Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0801 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - AUGUST 1 , 2000 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Beaty called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Jonathan led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Paul Beaty, Chairperson Sonia Campbell Sabby Jonathan Members Absent: Jim Lopez, Vice Chairperson Cindy Finerty gr Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Mark Greenwood, Senior Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairperson Beaty noted that he and Commissioner Jonathan were absent from the last meeting and would be unable to vote on the minutes. The July 18, 2000 minutes were continued to August 15, 2000. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent July 31 , 2000 council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2000 4 3 VII. CONSENT CALENDAR None. Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising 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. PP 00-10 - TARLOS & ASSOCIATES/APPLEBEE'S RESTAURANT, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design to construct a 4,738 square foot Applebee's Restaurant located at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Frank Sinatra Drive or 74- 995 Frank Sinatra Drive. art Mr. Drell explained that this was the building of the restaurant on the previously approved pad next to the Courtyard/Residence Inn and was originally approved as a 6,000 square foot restaurant. He indicated it was actually being proposed as somewhat smaller and the applicant, as a result of their own internal requirements, added additional parking. The plans were on display and had been reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Commission after some modification. Staff recommended approval. Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. There was no response. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone else wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one. Chairperson Beaty closed the public hearing and asked the commission for comments or action. Commissioner Jonathan asked if staff knew why the applicant was not present. Mr. Drell replied no. Commissioner Jonathan asked if staff was maintaining regular communication with the applicant. Mr. Drell said yes. He informed commission that they went through extensive negotiations on changing the elevations. Commissioner Jonathan said that if it was the ad MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2000 commission's pleasure, he would like to defer this item to see if the applicant showed up. (A gentleman walked into the council chamber at this point and Mr. Drell asked if he was the applicant for Applebee's. He concurred.) Chairperson Beaty reopened the public hearing to allow the applicant to address the commission. MR. JOHN TARLOS, the project architect, stated that he appreciated working with staff and thought that they had arrived at a solution that was quite satisfactory for everyone. Chairperson Beaty asked if the applicant had any problem with the conditions as set forth. Mr. Tarlos said no. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the reduction of the tower element and other issues were acceptable to him. Mr. Tarlos said yes. Commissioner Campbell asked if the signage had to be approved by City Council. Mr. Drell said no, it didn't have to be approved by Council. Mr. Smith said he didn't believe staff had the details on the signage yet. Mr. Drell explained that the signage was shown in concept, but they would have to come back with the sign details. Mr. Tarlos said that the sign company would be coming back for the sign permits. Commissioner Campbell asked for clarification that the signage would be approved by ARC. Mr. Drell concurred that it would be approved by ARC, and by Council if they were interested. Commissioner Campbell said she assumed it would be similar to the one in Rancho Mirage. Mr. Tarlos said it was exactly the same. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Tarlos had a colored rendering handy that showed the approved building colors. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2000 Mr. Tarlos concurred and showed the plans to the commission. He confirmed that they were the actual proposed colors. Chairperson Beaty asked for clarification regarding landscaping being provided on the elevation facing Cook Street. He felt it looked rather plain in the drawing. Mr. Drell asked if the applicant had a copy of the landscape plan and site plan. Mr. Tarlos said he had a site plan, but not a landscape plan. Commissioner Campbell asked for and received clarification on the location of the outdoor dining area. Commission and staff located a copy of the landscape plan. After reviewing the plan, Commissioner Jonathan asked what landscaping was being proposed along that rather blank wall. Mr. Drell said there were actually three trees and a bunch of shrubs being proposed. Mr. Tarlos confirmed that there were three trees. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Campbell stated that she would move for approval. Commissioner Jonathan said he would be prepared to second with one request. He thought the proposal looked good, but was a little concerned about the blankness of the wall next to the patio on the Cook Street elevation, so he wondered if there was a mechanism that if those three trees go up and it was inadequate if the landscape plan could be modified to add a couple of trees or something to make it look good. Commissioner Jonathan said that rather than make the requirement now to add landscaping, he would like to give staff the leeway during the construction to look at it as it is approved with three trees and allow staff to require another couple of trees if necessary. Mr. Tarlos said that was acceptable. Commissioner Jonathan stated that with that amendment he would be prepared to second the motion. Chairperson Beaty said that there was a motion and a second to approve the project contingent upon there being a nice covering for that blank wall. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2000 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2003, approving PP 00-10, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 3-0. B. Case No. PP 00-15 - NORWALK FURNITURE STORE, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and a precise plan of design to allow the construction of a new 5,500 square foot furniture store located at 73-495 Highway 1 1 1 . Mr. Drell noted that previously there was a bank in this location, then a drug store. At this time the applicant was proposing to demolish the existing structure and build a furniture store. Plans were on display. The architecture was contemporary southwestern. It arced around the corner leaving a fairly large open area at the corner. It was predominantly single story and it had a second story office in the back, although it was fairly well disguised. Heights varied from 19 feet to 25 feet in the back, which was the height for second stories. He said that the Architectural Commission granted preliminary approval to the architecture. City Council had also now reviewed the architecture and approved it. The main site planning issue dealt with the fact that as a furniture store it was parked at a 2/1 ,000 furniture store standard, or slightly more than that, which would restrict the building in its future use to either furniture stores or art galleries or other such retail uses and therefore could not be used for standard retail, which required 4 spaces per 1 ,000 square feet. Typically staff was hesitant to do that, particularly at this location. But he thought that a store like this was probably the best sort of use, so he didn't feel concerned and more importantly, this was the sort of building he thought the city was looking for at this corner. He recommended approval of the project. Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. ti.. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2000 MR. JOE RUBENSTEIN, the applicant, stated that Dave Prest was the architect on this project and they were both present to answer any questions. There were no questions and Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Jonathan commended the applicant on the design and stated that this was the kind of work the commission was accustomed to seeing from Urrutia/Prest. He felt this project would be a very nice addition to the city and recommended approval. Commissioner Campbell stated that she would second that. