Palm Desert last year for six months when the office was actually located in Cathedral City, 25 RVs were excessive, it looked tacky and tow MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 that it was inappropriate to operate a business out of one of the RVs in the parking lot, that if RV's of Merritt would like to establish a legitimate business in Palm Desert, they should do it the right way in an office with a building and an RV lot. She thought that would be appropriate and said they would be very welcome in the city. Other business owners have done it this way and she felt to allow this was giving RV's of Merritt a free ride and would be opposed to this. Commissioner Beaty said he was prepared to second the motion and welcomed the business. He hoped they would do very well this year and in the future would relocate here permanently. Chairperson Jonathan stated that he was in general favor of the application but thought that Commissioner Finerty made a good point. He also commended staff on conditions of approval numbers four and five which he felt took the sting out of the risks they were taking in approving the project. He liked the creativity there and commended staff to coming up with them. 1 He wondered if they could find a balance here and allow the CUP for a one- year period but instead of the Director of Community Development granting a one-year extension, having it come back to the commission and giving the commission an opportunity to make the point that this was not a permanent business site, they let it go for a while, gave it another year and maybe at that point they would be ready to extend it another year or say that's it and time to find a permanent home. He asked what the commission felt as a modification to condition number four, to have it come back to the commission after one year. Commissioner Finerty stated that she would not be in favor of that. She felt a year was long enough. Commissioner Campbell said she would add that to her motion. Chairperson Jonathan said that with that modification he would be comfortable. He asked if staff had any comments. Mr. Drell said that was fine. Commissioner Beaty amended his second. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, 3 adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1954, approving CUP 99-14, 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no.) C. Case No. TT 29469 - BAXLEY PROPERTIES, Applicant Request for approval of a tentative tract map to subdivide 4.23 acres into 15 single family lots located on the north side of Frank Sinatra Drive 630 feet west of Portola Avenue. Mr. Smith noted that some time back there was a proposal on ten acres at the northwest corner of Frank Sinatra and Portola where it was going to go office professional. That zone change was not approved and now they were looking at a tract map covering the westerly five acres of that ten acres. The proposal was for 15 single family lots, creation of a new north-south street at the easterly limit of this lot and then a public street (says private in the staff report which was in error). The cul-de-sac street which extends westerly into the site was a public street. The north-south half street was 44 feet with 32 feet of pavement. When the other lot to the east side developed they would get the other half of the street. Minimum lot size 8,073 square feet, maximum 10,500. Average lot size would be 8,661 square feet. The only concern staff had was relative to the grade differential between the west end of this tract and the home in the K & B development located to the northwest. Immediately to the west of this site was a CVWD well site and then north of that there was one home that was partially adjacent to this site. He spoke to Public Works staff and their condition number 25 addressed the grade issue to require that it be adjusted so that it would be no greater than one foot of difference between those two lots. Currently it was about two feet so it would be adjusted. Staff felt the findings for approval of the tentative could be affirmed. Proposed setbacks for homes in the development were outlined on page 3. Environmentally, staff felt the project would not create a significant impact on the environment and prepared a Negative Declaration. Staff recommended approval of the findings and Planning Commission Resolution No. 1955, subject to the conditions contained in the resolution. Commissioner Campbell asked when all the new residences and dwellings were required to have illuminated residential addresses. She wanted to know when that came into effect. Mr. Smith said he didn't know. Commissioner Campbell said she was also asking for her own development and why they 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 were lit. Mr. Smith said he would check with the Fire Department and report back. It was part of their conditions. When it came into effect, he didn't know. Mr. Greenwood advised that it has been more than five years. Commissioner Campbell said that they would have to get after the developers of her development if they were required to do it for her development. Chairperson Jonathan closed the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. DICK BAXLEY, the applicant, stated that he read staff's recommendation and approved them. He asked for the commission's approval so they could proceed. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Finerty asked what the square footage range Mr. Baxley would have for the homes. Mr. Baxley said they would probably be 1 ,800 to 3,000. He thought there was a trend toward a larger home, but that was a market driven issue and he couldn't give those numbers right now. It was generally going to be minimum 1 ,800 and the largest would probably be 3,000- 3,200. Commissioner Finerty asked for a price range. Mr. Baxley guessed that it would probably be the $200,000+ range. Commissioner Campbell congratulated Mr. Baxley on the plan. She felt it was much better than the previous request. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Jonathan asked for commission comments. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 r✓ It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1955, approving TT 29469, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. D. Case Nos. GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 and DA 99-3 - PEARL INDUSTRIES INC., Applicant Request for approval of a general plan amendment to add senior overlay, approval of a change of zone from PR-7 (planned residential 7 units per acre) to PR-7 S.O. (planned residential senior overlay), precise plan of design/conditional use permit (including a height exception for the three (3) story portion), development agreement and a negative declaration of environmental impact as it relates to a proposed 250 unit continuing care retirement community, a community center building and a 99 bed skilled nursing facility on 13.04 acres on the west side of Fairhaven Drive between Fred Waring Drive and Parkview Drive, 72-650 Fred Waring Drive and 72-755 Parkview Drive. Mr. Smith stated that staff would be recommending a continuance. He noted that on September 21 Planning Commission denied this request. At that point in time it was the applicant's preference for a denial as opposed to a continuance. The applicant subsequently filed an appeal. The matter was set for hearing at council on October 14. On October 6 the applicant revised his plans significantly. At the Council meeting of October 14 the council felt the changes were significant enough that the matter needed to be referred back to Planning Commission. Staff renoticed the matter for hearing, prepared a revised report, the environmental documentation, a resolution of approval, and conditions. At that time the changes staff was looking at included the lowering of the three-story section from 28 feet to 25 feet, lowering the two- story section from 17 feet to 15 feet, deletion of all the tower elements and in so doing that, the maximum height on the site became the community facility building at 28 feet. Additionally, the applicant deleted the parking adjacent to Fairhaven Drive, some 29 or 30 spaces, in favor of additional landscaping. That was what staff noticed for tonight's meeting. Last Wednesday, the 27th of October, the applicant and neighborhood met. Thursday morning Mr. Smith was contacted by both the applicant and 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 i .mi neighbors. The applicant came away from the meeting with the neighborhood convinced that the issue that was causing the problem with the project involved the commercial aspect of the skilled nursing facility. Consequently, they agreed to delete the skilled nursing facility. Staff learned of that on Thursday. In talking with Jerry Rogers on Thursday, one of the people in the neighborhood, he felt that they were now in a position to possibly come to some type of agreement on this proposal, but they did not have enough time to work out the final details and at that point he requested a continuance until November 16 and any time where there is a concerted effort going on in a neighborhood to arrive at a compromise, staff didn't want to stand in the way of that possibility. Staff also at that point decided to issue an addended report where staff recommended a continuance until November 16. He indicated that on display, there were renderings of the most recent artist rendition of one of the sections of the building which was received earlier in the day. They were finally getting some detail that staff hadn't seen earlier. He noted that other plans were also on display. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to i address the commission. MR. CHARLIE SWEET, 43-708 Virginia Avenue in Palm Desert, said that they were on the cusp of making peace with the neighborhood and coming to an amicable agreement which he believed would be in the best interest of everyone. Certainly the time constraints didn't avail themselves to have that done by this evening. He concurred with a continuance to November 16. However, one of the considerations on their behalf was their lender. He was requesting from the Planning Commission direction to staff to prepare a public hearing notice for the City Council meeting of November 18. If they continued Planning Commission to the 16th, they would like to go to council two days later. On behalf of Pearl Industries, they respectfully requested that. Chairperson Jonathan asked if staff had considered that request and if they had an opinion on the matter. Mr. Smith said it didn't give staff a whole lot of time after commission on the 16th to have information to council in a timely fashion for the 18th. Just like Planning Commission doesn't appreciate staff walking in with revised reports the day of a hearing, council was no more appreciative than this commission. Chairperson Jonathan asked if that was their second meeting in November. Mr. Smith explained that it was their only Imi 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 meeting in November. Their next meeting would be December 9, 1999. Chairperson Jonathan asked if it was possible to put together a preliminary report for council on the assumption that there would be approval based on what the applicant would bring to staff's attention earlier than the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Smith said normally yes there was that possibility. In this case the problem is that next week Thursday, November 11 , is a non work day and then the cut off for the council meeting for the 18th is next Tuesday. It wouldn't be a good situation, but it was something the commission could consider. Mr. Drell said that theoretically staff could get an updated report Friday morning since council packets would be distributed then. Basically with the consent and understanding of the City Manager, they could have the updated report available Friday. They would have to have committed that it was going to be on the agenda. The main thing was that it had to be given to the City Clerk. The City Clerk had to know it would be on the agenda and that the report would be coming. The Commission could give direction that it was their desire to see staff accommodate the time constraints of the applicant as much as possible depending on what sorts of changes occur and how soon staff knew when they occurred. Staff would try to their best ability tam to get it on. Mr. Smith indicated that it had to be noticed to the newspaper tomorrow. Mr. Drell said the down side was inviting folks to come to these meetings when they weren't sure there would be a full show for them to participate in. Commissioner Finerty stated that ever since this process began they have been on fast track. They haven't given Architectural Review adequate time, plans had not been received in a timely manner, the commission was asked at their September 21 meeting by the applicant for a denial rather than try to work with the neighborhood, commission and staff, and she felt it was time to slow down and if there was something that could be worked out here and there was some common ground to be found, they should let the process work. It was her understanding that this project has been in the works for quite some time. If they had a problem with financing that respectfully was the applicant's problem and didn't mean it was something that the rest of them needed to try and accommodate. Chairperson Jonathan asked for further comments from the applicant. Mr. Sweet said that the continuance to November 16 was fine. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 Commissioner Lopez pointed out the newest rendering and asked the applicant what view they were looking at. Mr. Sweet said that it was a portion of the residential structure going toward the street, the two story element. In that particular view, they didn't actually see the front of the two-story structure. Commissioner Lopez asked if that was identical for the other two. Mr. Sweet said yes. He pointed out the two story view with the proposed landscaping on top of the second story. Commissioner Finerty noted that on September 21 there was testimony given that skilled nursing was an important phase of this project for the World War II veterans, who were especially noted. The convenience of having both the assisted living and skilled nursing located on the same property was essential. Now due to neighborhood concerns, it was being eliminated. She asked what he would do with a person in the assisted living project that breaks a hip or has a stroke and requires skilled nursing before he/she is able to return to their assisted living units. Mr. Sweet said they could be taken to JFK or Eisenhower hospitals. Commissioner Finerty indicated that generally there was a time between the hospital and returning to assisted living that would require some sort of skilled nursing. She asked if his proposal was to move them to a hospital and no phase in between. Mr. Sweet said that onsite they would have the independent residential living plus the assisted living. By theory they would also have the skilled nursing facility on site. With the deletion of this particular building, didn't mean they couldn't have some skilled nursing on the interior of the project, not open for the public but solely for the benefit of the residents. Commissioner Finerty asked if by theory they would still be providing skilled nursing. She thought she just heard in staff's report that skilled nursing was a being deleted. She asked if he could provide clarification. ' 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 Mr. Sweet said they deleted the proposed detached skilled nursing facility. Commissioner Finerty asked if it was his intent to still have skilled nursing in the facility. Mr. Sweet said they hadn't decided that. Commissioner Finerty asked if that was something he discussed with the neighborhood when he agreed to eliminate it. Mr. Sweet said sure, that building on Fred Waring Drive. Commissioner Finerty said that as she understood the neighborhood's concern, skilled nursing dealt with it being more commercial than residential. She asked if that was correct. The neighborhood was concerned with the effect of a commercial establishment with skilled nursing rather than residential. One of the reasons they wanted the skilled nursing facility removed was to eliminate +►.z the commercial effect so that it would all be residential. Mr. Sweet's testimony tonight was saying that they would eliminate a building, but there would be skilled nursing elsewhere in the remaining buildings. Mr. Sweet said no, that was his problem in the vernacular. They would have residential living and assisted living. The assisted living was commonplace in the residential building. For example, the patient who has the hip problem and needed the medicine and couldn't go down the hall to secure the medicine, it would be brought to them. Or if that patient needed help getting dressed or bathed, a medical assistant would go to their room and assist them. That was the assisted living portion. Commissioner Finerty asked what Pearl Industries' long term intention with regard to the need for skilled nursing. What she thought she heard Mr. Sweet say tonight was that he felt that eventually they would need some portion of that in the existing buildings. She asked if that was correct. Mr. Sweet said no, that was his mistake. The intent of his comment was that they would have assisted living inside the residential building for that resident who couldn't leave his unit. r.. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 Commissioner Finerty pointed out that they weren't debating the assisted living portion, but the skilled nursing. She asked if it was Mr. Sweet's intent really to never come back and ask for skilled nursing in the future because in September this was a critical phase. This was part of the marketing phase and was fulfilling a need to go from assisted living right to skilled nursing on the same premises and what a great idea and convenience for the seniors. Now he was saying they would get rid of it and didn't need it and she was trying to determine if he was sure he didn't need it. MR. DAVID MOORHEAD, with Pearl Development, stated that the reason for having a potential for a skilled nursing facility on the location would be strictly driven by State regulation for this type of facility. They might have to have a skilled nursing ability, but not a complete facility. The property they deleted on Fred Waring was a 100-bed skilled nursing facility, far larger than this project needed and too commercial for the residents of Palm Desert to use that would not have to be living or previously living in their facility. That was the commercial aspect that was taken out. The only thing they were proposing was the assisted living would potentially have a requirement by the State to take care of those people until they were able to be moved to Eisenhower or one of the longer term places. Commissioner Finerty asked for clarification that he wasn't currently aware of what the State's requirement was. Mr. Moorhead said he was, but it depended on how the project was marketed. Commissioner Finerty asked how he planned to market the project. Mr. Moorhead stated that it depended on the market at the time the project was built and approved. Commissioner Finerty said that if he was giving a commitment to the neighborhood that they weren't going to have skilled nursing and then they were saying that it depended on how the project was marketed and didn't know how they were going to market it at this time, she asked how honest they were being with the neighborhood. 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 tow Mr. Moorhead felt the line of questioning was making the answer appear not straight forward. Basically they were not proposing a skilled nursing facility. He wanted to make it clear that they might have to have a State regulation skilled nursing activity on that location. Chairperson Jonathan thought that what he was saying was that they have deleted the public skilled nursing facility which was to provide 99 beds of skilled nursing. They were deleting that. However, the project may have skilled nursing services for the 250 unit continuing care retirement community. Not for the public. They might have the services for the rest of the project, but they deleted the skilled nursing facility. Mr. Moorhead said that was correct. Commissioner Finerty noted that there was a condition that the restaurant was only open to residents and their guests. Another issue of concern to the neighborhood had to do with the commercial nature of the gift shop. She asked if he was amenable to the same conditions being placed on the gift tr.. shop. Mr. Moorhead said yes. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. JOHN MARTINEZ, 72-777 Fleetwood Avenue in Palm Desert, said that except for the few residences on Fairhaven, he was the only one in the room that was really directed by this project. He was on the east side of the project. Also, he owned the 26 units there and was also an owner that was diagonally across the street from this project. Every time he has met the applicant/developer or been at one of the meetings, everything has changed. When it first stated that driveway was to be on Fred Waring. Now the driveway is on Fred Waring and Parkview. It was going to be 43 feet high, now it was 27. The renderings have changed every time they met. He was at the meeting last Wednesday and it was very informative. It was his understanding that the applicant offered to do away with the convalescent hospital, the 99-bed hospital, because it was broken down to exactly what was wrong with the project as far as the neighborhood and he was concerned was density. %NW 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 He had no problem with the restaurant because it served the existing persons. He had no problem with the hospital because it didn't affect him directly. The commercial property could go into an office building or into any kind of commercial there or maybe another hospital. What he was concerned about was the three stories. They dug the project five feet into the ground and lowered some of the things. He was concerned with the height, the three stories. It didn't affect the people at First Quail Run because it was owned by the city. He was approached and asked why he would object to a project that was given a free rental market that was right next to him. It was the same thing with Quail Run. They wouldn't object to it because the city owns it and there was a market for the potential 150 people that were supposed to work there. With the hospital gone, he didn't know how many people would work there. He thought it should be two stories, eliminate the third, and should have its proper setbacks. They were shown one rendering of the entrance of the facility itself. Because Parkview was an attractive street from the Latter-day Saints Church, the residences, radio station, Monterey Sands and then the Estates in Rancho Mirage. Even First Quail Run and his building. It was all attractive and all of a sudden with this project they would have a three-story wall. And it was the back side of the project. It wasn't the front side. He noted that there was assisted living on Monterey across the street from the shopping center which was very attractive. That was what he was concerned about. The applicant was asking for 250 units on an R-7 or P-7. He was restricted to it and even on a senior overlay, and they could give him all the arguments in the world that it doesn't create a lot of traffic and didn't have school children, didn't need playgrounds, or garages, but it still created traffic, still created more extensive density. Someone would build on that property and someone would probably do this, and he had no objections if they would just lower the density. He was the only one here that was really affected directly than the few people on Fairhaven that were single family houses. That was the reason he would like to change it. The other thing was that all these continuances and all the meetings, he would like to have a permanent draft because everything seemed like it changed every week. The applicant offered to get rid of the convalescent home if it would change the density. He didn't think that solved the problem. He wanted the third floor eliminated. 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 Commissioner Finerty asked if Mr. Martinez was aware that by eliminating the skilled nursing facility that the density actually increased. Mr. Martinez said he didn't know that. All he was saying was that he wasn't against the hospital. His problem was the structure itself. Everyone had to have senior housing, there was no question about it, and with the money they were giving the city ($16,000 per unit per the applicant), and that was over $3 million and he was sure it was good for that. His problem was the height and the size. He would like to see it come down. He listened very carefully at that meeting and people were more concerned about the restaurant, the noise, traffic than they were about the convalescent hospital. The applicant offered to eliminate it for the density, but he didn't think that was the answer. DR. DAVID MIDDLETON, 72-799 Arboleda, stated that the residence was right next door to the lot. Since the matter was going to be continued, he only had two comments. Earlier there was an item from Baxley Properties and a previous project had been denied and now they �.. proposed residential. It seemed like a similar situation here where there was some residential area that was being converted into zoning. He agreed with Mr. Martinez in that he was also concerned about the restaurant and gift shop that was going to be a commercial enterprise. With the restrictions on it being only available to the residents and their guests, perhaps that concern had been diminished a little bit. He was most concerned about how this project seemed to be changing so much and then to meet again on the 16th with the Planning Commission and go right to. the City Council two days later he didn't feel gave the neighbors time to digest what the final project was all about and come to a decision as to whether or not they could live with it or if they needed to continue working with the developers. He asked the commission to vote against whatever motion it would be to make a decision on the 16th and go to council on the 18th. That wasn't enough time for them. MS. JUDI ROGERS, 43-840 Fairhaven Drive in Palm Desert, stated that was directly across from the proposed development. The project was immense, dense, and it was too high. At first, most of the neighborhood was against this development entirely due to the impact they strongly believe it will have on their quality of life. Collectively 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 they still felt that it wasn't in their best interest. They were currently surrounded on Fred Waring, Monterey and somewhat on Parkview with commercial developments. When they