The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDP 03-80 - 876 ROOM HOTEL FILE 1 1984 CERTIFIED PROPERTY 04111NERS' LIST AFFIDAVIT STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) CITY OF ,PALM DESERT ) I , Onkr, hsFjx. *,) hereby certify that the attached list contains the names and addresses of all persons to whom all property is assessed as they appear on the latest available assess- ment role of the County within the area described on the attached application and for a distance of three hundred (300) feet from the exterior boundaries of the property described on the attached application. I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. (signed) (date) d PDR Associates Ballew/McFarland, Inc . jl c/o San Miguel Equities 74-075 E1 Paseo, Ste A-7 1600 Dove St. , Ste 130 Palm Desert , CA 92260 Newport Beach, CA 92660 621-302-006 - 111 Properties Ballew/McFarland, Inc . c/o Ill Development Co. 74-075 El Paseo , Ste A-7 4311 Wilshire Blvd, #605 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Los Angeles , CA 90010 621-303-009 - Paul S . Moller Ballew/McFarland , Inc . 72235 Painters Path 74-075 El Paseo, Ste A-7 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert , CA 92260 621-301-014 i CVCWD Stein-Brief VistaGroup P.O. Box 1058 2081 Business Center Dr. Coachella, CA 92236 Suite 200 629-021-801 . Irvine , CA , 92715 i Hoams Construction Co Inc Stein-Brief Vista Group Box G 2081 Business Center Dr. Palm Springs , CA 92262 Suite 200 629-022-005 Irvine, CA 92715 H F Ahmanson & Co. Stein-Brief Vista Group 3731 Wilshire Blvd. 2081 Business Center Dr. Los Angeles , CA 90010 Suite 200 629-022-006 Irvine , CA 92715 Robert W. Harper j Ste . 550 Kennecott Bldg. Salt Lake City, Utah84111 629-023-001 Russell 0. Shirk 8 Wesleyan Ct. Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 629-023-004 Michael & Patricia Moss 1601 Market St. Madison, IL 62060 629-060-001 Eagle Development 4262 Campus Dr. Newport Beach, CA 92660 629-732-044 A I i PDR Associates Ballew/McFarland, Inc . c/o San Miguel Equities 74-075 E1 Paseo, Ste A-7 1600 Dove St . , Ste 130 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Newport Beach , CA 92660 621-302-006 111 Properties Ballew/McFarland, Inc . i c/o 111 Development Co. 74-075 E1 Paseo, Ste A-7 4311 Wilshire Blvd. #605 Palm Desert , CA 92260 Los Angeles , CA 90010 621-303-009 Paul S. Moller Ballew/MCFarland , Inc . 72235 Painters Path 74-075 El Paseo, Ste A-7 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 621-301-014 CVCWD Stein-Brief VistaGroup P.O. Box 1058 2081 Business Center Dr. Coachella, CA 92236 Suite 200 629-021-801 . Irvine , CA 92715 Hoams Construction Co Inc Stein-Brief Vista Group Box G 2081 Business Center Dr. Palm Springs , CA 92262 Suite 200 629-022-005 Irvine, CA 92715 H F Ahmanson & Co. Stein-Brief Vista Group 3731 Wilshire Blvd. 2081 Business Center Dr. Los Angeles , CA 90010 Suite 200 629-022-006 Irvine, CA 92715 Robert W. Harper Ste . 550 Kennecott Bldg. Salt Lake City, Utah84111 629-023-001 Russell 0. Shirk 8 Wesleyan Ct. Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 629-023-004 Michael & Patricia Moss 1601 Market St . Madison , IL 62060 629-060-001 Eagle Develppment 4262 Campus Dr. Newport Beach , CA 92660 629-732-044 A A �� ( � v - Y-_..��_'.r .�.� L` r�"n .1` `zt - - � � - a_ ^%t��_ .r - - ti -� � �� d • • • �- !' :. f � •• :, �.� �.. �...�u..�..��.u�' ::=s ,;, PALM DESERT RACQUET CLUB r r t y ! PALM DESERT RACQUET CLUB L ..� ,y '�� 'RAC ':`=!k.':t".�t'Trs�:�►hn� ,�, --- .,ram Alpraw slim.*beW Ong 'p cs o Q _ "� �— -- .�T't- � ... ... . ..... ..r � o __ -�_ , �� - �_ -� � t� - �G-�=N ��. - .: - - ,,,L - - . - ; . -� ►. "� ,, � . � ,� �r ' �� _,� �� - .__�;_ _ _ � 4 _ �+ � ��y r �. J. �-- �"'�'�- � OTYY�1 Jhl COOT�(NI �T (-`- �,� --= r.� -��=�i. -�=r1 �_�N- -- - -� - -`' _ = - i 1 � � ,�� _ �' ' , � r--� , � t MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 1984 This matter was continued to the next meeting. C. Case No. C/Z 84-1 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of a preannexation change of zone from M.S.C. (Manufacturing Service Commercial) Riverside County, to S.I. (Service Industrial) for property located on the south side of Joni Drive, 725 feet west of Cook Street. Mr. Diaz reviewed the staff report and recommended approval. Chairman Wood opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this matter. There being none, the public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Crites, to approve the findings as presented by staff. Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Crites, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 941, recommending approval to the city council of C/Z 84-1. D. ZOA 84-1 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Modification of sections in the zoning ordinance pertaining to wall heights in residential front yards. Mr. Diaz reviewed the staff report and recommended approval. Chairman Wood opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being none, the public hearing was closed. Moved by Downs, seconded by Crites, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 942, recommending approval to the city council of ZOA 84-1, as amended. VIII. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS�� A. Case Nos. DP 03-80,VAR 03-80 and PM 16258, CARMA-SANDLING GROUP, Applicanvts Reconsideration of denial of a one year time extension for a development plan, variance and parcel map to allow construction of a 876 rentable room hotel/condominium project on 29.3 acres on the west side of Highway III, south of Fred Waring Drive. The applicant withdrew his request. IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE X. COMMENTS Commissioner Downs requested status on Town Center car wash landing. Chairman Wood requested that the city attorney be present on potentially controverial items. -4- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - MARCH 20, 1984 2:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Wood called the meeting to order at 2:06 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Downs III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Commissioner Crites Commissioner Downs Commissioner Richards Chairman Wood Excused Absent: Commissioner Erwood Others Present: Ramon Diaz Stan Sawa Phil Drell Linda Russell IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 6, 1984 Commissioners felt some issues still needed to be pointed out in the minutes; Moved by Commissioner Crites, seconded by Commissioner Downs, to continue action to the next meeting. Carried 3-1 (Richards abstained). V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Diaz reviewed the actions of the council for their meeting of March 8, 1984. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR All matters listed on the consent calendar are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless members of the planning commission or audience request specific items be removed from the consent calendar for separate discussion and action. A. Case Nos.. D� VAR 03-80 and PM 16258 - CARMA-SANDLING, ApplicanAl� Request for approval of a one year extension of time for a development plan, variance, and parcel map to allow construction of a hotel/condominium complex, racquet club, and commercial space in the PC (4) S.P. zone generally located at the southwest corner of Highway 111 and Fred Waring Dr. Rec: Approve consent calendar item as noted in staff report. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, to deny the request for Case Nos. DP 03-80, VAR 03-80 and PM 16258 for a one year time extension. Carried unanimously 4-0. This case was denied because the commission felt the applicants had received sufficient time extensions. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE City of Palm Desert Department of Environmental Services Staff Report TO: Planning Commission DATE: April 3, 1984 CASE NOS: DP 03-80 AR 03-80 and PM 16258 REQUEST: Reconsideration of a denial of a one year time extension for a development plan, variance and parcel map to allow construction of a 876 rentable room hotel/condominium project on 29.3 acres on the west side of Highway 111, south of Fred Waring Drive. APPLICANTS: CARMA-SANDLING GROUP 1641 Langley Avenue Irvine, CA 92714 Attn: Howard Mitzman I. BACKGROUND: A. PREVIOUS ACTION: The planning commission at the last meeting of March 20, 1984, considered and denied a time extension for the above cases. At that time, staff indicated that the parcel map had received all extensions and could not be extended further. However, the development plan and variance could still be granted a one year extension. The applicant was not present at that time. The applicant has requested a reconsideration of your previous action denying the time extension. He intends to be at this meeting to present his case for an extension. IL STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The planning commission should reconsider its action after presentation by the applicant. III. ATTACHMENTS• A. Letter of Request (original) Prepared byN�=z Ln6 All& Reviewed and Approved by /lr -1- VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS The CaMla-Sa firms GrOUp 1641 Langley Avenue Irvine, California 92714 714/540-3383 i I March 7 , 1984 Mr„ Raymond Diaz Planning Director ,"/ City of Palm Desert 4.5-- 275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, California 92260 SUBJECT : PM 16258 & DP 03-80 & VAR 03-80 SWC Highway 111 & 44th Avenue Dear Mr. Diaz : The Carma•-Sandling Group hereby submits a formal . request for an extension of time on the subject parcel map and development plan which we believe may expire on March 17, 1984 . We are currently evaluating our alternatives regarding the develop- ment of this property. In order to make a clear decision to meet our goals along with the City of Palm Desert, additior..al time is required. If you need. any additional information on the status of our plan- ning activities, we would be pleased to meet with you at any time . Thank you for your- consideration in this matter . Very truly yours, THE CARMA-SANDLING GROUP Howard A. Mitzman Y Project Manager HAM: hwc a 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION Date: March 23, 1984 CARMA-SANDLING 1641 Langley Avenue Irvine, CA 92714 Re: DP 03 80, VAR 03-80 and PM 16258 (Time Extension) The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of March 20, 1984. DENIED YOUR REQUEST FOR A ONE YEAR TIME EXTENSION Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the director of environmental services, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. RAMON A. DIAZ, SECRETARY PLANNING COMMISSION RAD/lcr cc: Coachella Valley Water District File City of Palm Desert Department of Environmental Services Staff Report TO: Planning Commission DATE: �M-archh220, 1984 CASE NOS( DnP 03_80), VAR 03-80 and PM 16258 REQUEST: Approval of a one year extension of time for a development plan, variance, and parcel map to allow construction of a hotel/condominium complex, racquet club, and commercial space in the PC (4), S.P. zone generally located at the southwest corner of Highway I II and Fred Waring Drive. APPLICANT: CARMA-SANDLING 1641 Langley Avenue Irvine, CA 92714 I. DISCUSSION: These cases were approved in 1980, and have received extensions since 1981. The current expiration date for these cases is March 17, 1984. The parcel map has received all extensions allowed by code and cannot be extended beyond the March 17, 1984, expiration date. The development plan and variance can be extended indefinitely on an annual basis. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As indicated above, the parcel map cannot be extended, and therefore is void as of March 17, 1984. Staff sees no major objection to the extension of the development plan and variance. Therefore, we recommend approval of an extension to March 17, 1985. M. ATTACHMENTS: A. Letter of Request B. Vicinity Map Prepared by Reviewed and Approved by /lr - R W 'r ;4 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS �y cam, V�±,,I \ The e Ca��-Sa �ing Group I641 ry Irvine,LCaaforn a Avenueangley 92714 714/540-3383 � J� March 7, 1984 MAR 2 ? '984 ! V i) VJ) Mr.. Raymond D1dZ ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Ym CITY OF PALM DESERT Planning Director. City of Palm Desert (/ 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, California 92260 SUBJECT:. PM. 16258 & DP 03-80 & VAR 03-80 SWC Highway 111 & 44th Avenue Dear Mr. Diaz:. The. Carma-Sandling Group hereby submits a formal request for an extension of time on the subject parcel map and development plan which we believe may expire. on March 17, 1984 . We• are currently evaluating our- alternatives regarding the develop- ment of this property. In order to make. a clear decision to meet our goals along with the City of Palm Desert, additional time is required.. If you need any additional information on the status of our plan- ning activities, we would be pleased to meet with you at any time. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Very truly yours, THE CARMA-SANDLING GROUP Howard A. Mitzman Project Manager HAM:hwc 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (T14) 346-0611 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION r /'V Date: March 4, 1983 WARMINGTON-CARMA c/o Wagner-Stanford Consultants 74-075 El Paseo, Suite A-7 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: Case No. DP 034-0 and PM 16258 (Time Extension) The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action; at its meeting of February 28, 1983. APPROVED REQUEST BY MINUTE MOTION TO MARCH 17, 1984 Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the director of environmental services, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. RAMON A. DIAZ, SECRETARY PLANNING COMMISSION RAD/lcr cc: -File L MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY - FEBRUARY 28, 1983 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS A STUDY SESSION WAS HELD IN THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE PRIOR TO THE MEETING. I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Wood called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. H. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Crites III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Commissioner Crites Commissioner Richards Chairman Wood Members Absent: Commissioner Kryder Commissioner Downs Staff Present: Ramon Diaz Stan Sawa Phil Joy Linda Russell Barry McClellan Eric Vogt IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 15, 1983 Commissioner Kryder was not present but wanted a correction to the minutes: Under Urgent Care Facility, page three, note that Commissioner Kryder was opposed to the proposed ordinance. On a motion by Commissioner Crites, seconded by Commissioner Richards, the minutes were approved as corrected; carried unanimously 3-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Diaz reviewed the actions of the council from the meeting of February 24, 1983. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR All matters listed on the consent calendar are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless members of the planning commission or audience request specific items be removed from the consent calendar for separate discussion and action. A. Case N . DP 03- and PM 16258, WARMINGTON-CARMA c/o WAGNER- STANFO SULTANTS Approval of a one year time extension for a development plan and parcel map to allow construction of a 876 rentable room hotel/condominium project on 29.3 acres, on the west side of Highway 111, south of Fred Waring Drive. Rec: Approve as presented. On a motion by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Crites, the consent calendar was approved as presented by staff; carried unanimously 3-0. � 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 643 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PHASING PLAN FOR AN APPROVED HOTEL/RESORT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY III AND 44TH AVENUE. CASE NOS. DP 03-80 AND VAR 03-80 W REAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the T7th day of September, 1980, consider the request by .STEIN-BRIEF/VISTA for approval of a Development Plan (and Variance) , consisting of 390 hotel units yielding 780 rooms, Racquet Club/Convention Facility, two restaurants and commercial shops on approximately 29.29 gross acres within the PC(4) , S.P. (Planned Commercial Resort, Scenic Preservation Overlay) zone generally located at the southwest corner of Highway 111 and 44th Avenue, more particularly described as: Tract Maps 4489-1 and 4489-2 WHEREAS, at said meeting of the Planning Commission, the Commission did find the following facts to justify their action, as described below: a. The proposed phasing plan as conditioned represents a logical development sequence consistant with the Commission action in approving the Development Plan and Variance (Resolution No. 612) . b. The proposed phasing plan as conditioned conforms to the General Plan, and the intent and purpose of the P.C. (4) , S.P. zone. c. The proposed phasing plan as conditioned, will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. ( NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City I of Palm Desert, California, as follows: Il 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the consideration of the Commission in this matter. 2. That the Commission does hereby approve a phasing plan for Case Nos. DP 03-80 and VAR 03-80, subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 17th day of September, 1980, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: BERKEY, KRYDER, MCLACHLAN, MILLER, RICHARDS NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE CHARLES MILLER, Chairman l ATTEST: MURREL CRUMP, Acting Secretary /lr PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 643 Page Two CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1 . Phasing of the site development shall conform substantially with the Exhibits (list and plan map) on file with the Department of Environmental Services in case files DP 03-80 and VAR 03-80, except as modified herein. 2. Development of the site shall conform to the conditions stated in Planning Commission Resolution No. 612. 3. Improvements to the Palm Valley Channel , as required in the Development Plan ` approval , shall occur in the first phase of development. Il 1 tt INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert TO: Director of Environmental Services FROM: Acting Director of Public Works SUBJECT: DP 03-80 DATE: October 22, 80 (1 ) No comment. JA A. CAINGDIRMP E B LL � CTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS JAC/ms Y ' 'I //y ^ Y� 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO: DP 03-80 (Amendment) PROJECT: Development Plan APPLICANT: Stem-brief/Vista Enclosed please find materials describing a project for which the following is being requested: Amendment of an approved Development Plan to allow the construction of a 6,151 sq. ft. conference facility and 48 hotel units on 2.54 acres of a 29.29 acre project within the PC (4) (Resort Commercial ) zone located on the west side of Highway 111 south of 44th. Ave. , more particularly described as : Tract Nos. 4489 and 4489-1 } The attached data was prepared by the applicant and is being forwarded to you ` for comments and recommended Conditions of Approval . The City is interested in the probable impacts on the natural environment (e.g. water and air pollution) and on public resources (e.g. demand for schools, hospitals, parks, power gener- ation, sewage treatment, etc. ). Your comments and recommended conditions of approval must be received by this ` office prior to 5:00 p.m. October 24th. , 1980, in order to be discussed by the Land Division Committee at their meeting of October 2gth- , 1980. The Land Division Committee (comprised of Director of Environmental Services, City Building Official , City Engineer, Fire Marshal and a representative of CVWD) will discuss the comments and recommended conditions of approval and will forward them to the Planning Commission through the staff report. Any informa- tion received by this office after the receipt deadline will not be discussed by the Land Division Committee nor will it be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. Sincerely, G✓v`, � Stan Sawa Associate Planner SS/pa PLEASE RETURN MAP WITH COMMENTS PROOF OF PUBLICATION (20109 2015.5 CCP) PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF LEGAL NOTICE ,r CITY OF PALM DESERT 1��{. LEGAL NOTICE DP 03-80 REOUEN�$5TT_,:KOR' ATI:AMCNDMENT OF AN APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO ALLOW 'CONS.T�RUGTION OF-A 6AS1 SO. FIT, CONFERENCE FACILITY AND 48 ADDITIONAL HOTEL'UNITS ON'2:54 ACRES OF;A 29.29 ACRESPROJECT SITE ON THE WEST SIDE OF ,HIGHWAY 111, SOUTH OF.MTH AVENUE. CASE NO. OP 00-80 (Amendment) K9 I am a citizen of the United CASE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearin will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Com�rIisslon to consider a request by STEIN-B IEF/VISTA for an Amendment of an States and a resident Of the approved Development Plan to allow the construction of a 6,151 SQ. ft, conference facility and 48 County aforesaid ; I am over the additional hotel units an 2.54 acres:of a 29.29 acre of Hlghwav 111 South of uth Avenue, more particularly described as: age of eighteen years,, and not Tract NOS. 4489 and U89.1 a party to or interested in the above entitled master. I am