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-0. It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2004, approving PP 00-15, subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-0. C. Case Nos. PP/CUP 98-19 Amendment #2, PP 00-12 and C/Z 00-06 - SELECT PROPERTIES, LLC AND SIXTH STREET PARTNERS, LLC, Applicants Request for approval of an amendment to the master plan of development (CUP 98-19), a precise plan of design for four buildings (three commercial and one showroom) and a change of zone from PC-2 (District Commercial) to SI (Service Industrial) for parcels 7, 8, 12 and 13 of PM 29068 as amended located at 77- 880 Country Club Drive. Mr. Smith noted that the proposed site plan and overall site plan of the 20-acre development the commission initially reviewed in 1998 were both on display. He explained that the master plan originally had four areas of differing land uses. Across the north of the site adjacent to the railway was a self storage facility which was now under construction. At the southwest corner of the 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2000 rr.. site fronting on Country Club was the retail portion of the development which was under construction or at least a portion was under construction. At the southwest portion of the site fronting Country Club was a 100-unit three story hotel and north of the hotel site and south of the self storage facility was a light industrial area. That was approved by commission three or four weeks ago. At this point in time the commission was being requested to amend the master plan to replace the hotel development with this commercial/showroom building proposal for four buildings. The applicant had for some two years marketed the area to hotel developers and had been unsuccessful in attracting that use. They were now recognizing what the market was interested in and seeking the modification to the approved master plan of development. Secondly, they were seeking approval of the precise plan of design as shown on the plans and in the plans which were included in commission packets. Mr. Smith indicated that the architecture on the buildings was reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) and was given preliminary approval subject to modification to create an archway system between the rows of buildings on the west end and on the east end of that driveway. Staff received the revised archway and that was on the smaller plan on display. He said that the commission also received a copy of that in their packet. That was reviewed by ARC and they wanted some minor modifications to that. They wanted to raise it up so that it was the same height as the elements on each end of the buildings rather than lower. Mr. Smith said that the revised plan provided for driveway connections to the rest of the center and proposed a driveway to Country Club Drive that would be a right-turn in and right-turn out only. The original plan included that driveway connection. As indicated in the staff report, Public Works had some concern. The applicant met with Public Works this afternoon and there was a revised condition from Public Works. Upon further reflection Public Works felt that they could accede to the ingress/egress as long as it was right-turn in and right-turn out only and provision for the bus pad and shelter. Mr. Smith stated that the parking complied. In conclusion, he indicated that the applicant would have preferred to go with a hotel on the site but at this point in time it wasn't feasible. The applicant therefore was seeking an amendment to the master plan. Mr. Smith felt the proposal would provide a good transition between the industrial uses to the north and to the west immediately adjacent to both the north and west. He stated that the architecture had been given preliminary approval. The proposed change of zone to Service Industrial would be consistent with the uses they wanted to put on the site and would be consistent with the properties as indicated to the west and north. He recommended approval 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2000 subject to conditions with the modified condition by Public Works. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Jonathan asked if on the parking calculation of 3.92/1 ,000 if that was after allowing up to a 15% reduction for common areas. Mr. Smith said no, that was on the gross. Commissioner Jonathan asked if it was possible that in the event of a conversion to offices, which would warrant a 15% reduction potentially, if they would then be in the 4/1,000 range and the applicant would have that option. Mr. Smith said it possible, but staff proposed in condition 11 that all uses permitted be consistent with the S.I. zone provisions and parking provided. They would address that as they go along. Commissioner Jonathan concurred that it would require an application process, but with this many parking spaces it was conceivable. Mr. Smith agreed that it was very close to the general 4/1 ,000 requirement so it shouldn't be an issue. Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. DAVE OSMAN, with Sixth Street Partners and the applicant, stated that they were there to support everything that Mr. Smith had just mentioned as far as the report went. One of the things mentioned in the staff report said that there was a memo from Frankie Riddle which he did not have a chance to look over, so he wasn't quite sure what that said, but it related to the bus stop that was going to be a requirement for the project. He said they had several thoughts about that but just wanted to voice the fact now that they would like to meet with staff on that issue. Chairperson Beaty asked if the applicant had a chance to review the memo at all. Mr. Osman said no. Chairperson Beaty handed a copy to Mr. Osman. Chairperson Beaty suggested that Mr. Osman review the memo and asked if there were any other items he wished to discuss. 9 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2000 Mr. Osman said that was it. In general they understood that they would sit down with Planning, Public Works and Sunline and detail exactly where the location of the bus stop would be and they had some thoughts on that. He just wanted the opportunity to express those thoughts. Mr. Smith said that staff was amenable to moving it to wherever possible within reason. Chairperson Beaty said there was agreement that there would be a bus stop at a location agreeable to everyone. Mr. Osman concurred. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the location was the only issue Mr. Osman wanted to address. Mr. Osman said yes. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the roll up doors would be limited to the •.. interior of the four buildings. Mr. Osman said that was correct. Commissioner Campbell commented that it would be similar to the existing buildings on the west side. Mr. Osman said they would like to think their design was enhancing the area a little bit beyond those on the west, but it was similar in that regard. Chairperson Beaty suggested that the applicant review the memo from Frankie Riddle and asked if anyone presented wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one. Chairperson Beaty stated that they would give Mr. Osman time to review the memo. Mr. Drell said that the reworded condition probably allowed for any contingency. The fact that there would be a bus stop and that it would be placed in an appropriate location was what was important. Chairperson Beaty closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments or action. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2000 uri Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification on condition 7 and the parking area being required to comply with the city's adopted parking lot landscaping standard. He asked if that was referring to the shading ordinance. Mr. Smith concurred. Commissioner Jonathan said the project looked good to him. Chairperson Beaty asked Mr. Osman if he had any problem with the memo. Mr. Osman said no. Chairperson Beaty said that it would be conditioned that they would have a meeting to select the exact site with concurrence of all parties. He asked for a motion. Commissioner Campbell stated that she would move for approval and felt that since there wouldn't be a hotel and with the buildings to the west filled, there did seem to be a need for this project. She was in favor. Commissioner Jonathan concurred and observed that this was designed for warehouse/industrial use that was not at all unattractive and would be an example of a nice design. He appreciated that and was prepared to second the motion. 9 Action: 1 . It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2005, recommending to City Council approval of PP/CUP 98-19 Amendment #2, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 3-0. 2. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006, recommending to City Council approval of C/Z 00-06. Motion carried 3-0. s ri 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2000 3. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007, recommending to City Council approval of PP 00-12, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 3-0. D. Case Nos. PP/CUP 00-09 and TT 29528 - DESERT WILLOW CONFERENCE CENTER, LLC AND PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, Applicants Request for approval of a tentative tract map to subdivide approximately 106 acres into 7 lots (TT 29528) and approval of a precise plan of design for the Hilton Conference Center including 250 suites, a 64,250 square foot conference center, parking structure and accessory structures on Lot 2, TT 29528, a 16.86 acre site at the northeast end of Desert Willow Drive, 39-000 Desert Willow Drive. Mr. Smith stated that for the record the tentative tract number was 29528. At one point it showed as 428. He explained that the property in question was previously mapped and they were now going back and adjusting property lines in order to accommodate the proposed development. As outlined on the bottom of page one of the staff report, the tentative map would create seven lots, three of which would be occupied by golf course holes, one by the Desert Willow Clubhouse, two for the future expansion of Intrawest, and one being the lot in question this evening, Lot 2 for the proposed conference center facility. Findings for the approval of the tentative map were outlined on pages two and three and could be affirmed. He stated that the overall development of Section Four was reviewed as part of an environmental review process in 1994. This map was substantially