considered that One Quail Place was just across the way, they would soon be isolated. The building of this facility would put two of the biggest projects in Palm Desert right next to each other, resulting in continued inconveniences to their neighborhood. With the McCallum Theater, the College of the Desert and its weekend Street Fair, Trader Joe's plaza and all the other development that have been manufactured after most of them bought their homes, she asked where they went. Another point was the fact that if this facility did get approved, they would have to put up with two years of construction, noise, etc. After several meetings with the developer and Charlie Sweet, it had become apparent that they want to work with the neighbors to come up with some terms they could live with. One proposal was to eliminate the hospital facility which none of them were so naive to think was something the developer did just for them. The neighbors asked to put some of the density that would have been used for the hospital facility from the 250 bed units over onto the other property. That was completely negated. She thought it was because the applicant probably had the property sold for a good profit. They had been told that if this project didn't go in this location that they could be looking at affordable housing or something less desirable. That was scary to the residents who have improved their properties and couldn't afford to buy a like property anywhere else in the valley. They felt they had no choices. So far most of these adjustments had been verbally taken into consideration, however, they had no written assurances. They were asking for this continuance simply because they as a neighborhood have not had any time to review and discuss the proposed changes and/or any other issues that they hadn't thought of yet. This project had been in the works for several years and the developer was intimate with what he could and couldn't to it to make it feasible for him. They as concerned neighbors have had less than two weeks to digest and disperse this information to all homeowners and get their opinions since the latest changes. They have had two neighborhood meetings so far and feel that in this short time it proved their willingness to address the situation, good, bad or otherwise. As she was sure the commission was aware, they were a working class neighborhood and to find time for all of them to get together was next to impossible. Due to the urgency that has been imposed on them, the 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 tow first possible date they could meet was at a self-promoted barbeque on Sunday, November 14. They hoped to have great neighborhood attendance and hoped to be able to come back to this commission on the 16th of November and have some viable options to present. They further understood that Pearl Industries had asked to be put on the agenda for Council on the 18th. She asked if that was fair for them. They didn't think so. They hadn't decided one way or the other if this project was something they could live with, but they were at least entertaining ideas to that end. She asked that the commission grant the continuance to allow the residents a fair amount of time to digest the changes that were indicated a few days ago. MS. NANCY SINGER, 6 Navato Terrace in Rancho Mirage, stated that she was on the Board of Directors for The Estates at Rancho Mirage, the project directly across Parkview, kind of. There was Ridgeview Estates, too, but they didn't have any homeowners yet to get up and speak. She had spoken with Mr. Kearney the developer who is a Palm Desert resident and he concurred with their concerns. They had quite tam a few discussions about that. She had the opportunity to address Planning Commission in September and she appreciated the opportunity to do it again tonight. In her opinion and in the opinion of homeowners whom she represented, not a lot has changed. All that has happened was they were being pushed, and pushed and pushed more. Even the renderings shown to the commission tonight no one in the community had seen. It seemed incredible to her that it changed constantly. They didn't know what was going on and obviously the commission didn't know what was going on, the Planning Department was given changed information constantly and asked how any of them could absorb it. She commended Judi Rogers for planning the barbeque on the 14th and for hosting the other community meetings that had been held. Even meeting on the 14th was going to push a lot to get here on the 16th to get everyone's opinion gathered. Her guess was that they will have changed some of the plans again by then. She asked when it was going to stop and when they were going to see renderings. She thought that was why the Architectural Review Board had not passed on this project yet. It was because they hadn't seen renderings yet to meet the needs they have. This just kept going on. The traffic went up. The developer told them he has done a traffic study and that Parkview will allow 30,000. He maintains that Rancho Mirage never did one. 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 She called Rancho Mirage and they did one that says a maximum of 13,000. That was less than 50% of what the developer said. This was in their general plan, so there was a lot of going back and forth on this. Even the 16th might be pushing it for everyone. Then to go to council on the 18th was absurd in her opinion. There was no way that anybody could absorb anything to know what was going on here. They were being given a development that didn't fit into their community at all. When she said "our community" she was referring to those of them on the north side of Parkview which was both Rancho Mirage and Palm Desert and those on the south side of Parkview and in the Fairhaven area which was all Palm Desert. They needed some time to absorb this and time to work with the developer. Obviously Mr. Baxley had heard from the commission some time ago that a commercial building in a residential area was not satisfactory. He converted to a residential community which the commission applauded him for. That was what they would like to see here, but the developer wasn't willing to do that. At last week's meeting he let the discussion go on for close to an hour about the skilled nursing part then he offered to get rid of it. They all knew that was planned from the beginning and asked why they wasted a whole hour on it. She thought it was another example of him trying to ramrod everything down their throats. She wanted to work with him and with the community. She had been trying to work very closely with Ms. Rogers but they had to get some information and it had to not keep changing. MS. BEVERLY VORWALLER, 72-875 Parkview Drive, informed commission that she also owns property at 72-445 Cholla Drive on the other side of One Quail Place between the Downey Savings project. For the record, she stated that this proposal was opposite of the Palma Village Plan, Palm Desert Commercial Core Plan Specific Plan, and the General Plan. She believed that if the commission would envision plopping down Embassy Suites on her little neighborhood, they would see this project. Three floors. Embassy Suites is located on the land that floats toward the wash. This is the flat land next-to the wash. She has lived in this area for about 30 years and when it rains in this particular area, which is why Parkview is designed as a flood channel, and if the commission looked at the maps, it wasn't actually a road but a storm channel because off of the little mountain there came tons of rain. This little neighborhood has been flooded out a number of times. Iwo 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 She didn't know where this project would drain the water. She could see so many problems with it. The wrong building in the wrong place and everything about this project was wrong, but she wanted to let the commission know that she wasn't opposed to having a senior residence next door to her. She thought that was a grand idea. She wasn't opposed to having a two-story building there as long as it was within code and not asking for all kinds of exceptions at the last hour. They were told that it just didn't pencil out to have less than three floors but there were no less than five new senior facilities going in Rancho Mirage and none of them were three floors and they were all located close to hospitals, close to emergency facilities, and they all have two entrances and exits that weren't going through neighborhoods or through residential areas at all. It just seemed that even though Palm Desert would be a prime place to live as a senior resident, this would be the wrong design to put here. Hacienda de Monterey was fine. The Carlotta was fine. They were in residential areas, but the whole impact and design was not like Embassy Suites. This was like putting a huge hotel here and it was wrong. This was a time when these two little .. neighborhoods were finally seeing an increase in property values for their one single family units and with this property coming in that would almost nullify what has been going on there. She wanted it on the record that waiting in this instance was a good plan and that something good would come along. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the applicant wished to give rebuttal comments. Mr. Moorhead said that the reason for the changes that they made were the result of meetings with the neighbors and making the property smaller. They were trying to change the facility to fit in with the neighborhood and the neighbors would appreciate the changes. He thought they had appreciated the changes they made and it seemed like a double-edged sword to be criticized for making changes. They had been working very hard to trim the building facility so that it would please the neighbors and that was all he wanted to say regarding the changes. Chairperson Jonathan said that the public hearing would be continued and asked for commission comments. 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 Commissioner Finerty stated that she was concerned about the mass of the structure. If it looked like it would be continued, she wanted to share some of her thoughts so that maybe they could finally get this right. The staff report pointed out on page six that until the landscaping treatment takes hold to minimize the mass of the buildings, this would be one of the largest structures in the city. Her preference, as testimony alluded to tonight, would be for the project to be two stories, up to 20 feet high with fewer units and less mass. She was also concerned about having two large high densities projects side by side. She asked if that was a good precedent to set for the city. She didn't think so. Would this project enhance the city? She doubted it. When architectural changes were made, they received updated plans at the 1 1 th hour and the Planning Commission didn't have the benefit of Architectural Review's comments. She understood that additional plans were just dropped off today. She asked how staff could be expected to evaluate the project when plans were not submitted timely. As she understood it, Architectural Review had not reviewed the plans where eight parking spaces were eliminated on Parkview and 30 on Fairhaven for additional landscaping to help with the mass of the building and create a berm with trees and also a wall to be placed on top of the berm. This revision was scheduled for Architectural Review last week but no plans were available to review. Additionally, Architectural Review didn't have enough detail to approve the building elevations. She preferred to wait until Architectural Review has received adequate plans and the commission had the benefit of their comments. The applicant was in a hurry on September 21 . He didn't care to discuss the modifications and requested a denial. Now a letter from Mr. Rogers, who she understood was pretty much the representative of the community, was requesting a continuance. And now they had Mr. Sweet again trying to jump the gun and push it to the council's agenda on November 18. She felt there was something disingenuous about the entire application. The applicant was always in a hurry and in her conversations with the neighborhoods, unfortunately they felt they were stuck with this project. They had been led to believe by the applicant that the project is a slam dunk. That he has the votes of the council and that the neighborhood must compromise because they had to, not because they had a real choice in the matter. She felt this was sad. As she understood it, most neighbors would prefer residential homes if they felt they had a fighting chance. She understood that Mr. Sweet and the developer met with the Rogers this past Saturday and more or less implied that if the neighborhood wasn't willing to go along with the ' project, perhaps some of the costly mitigating factors such as the landscaping 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 tow might disappear. And the commission heard testimony tonight that if this project wasn't approved, there might be affordable housing down the road. She didn't believe the applicant had any intention of working with the commission at the September 21 meeting and she didn't think he cared what the commission had to say. The perception of the neighborhood really bothered her and the attitude of the developer left much to be desired. She would agree to a continuance tonight, but she was in favor of slowing down the process, getting all of the revised plans, meet with ARC, meet with the neighborhood, and see if there is some common ground before this matter appears on a future commission agenda. Commissioner Campbell pointed out that in the staff report on page six it also said that with the building depressed five feet into the ground, the two story sections were more in keeping with a single story structure and the three story section at 25 feet was very much in keeping with a typical two story building. So the three story building would be similar to a two-story building. That was what was in the staff report per staff. She would be in favor of a continuance to the 16th and would leave it up to staff to see if there was any way they �... could get it before council on the 18th. Commissioner Lopez said his original concern was on the density and height of the building. The fact that it was in such a high residential area it concerned him that it was in that particular location. Those feelings still existed. He would be in favor of a continuance from the standpoint of the neighborhood. He felt they deserved the opportunity to review what the commission has seen tonight and have the opportunity to meet again with the developer to express their concerns. But he was concerned with the assumption that it would be before the City Council on the 18th. That bothered him a little bit and he didn't know if they could make it happen. He thought there was an awful lot that had to be done, but he was in favor of the continuance based on the comments he had heard tonight from the neighbors. Commissioner Beaty said that he was in concurrence with the continuance and they all knew the council was not shy. If they didn't feel they have had time to digest the matter by the 18th, they weren't going to hesitate in continuing it, but he didn't have a problem with going ahead and getting it on the agenda in case they wanted to review it. 