the _ ._ .:... principal clerk of the printer of PALM DESERT POSTS a newpaper of "` •'''printed general circulations r iFr , ' and published daily in the +•, - _ city of Riversides County of Yt ' Riversides and which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of 4 general circulation by the V I `44ih AVENUE Superior Court of the County of Riversides State of Californian 9 i. AMEND- µ ' " C under date of October Ss 19649 " y""! ' Case number 83658, that the MENT _ notices of which the annexed is a printed copy* has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any ` supplement thereof on the following _ dates* to-wit'. I" 10/23 91980 ' r SAID Public Hearing will be held on November 5, I090';'at 7:Oo P.M., In the Council Chamber` In the Palm Desert City Hall,45-275 Prickly Pear Lane,Palm Desert,California Council bomb plate all Interested persons are Invited to attend and be-heord. If approved, this oraposal µ� I Certify (or declare) under snow the addition of a conference focility and 48 hotel units to a previouslV approved l commerclol development. 1* penalty of perjury that the STAN SAWA, Acting Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission � f foregoing is true and correct. Dated October 239 1980 at RiversidesCalifornia CITY OF PALM DESERT y- CITY OF PALM DESERT STAFF REPORT 1 TO: Planning Commission REPORT ON: Phasing scheme for approved Development Plan APPLICANT(S) : Stein-Brief/Vista, 2081 Business Center, CASE NO(S) : DP 0 83 0 and VAR-0-8 DATE: September 17, 1980 I. REQUEST: Approval of a phasing scheme for an approved Development Plan (and Variance) , consisting of 390 hotel units yeilding 700 rooms, Racquet Club/Convention Facility, two restaurants and commercial shops on approximately 29.29 gross acres within the PC(4) , S.P. (Planned Commercial Resort, Scenic Preservation Overlay) zone generally located at the Southwest corner of Highway Ill and 44th Ave. LOCATIONAL MAP: �'.. �44 �AVE c�= 0. yo L) I i t; 1 II: . DISCUSSION: The subject project was approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. 612, July 3, 1980. At the time of approval a phasing plan for site development had not been formulated. The applicant has now submitted a phasing scheme illustrated by the attached listing and map. Staff would concur that the phasing plan is a reasonable approach, with one exception. Staff suggests that improvements to the Palm Valley Channel- occur with the first phase of develop- ment which drains to the channel , rather than assigning the improvements to the third phase. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the justification contained in draft Resolution. Approve a phasing plan for DP 03-80 and VAR 03-80, by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No._ subject to conditions. September 9, 1980 City of Palm Desert Planning Commission 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Attn: Murrel Crump Re: Development Permit No. 03-80 Dear Mr. Crump, On July •1, 1980 the Planning Commission approved the Development Permit for 29.3 acres in the PC (4) Zone for a 414—unit resort hotel complex with ancillary uses. At meetings with staff and at the public hearings, the concept of phasing was discussed in general terms but was not specifically addressed as a part of the permit application. Subsequently, we have analyzed the phasing of the development and have submitted a request for an amendment to the development permit for the proposed phasing concept. Included herewith, for the Commission's consideration is a narrative explanation of that concept and some of the more pertinent aspects of it. The original development permit was approved with a portion (Parcel B) designated for future development subject to approval of a later development permit amendment. We anticipate submitting that request for amendment on the October filing date. Since development of this parcel is not approved at this time, this request for approval of our phasing does not include it as a specific phase. However, we have structured the phasing in such a way that Parcel B can be readily incorporated with little or no change to the project phasing as proposed. We feel that this phasing concept represents the best possible scheme given the utility and other physical constraints as well as the intent of the City. Therefore, we urge your favorable consideration of this request. Sincerely, James W. Smith 2081 Business Center Drive, Suite 200 • Irvine, CA 92715 • (714) 833-8252 r AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 03-80 PHASING CONCEPT The entire project consists of 29.29 acres. On July 1, 1980, the City Planning Commission approved the development permit for approxi- mately 27 acres of the site. A 2.54 acre portion (Parcel B) was designated as "future development". This phasing concept addresses only the 27 acre portion since, technically, development of Parcel B has not received approval. However, Parcel B's relationship with the phasing concept would be addressed at the time of it's approval. The approved hotel development is divided in 4 proposed portions, each being a separate phase (Phases 1, 2, 3 & 4) . The two restaurant sites are a separate phase (Phase A) . Development of Phases 1, 2, '3 & 4 would proceed in that order. Development of the restaurant Phase A would be permitted as an independent phase provided that it was developed concurrent with or after Phase 1 of the hotel. Each of the proposed phases individually comply with all ordinances. At the completion of each phase, the overall developed portion of the project will meet all requirements independent of any undeveloped portion. A quantitative summary of each phase (Phasing Legend, Attachmentk,1) is included herewith. However, the following is a general summary of each respective phase: Phase 1: 96 units, athletic club and spa, racquet courts (13 tennis, 3 paddleball, 12 racquetball) pools, lobby and administrative, restaurant and lounge, and required parking for Phase 1; Phase 2: 105 units, racquet courts (5 tennis, 2 paddleball) and parking required to meet cumulative requirements for Phases 1 and 2; Phase 3: 126 units and parking required to meet cumulative requirements for Phases 1, 2 and 3; Phase 4: 60 units and parking to meet cumulative requirements for Phases 1, 2, 3 and 4; Phase A: Either or both of two restaurant sites, 1,000 square feet of commercial space, and parking required to meet the cumulative requirements of Phase A and any other developed portions of the project. ( \� (2) Mapping Procedure A tentative parcel map (No. 16258, 4 parcels) which is currently under consideration by the Commission. Its approval would permit a final parcel map to be recorded which would primarily accomplish two goals: (1) to comply with Special Condition No. 13 of the conditions of approval of the development permit which states: "No development shall occur on the subject property prior to its consolidation or resubdivision and recordation of a final map." (2) to subdivide the property into four parcels which would facilitate our development financing. This parcel map would not permit development without further tract map approvals. Following