consistent with what was reviewed in that process. The impacts were previously assessed. The EIR was prepared and certified in 1994. He stated that no further environmental documentation was necessary. Part two was the request for approval of the conference center/ hotel project precise plan/conditional use permit. As noted, the proposal was r„ for 250 suites, a 64,250 square foot conference center, a three level parking 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION , AUGUST 1, 2000 structure with some 378 spaces, and other accessory uses on Lot 2, which was some 16.86 acres. The 250 suites would be located in 16 villas located around the perimeter of the lot. He indicated that the plans were on display. He pointed out Lot 2. He noted that golf holes would be to the east, north and south. Further east beyond the golf course holes were the single family homes in Montecito. Desert Willow Drive extended northerly from Country Club into the area and he pointed out the location of the clubhouse. He said that the area to the west or left was the future luxury hotel site and they did not at this time have an application nor plans on it. The applicant chose to show it on the site plan but it was not before the commission for consideration now. As noted, the units were in 16 villas around the perimeter. They had a conference center to the center and the three story garage structure immediately when entering from Desert Willow Drive. Entrance to the site was shown and ingress/egress point with waterfalls on either side. Persons entering the site would go to check in which was located in the conference center building. There was short-term parking provided adjacent. People checking in would then have their cars valet parked back in the parking structure. They would get around the site by either walking or with the aid of a golf cart. Golf cart parking was provided adjacent to each of the villa facilities. There was a driveway system that provided access and was generally 22 feet wide and was wider at the back of the conference center. There were some bus waiting areas and loading and unloading areas for vehicles that serviced the conference center facility. Vehicles would exit the site through the egress around the circle and proceeding southerly along Desert Willow Drive. Each villa would have its own swimming pool and hospitality suite. The conference center would include a health center with outdoor terrace and pool area, a lounge, two restaurants and conference facilities. The conference facility would have a 180-seat teleconference center, a 6,561 square foot ballroom which was divisible into four, and 16 meeting rooms of various sizes. The parking structure would be three stories and would provide 378 parking spaces. The code requirement on hotels was 1 .1 spaces per guest room (250 suites would provide a parking requirement for 275 spaces). The additional 103 spaces would be to take care of the higher level of staffing that would be provided and the conference center facility which would provide a higher level of service. As noted in the staff report on page six the parking required per code that was provided in the conference center itself was broken down. If they were to provide parking strictly per code they would have to come up with some additional 627 spaces. Staff wasn't suggesting that. In the past they have had waivers on parking on hotel developments in the 50% 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2000 tow range, specifically Embassy Suites and the restaurant just approved tonight with the Courtyard/Residence Inn facility. Actually there parking was higher than that because Applebee's required more, but staff had been prepared to recommend up to 50%. Staff was not comfortable with an overage of 103 spaces, so they thought there needed to be a contingency plan available to provide for overflow parking. The applicant responded with a letter from the hotel operator (Hilton) which was distributed to the commission today. They essentially felt that based on their knowledge of their operation that they were quite comfortable with an overall parking provision of 1 .5 per guest room. That memo was dated July 26. The architecture was approved by ARC at two meetings in that the applicant went away from the first meeting with a preliminary approval with some suggested modifications. They came back at the next meeting and showed ARC the modifications and received a complete preliminary approval. At that point ARC added the trellis structure to the top deck of the parking garage amongst other changes. The photo view analysis that they discussed in the report showed that the colors as presented had the potential to be a problem. The applicant had been working on that to tone it down and in fact the plans on display depicted the revised colors much more in the brown earth tone range as opposed to a beige or off white which they were closer to before. As indicated the villa units would be two stories, 24 feet in height and sat on a pad height shown on the tract map to be 275 feet. That 275 elevation was not natural grade. Mr. Smith explained that this pad was graded as part of the golf course development or at some time previously and there was fill added between 6, 8 or 10 feet, so they had a site that had been raised in the past and when they looked at the view analysis it became apparent that the site had been raised. Staff had been in contact with area residents and they expressed concern with this increase in that pad height. Relative to the second story balconies, residents expressed concern that the balconies encouraged views into their properties to the east. During previous public meetings on the business points of this deal, the applicant had suggested the possibility of lowering the pad adjacent to the golf course by as much as 10 feet. This would reduce the units to the equivalent of one story in relation to the existing grade that they were looking at today. The plans before the commission now didn't reflect any reduction in pad height. The applicant gave staff a memo from his engineer which stated that reducing the height of the pad could create some development problems. It didn't outline the magnitude of what the problems would be and staff asked the applicant to clarify that memo and reconsider lowering the pad 4, 6, 7 or more feet. In his July 25 correspondence the applicant responded that the pad level was 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2000 established and prepared by the city. Mr. Smith concurred that it was. The applicant said that if the city wanted to investigate the impacts created by a lower pad height it should do so. Staff concurred. Staff felt the pad height situation should be examined to determine how much the pad could be lowered, if at all. Residents had expressed concern that the second floor balconies in the villas encouraged people to look into their yards and homes. The applicant proposed a 3'6" solid rail with a planter box on top to allow vegetation to grow. Staff hadn't seen any details on that and felt that it was an important issue that needed to be studied. The issue of a bus stop/bus shelter came up again. The site circulation would provide for difficult turning movements by large vehicles so he didn't think the city should be encouraging tour buses or celebrity tour buses circulating though and suggested that a bus shelter be provided on the circle somewhere and staff would condition that. The applicant's response was no objection to the city creating a bus stop on the circle and would provide three on-site bus loading spaces. The project would provide quite a few jobs for the hotel industry people and staff expected that they would have quite a few children. The city has been collecting from i other hotel developments a day care mitigation fee and would do so from this one as well. Staff also felt that they should be committing to the spending of these funds. The fees were collected from Marriott's timeshares, Intrawest and a couple of other projects such as Courtyard and Residence Inn. In the early comments from the residents there had been a request to relocate the parking structure from its current location right at the entrance to an area back on the east side and move the villas away from the east property line in that the parking structure was 15-19 feet in height versus the 24 feet on the villa units. The applicant chose to retain the parking structure for reasons cited in that it just made for better circulation and less traffic going through the entire site. The project as submitted was consistent with all previous descriptions for development on the site (i.e., 250 room, two stories). Mr. Smith stated that the two story 24 foot high villa structures complied with the PR zone standards which was the zoning on the property. The 30 foot high conference center building with 36 foot tower element could be approved through the height exceptions provision as has been done with other projects. At this point staff felt there were several unaddressed issues. One was the problem with the view of the structures created by the previous design of the pad and whether the pad elevation could be lowered to reduce view impacts. Secondly, they felt there must be an overflow parking plan in place to address that concern. Third, the proposed solution for the second story balcony needed to be reviewed in more depth. Staff's recommendation was that they 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2000 continue this matter to the commission meeting of August 15 to allow the applicant to address these three concerns. If it was commission's desire to proceed with this, staff did include a draft resolution and conditions of approval at the back of the attachments packet. He wanted to be very clear that staff's recommendation was a continuance until those three issues were addressed. Commissioner Campbell noted that Mr. Smith stated that this facility would have 60 to 80 employees. She asked where the employees would park. If they would park in the parking structure or if there was another facility for them to park in. Mr. Smith said that right now they would be in the parking structure. Commissioner Campbell pointed out that right now they didn't know how much of a reduction in the height of the pad would be feasible for the villas. Mr. Smith said that was correct. It had not been analyzed in any depth. Commissioner Campbell noted that for the bus access, Sunline stated that they wouldn't be interested in going inside the circle. Mr. Smith said that was correct at this point in time. There was a second memo from Ms. Riddle where she concluded that it would be good long range thought to actually r"' provide the bus shelter there. Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. ROBERT SONNENBLICK, a principal in the development company Sonnenblick del Rio, the developer of the project. As was previously mentioned, Mr. Sonnenblick said that they have had various iterations of the project and have sat down with the Architectural Review Committee, made a lot of changes, and had now gotten the scope of development into something that conformed with the existing approved EIR in place. He said this dealt with reducing the number of rooms to 250, lowering the height to two stories, etc., as opposed to the original six story project they came in with. As Mr. Smith also mentioned, they had changed the colors to match the brand new clubhouse so that architecturally both the colors and the stone facade that was on the new clubhouse, the exteriors shown did in fact match. The original was a little brighter so they changed that. Regarding the three specific issues, one of the input received from the residents of Montecito dealt with the fact that these were in fact two story units and that someone tow standing on a terrace on the second story had a view toward some of 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 3 AUGUST 1, 2000 ' the homes on the west side of Montecito. Specifically there were four units along their east side there where this was actually coming into play. What they had done and had with them tonight to give to staff and for commission review as was mentioned was put in a very substantial set of planters along those second floor balconies. He felt it would be a nice view from the homes as they look toward the villas, but more importantly on the side of the villas that look out at the homes it did in fact block the view of the hotel guests to insure the privacy of the residents in Montecito. That had been done and he thought with very little review staff would be able to look at that and see that it clearly has solved that issue. Another issue brought up was the lowering of the grade of the four villas on the east side of the conference center. He said they in fact brought with them their engineer to discuss that. He pointed out that one thing mentioned before talked about them not being sure about doing this and things like that. The cost of doing this lowering of grade, depending on whether they lowered it two feet or 10 feet ranged anywhere from approximately $500,000 to several million dollars. He told the commission that he actually in a public forum here after listening to some of the homeowners was the person who brought up the issue before the City Council the idea of lowering the four villas, but something had been misconstrued and he wanted to state publicly on the record. They were not proposing to be able to pay for that. Again, from two feet down to 10 feet, the cost of doing that was anywhere from $500,000 to several million dollars. They were amenable to doing it, but it made the project unfeasible for them if anyone thought they were going to be able to pay for it. He put it on the table as something so that if the city wanted to please its constituents they would be happy to do the work, but in no way, shape or form could they afford to pay for something like that. He just wanted that on the record so that there was no misunderstanding about anything that was said in a previous meeting. If the commission or staff would like to discuss that lowering of grade or if they had any specific questions, his engineer was present to discuss with the commission if they had questions as to what it would entail and what it would cost. Chairperson Beaty said that he would like to hear a very brief discussion on that issue. He imagined that there were some physical structures in place 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2000 such as sewers, etc., and asked if that was the issue. Mr. Drell said that the cost issue was something the council would have to take up. MR. PAUL SEPULVEDA, with Mainiero, Smith and Associates, stated that they were contracted to do the original project and all the master infrastructure for the conference center, hotel, the whole thing north and south. He distributed a document to commission (see Exhibit A attached). He said that they took three different scenarios: a two foot drop, a five foot drop and a 10 foot drop. Without getting real detailed about it, they looked at it as a wholesale drop across the project because any drop of two feet or more would require the rest of the project to be dropped. It might not be the same amount, but it would have to go down. They just looked at it in a general wholesale drop across the pad. There were two pad levels right now. The north end was at 273.5 and the south end was 275. It sort of split the project. What the commission saw was fairly general as to what would need to be done. The water and sewer were brought into that pad from the Montecito tract and laid up onto the pad and it was a CVWD facility. The grading of the golf course was an integral part in this pad. When they built it they took that into account. As seen, there was quite a bit of mounding on the west side of the pad that would have to be transitioned depending on how far they dropped the pad. The farther they dropped down the more encroachment into the golf course. The mounds were up to 10 feet in some cases. Anywhere to 10 feet down they would not be able to gravity sewer the project, it would have to have a sewer lift station and probably for the north half of the project. The sewer there was very tight. They ran minimum grade out of Montecito and there was no leeway. The clubhouse was on a temporary line until this line got built. it barely made it. They didn't count on a basement in the clubhouse. He hoped that information helped. Mr. Drell asked in the magnitude of cost, if the lowering of two feet would be $500,000, 10 feet would be several million dollars, and the five feet would be $1 million or something like that. Mr. Sepulveda said that he didn't put any costs to those figures. They would have to go back and look at those. He thought that Mr. OEM Sonnenblick was probably very close, plus they would have to remove 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2000 i the dirt since there was no place to put it now. It would have to be hauled off. Otherwise they would have to build up another pad. Mr. Drell said it was a matter of expense, so ultimately that was a discussion that the City Council would have to take up. Mr. Sonnenblick said that Mr. Smith referred to the parking garage correctly as a three story parking garage, but one of the things they had also done was to bury essentially the parking garage. The height of the parking garage above grade was only 15 or 17 feet, which was obviously less than a normal three story structure. He wanted to make it clear that when someone referred to three stories, they spent the extra money themselves to bury that so that it became much less visible. He indicated that Mr. Smith also mentioned that one of the things the residents asked them to do was to move the parking structure from the very beginning of the site over to the eastern site and they listened to the request and it was one of the few requests that they as real estate people had decided not to do because it wasn't the right thing to do. They didn't want to encourage very large traffic circulation inside the project. If they had people who could go right into the parking structure right off the street, the one thing they would not have is huge amounts of traffic flowing through the driveway. They were trying not to do that. By moving the parking structure all the way in away from the street, it would maximize traffic within the project and that wasn't what they were trying to accomplish and wasn't in the best interest of the project. They listened to it, but reasonable minds could differ. What was maybe the biggest issue was parking. The commission had in front of them a copy of the letter from Hilton Hotel Corporation who would operate the property for them who has extensive experience in this specific kind of hotel. Again, a conference center hotel was very different from a resort hotel like the Marriott. They were two different animals. They were very integrally involved with the project and they said to Mr. Sonnenblick that their provided parking was more than enough to handle