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 Chairperson Jonathan shared the concerns and comments. He was a little bit saddened to hear some of their comments directed at a personal level with regard to the applicant and he said he took exception to those. He thought they were an unfair characterization of someone he has known personally for nearly 20 years and has a great deal of respect for. He thought those kind of comments were unwarranted. On the face of it, they had to recognize that the application before them was apples and oranges compared to what it was at the beginning. For whatever reason, changes had taken place. Was that adequate? He didn't know and wasn't addressing that. There had been substantive changes and perhaps efforts to accommodate the needs and desires of the surrounding residents. Whether they were enough or not, whether they were adequate or appropriate, he didn't know and they would discuss that in detail at a future date, but he would encourage everyone to continue to keep an open mind and to see if there was a workable solution and if there wasn't, they would move on. But it was possible that perhaps by working together they could do something that wasn't just good for the . neighborhood, but good for the entire desert community because he felt that everyone expressed agreement that senior housing and this type of facility was appropriate somewhere in some way. If they could make that happen, that would be terrific. If not, they would move on, but he hoped they could continue working in a spirit of cooperation and mutual respect. He favored a continuance and felt they needed to give the process time to resolve itself. He absolutely agreed with Commissioner Beaty that if they posted the matter for the council's agenda on the 18th or if staff could find a way to do that, council was not bashful and if they felt unprepared they would not hesitate to continue the matter on their own. But if for some reason they lucked out and if there was not unanimity, then at least a consensus at the commission meeting, then why not move it forward while it was fresh on everyone's mind while everyone was here and dispense with the matter. He would be in favor of a continuance to the commission meeting on November 16 and if staff could find a way to post it on the council's agenda for the 18th. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, by minute motion continuing Case Nos. GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 and DA 99-3 to November 16, 1999. Motion carried 5-0. Staff was requested to see if they could find a way to place the matter on the council's agenda for November 18. Chairperson Jonathan thanked everyone for attending. 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 ... CHAIRPERSON JONATHAN CALLED A TWO-MINUTE RECESS AT 8:19 P.M. THE MEETING WAS RECONVENED AT 8:23 P.M. E. Case No. PP 99-18 - DESERT SPORTS GROUP, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, a precise plan of design for a 166,725 square foot sports facility and a master plan for a 70-acre site in the PCD (Planned Community Development) zone at 35-250 Monterey Avenue. Mr. Winklepleck stated that a staff report addendum was before the commission which wasn't so much changes, but some clarifications, bringing out some more information from the plans and there were a few minor clarifications to the requirements and a few additional conditions. He said he would hit the high points on that and would be glad to answer any questions. He explained that the project was overall a 70-acre site. With the precise plan, what they were specifically looking at now was the sports facility portion of it. The conceptual master plan which was on display showed the general i.. layout of the buildings, the parking and pedestrian circulation on the site, and how all of the facilities would relate to phase one, which was the sports complex. To clarify one thing, all the subsequent phases (two and on) would be required to submit a separate precise plan which would go before the Architectural Review Commission, the Planning Commission and through all the required public hearings. As for this precise plan, the precise plan for the sports facility included the permanent parking as shown, some additional overflow parking which would be to the north and there was also a retention basin and well site in the northeast corner of the overall project. Inside the sports facility there was an ice rink, indoor soccer, basketball. He pointed out that the indoor soccer was convertible to an ice rink eventually. There were three basketball courts, a day care facility, an arcade, a restaurant concession area, golf simulator, pro shop, weight room, climbing wall, and party rooms for kids to have birthday parties and things like that. Based on these facilities being included, the required parking for the phase one sports facility was 597 parking spaces. The applicant indicated that he would be having 600 spaces on site for phase one. That was permanent parking. In addition, there would be overflow parking to the north. One of the other items included in the commission packets was a copy of the pre-annexation agreement. The pre- annexation agreement was approved with a ten-year life span which would `.. expire December 17, 2002. The pre-annexation agreement detailed the types 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 of uses that were permitted, including square footages. He included a couple of exhibits in the addendum. Exhibit C specifically detailed those items. It had retail at 287,100 square feet, hotel at 93,600 square feet, six floor hotel with 184 rooms, offices at 326,200 square feet, a two-level parking structure each level being 60,000 square feet, light industrial at 317,867 square feet and a 7.5% buffer totally 1 .2 million. There was also an Exhibit D which specified the types of uses that were permitted on this in addition to what was permitted under the Planned Community Development zone. The owner had approved uses which were allowed in basically all the PC zones, Office Professional and Service Industrial so it covered a wide range. Some other items in the agreement as far as timing of the phases, the agreement specifically identified that the owner would phase as he deemed appropriate based on the market (in section 6.2). The city also waived any requirement for minimum site size in the PCD zone. The PCD zone required a 100-acre site for the zoning, however, this site was 70 acres and this specifically stated that the city was precluded. They were not asking for any zone change. One item he wanted to point out was the conceptual master plan, as shown tonight, was not developed to the full intensity as shown in the pre-annexation agreement. The property owner was reserving the right with the future precise plans to amend this master plan to the full allowed intensity under the agreement, subject to compliance with the zoning requirements. Regarding parking, the overall parking for the entire site would be a minimum of 4.675 spaces per 1,000 consistent with the Regional Commercial zone and that was for projects that have over 2,500 parking spaces. One item he failed to include was the 4.675 would be applied to all the uses with the exception of hotels. Hotels would be at the 1 .1 spaces per room ratio. He explained that staff would reserve the ability to require additional parking until the 2,500 space threshold was reached. Depending on the individual phases and the mix of use, so if the director determined that additional parking was required for that particular phase, they could require it. As stated earlier, each phase would be reviewed as a separate project and would conform with all parking requirements with each one having a separate precise plan. Height requirements for the project would comply with the regional commercial standard which was 35 feet, unless otherwise permitted in the pre-annexation agreement or approved as an exception pursuant to sections 25.30.220 or 25.56.300. The precise plan before commission showed building height at a maximum of 54.5 feet from grade in the circular entry area. The remainder of the majority of the facility would be approximately 42 feet from grade. For reference, the building site sits approximately 1 ,700 feet from Monterey 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 Avenue and the building pad sits approximately 30 feet below the grade of Monterey. If they were to draw a straight line from Monterey back to the building, they would basically be looking at a 20-foot building. It would sit pretty far back. Both these items significantly minimize the visual impacts of this particular portion of the project. As an example, in the pre-annexation agreement, it identified a six-story hotel as a permitted use. Assuming ten feet per story with an additional ten-foot entry, they were looking at an approximately 70-foot approvable height for the hotel. Obviously the sports facility fell within that. Staff wanted to add a couple of conditions specific to the project. Condition 8 would be replaced to read, "The overall project shall have a minimum of 4.675 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area consistent with the regional shopping center parking requirements of the zoning with the exception of the hotels, which shall be required at 1 .1 spaces per room." Condition 15 would be added, "Until the 2,500 parking space threshold is reached, additional parking for each phase may be required based on the mix of uses as determined by the Director of Community Development." Condition 16 would read, "Final design of the public road along the north property line shall be completed in consultation with the adjacent property owner." Staff had been in contact with the representative of that owner and there had been some concern as far as access and the Public Works Department spoke with them also and with this condition he thought all parties would be agreeable. Additional findings staff wanted to add for the resolution was that the proposed land uses identified in the master plan remain consistent or substantially in conformance with the pre-annexation agreement. The pre-annexation agreement specifically identifies that there could be some changes as long as the overall mix or feel of the project didn't change substantially. Staff believed this proposal did substantially conform with the requirement of that. He also wanted to add finding number 12 that the overall intensity of the conceptual master plan was less than that identified in the annexation agreement. Based on the uses presented and the square footages, they were looking at the current proposal at approximately 644,000 square feet with the original agreement coming in at 1,024,000 square feet of mixed retail/industrial/hotel and office use. Based on that staff was recommending approval. Commissioner Campbell asked if this project required a traffic study. Mr. Winklepleck stated that a traffic study was being completed and it was to be done on Friday. Public Works included a condition that required that all recommended mitigation measures from that traffic study be conditioned so 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 a they were conditions. Chairperson Jonathan said that they didn't know what those would be at this point. Mr. Winklepleck noted that they were talking about Monterey, which was one of the biggest streets in the city. He indicated that perhaps Mr. Greenwood could address that a little better. Mr. Greenwood said he would be happy to answer any questions the commission had about traffic. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the study was done and if staff knew what mitigation measures would be required. Mr. Greenwood said no, but he had spoken with the engineer one time about a week ago and had not had any other contact with them. He thought it was probably optimistic that it would be done on Friday. Chairperson Jonathan asked about the pre-annexation agreement and the uses listed in Exhibit C "permitted uses." He asked if permitted uses were just what they said, permitted, or if they were mandated. In other words, was the commission mandated to approve those particular uses or was it just that they were permitted subject to commission and council approval. Mr. Drell said the annexation agreement had the effect of a development agreement. They essentially have a vested right as delineated in that Exhibit C. Technically if they came in with a project that had those qualifications, in Exhibit D it said ..�1 in terms of how all those uses get planned and developed, they had to conform with the Zoning Ordinance. So technically if they couldn't fit all those uses on the property in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance they could be denied. But assuming they conform with all the regulations of the PC zone, then it would be difficult and they would have to find some fairly extreme findings to deny the project if it both conformed with the Zoning Ordinance and that description. Mr. Hargreaves said that was correct. Normally in the zones they have the permitted uses and the conditional uses and it was the conditional uses that come to the commission for a discretionary decision- making process to decide if that particular use is appropriate on that site. If it was a permitted use in the zone, the overwhelming presumption was that it was an appropriate use and it comes to the commission to work out details on the site plan with respect to landscaping and traffic and those kinds of issues, but the use was a permitted use. Chairperson Jonathan asked about the hotel listed in Exhibit C. A hotel would be a permitted use but Exhibit C specifically states six floors at 15,000 square feet, which was a departure from the ordinance. He asked if they came in with a six-floor hotel, if they would be bound to allow that. Mr. Hargreaves said that assuming that issues such as traffic and those kinds of issues could be sorted out, yes. Chairperson Jonathan noted that Exhibit C didn't state an 80-foot tall sports facility, yet 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 rr they were somehow equating that since they allowed a six-floor hotel at 60, then the height limitation was being permitted. He asked if that was an interpretative issue. He asked if Exhibit C, because it contains a reference to a six-floor structure, if there was an implication or something more than an implication that says an applicant or developer has the right to go 60 feet. Mr. Drell said no. It didn't say sports facility at all. Sports facilities were permitted uses in the PC zone. The determination ultimately as to their height above 35 feet was going to be based on the commission's perception and precedent as to the design, physical requirements of large single span auditoriums. Chairperson Jonathan said that an independent evaluation other than Exhibit C because there was no specific reference. Mr. Drell said that was correct. Chairperson Jonathan noted that the staff report indicated that at the time ARC looked at it there was not a detailed landscape plan and that ARC continued that part of the application. He asked if they had since revisited the landscaping. Mr. Winklepleck said no. What they did indicate, and he knew that the applicant was in the process of hiring a local landscape architect. What they presented to ARC was a conceptual layout with trees and a plant list. ARC indicated that for the most part the plant list was acceptable and they liked the layout and concept of the trees, but obviously they needed more detail. Chairperson Jonathan pointed out that they didn't even know if a landscape architect had been engaged yet. Mr. Winklepleck said that was something the applicant could address. Chairperson Jonathan said that according to the staff report, another item ARC looked at and felt they didn't have enough information on and needed additional information was the 20-25 foot glass structure. He asked if ARC had revisited that issue. Mr. Winklepleck said no. Mr. Drell noted that the structure was not included in the elevations before the commission right now. Mr. Winklepleck said he included in the commission packets an 8'/z by 11 elevation that showed it. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was a prevailing reason that this was before the commission now given that there were so many open matters. He asked if there was a time problem. Mr. Winklepleck said that with the eminent closing of the ice rink in the mall the idea was to have this facility open by early next season which would either overlap, or if not, there would be as little lag time between the two. Commissioner Finerty felt it was important to point out that the city offered this group land to build the rink on at a price that they agreed to pay. She didn't think they needed to be bound to be in another rush when the city was more than generous with wanting to give the land at a price they agreed to pay. She felt the issue of the skating rink was addressed and that too offer was rejected. Mr. Drell said it was his understanding was that the price 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 was still significantly more than the price being paid for this property. The fact that the applicant reevaluated the economics of the plan and decided that the price was too high and he couldn't afford it, even discounted, didn't necessarily prejudice this application. Commissioner Lopez noted that staff referred to this as phase one. He asked how many phases were anticipated. Mr. Winklepleck said there could be one more phase or five more. He spoke a little about the pre-annexation agreement identifying the timing as determined by the owner and based on the market. Phase one was essentially the plan which included the access off of Monterey, the building, the parking, the retention basin, and the overflow parking. Chairperson Jonathan asked if in staff's opinion this phase would stand on its own merits if nothing else were to be developed. Mr. Winklepleck said yes, with all the required parking, the ultimate required landscaping, and the access, yes. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was additional required parking beyond the spaces provided. Mr. Winklepleck said no, not for this phase. The project could stand on its own. The intention of the future phases was to look at each portion as a stand alone project as well. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. MYRON McLEOD, 7306 Golden Star Lane in Carlsbad, California, stated that he was a member of the owners of this property, two families, McLeod and Couch, that have owned this property for some 20 years. Before the commission tonight was a master site plan for all of their acreage, but what they were hoping the commission would focus on and approve was what they believed was a premier sports facility for the community, phase one. He stated that they would own a substantial interest in the continuing sports group facility. They looked at this as a long hold project for their family and as such they were concerned with not only the aesthetics and quality of this project, but the entire parcel. From the 20 years he has trekked across the hill to Palm Desert they were very aware of the quality and nature of what had been passed before them. Also, Monterey was a focal corridor into Palm Desert and they saw this as a gateway into the community. He also thought in that they were retaining ownership that they were going to be just as concerned and perhaps in alignment with the commission as to the quality of what they thought would work on this property, 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 a.o which was to not only in the interest of the community, but themselves. He thought this was a high profile quality community and hoped in looking at the design concept and the environment they were trying to produce, that the commission would sense that they want this to be in the same flavor as a lot of the great things he had seen passed recently, such as Desert Willow and The Gardens. Also, he wanted to address that they weren't trying to take advantage of the six story height that was negotiated in 1992. If they looked at this from the street, the project itself height should be minimized. It was only the central core of the building as seen from Monterey that would be way down to where the perception to the public would not be anything like a six-story hotel. They weren't trying to leverage that for this ice rink. He thought the ice rink would be an asset to the community and to the families of Palm Desert, not just the resort out of towners. His message was to share their continued interest in this as a long term project and that they were hoping the commission would look at this as a stand alone item tonight and they would have the opportunity when they came back as more ideas unfolded for this property. He introduced `.. Bob McClendon, a managing partner on the sports facility. Mr. McClendon would tell the commission more specifics about the building, answer more specific questions like that, as well as present the ideas of the team they put together for the sports complex. He also said he would be available for any questions. MR. BOB McCLENDON, 5412 Chanley Farm Circle in Centerville Virginia, right outside of Washington, D.C. He said he has been pursuing this project for a little over 18 months now. It was a 16.9 acre development as shown. He pointed out the main corridor in, the sports center, the parking as addressed by Mr. Winklepleck, additional parking, and the infrastructure for the entire 70 acres for future development. As outlined on the floor plan, the research over the last 18 months created this facility which included an ice rink, and HNL sized facility which was 85 x 200 and had both permanent and retractable seating capacity for about 500 people, which was typical of a regional-type competitive facility. They had a multipurpose floor which would be both used for in-line and hockey and would also be used as a soccer component. The other site was a basketball component that was convertible to a miscellaneous volleyball component. The center core of the structure was more of a family 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 entertainment aspect of the business, which through research they found that with these types of facilities was once they brought people to the facility, whether for an ice event, in-line event, basketball event, was it would give the community other activities while they were there. In Virginia with his children he took them to in-line hockey and he was there for an hour to an hour and a half and rather than just sit on a bleacher, this facility would give the ability to do physical fitness, there was a restaurant component, a golf simulator, a lower lounge which was more health oriented type food and beverage, there was a Gameworks facility which was a component that was a joint venture between Steven Spielberg and University Studios and it was more an interactive facility. They were pretty excited about the larger components with the ice and the basketball. Specifically they were operating what they considered the nation's premier basketball health and fitness component which was Hoop USA, and he believed that Larry Stele was here that used to be with the Portland Trailblazers and that was their component and they would operate that. On the hockey side they had Huron Hockey, or HMC Management which Huron was 62 schools throughout the world and was the largest of its kind. As this progressed, they tried to ascertain and bring in the best of the best premier people in this sports and recreation business to assure its success. A lot of the earlier structures had been reevaluated and partners had gone away and come back. What they had now was a premier facility, the best of the best to operate it. As far as integrity of the facility, it was important for it to stand alone. This facility did stand alone now as a design aspect, as a management aspect, as a success revenue wise. For them it was pretty exciting that an appraisal they recently got, and MAI appraisal, which was typically a conservative appraisal and this particular project came in at $23.5 million without the Gameworks component and the day care facility and the golf simulator. They were very pleased with what has happened so far. The design itself in trying to create this and keep things in tune for the area, this was a Frank Lloyd Wright concept and the colors were a southwest origin and they felt very comfortable with that. As this design emulated throughout the rest of the project as they go through the other phases, they tried to set a high quality standard for the rest of the project. This particular facility, the goal of this facility, was to create this local and regional and in some cases with some of the operators a national environment. As this evolved for the 70-acre development, the intent 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 was to keep that standard of quality there. Even if they went with the skylight, it was created for a rock climbing wall and there