the approval of to development permit amendment which in- corporates 2.54 acre Parcel B into the project, a tentative tract map would be submitted for the entire development. This tentative tract map would subdivide the property into a number of lots and would allow ultimate development consistent with the approved development permit and phasing plan. Upon the approval of the tentative tract map, up to four final tract maps would be recorded for the approved tentative tract maps. These four maps would match the respective phases. The restaurant Phase B would be included within the boundaries of the final tract map for Phase 1. Offsite improvements, bonds guaranteeing those improvements, and major fees would be required as a part of the respective phases as outlined on the Offsite Improvement Schedule, Attachment B which is included herewith. L ATTACHMENT A PALM DESERT RACQUET CLUB, Stein/Brief/Vista PHASING LEGEND IMPROVEMENTS AREA REQUIRED PARKING ACTUAL PHASE 1 Racquet Club (Except 5 Tennis & 2 Paddle Courts) 139 187 Hotel/Condo Lounge/Lobby 97 Condo (96 Units) 211 299 12 .49 ac. 447 52T 447 517 Undeveloped (PC4) 2 . 54. ac. (to be determined) PHASE A Rest. (6, 000 s.f. ) 90 Rest. (7 ,000 s. f. ) 105 Comm. ( 1 , 000 s.f. ) 4 2.41 ac. 199646 �6 667 PHASE 2 Racquet Club (5 Tennis & 2 Paddle Courts) 21 Condo ( 108 Units) 238 4. 95 ac. 259 A 905 905 PHASE 3 Condo (126 Units) 278 4. 72 ac. 278 278 1183 11E3 PHASE 4 Condo (60 Units) 135 2 . 18 ac. 135 135 1318 1318 ATTACHMENT B STEIN-BRIEF/VISTA PALM DESERT RACQUET CLUB OFFSITE IMPROVEMENT SCHEDULE Highway 111 Phase 1 - From 44th to "Not a Part" Parcel Phase 4 - From "Not a Part" Parcel to the Channel 1 . 8 ' wide meandering sidewalk 2 . Landscape from curb through 32 ' setback except wall 3. Streetlights 4. Signalization (Alterations) 44th Avenue Phase 1 - All listed below 1 . Widen Street including paving, curb, and gutter. 2 . Median Stripping 3. 5 ' Sidewalk 4. Landscaping to property line. 5. Streetlights Painter' s Path Phase 1 - From 44th to 2nd Driveway Phase 2 - From 2nd Driveway to 3rd Driveway Phase 3 - From 3rd Driveway to the Channel 1 . Half width street reconstruction including curb, gutter, and paving. 2 . 5 ' Sidewalk 3. Landscaping to Property Line. 4. Streetlights. Flood Control Channel Phase 3 - Entire length Fees Drainage Fee paid at time of building permit on a phase by phase increment, $2500 per acre. TABULATION HMMAY III W COMMERCIAL AREA PKQ RAMO l l3 13 e1.) .58. ID1sl (7 19e 11 1. s'. E -` 9eeievml(9,UOOe1J • 1/250e.t.� .021/21 f.e.1.Snaps 11,0D0e.0 .02 eu epwst � !� 9Wdlq Govaa9e .9 ec s of h 1.93ea. Es1tl2 eta.: / 9ecgroe \ Open peas 9.5 ec. 7 TINeI 8.52 ec 969 HA ✓ 3 \ HOTEL/CONDOMNRJM (3W90 Ume) 3.80 ea. 960 25/ue1 Petlw .39 ec. (71790 e.f.) B.. 97 12.97 as /v! M1: {jf( AOGqu61CIW / �� T 1T.25 de. 957 e A A V DVS $RE / F Covere9e 4.2a. :.' 254 scree ..F) kSY f \ pelbe el bve8 .39 ec. UMarebpetl J a 9beeb pakhg 2.33 aa. / MW 0 116aMN ((Veen 19.89 ec. 2.]ae. 29.29 x.1319 A. by \ hea - - 9eo,'JVN Aee Yva2 9 M IASE TECHNICAL PLAN PALM DESERT _ RACQUET CLUB ent by: r��. CITY OF STEIN-BRIEF GROUP/VISTA \\� ;:: : PALM DESERT plaru andarchaeCtLPe: — f DEPARTMENT BALLEW/MC FARLANDnC OF ENVIRONMENTAL MLA ArChteCtS !��a SERVICES ES(ICI�;,,_ _ no. CASE PoO.Xra3" o -- r f 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE September 19, 1980 APPLICANT STEIN-BRIEF/VISTA c/o BALLEW-MCFARLAND 74-075 E1 Paseo, Suite A-7 Palm Desert, CA 92260 CASE NO: DP 03-8,0 and VAR 03-80 The Planning Commission-of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of September 11 1980 CONTINUED TO DENIED BY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. X APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 643 PLACED ON THE AGENDA OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF FOR PUBLIC HEARING. Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the Director of Environmental Services, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. MURREL CRUMP, Acting Secretary PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION cc: Applicant C.V.C.W.D. File MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 1, 1980 Page Two VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont. ) r. Williams stated that the City Council requested the preparation of an Enviro ental Impact Report for this project, therefore, recommended that the Commission ave the Public Hearing open and continue this matter either indefinitely or to Novembe 4,. 1980, at which time the EIR should be completed. Commissioner ichards asked Mr. Williams if there were any adverse reasons for setting a specifi ate. Mr. Williams replied that it was more procedurely. Commissioner Berkey ked if Legal Notices would still be sent out. Mr. Williams replied that Notices ould be sent out in any case. Chairman Miller stated that e Public Hearing was open and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITIO o this case. MR. ROBERT HUBBARD, 22 Standford Dri Rancho Mirage, stated he had no objections to an EIR but would like to comple the project as soon as possible. MARIAN KENNEY, 44-835 Deep Canyon Rd. , felt t at more markets and shops were not needed in the City. Minute Motion was made by Commissioner Berkey, ' secon .ed by Commissioner Kryder, to continue this case indefinitely, until completions an EIR. Carried unanimously (5-0). Mr. Williams explained that upon completion of an EIR, Staff wo Td notify Commission and set a date for the hearing. B. Continued Case Nos DP 03-80 nd VAR 03-80 - STEIN-BRIEF/VISTA, Applicant Revised request of a Development Plan to construct a 390 unit hotel/ condominium complex with a maximum yield of 780 hotel rooms, a 35,770 square foot racquet club/convention facility, two restaurants totaling 13,000 square feet, as the major site uses, with a Variance to allow additional ingress/egress points from an adjacent street; and a 2.54 acre future phase not being developed at this time, on approximately 29.29 gross acres within the PC(4) , S.P. (Planned Commercial , Resort, Scenic Preservation Overlay) zone generally located at the southwest corner of Highway 111 and 44th Avenue. Mr. Williams presented this case giving the location and reviewing the revisions made by the applicant since the first hearing. He stated that a variance was required (1) for the number of access points to Painter's Path, (2) for setbacks, and (3) for parking spaces for the stadium, which a TUP could be pursued by the applicant for each event. Mr. Williams also stated that the convention facility was integrated in the Racquet Ball facility. Mr. Williams suggested an additional Special Condition. No. 14, to read: "The management contract for the hotel shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney to verify its compliance to these conditions. " He recommended approval . subject to those conditions. Chairman Miller stated the Public Hearing was open and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. MR. DAVID STEIN, 2081 Business Center, Irvine, one of the owners, described the hotel/condominium project in detail , giving an illustration of the layout. Mr. Stein noted a change in Special Condition No. i