the 250 rooms plus all the employees plus all the additional space on site. Per the Palm Desert code they were very much conforming to that. One of the things as a guest who comes to Palm Desert could tell the commission, for example at the Marriott, that when there are large conventions and things like that the parking was tight. They didn't want that on their property any 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2000 a.. more than the city. The best thing that he could suggest was that they were in fact doing and would be in shortly with the resort to talk to the commission about that where they had put in a huge amount of parking as well to cover any overflow, even if there was overflow from the city's clubhouse/golf parking. Everything was fairly close, but their experience and Hilton Hotel Corporation's experience per the letter was that the conference center had ample parking. Again, the one or two groups that would be hurt the most if this was under parked was them, so the last thing he wanted to do was if it was at all questionable go light on the parking. He was the person's whose wallet would feel it most and after doing their studies and having long sit downs with Hilton on this issue, they were comfortable with the parking they proposed on site. In conclusion, the three main issues brought up in the staff report dealt with the views on the second floor balconies, and they had now blocked them off with full planters on the east side that looked toward Montecito and they had a drawing that actually showed the planters and wanted them to look at it, but he felt it was very clear that someone standing there on that second floor balcony would not be able to look to the east to see the Montecito units. That was something they heard loud and clear and had made those changes. The parking they were comfortable on. Any finding by the commission of a requirement to lower the grade without a commensurate finding by the city council to pay for that would kill the project. That was something he wanted to put on the table. In conclusion, they tried to do everything asked of them. One other thing brought up by Mr. Smith was a contribution to various municipal mitigations/contributions. They agreed to do all of that and it was in their budget and they understood it and had no problem with it and had made all the other changes asked of them, which was before the commission in fairly close to final form. He appreciated the commission's time and asked for any questions. Commissioner Campbell said she had a question regarding the luxury hotel that they would be building in the future. They said they would have adequate parking there for the overflow for the convention center and the clubhouse. Mr. Sonnenblick said yes, they had agreed with the city to do that and they had agreed to put that in writing. If there was a finding that at some future time there was a requirement to do that, they would in fact law do that on the other site. He again stated that they would be hurt more 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION d AUGUST 1, 2000 f than anyone if they were under parked. The last thing they wanted to do was under park the project. They would put it in writing and agree to it. Commissioner Campbell asked if they would have a parking structure there. Mr. Sonnenblick said absolutely. He pointed out the location on the plan where the parking structure for the resort would be located. It wouldn't just be surface parking, but they had a substantial parking structure there, all landscaped on the outside. Again, that was on a part of the site that was closest to the city's new clubhouse and closest to them so that in the event that a huge event happened, people wouldn't have to walk all through the resort. It was on the absolute closest part of the site and it was intentionally designed that way. Mr. Drell explained that on the railing details what they were basically proposing was a 3'6" solid screen wall with a foot and a half planter on top of it for a total of five feet (plus plants). Mr. Drell said that the city's typical goal in terms of screening was to create a screen at least 5'8" which was the eye level of a six foot man or woman. Assuming that any planting would be at least 8" which was a fair assumption assuming the plants were successfully maintained, then they would achieve the goal of 5'8" screening. People could look straight out, but not down. Mr. Sonnenblick said he agreed with that. Commissioner Jonathan said he had a question on the additional parking structure Mr. Sonnenblick just referred to. He asked what that structure would be primarily built to accommodate. Mr. Sonnenblick said it was for the resort hotel. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Sonnenblick was suggesting that there was substantial overflow parking created for the hotel. Mr. Sonnenblick said no. They believed after conducting their studies and after their sit downs with Hilton that they were adequately parked on the conference center. His comments were that in addition to that, there was in fact another parking garage right across the street. 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2000 Commissioner Jonathan clarified that his point was if that additional parking garage was expected to have excess unused spaces. If there was some kind of a parking study that suggested that. Mr. Sonnenblick said they would there have over code parking just like they had for the conference center. Commissioner Jonathan pointed out that Mr. Sonnenblick believed there was excess parking provided and staff believed there was a potential shortage of 500 spaces. Part of Mr. Sonnenblick's response was that if there was a shortage, they had another structure. The question to Mr. Sonnenblick was if in that structure there was excess space. Mr. Sonnenblick said they hadn't defined the amount. If staff felt they were short on one, they would in fact add on to the structure. He said it wasn't meant to be a funny answer, but It hadn't been defined yet. Commissioner Jonathan didn't feel that was an answer. r. Mr. Sonnenblick said they were willing to do that if the city wanted them to. Mr. Drell felt the answer was yes. He thought they had already established that there was a parking shortage at the clubhouse and as they knew, they built 200 emergency spaces on the resort hotel site, so it was his understanding (and there was a question as to who would pay for the extra parking) that there would be extra parking most likely built into the structure to accommodate the overflow parking from the clubhouse on the resort site. Mr. Sonnenblick said they were willing to do that. Mr. Drell said that the answer was yes, there would be overflow parking beyond the requirement of the resort hotel in the resort parking structure. The question was how much. Commissioner Jonathan said that would be for the clubhouse. Mr. Drell said they would be examining spaces at the clubhouse more precisely and probably what they should do if Hilton has similar facilities is go visit with them and talk to their people and see how many spaces they have. Basically the argument put forward by Hilton was that while Marriott booked to associations such as ICMA and ICSC who attract people from all 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION s AUGUST 1, 2000 over the world many of which may or may not be staying at Marriott Hotel, therefore while the facility is parked fine for the people going to the convention from the Marriott, all the people driving in from L.A. were staying at the Ritz Carlton or wherever, that was what created the parking out in the street. The applicant was saying that they way they book, if they booked Microsoft, Microsoft booked all of their employees at the hotel. What they should probably do is some of their own research and that would ultimately determine how much additional parking they might need in the resort hotel. Mr. Sonnenblick said they were willing to put it on that site. Commissioner Jonathan said that if they did that calculation and in fact besides parking spaces for the rooms. If they looked at the rooms alone they had 103 extra spaces. Mr. Sonnenblick concurred. Commissioner Jonathan said that they then looked at the ancillary activity such as the ballroom, theater, the health club, the three meal restaurant, the specialty restaurant, the 16 meeting rooms and they asked how many parking spaces those ancillary spaces would require. Potentially it was 627, although probably less, but something perhaps over 103. If they said it was 303 spaces, so if they said they were 200 short, hypothetically if they determined that they were X number of spaces short whether that was five spaces or 500 or whatever it was, if there was a specific resource for those additional spaces. For example, if that parking structure would have X number of spaces available for the conference center. Mr. Sonnenblick said yes. Because they were the developer on both projects, for them to add a floor for example to add an additional deck level for say 200 spaces, they could go and add on another deck level and they were willing to do so. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he understood that cost was another issue, but while Mr. Sonnenblick was saying yes, Commissioner Jonathan was hearing a potentially yes because it was a different answer than yes, it would be on Country Club and Portola or whatever. Mr. Sonnenblick was saying potentially and sometimes adding another floor to parking structures was not 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2000 so easy and if it became two or three floors and became lowering and subterranean floors and so forth, then the answer yes turned into not really. Mr. Sonnenblick said he would make his answer very clear on the record. They had no problem doing that. Taking the sources of capital issue aside, they had no problem adding on what he would refer to as a reasonable shortfall of parking, 200 spaces or whatever it was, onto the parking garage at the resort center. Commissioner Jonathan said that those spaces didn't exist now at this moment. Mr. Sonnenblick said no. Commissioner Jonathan thanked Mr. Sonnenblick. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION on this matter. sir MR. MIKE MITCHELL, 38 Lucerne in the community of Montecito, addressed the commission. He stated that he didn't feel that the EIR done for this project in the early 90's was sufficient. For instance, the grand scope of this project was not known then, the elevations were not known then. When the initial EIR was done the elevation was supposed to be that of the original elevation of the desert. Now it was 10 feet higher. What this got to was the environmental values that were not addressed in the EIR in terms of Montecito and other residences around this project such as scenic values. The blockading of the views, the mountains, was not adequately addressed in the EIR. Neither were the lights. The light standards on the parking structure, the lights on the casitas, the lights on the convention center. He felt that these needed to be addressed. The gentleman that was just up here wasn't concerned about two stories or three stories for the parking structure and suddenly it was three stories. This all fell back on the fact that environmentally the impacts to the community were not adequately addressed. He wanted to bring this up tonight to allow the city an opportunity to maybe look at these environmental impacts: the lights and the noise--suddenly there were tour buses coming in and out. tow Almost 10 years ago it was impossible for the Planning Commission to 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1 , 2000 know all of these different things that were going to happen. A lot of this wasn't even known a year ago so he asked how could an environmental impact report be valid if they didn't really know the height of the structures or the scale of this project. He requested the commission to redo the environmental impact report so that they could all know what the impacts to the residents would be. Commissioner Jonathan asked if staff could be given an opportunity to address the comments with regard to the EIR, particularly with regard to the view of the mountains, lights and noise. Mr. Drell stated that the scale of the project was addressed. It was going to be a 250 unit hotel. The height was addressed. It was two stories. The height limit of 24 feet was the same height limit that was being proposed now. Regarding the actual details of the architecture, correct. That was what the commission was seeing now. All the items the gentleman brought up were legitimate items for the commission to examine and determine whether they were acceptable or not. The project was substantially similar and there were details. Those details were being examined and if they were found to be excessive or the impacts were determined to be unacceptable, then the commission could recommend that those aspects be changed or modified. From an EIR standpoint, staff did not feel it was necessary. They were suggesting a mitigated Negative Declaration if necessary. If there were additional mitigation measures they needed to add to address those issues of the pad elevation, lighting (since the details of that were rarely known when an EIR was prepared or at any stage until they finally got into the details of project architecture), but again those were all legitimate concerns which staff acknowledged and should be addressed in this process. Mr. Mitchell said that they were talking about the original elevation of the parking structure and the casitas where it was up to 10 feet higher than the original elevation of the desert. In his mind a compromise would be instead of having two stories lowered 10 feet, have one story on the existing pad. MR. GARY FOY, a resident at 44 Lucerne Drive, stated that he had a western facing view right at those casitas. A few years ago when he investigated and talked to the Planning Department he was told that there would be no higher than a two story building put on there. One of his concerns would be why the city or development go to the extent of building up the pad. There were specific height requirements for all 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2000 the lots at Montecito and he wondered why a particular homeowner had to stay in line with the city pad requirements, but yet it seemed this developer or the city was making an exception to raise the pad. If the pad had remained at its original height it would have less of an impact on the residents at Montecito without any damage to the viewing of the conference center. He also heard tonight the applicant discuss the aspect of the costs of lower the pad and he thought he understood a little conflict in that they were throwing some numbers around but yet the commission had the benefit of some report but it sounded to him that those numbers were not finite or really determinable. So he was a little perplexed about the Washington Monument game going on here that they were going to throw anywhere from a half a million to a million to several million dollars to reduce the pad and he thought that if there was going to be any discussion on that there should be some independent analysis of what the real cost would be to reduce this so that the City Council didn't get scared away from really looking at the true cost of that and looking at it not only from a cost standpoint, but also from the environmental impact in terms of the views. Lastly, the discussion of the parking, he agreed with one of the commissioners that to just suggest they were going to add another floor or add another floor demonstrated the insensitivity that was going on with this development. It had a lack of concern about the people that have made an investment for the scenic value, for the privacy and he didn't see as much sensitivity especially when they were just going to throw in another floor and they didn't have a real gage on the parking. MR. PETER LIPTON, 19 Taylor Avenue in Montecito, asked how the project before the commission effected the area to the southwest of the building site that extends all the way over to Cook Street. He asked if that effected the Intrawest project that was the timeshares. Mr. Drell said no. Mr. Lipton thanked the commission. MR. HENRY PREGO, 46 Lucerne in Montecito, said that the developer said that his original plan was for a luxury hotel on the site on the conference center. He asked how that could be because the city's %W original plan called for the conference center to be there, not a luxury 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2000 hotel which was where they hung the balloons at seven stories. He wondered why that happened the way it did and ultimately what would go on the other site. He asked how many stories the developer was planning for the other site. Mr. Sonnenblick replied five stories. Mr. Prego said he just wanted to bring this up in public. He said they would address that when they got to that stage. Chairperson Beaty felt that staff had already identified many of the issues that the residents were raising that staff was indicating that more study was needed. He asked what the impact would be of a standard 18 foot home immediately west of Montecito since there was a two-hole golf course buffer and there could have been single family homes on the other side of that wall and was curious about a comparison of impacts to the view. Mr. Drell said that he believed that when most of these people bought their homes it was already established that there was going to be a golf course there so they bought their homes and paid the requisite premium for the fact that there wasn't going to be homes there. Chairperson Beaty said he didn't believe anything had been cast in stone at that time. Mr. Drell thought that more than likely most people bought after there was a golf course. They pretty much established there would be a golf course in 1994. Chairperson Beaty as a note to the developer said he hoped he was aware of the dirt problem associated with the Kaufman and Broad homes and when they broke ground on this site, he hoped the city wouldn't have to go through that again. Mr. Foy readdressed the commission and stated that when he purchased the lot there was a golf course there and he didn't believe that the level of that pad from his horizon that he looked at was at that level. He didn't know what the timing was of when they brought in more dirt to raise the pad. He wasn't sure of that, but he assured the commission that he bought his lot and he could say that he didn't have a shabby view right now and he was deeply concerned that the fair market value that one would assume he would have because he paid a premium for his lot, for his view, and for his privacy and it was not going to be the same if that project as proposed were to happen. ° 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2000 Mr. Drell said that it was his understanding, and the engineer could confirm that, that the elevation of those pads was created by the