was an issue of possibly the skylight not being applicable at this time. Even with the skylight in there as it aligns itself to the property, height wise it wouldn't be that obtrusive. It was a theme piece for the building. As it stands right now, they were evaluating that skylight as it sits right there, most likely it wouldn't be anything of that size. He appreciated the commission looking at the project and evaluating it and Mr. Winklepleck was specific about their time line. The time line was generated through the season and they had aligned themselves with a group of professionals which have worked together before in some form or fashion. As an example, Bob Olivier with Cimco Lewis was here representing refrigeration operation of the facility. Cimco was the leader in HNL ice. They have worked together for seven years, so this whole team was put together to insure that this would be a success. Commissioner Finerty asked if Desert Sports Group had done any similar type projects. Mr. McClendon explained that Desert Sports Group was a development entity and would be a California Corporation. His company was Landmark Sports and Entertainment, which was a relatively new company, but he was Landmark and he has been doing this for seven years on facilities such as HNL facilities, a Birch Ron and he could go on and on. He's done soccer, ice, used to work with Morris Diesel, the United Center, and has been in the sports business a long time. Commissioner Finerty asked if he has done a similar facility. Mr. McClendon said yes, but to point blank answer the question, this particular three-point facility didn't exist. They would find a similar facility that was in Florida that the Florida Panthers and the Orlando Magic practice in. That had a basketball component and an ice component, but it didn't have a soccer component. In Lake Zurich Illinois he built a facility that was ice and soccer. Commissioner Finerty said that she was somewhat concerned about the overall height, whether it was 54 feet high or 80 feet with the architectural element and she noticed on the elevation plan that the ice hockey roof ridge 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 was 25 feet 6 inches and the basketball roof ridge was 29 feet 1 inch. She asked why it was that the overall size of the building needed to be 54 feet. Mr. McClendon explained that the center core was created with a rock climbing wall. The component in the beginning and there was phase one of the development, but as they develop the facility, they wanted to incorporate the rock climbing wall. Where they were right now with the component operations, they haven't engaged that rock climbing element. In their studies the height required to make that a successful venue, they needed the height. It was there and was created for the wall itself, but it wasn't going to be installed in the beginning stages of the building, but if they needed the height they couldn't go back and just add another floor later. Commissioner Finerty asked if they felt that the rock climbing wall was something they felt was necessary for the project to succeed. Mr. McClendon said it was part of their original programming. Right now they haven't installed it and it was still their intention to install it. With the element of Gameworks coming in, Gameworks has a facility in Las Vegas that has a rock climbing wall. They were trying to figure out the management aspects of that, but he needed the height for the wall. Commissioner Finerty said she wasn't familiar with Gameworks and thought it might help her understand it if he could provide some additional information in the upcoming weeks about that. She asked how many phases he anticipated and if he had a time line. Mr. McClendon said the concept right now, and there was dialogue with several people, the concept that created this master plan was based on several facilities. One here in California, The Block at Orange. Where he was from in Virginia, there were two facilities, Camden Yards and Reston Town Center, which was a pedestrian mall concept. That was what this concept was about. Right now because of the time line related to this facility, the only thing they had been able to do a quality job was to get that facility up and ready to go, start negotiations on the , back side of that hotel complex, and conceptually try to understand what they were going to create across the rest of the acreage. He 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 would say right now that they would begin dialogue within the next six months speculating that phase one could begin within 18 to 24 months, which would probably be the front larger acreage. That would be the goal. Commissioner Finerty stated that as she looks at the uses they have, the sports center would be the first use. That would be phase one. There was a retail section, a potential hotel, potential office, so she was counting maybe four or five phases unless some of the phases would be combined. Mr. McClendon said that was a good guess. Commissioner Finerty said she was taking this from Exhibit C because they didn't have anything else to go on. Mr. McClendon explained that they haven't gotten that far. They created a concept of what they would like to see as an overall development plan, but specifically and honestly that little piece was all they had been able to get accomplished. Commissioner Lopez asked if the facility that would be a health facility and recreational activities inside the center core of the round building was a membership thing. Mr. McClendon said they had both. They would have general public admission and membership. They were currently working out the logistics of how that would happen as far as if it would be with ID cards, bar codes, etc. There would be both. The general public could come in and if everything was successful for them here within the next 30 days or so, they would begin their marketing program which would create everything from the membership program, to the community support programs, etc. As they created those, they would keep the commission in tune with all of that. Commissioner Lopez asked if the vision was to have this available for the residents of Palm Desert to play as a hockey team and asked about the basketball use. 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 Mr. McClendon concurred; it would be available to the residents of Palm Desert and referred the basketball use to Larry Stele. MR. LARRY STELE, a resident of Portland Oregon, stated that he was President of Hoop USA, and explained that their basketball component would really be a component that was not only basketball but volleyball, fitness and athletic training. The athletic component would primarily be used for gymnasts, wrestlers, softball players, baseball players, the entire athletic field, especially youths starting at 9, 10 and 11 years old and up. Basketball itself would be tournaments, leagues, membership based, and they would also have instructional leagues that would provide opportunities for under privileged children, anyone that would like to participate in the basketball market, or in the volleyball market. They would be looking at regional programs, regional meaning California, West Coast and in some cases national programs, to avail the city of Palm Desert to the rest of the country with some of their other facilities. They currently had three facilities that were all 51 ,000 square feet so this was something they had done and were working with about a dozen groups around the country and were helping them build facilities for basketball, volleyball, fitness and athletic training so their responsibility was to make sure this facility, their expertise in this facility would be implemented. Mr. McClendon said that the regarding the traffic study, they had it confirmed today that it would be available to them on Friday at 10:00. Also, they had engaged Mr. Ray Lopez who did the architectural landscaping work for Desert Willow. Commissioner Lopez noted that Ray Lopez was no relation. Commissioner Campbell said she had a question regarding the landscaping. Architectural Review hadn't approved the landscaping plan and asked about plans for along the road. MR. DAVID TURNER, Coachella Valley Engineers, 77899 Wolf Road in Palm Desert, stated that the landscaping would be addressed and the whole entrance of 35th Avenue and throughout this phase one. 36 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 `. Commissioner Campbell said she just wanted to confirm that they would have a road without any planting. Mr. Winklepleck said staff wouldn't allow that. Mr. McClendon said that staff had been great to work with and had been a great help. Commissioner Campbell asked if from Monterey they would only see about 20 feet of the structure. Mr. Winklepleck said they would see the whole structure, but eye level they would see about 20 feet. Commissioner Campbell asked what the eye level would be from 1-10 and what people on I- 10 would see. Mr. Drell pointed out that it was a mile away and should be an attractive building. Chairperson Jonathan said he thought he visited the Gameworks facility in Las Vegas and the rock climbing wall actually went down about three floors. Mr. McClendon said that in this facility they would go down about 16 feet. .Chairperson Jonathan asked if the only element that would take this structure above 30 feet was the rock climbing wall. If there wasn't a rock climbing wall, if the structure would be 30 feet high. MR. BRIAN FLEENER, 6060 Southwest Taylorsberry, Portland, Oregon, said that because of the requirements for the clear span, specifically the basketball component needed a minimum height of 32 feet. If they took a quarter inch per foot slope with the width of it, it would bring it up. They also needed to understand that they were taking advantage of the site being on a slope and that extreme height they were talking about was on the lower side so that on the upper side it was really about 20 feet. Chairperson Jonathan said that was understood. Mr. Fleener further explained that it would increase based on the 32- foot clear below structure and then they would add the slope to it. It would raise it above that for just the basketball component. 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 Chairperson Jonathan asked where they would be at the highest point without the rock climbing facility and without the architectural component. Mr. Drell said he believed it was 42 feet. Mr. Fleener said that the way the basketball component worked was that it was a gable structure and as that buts into the center element, he thought they really wanted it to be above it visually. He thought it would look funny to bring it down. Chairperson Jonathan asked if that center component was part of the 42 feet or if that was where the rock climbing was. Mr. Fleener said that was where the rock climbing was that went to the 54 feet. Chairperson Jonathan asked if that was the only component that was at 54 feet, all the rest was at 42 feet. Mr. Fleener said he had heights on the elevations which he could pull out. He thought that was about right. The actual height was 33 feet from the high side which was 12 feet, so it would actually be 45 feet. Chairperson Jonathan reiterated that at the highest point other than the center circular structure they were at 45 feet. Mr. Fleener indicated that the ridge of the hockey roof was 41 '8" and the ridge of the basketball component was 45'1 " and that was off the lower side. Chairperson Jonathan requested clarification that the circular structure in the center was 54 feet. Mr. Fleener said that was correct, off the lower side. Mr. Drell asked what it was off the higher side. Mr. Fleener said 54 minus 12, which was 42. 38 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 tow Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. PAUL DE PALATIS, a planner with Dudek and Associates, 75-150 Sheryl Avenue, Suite C in Palm Desert, stated that he was present representing Mr. Bernard Debonne, who owns a 20-acre piece of property on the north property line of the proposed athletic facility. They were here for two reasons. They wanted to voice their support for the project and wanted to congratulate and encourage the property owner and developer in their work. In looking at the conceptual site plan, they had some initial concerns about the intersection of 35th Avenue and Market Way as to how that would impact access to Mr. Debonne's property. Because of the circulation pattern in the area, his property needed to take its access off of Market Way and they were concerned that possibly with that circular element in the roadway it might cause some problems for the intersection off of Market Way and perhaps accesses onto his property. He felt that they would need two accesses ultimately to develop it adequately. They had some discussions with the applicant's engineer and introduced condition 16 which he felt should address their concern, so with that condition they were satisfied. He wanted to submit a letter for the record as to what their concerns were. He hoped they would see the traffic report and have some preliminary resolution of that prior to the commission hearing. Chairperson Jonathan closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Finerty didn't feel she had enough information to make an informed decision tonight. She heard all kinds of things in the testimony that she didn't have the opportunity to see in the staff report with regard to Hoop USA and Gameworks. She stated that her overall concern was with the proposed height. She would really like it to be lower. She was troubled with the almost 80 foot architectural element and thought they were making a huge assumption that there would be a six-story hotel at 60-70 feet in height and thought it was faulty reasoning for considering the height of the proposed architectural element. An 80-foot high element in her opinion was unacceptable no matter how good it looked. What she was hearing was one him of the increases in height was due to the rock climbing wall and that was why 39 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 she asked for more information about it because she didn't know if she would be in favor of that or not. She wanted to wait for the traffic study, more detail on landscaping, and she would be in favor of a continuance. Commissioner Campbell asked if the maximum height was 54.6 feet. Mr. Winklepleck said 56 in the worst case scenario. Mr. Drell said no, it was 54 from the high side without the additional triangular skylight. If they deleted the skylight, the height of the flat roof circular thing was 54 something from the high side, minus 12. Commissioner Campbell asked for confirmation that it would be 54 feet without the triangular glass structure which even Architectural Review needed more information and didn't approve that. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Campbell asked if that was something the developer didn't need to have. (There was confirmation from the audience.) Commissioner Campbell said if that was the case she would be in favor of the project with a maximum height of 54 feet. Staff's recommendation was that the sports pad would be sitting 30 feet below the grade of Monterey and they would only be seeing about 20 feet from the structure, just like a normal , home, and as far as the traffic study was concerned, she thought they were in very good hands with Mr. Greenwood. The landscaping plans she thought they could leave to the Architectural Review Commission and they hadn't let them down before. She was in favor of the project. Commissioner Beaty concurred with Commissioner Campbell. He thought that as Mr. Winklepleck stated, they had conditions in effect which would ensure that if there were traffic mitigation measures needed they would be implemented and the landscaping would be taken care of. He didn't see a need for a continuance at this point. Commissioner Lopez felt that it was a pretty exciting project and he was concerned about the height, but thought they were addressing it in the right direction. Learning more about the vision of what this would be to the community and the usage by the community was important. He was concerned about what would happen with the rest of the property and he thought this was a great stand alone facility which would offer a great opportunity. He was a little concerned about what would happen after that and as long as they had the opportunity to review all the aspects as they go down the road. He felt it was important that they have the opportunity to review those. The traffic study was very important to him and he was concerned about the amount of people coming in and out of this project or this 40 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 facility because it sounded like it would have a tremendous draw, both locally and regionally. If they put in a couple of national events, whether it was basketball or hockey, it was going to be interesting to see what would happen with traffic flow. Overall he thought it was a very exciting project and he would be in favor of moving ahead. Commissioner Beaty said it was refreshing to see a professional group of people not asking for any money. Chairperson Jonathan thanked the applicants for being present and knew that many had traveled a long way and hoped they were having a good time while they were here and were enjoying our desert hospitality. He also thought the project was very exciting and thought it would be wonderful asset, not just for the city of Palm Desert, but for the entire desert community. In some way, shape or form, he wanted to see it go up sooner rather than later, as he believed many people did. He did have some concerns. As was mentioned by the applicant, he thought Monterey was very much a focal corridor to the city of Palm Desert, so while he often simply relied on ARC to look at the details +� of landscaping, here he was not personally willing to do that. He respected their opinions and wanted them to have an opportunity to look at it and then wanted to hear their opinion and in addition evaluate it independently which was part of the commission's function. The reason that he was particularly concerned was because even at 54 feet or 40 feet, the magnitude of this project was huge and he thought the landscaping was an important and integral component of the ultimate appearance of the project. He was very concerned about the landscaping aspect and wanted to give ARC a chance to review it, hear their comments and evaluate it on his own. On that point he would hope to see a lot of it because it was so important. Similarly he hoped they would be successful and thought they would be with all the good minds that were here. Therefore, he thought traffic would very much be an issue. Not necessarily Tuesday morning at 10:00 a.m., but when they had the regional events, state events, national events, they had some experience locally with sporting events and they knew that a lot of people come, even when it was to bring their kids and when teams change, they had double capacity because one team was leaving and the other was coming. When they started creating events which would draw an audience, they had real issues. He wanted to see the traffic study and really review the mitigations that were going to be proposed to make sure that they were implemented in an effective manner. The height, yes, they were all very concerned about 41 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 that. Even if the view from Monterey was not a problem, once they were onsite, and this overall if they do have the entire thing developed eventually, height became an issue. He pointed out that this could be 54 feet, there could be a six-story hotel, and didn't want to create an Orange County type situation or an L.A. situation. That was why people from L.A. and Orange County came here because they didn't want to look at that, at least for a weekend. He wasn't saying that those cities don't have a lot to offer, he was just saying that architecturally the desert was historically not a high building type situation. It was generally single story and double story with some exceptions. He was concerned about the height. He didn't want to leave it open as to whether or not there was going to be an architectural feature or not, so he thought they needed to deal with that and come to a conclusion. Also, if they were going to have a glass structure, ARC hadn't had a chance to review it and give their input and he would be interested in their input. While he was absolutely excited about the project and hoped it came together, he felt it was very much a work in progress and they needed to let it develop into something a little more specific. On a final note, he thought the architecture had some , very creative components, but overall there was still an element in his mind of kind of a blandness or high school gymnasium aspect and he was kind of equating this to the Pond, which was a magical structure, and was gorgeous both inside and out. He hoped they would have marble bathrooms like they do. He wasn't saying that this had to be the Pond, but he thought that in an inexpensive way, if they looked at some of the elevations, it was just very flat across and almost like a warehouse and he thought that with landscaping, some minor cosmetic ins and outs, faux windows or whatever, they could really elevate what he thought was a creative design into something that was even yet more attractive. He hoped they would see some effort there. With all that, he tried to give them some direction on where he was going with it, he thought it would be appropriate to continue the matter and give them a chance to address those issues and in particular the traffic study and landscaping plan, as well as the overall design and see what they ended up with. He would be in favor of a continuance. Mr. Drell said that one of the reasons it seemed that at this time of the year they get projects pushing against them was because of a convergence of two problems. One, to have successful projects in the desert and to survive the first year, they almost had to be open by November. Two, the council only had one meeting in November and one meeting in December. If they couldn't make that first meeting in December, then suddenly they were in the middle of January and then they missed the window to have the project opening in the Fall or Winter and 42 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 two conceivably they miss a whole year. There would be another meeting and the applicant had a more compelling reason to be on the council agenda November 18 because they might get continued to December because of the complexity of the project. He didn't think there was a controversy over the use of the property or the physical dimensions of the property and the applicant's real goal was to start moving dirt in January. If conditions could be added that as architecture and landscaping plans were refined, that they be brought back to the commission and that by the 16th the traffic study would have been reviewed and could be presented and the commission would have the opportunity to make comments on it on the 16th for the council on the 18th. There were ways for the commission to condition the approval so they could have input as those concerns come out, but it was probably more compelling to get this project moving along and if they could start this year. Chairperson Jonathan said that if they continued this to the 16th, it didn't sound like ARC would have an opportunity to review a detailed landscaping plan. Mr. Drell said probably not, but they have conceptually, in terms of the general layout, have endorsed the plan on display. They had also conceptually endorsed the elevations minus the glass wedge. His feeling was that if that was what was creating resistance, it was gone instantly and didn't think the applicant was going to argue about that. Mr. McClendon spoke from the audience and said that was a $190,000 piece of glass. Mr. Drell said that it was his concern was as visually at night to have this kind of beacon of light shining into the sky and they wanted to keep this area in terms of night use as less as intrusive as possible. An example was the remodeling of the Palm Desert Town Center. Again, for the same reasons of encouraging it to move along to meet certain time lines of beginning in January to get done, the city in essence approved site plans and basic architectural parameters but council made all subject refinements to go though council as well. Chairperson Jonathan felt that was a good example. They hurried up to wait two years and they still haven't begun. Mr. Drell said that not only do developers have to juggle the city's requirements, they had other constraints which also impinged on their schedule and because of those things got delayed. Doing development was like herding pigs and the city was one of the bigger ones. Given the city's interest to see this facility completed sooner rather than later, therefore, he would recommend that they had the ability to 43 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 continue to review and advise and consent on the details of the design. The important thing was agreeing enough to say this is the right location for the site to give them the assurance that they could proceed and start the project. Commissioner Finerty stated that Planning Commission meets the first and third Tuesdays of every month. They have been doing so all year. If all these developers who are in such a hurry know that there is a certain window they need to begin in, then they should have started this process sooner and then it didn't become incumbent on the commission to rush their decisions when they don't feel they have enough information to make an informed decision. Chairperson Jonathan stated that he agreed with that. He was sensitive to the time constraints because they wanted to cooperate and do what they could, but he wasn't going to be pressured. This wasn't an application for a use permit. This was an application for a precise plan of design and he didn't have a precise plan of design in front of him, at least he didn't feel he did. So speaking for himself, if that was what the application was for, he would either deny or give an opportunity to create a precise plan of design so he could see what they were getting. He was very sensitive to some of the buildings that have gone up and weren't what he expected. He didn't want to do that again. He was sensitive about that and weary of it. His experience on this commission was that they deal with it and developers find a way to deal with it and the world still turns. Commissioner Beaty said he was still in disagreement. He felt they were trying to micro-manage, getting involved in a traffic study which they had no business passing judgement on, they have a competent engineer who was going to make sure those measures were implemented, they had secured the landscape architect who has done Desert Willow and