from (4) Paddle Tennis Courts to (5) . EDITH MORREY, 900 Island Drive, Rancho Mirage, felt it would be a wonderful project and the City needed it. OZrcl�/ MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 1, 1980 Page Three * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont. ) Commissioner Richards explained that the prime consideration at the previous meeting was the revenue impact on the City. He asked what the City expected in terms of revenue in the future. Commissioner Richards also was concerned with the confer- ence space availability. Mr. Stein replied that they retained Economic Resources Association to do a study on the revenues that would take about 90 days. He also stated that if additional conference space is needed they would provide for it. Chairman Miller closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Kryder was concerned with the enforcement of the City Room Tax and suggested that a condition be added for assurance of this. He also felt the conference room was too small . Commissioner Berkey agreed that the condition regarding the conference room ( Special Condition No. 1) should indicate minimum sq. ft. instead of exact sq. ft. Commissioner Richards concurred. Mr. Williams suggested a revision to read as follows: "Racquet Club/Con- vention Facility building, containing 35,770 square feet of gross building area with a minimum of 4,880 sq. ft. of meeting area. " Motion was made by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, to approve this case by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 612, as amended. Carried unanimously (5-0). Continued Case No. PM 16258 - STEIN-BRIEF/VISTA and WAGNER-STANFORD CONSULTANTS, Applicants Req st for approval of a Parcel Map to create two parcels for the Bevel ment of a 390 unit hotel/condominium project with racquet club, c vention facility, restaurants and commercial spaces within the PC(4) , S.P. (Planned Commercial , Resort, Scenic Preservation Overlay) zo \dh the southwest corner of Highway 111 and 44th Avenue. Mr. Williams indihe applicant was ready to withdraw this request. MR. STEIN, Appliced a continuance to revise the map. Mr. Williams then suggested to continue this case to August 5, 1980, with the applicant's concurrence. Mr. Stein concurred. Motion was made by Commissioner Richard, seconded by Commissioner McLachlan, to continue this case to August 5, 1980. Carried unanimously (5-0). D. Continued Case No. DP 06-80 - GERALD J. GHAZAN and ROBERT RICCIARDI, AIA, Applicants Request for approval of a Development Plan to llow the construction of 71,200 square feet of commercial space on approximately 7.23 gross acres within the PC(3) , S. P. (Planned Commercial , Regional Center, Scenic Preservation Overlay) zone generallyN ocated at the southeast corner of the intersection of E1 Paseo and Hiighway 111. Mr. Williams presented this case indicating this was the final phase to the Palms to Pines Shopping Center. He explained this case was previously but continued for a revised plan. He then illustrated the project's design point- ing out the concerns which had been recommended for restudy and the revisions that have been made. Mr. Williams then noted a letter received by a representative of the Sanderling Associates (Sandpiper) , suggesting changes to concerns they have regarding this project. Mr. Williams reviewed the conditions suggested by Staff and recommended approval subject to those conditions. 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE July 3, 1980 APPLICANT Stein-Brief/Vista 2081 Business Center, Ste. 200 Irvine, CA 92715 CASE NO: DP 03-80 nd VAR 03-80 The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at is meeting of July 1, 1980 CONTINUED TO DENIED BY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. XX APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 612 PLACED ON THE AGENDA OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF FOR PUBLIC HEARING. Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the Director of Environmental Services, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. PAUL A. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION cc: Applicant C.V.C.W.D. File^ Ballew McFarland PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 612 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IN MODIFIED FORM A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A HOTEL/CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX, RACQUET CLUB, AND COMMER- CIAL SPACE, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND 44TH AVENUE. CASE NOS. DP 03-80 and VAR 03-80 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 14th day of March, 1980, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing and continued Public Hearing on June 18 and July 1, 1980, to consider a request by STEIN-BRIEF/VISTA for approval of a Development Plan to construct a hotel/condominium complex, racquet club and commercial space and a Variance to allow additional ingress/egress points from adjacent streets, deviation from parking requirements for public assembly spaces, and deviation from perimeter landscape screening standards, on approximately 29.29 gross acres, within the PC(4) , S.P. (Planned Commercial , Resort, Scenic Preservation Overlay) zone, generally located at the southwest corner of Highway 111 and 44th Avenue, more particularly described as: Tract Maps 4489-1 and 4489-2 WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Environmental Quality Procedure Resolution No. 78-32" , in that the Director of Environmental Services has determined that the project has been previously assessed in connection with the Redevelopment Plan and related Environmental Impact Report. WHEREAS, at said continued Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts to justify their actions, as described below: Modified Devel:opment .Plan Approval a. The proposed project as modified generally conforms to the purpose and intent of the PC(4) Zone District, Redevelopment Plan and City General Plan. b. The proposed project as modified, and with specific exceptions to development standards granted, is adequately suited for the subject site .and is compatible with existing and proposed development in the area. C. The proposed project, as modified, will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. Modified Variance Approval a. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of Sections 25.30. 170, and 25.30.120 of the Municipal Code would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the zoning ordinance; b. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the PC(4) zone; C. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of Sections 25.30.170, and 25.30.120 of the Municipal Code would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same vicinity and zone; d. That the granting of the variance in modified form will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 612 Page Two NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby approve in modified form Case Nos. DP 03-80 and VAR 03-80, as specified in, and subject to, those conditions attached hereto. f PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Il Planning Commission, held on this 1st day of July, 1980, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: BERKEY, KRYDER, MCLACHLAN, RICHARDS, MILLER NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE CHARLES MILLER, Chairman ATTEST: PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretary /lr PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 612 Page Three CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NOS. DP 03-80 and VAR 03-80 Standard Conditions: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with Exhibits A thru K (Case Nos. DP 03-80 and VAR 03-80) on file with the Department of Environmental Services, as modified by the following conditions and as superceded by revisions to the site plan. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any uses contemplated by this approval , the applicant shall first complete all the procedural requirements of the City which include, but are not limited to, Design Review, Subdivision process, and building permits procedures. 3. Construction of the total development may be done in phases; however, each individual phase shall meet or exceed all Municipal Code require- ments to the degree that the City could consider each phase as a single project, and have specific approval from the Planning Commission. The Hotel shall be constructed as a part of the first phase. 4. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval otherwise said approval shall become null , void and of no effect whatsoever. 5. Prior to the issuance of any City permits for the commencement of construction on said project, the applicant shall agree in writing to these Conditions of Approval . 6. The development of-the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and State and Federal Statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 7. All existing electrical distribution lines, telephone, cable antenna television, and similar service wires or cables, which are adjacent to the property being developed shall be installed underground as a part of development from the nearest existing pole not on the property being developed. 8. All requirements of the City Fire Marshal shall be met as part of the development of this project per attached letter dated March 18, 1980. 9. Construction plans. shall be submitted for approval to the City Fire Marshal prior to issuance of building permits. All conditions shall be made a part of construction and no certificate of occupancy shall be issued until completed. 10. Traffic control provisions shall be provided as required by the Director ! of Public Works. 11. Curb, gutter, sidewalk or approved pathways, and tie-in paving shall be ! provided in conformance with City Standards and/or as required by the Director of Public Works. I � 12. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval , the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Riverside County Department of Health Palm Desert Design Review Board Process City Fire Marshal Coachella Valley Water District Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the Dept. of Building and Safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 13. No development shall occur on the subject property prior to its conso- lidation or resubdivision and recordation of a final map. j i PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 612 Page Four SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1. Within this approval action the following site use facilities are authorized: - Hotel (with condominium ownership allowed) , consisting of 390 hotel units yielding a maximum of 780 rentable rooms. - Hotel lobby building; containing 3,950 s.f. of hotel operations space which includes 500 s.f. of gift shop, an additional 830 s.f. of administration and a 2,500 s.f. of lounge. - Hotel Recreational Pool Areas (14) . - Racquet Club/Convention Facility building, containing 35,770 square feet of gross building area with a minimum of 4,880 sq. ft. of meeting area. - Outdoor Tennis Courts (17) . - Outdoor Paddle Tennis Courts ( 5). - Championship (exhibition) Tennis Court (without permanent seating provided). - Restaurants (2), containing 6,000 and 7,000 square feet of gross building area (excluding drive-in or drive-thru operations). - Commercial Shops, containing 1,000 square feet of gross building area which may contain ancillary sales or service establishments. - Surface and subsurface parking facilities. - 2.54 acres, reserved as a future phase. 2. If proposed hotel units are to be sold to separate individuals, the applicant (developer/subdivider) shall provide, as a part of the Tentative Tract application, proposed covenants, conditions and restrictions which limits the rights of use by said individual (or assignee) to 30 calendar day per year. Except for maintenance and repair, each hotel unit and room shall be made available for transient rental 335 days per year. Further the CC&R's shall specify that hotel unit furnishings are to be provided and owned by the owners association in common. Personal property of the unit owner may not be stored on the premises in conflict with the operation of the facility as a commercial hotel , and shall be so stated in the CC&R's. 3. Hereby granted as a part of this approval action is a Variance from Municipal. Code Section 25.30. 170, to allow five (5) site access points on Painters Path; and, Variance from Municipal Code Section 25.30.120, to allow subparagraph "C" of said section to operate. 4. Special events and tournaments taking place in conjunction with the racquet club facilities shall be the subject of a Temporary Use Permit request as provided in Municipal Code Chapter 25.64. 5. Hereby authorized as a part of this Development Plan approval are the exceptions as listed in the following: a. Minimum setback from Painters Path, twenty (20) feet. b. Maximum number of rentable hotel rooms per area devoted to hotel development, forty-two point two (42.2) . 6. A minimum 32 ft. wide area parallel to the curb line on Highway 111, consisting of the public parkway and an easement granted for public access, shall be developed with ornamental landscaping and a meandering 8 foot wide pedestrain/bicycle path; and, thereafter shall be maintained by the associated owners of the adjacent property. 7. Outdoor tennis courts provided in this project shall be recessed below natural grade or other alternative screening found acceptable. 8. The specific design details of a system providing alternative emergency vehicular access to all hotel buildings by means of an expanded pedestrian system, as approved by the City Fire Marshal , shall be included in the required exhibits for Design Review of the hotel development. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 612 Page Five Special Conditions (cont. ) 9. Subdivision and Design Review exhibits shall include the installation of a cul-de-sac street turn around area, designed to the specifications of the Director of Public Works, at Painters Path and the Palm Valley Storm Channel . 10. A sidewalk shall be provided along Painters Path, as approved by the City Director of Public Works and the Design Review process. 