construction of the golf course. If he came in when the golf course was finished, then the pad that he saw was the same pad that is there today, which is the same pad that the applicant is proposing to build on. There was no additional dirt added after the golf course was constructed. Chairperson Beaty noted that there was an obvious problem with the sewage and they had to have some fall or there was a serious problem. Chairperson Beaty closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would like to have a two minute discussion on the pad height issue and asked the City Attorney if that was something that should be discussed in closed session. He wanted to talk about the city's perspective on how it occurred and potential responsibility. Mr. Hargreaves said that they could go into closed session to discuss if it would be proper to be in closed session. Commissioner Jonathan requested for the commission to go into closed session since he had a specific issue he wanted addressed. Commission concurred. THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED TO CLOSED SESSION AT 8:32 P.M. Mr. Hargreaves informed the audience that basically they determined that the issue wasn't anything that needed to be discussed in closed session, so the discussion would occur on the record. CHAIRPERSON BEATY RECONVENED THE MEETING AT 8:37 P.M. Commissioner Jonathan thought they had some very significant issues that needed to be resolved and he didn't think they were resolved at this point. He thought there had to be an analysis of the parking requirement for the ancillary use that was apart from the room parking. He thought they needed to get a good handle on the number of spaces required and if there was an inadequacy, then they needed to deal with what they were going to do with that. He said the parking issue was still very much an open issue. The pad height he could see where lowering the pad height could be a reasonable mitigation and they had no answers about that. They didn't know whether they could lower it VMW two feet, five feet, seven feet, or how much was appropriate and how much 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2000 was possible specifically without getting into major sewer issues and if those were sewer issues that could be mitigated through pump stations or whatever and if that would be effective. Again, those were questions but no specific hard answers. He thought the pad height issue was still an open issue. The second story balcony looked like it may have been resolved adequately but he thought the two issues of parking and pad height were significant enough to warrant a continuance. Commissioner Campbell concurred. They needed to have quite a few more answers as Commissioner Jonathan stated. They knew that there was another area that they have used for parking at the entrance of the project and suggested that they see if that could be used for employee parking as one of the recommendations from staff. She was in favor of a continuance. Chairperson Beaty stated that he was in concurrence with that. The developer was very confident that there wasn't a parking issue, but Chairperson Beaty felt the applicant needed to come to city staff and convince staff and the commission of that issue. He asked if the developer would like to offer any rebuttal comments since he wasn't asked after the public provided input. Mr. Sonnenblick stated that he could understand people's comments and potential discomfort about the zero to 10 foot grade issue. For the record he said he had a very hard time with a comment made about parking issues and their affect on the Montecito residents. The grade issues, yes that absolutely affected them. The view issues from the second floor balconies absolutely affected them. He said he honestly had a tough time with the real direct effect on Montecito residents of parking inadequacies. He did not see people parking all the way out Desert Willow around Cook and then back any where near Montecito. That was just for the record. Commissioner Jonathan apologized and said he must have missed something, but he didn't hear that the parking issue was related specifically to Montecito. Chairperson Beaty said he thought the question was raised when they were discussing raising another deck another deck another deck, and that certainly could impact their views. He believed that was the point, not parking in Montecito. 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2000 tam Mr. Sonnenblick said they weren't talking about adding decks at the conference center either. Chairperson Beaty said he didn't believe the developer heard his comment, but Mr. Sonnenblick was very confident that there wasn't a parking issue based on his experience. Mr. Sonnenblick concurred, based on his experience and Hilton's experiences. Chairperson Beaty pointed out that that obviously wasn't good enough for staff and commission. His suggestion was that the developer spend some time and educate them when Hilton believed that. Mr. Sonnenblick said that maybe what he'd like to do was bring Hilton in to sit with staff. Chairperson Beaty thought that was a good idea. He agreed that if the project was under parked, the development was in trouble, and so was the city. Everyone would look bad. Commissioner Jonathan said that in terms of continuing the matter, if it was commission's wish to do so, he advised that if the next meeting was August 15 he would be out of town on that date. Chairperson Beaty said he would be present. He asked if a continuance to the 15th would be adequate time. Mr. Drell thought it probably was. He didn't think they were that far away from understanding the parking problem and since the writing of the staff report staff had received more information. They needed to confirm the operational differences of this sort of hotel and some place like the Marriott. As of today they also got a fairly good list of the sort of problems that lowering the pad could create. Mr. Sonnenblick said that they could have prices by the 15th also. Mr. Drell said that one of the other things they could probably quickly do was in the view analysis show what lower the pad five feet would look like so everyone could really see what the "bang for the buck" would be. All of those things he felt could be gotten in two weeks, so he felt that a two-week �.. continuance was probably adequate time. Chairperson Beaty pointed out that 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2000 it was his understanding that the cost was not something that the commission was concerned with, although Council certainly would be. Mr. Drell stated that in terms of assessing the changes it would be good to see to compare how much of the mountains could be seen by lowering it five feet. Commissioner Jonathan said that if the applicant had no problem with the 15th, he personally didn't either as long as they had a quorum. Mr. Drell said that as long as Commissioner Finerty was present, as well as Chairperson Beaty and Commissioner Campbell, they would still have a quorum. Chairperson Beaty asked if Commissioner Lopez was going to be out of town. Staff said yes. Mr. Drell informed commission that as an employee of a competing concern, he would probably abstain. Chairperson Beaty and Commissioner Campbell stated that they would both be at the meeting. Mr. Drell said that Commissioner Finerty could listen to the tape and he was sure she would want to participate. Chairperson Beaty asked if the developer was comfortable with a continuance to August 15. Mr. Sonnenblick concurred. Chairperson Beaty reopened the public hearing and asked for a motion of continuance. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, continuing PP/CUP 00-09 and TT 29528 to August 15, 2000 by minute motion. Motion carried 3-0. A woman spoke from the audience and said that most of them, at least herself, was not notified of the meeting. Only a handful of people in Montecito received formal notification. Chairperson Beaty informed her that the requirement was for 300 feet and asked staff if the legal requirement was met. Mr. Smith said yes and said that notices were sent to every lot in Montecito. He pointed out that quite a few of the homes had "mail to" addresses. The woman spoke again and said she was at the November meeting, she left her name and address and the fact that she was a board member. Commissioner Jonathan asked if they had a homeowners association. She replied yes, Monarch. Commissioner Jonathan asked staff to provide a notice to the homeowners association so they could distribute the notice. Chairperson Beaty requested that she give her name and address to staff to be sure if an error was made or if the mail didn't function properly, i since that did happen. Chairperson Beaty said that they would make certain that everyone was notified for August 15. Mr. Smith informed commission 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2000 and the audience that no, notices for August 15 would not be mailed out. Chairperson Beaty requested that staff contact the homeowners association. Mr. Smith said that 215 notices were mailed out. The woman said that Montecito had only 98 lots. Mr. Smith explained that notices were mailed to Desert Falls and a much larger area. Chairperson Beaty said that the mailing list was available if the woman to examine it. Mr. Mitchell spoke from the audience and asked about the environmental issues he bought up regarding the light standards and other issues. Chairperson Beaty said those issues would be addressed. He raised those issues and