he certainly didn't think there was a problem there and he had enough information to proceed and would move for approval. Commissioner Campbell said she would second the motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Chairperson Jonathan commented under further discussion that the point Commissioner Beaty made was valid and he wouldn't want to micro-manage 44 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 rt.. if they had a traffic study, but the point was that they didn't and they didn't have a detailed landscaping plan. He wanted to give both staff and ARC an opportunity to deal with these issues so the commission could get their input and do what he thought was the commission's job and evaluate those aspects of an application. That was where he was coming from, but he agreed that they should not fall into micro-managing. Commissioner Beaty said he wasn't disagreeing with Chairperson Jonathan, but he was confident that they had staff that was going to deal with traffic and landscaping and they didn't need to deal with it. Chairperson Jonathan said that usually he agreed, but for this one, particularly on the landscaping, as stated earlier. Commissioner Lopez asked if they could incorporate those comments into a condition. Commissioner Beaty said they already were. Mr. Drell asked if he meant his comments that things would come back before the commission, yes. Subsequent design refinements shall be brought back to the commission for their review and comment. Chairperson Jonathan asked for clarification on how that would work and if Mr. Drell was suggesting that the commission approve the project subject to. Commissioner Lopez asked if it could be by the 16th. Mr. Drell said there were two things. The 16th would still be before the �r.. council meeting so there would be opportunity for the commission, since this was a recommendation to the council. There would still be an opportunity to relay those comments on whatever additional material got presented on the 16th. It would come to the commission as a Miscellaneous item. Chairperson Jonathan clarified that the commission could approve the project tonight, it would go on the council's agenda on the 18th, but it would come to the commission as a Miscellaneous item on the 16th with a response to some of the concerns and then the commission's only action under Miscellaneous would be comments to council if they wished. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Lopez stated that at that point they would have the traffic study. Mr. Drell said they were being assured the commission would. Commissioner Campbell asked about the landscaping. Mr. Drell said he wasn't sure about the landscaping. Mr. McClendon said they would at least have a draft of the landscaping. Mr. Drell said that if they looked at the plan, substantially that was very close to what they usually got for preliminary plans. The problem was that there was plant material that was inappropriate. He thought the general layout was acceptable, but the suggestion was to get a local person to propose more appropriate plant material. Chairperson Jonathan stated that he would go along with that, but would just ask staff to help the commission in the future. He knew that sometimes there was a need rr... to do these things kind of piecemeal, but he was uncomfortable with this. He 45 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 i knew staff was presented with certain challenges, but for the future. Mr. Drell said staff never liked to do this. With that, he asked if Commissioners Beaty and Campbell wanted to amend the motion and second to allow for approval, subject to a Miscellaneous item on the 16th to review the landscaping, traffic study, etc., to allow them to comment to council. They did so. Chairperson Jonathan called for the vote. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1956, approving PP 99-18, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Case No. CUP 99-11 - ROBERT NEAL ROUZIER, M.D., INC., Applicant , Per commission direction on October 19, 1999, presentation of a resolution of denial of a request for a conditional use permit to allow a 2,954 square foot medical office located at 77-564 Country Club Drive, Suite 320. Mr. Drell stated that staff prepared a resolution of denial per commission instruction. Staff also submitted an additional staff report further describing why staff continued to believe that the application was consistent with the zoning ordinance parking requirement for medical office use. He said it wasn't staff's or ZORC's intent when they amended that standard to preclude all medical office use in existing multi-tenant building. It was designed to insure that new medical buildings have adequate parking and provide a mechanism to adequately regulate through the conditional use permit process medical use in existing buildings and therefore, they respectfully requested the commission to reexamine the testimony and facts and still consider the resolution of approval. Commissioner Campbell said she didn't think at their last meeting that staff adequately informed the commission of the parking and new ordinance that was passed. While she is on the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee, she 46 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 bow had forgotten that it only applied to new buildings being built and not present ones and with this one with the parking study staff did that showed there would be adequate parking and would never have a problem with parking, she was in favor of approving the project. Chairperson Jonathan stated that he was not opposed to the reconsideration and felt there were some merits to be discussed, but he wanted clarification. He thought that the new ordinance applied not just to new structures, but to new applications or applications after the effective date. Mr. Drell said the answer was yes, that was why when they looked for available parking, they used to look for five spaces per 1 ,000, now they looked for six spaces per 1 ,000. Chairperson Jonathan said that the standard applied to any new application subject to exceptions. Mr. Drell said subject to when they were dealing with an existing building or any multi-tenant building that exists. If they wanted to justify approval of a conditional use permit, they wanted to find six spaces per 1,000 available for that use. Chairperson Jonathan said he wanted to comment on a couple of minuscule statements made in the staff report, but they were meaningful to him. One of them was under Section I where it said that in cases where the availability of parking was the primary issue, facts must be found to exist which support the finding that there is not sufficient parking to meet the requirements of the ordinance resulting in a parking shortage. Translated what that said was that the commission had to justify why they were not granting an exception and he thought that was wrong. He thought that when the applicant is seeking an exception to the six per 1 ,000, the burden of justifying the exception was on the applicant. It was not up to the commission to justify the six per 1,000, it was vice versa. It was on the applicant to justify why. They were the ones requesting the exception to the standard. Mr. Hargreaves agreed that the burden would be on the applicant and that was with respect to any application that comes before the commission, whether it is a CUP, an exception or whatever. Still, there needed to be findings supported by the evidence. If it turned out that there is inadequate evidence one way or the other, then the application failed for not meeting its burden. Chairperson Jonathan agreed with that. He pointed out that at the end of page 2 the paragraph in the middle said that to conclude otherwise in this case given the facts would be to set a precedent for denial of all medical office uses in all other existing general multi-tenant office buildings. He thought that was over reaching for the reason that if the commission doesn't grant an exception, whether the commission is right or �.. wrong, that was not setting a precedent for all future applications. It didn't 47 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 mean that the commission in a future application wouldn't find justification for an exception. So he wanted to make it clear that whatever they decided, one way or the other for this particular application, in his mind didn't set a precedent. It just said that they either found justification for an exception or they didn't. Having said all that, he really looked at this application critically and had discussed the matter with Steve Smith. The building was almost 100% occupied and even with that the staff report indicates there are 64 parking spaces available and if all 18 were used, there would still be 46. He had concerns about it, but in this case he could see it both ways and wasn't opposed to the staff findings that would justify granting an exception. He tried to look at it more critically and this might very well be one of those situations that justified an exception. However, he very much didn't want that to be taken as an indication that the commission would routinely ignore the six spaces per 1 ,000 requirement and didn't believe that was staff's intention. The commission sees projects staff has looked at critically and gotten to the point where they are in favor of an exception. They didn't see the other applications that in their mind don't justify an exception because if the applicant couldn't convince staff, they generally weren't going to go past staff in bringing it to the commission. In this case he was being persuaded that an exception was warranted. He asked for any further discussion. Mr. Drell noted that the commission had their public hearing. Chairperson Jonathan said they could reconsider without reopening the public hearing and it was the commission's discretion. Staff concurred. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1957, approving CUP 99-1 1 , subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (October 20, 1999) Commissioner Campbell indicated that Club Intrawest was discussed regarding reimbursement of AIPP fees as they satisfied their requirement by various architectural enhancements such as lighting, signage, 48 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 fencing, entry gates and made it more compatible with Desert Willow. They were returning about $34,000. They also reviewed pictures of the Mother/Child sculpture and recommended that the artist follow its original concept. This would go between the YMCA and Recreation Center. They also reviewed the color palette for the Washington School fence and denied that and asked the artist to come back with softer colors. They were supposed to be more pastel. There were some really bright colors on the flowers and animals. They viewed the El Paseo Sculpture Exhibit 2000 brochure and it was requested by AIPP to have some changes made and it was brought to the El Paseo Business Association. The dedication and unveiling of that was taking place November 13 from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at The Gardens. B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (November 2, 1999) Commissioner Finerty stated that it was an informational meeting. to Nothing that concerned the commission. D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) E. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) F. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (October 27, 1999) Commissioner Campbell said they discussed the appropriateness of amending the O.P. permitted uses or conditional uses to allow catering kitchens. She reminded the commission of the one that came before them about a month ago. At first ZORC was not in favor of it, but they did change and would allow her to go ahead and have her catering business on Fred Waring. Mr. Drell clarified that they would be coming back to commission with an amendment. Commissioner Campbell concurred. She said there would be some architectural changes made to the building too and she would go in front of Architectural Review for that. Chairperson Jonathan asked why ZORC was considering architectural issues and why they were addressing a specific r.. application. Commissioner Campbell said they were discussing the wall 49 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 and the structure house. Chairperson Jonathan said he thought she said ZORC was going to let her have her catering business. Mr. Drell clarified that ZORC was going to recommend that under certain conditions, catering could be allowed in the O.P. zone. But that would have to come back to Planning Commission. Both the conditional use permit and zoning ordinance amendment to add that as a conditional use had to come back to Planning Commission. Chairperson Jonathan said this wasn't targeted at that applicant, it was just a general zoning issue. Mr. Drell said that obviously she initiated it and at the direction of certain interested people, staff proceeded with it. XI. COMMENTS Chairperson Jonathan noted that the city tour scheduled for November 12, 1999 was canceled and would be rescheduled early 2000. It was also noted that a group picture would be taken November 16, 1999 at 9:30 a.m. in front of the council chamber. , Commissioner Beaty noted that there would be a picture taking session on November 16. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. 5� PHILIP DRELL, Secretary ATTEST: SABBY JONA AN, Chairperson Palm Desert PI nning Commission AM 50