it was in the public record. It would be looked into. The gentleman said he thought it might have been forgotten. Chairperson Beaty assured him that it would be looked into. Mr. Drell pointed out that when these issues went before City Council another notice would be mailed. He asked for any corrections or a current mailing address for the homeowners association so that they could receive the next notice or to any addresses the audience would like. two IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Case No. CUP 00-11 - SCHMITZ ENTERPRISES AND VICTORIA CARLOS, Applicants Request for discussion of appropriateness of an application for a 23-room residential care facility (Victorian Manor for the Elderly) on the west side of San Rafael at 44-555 San Rafael. Mr. Smith stated that specifically Mr. Schmitz was not going to be at the meeting, but he had no problem with the commission proceeding to get a general indication of the concept he has in mind. Staff included a copy of Mr. Schmitz's letter. Mr. Schmitz was proposing what was described as a hybrid or half-breed, something between a nursing home and an assisted care facility. The property zoning did not provide for these uses. The plans Mr. Schmitz gave to staff up to this point were not typically what staff would expect and before staff required him to improve the plans the hope was to get some indication that Mr. Schmitz wasn't going down a path that had no opportunity for success. Mr. Drell said that it was most close to an assisted care living facility as defined in the Senior Overlay. He would be providing assistance. His basic problem was the size of the units. It was more like a boarding house 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2000 with assisted care services. The number of units if measured by the number of boarding room and the size of the rooms were smaller and there were more of them than would be permitted in the Senior Overlay. His basic argument was that the assisted care living projects approved that met city standards charged between $2,500 and $3,000 a month. He was going to try to provide services for approximately $500 less a month than a comparable level of service that is provided at Hacienda de Monterey or one of the other projects. That was achieved partly by building smaller rooms and more on a particular piece of property. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the units would be without kitchens. Mr. Drell concurred. He said there would be a common dining facility and they would provide all the same services of assisted living as Hacienda or Palm Desert Villas or another projects. Staff had said that the city has looked at affordability before as a reason for varying from the standards. Typically they have insisted on some sort of guarantee that that affordability remains. In this case, if Mr. Schmitz's goal was to provide service for $500 less a month than Hacienda, then maybe they could use Hacienda as an index. Over time, chances are the market would take care of it since the units were smaller and didn't provide an opulent facility like Hacienda. The question was if the commission would be willing to look at an exception to the Senior Overlay standards which required certain sized units and a certain number of units in exchange for a product that would provide a more affordable service. Commissioner Campbell noted that Mr. Schmitz outlined the estimated base rates, but then he said that the cost of construction and requirements imposed by governmental agencies would play a large part in determining that cost. Mr. Drell said those costs and fees were all applied to the other projects as well. If in fact he ends up having to charge the same as Hacienda de Monterey, they weren't achieving anything by lowering the standards and, two, he was probably going to go broke because there would be no reason for anyone to choose his over someone else's. The whole premise of the exception would be that by giving him an exception, he gained a cost advantage that would allow him to serve a more moderate income clientele. Commissioner Jonathan said that if Mr. Schmitz was looking for a sense of the commission, he personally didn't have a specific objection. He did have a couple of concerns and one of them was that if the project ends up more like a hotel than a permanent living situation, because rooms without kitchens and so forth he might do monthly leases or weekly leases or daily leases, 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2000 Commissioner Jonathan didn't know. That would be one concern. Was this going to more of a permanent living arrangement the way assisted care facilities tended to be or if this was going to be more like a boarding house/ hotel. That would be a concern. The second concern would be design. He didn't have a problem with smaller rooms assuming they could take care of the other concerns, but if the design was going to suffer, then he would have a concern there. Mr. Drell said it was his understanding that it would be permanent living. Design was something that would go through the process. At this point in time Mr. Schmitz was asking for a wink to say if this was worth for him and for staff to force him to improve the design if the commission was just going to say it didn't meet the standards. What they would be saying was that they were willing to look at the concept assuming that the overall design quality still met the standard. Commissioner Jonathan asked how staff felt about it. Mr. Drell believed that the standards in the code were arbitrary. When he created those standards he saw projects that had smaller units that he thought were fine. At the time they were lowering a minimum unit size which was 600 square feet and they lowered it down to 450 and 300. At that time it was a major reduction. Now that maybe they have had some experience with these sorts of facilities, he didn't have a problem because for the people who couldn't afford that $500 extra, they weren't letting them make a choice of a bigger unit or not--they couldn't afford the unit period. If in fact the services which for some people became the important issue in living more so than having an extra 100 feet in an apartment, and if they could achieve greater affordability at no cost to the city in terms of subsidy, then he thought it was a worthy goal. Commissioner Campbell noted that Mr. Schmitz said they would be providing three meals daily, housekeeping, and laundry. Utilities would be extra. Mr. Drell said that these facilities, other than people wanting to buy their own personal effects, basically addressed all the basic living requirements other than health insurance. Commissioner Campbell said that Mr. Schmitz was talking about the empty area on San Rafael and asked if there was more than one lot there. Mr. Smith said it was just over a half acre, so it must just be one lot. Commissioner Campbell pointed out that the development around that area was little apartments and one story units mostly. She thought that something like that could blend right in. Mr. Drell said that visually it could look just like an apartment building. That was no question. When someone looked at a building, they didn't know how many bedrooms were in it from the outside. 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2000 Commissioner Jonathan said that Mr. Schmitz received a wink; Commissioner Campbell and Chairperson Beaty concurred. Action: It was the general consensus of the commission that staff should proceed with the application. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (July 19, 2000) Commissioner Campbell said that they had quite a few artists show the committee some design concepts for the Foxx building on the northeast corner of Fred Waring and Monterey and then the second one for the Morning Star building (Dr. Shah's building). The third one was by Bill Ware right in front of the Montecito entrance. That was all they discussed. B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (No meeting) E. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) F. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) G. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) XI. COMMENTS Commissioner Jonathan said he had two quick issues. Number one. He asked for the status of the zoning issue relative to setbacks and the 1 :1 ratio. Mr. Smith said that staff was taking it back to ZORC at its meeting on August 30. Mr. Smith noted that they have had a considerable amount of time between meetings. The other issue was Commissioner Jonathan happened to be in Del 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2000 law Taco the other day and the floor was filthy. He asked what the appropriate venue would be to bring that issue up. He didn't think it reflected well on the city. Mr. Drell said that they could just give the owner a call. Commissioner Jonathan asked if it was a local owner. Mr. Drell said yes. He said that staff would just give him a call. Commissioner Jonathan said he was just surprised and that was in an area with a lot of tourists. Mr. Drell said the owner might not be aware that his manager was not keeping up with that, but he would give him a call. Commissioner Jonathan thanked staff. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Chairperson Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adjourning the meeting. Motion carried 3-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:01 P.M. PHILIP DREL Secretary ATTEST: PAUL R. BEATY, Chairperson Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm 35