11. All surface parking lot areas shall be screened pursuant to the requirements of Municipal Code, Chapters 25. 56 and 25.58. 12. Landscape plans submitted and approved for the Design Revew process shall provide vertical landscape screening along the southern site boundary, and interum vegetative ground cover for the 2. 54 acre future phase site. 13. The precise location of the driveway entrance on 44th Avenue shall be coordinated with the driveway to property on the north, and be subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works. 14. The management contract for the hotel shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney to verify its compliance to these conditions. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION REF- 'ITION NO. 612 Page Six j e.4 17 CL 7— �1, DEPARTMENT OF FIRE PROTECTION D ^fit, - a, gf IN COOPERATION WITH THE Y 4 +3 COL�TY .y -Yy CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF FORESTRY RIVERSIDE '; DAVID L. FLAKE P.C. eox zae COUNTY FIRE WARDEN 210 WEST SAN JACINTO STREET PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370 TELEPHONE (714) 6S7-3183 March 18, 1980 Paul A. Williams Director of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Reference: Case No. DP 03-80 (revised) Dear Mr. Williams : The following requirements shall apply to this project : Fire Protection plater System: 1. Install a water system capable of delivering 4000 GPM fire flow for a four (4) hour duration in addition to domestic or other supply. The computation shall be based upon a minimum of 20 psi residual operating pressure in the supply main from which the flow is measured at the time of measurement. i 2. Install Riverside County super fire hydrants so that no point of any building is more than 150 feet from a fire hydrant measured along approved vehicular travel ways. Hydrant spacing not to exceed 300 feet. A. Hydrants shall not be located closer than 25 feet to any building. B. Exterior surfaces of hydrant barrels and heads shall he painted chrome yellow and the tops and nozzle caps shall be painted green. C. Curbs (if installed) shall be painted red 15 feet in either direction from each hydrant. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original and three (3) copies of the water system plan to the Fire Marshal for review. Upon approval , one copy will be sent to the Building Depart- ment, and the original will be returned to the developer. l ' 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOU'T?ON NO. 612 Page Seven , Paul A. Williams 3/18/80 Director of Environmental Services Page 2. City of Palm Desert l Fire Protection Water System (continued) : 4. The water system plan shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, and approved by the water company, with the following certification : "I certify that the design of the water system in Case Number DP 03-80 is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Fire Marshal ." 5. Prior to delivery of combustible materials to the building site, the required water system shall be installed, operating and delivering the required flow. Vehicular Access : i 1. A minimum of 20' all weather access road shall be provided to all buildings . 2. Interior streets to major buildings shall be a minimum of 28' in width. (Now shown as 25' . ) Fire Protection Systems : 1. The following buildings shall be protected with a complete automatic fire sprinkler system: Office/Professional Building Racquet Club Underground Parking Garage Hotel/Condominium Units 2. Hotel/Condominium units and the underground parking garage shall be provided with wet and dry standpipe systems. Sincerely, David L. Flake County fire Warden David J. Ortegel Fire Marshal DJO:dt li CITY OF PALM DESERT STAFF REPORT UPDATE TO: Planning Commission REPORT ON: Commercial Development Plan and Related Variance from zone standards. APPLICANT: STEIN-BRIEF/VISTA, 2081 Business Center, Ste. 200, Irvine, CA 92715 CASE NOS: P 03-80 and VAR 03-80 DATE: July 1, 1980, continued from May 14 and June 18, 1980. I. ORIGINAL REQUEST: A `request by STEIN-BRIEF/VISTA for approval of a Development Plan to construct a 414 unit hotel/condominium complex with maximum yield of 828 hotel rooms, a 21,365 square foot racquet club and 50,000 square feet of commercial and professional spaces and a Variance to allow additional ingress/egress points from adjacent streets, deviation from perimeter landscape screening standards and deviation from parking requirements for public assembly spaces, on approx. 29.29 gross acres within the PC(4) , S.P. (Planned Commercial , Resort, Scenic Preservation Overlay) zone generally located at the southwest corner of Hwy III and 44th Avenue. REVISED REQUEST: Approval of a Development Plan to construct a 390 unit hotel/condominium complex,with a maximum yield of 780 hotel rooms, a 35,770 square foot racquet club/convention facility, two restaurants totaling 13,000 square feet, as the major site uses, with a Variance to allow additional ingress/egress points from an adjacent street; and a 2.54 acre future phase not to be developed at this time, in the zone and on the lands described above. LOCATIONAL MAP .'. F V O R ' m� PAS Ed �y_'�I -.:1 4 �/'� I � .�_� •':; I q II. BACKGROUND: A. ADJACENT ZONING: North: P.C. (4), S.P. (Planned Commercial Resort, Scenic Preservation Overlay) South: O.S. (Stormwater Channel ) and PR-6, S.P. (Planned Residential max. 6 units per acre, Scenic Preservation Overlay) East: P.C. (4), S.P. West: S. I. (Service Industrial); P.C. (4), S.P; and, PR-3, d.h. (Planned Residential Max. 3 units per acre, Drainage and Hillside Overlay) B. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Planned Commercial Resort (GPA 01-75) 1 DP 03-80 and VAR 03-80 July 1, 1980 Page Two .C. i" ;IENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The proposed project has been previously assessed in connection with the Redevelopment Plan and related EIR, and no further documentation is deemed necessary by the Director. D. PREVIOUS PERTINENT CASES: Tract Map No. 4489, Eagle Development Co. , condominium development on the subject site. The subdivision was recorded, street and utility improvements completed but no units were ever constructed. E. PROPOSED USES (AS REVISED) : i Condo/Hotel , 390-two bedroom, two bath with kitchen units; which may be rented as a one bedroom, one bathroom and a one bedroom, one bath, plus kitchen room, for a maximum yield of 780 hotel rooms. - Hotel lobby building; containing 3,950 s.f. of hotel operations space which includes 500 s.f. of gift shop, an additional 830 s.f. of administration and a 2,500 s.f. of lounge. - Underground Parking Structure, containing 975 spaces. - Recreational Pool Areas, (14) . • Racquet Club/Convention Facility, containing 35y770 square feet 6f building area. - Championship tennis court with no permanent seating; temporary seating for approx. 2,000 people. - Outdoor paddle tennis courts; 4 courts. - Indoor racquetball and squash courts; 12 courts. - Men's and women's spas; 6,210 s.f. - Pro shop; 860 s.f. - Snack shop and kitchen; 610 s.f. - Gymnasium area; 1,680 s.f. - Restrooms, 360 s.f. - Conference area; 4,880 s.f. - Conference restaurant; 3,700 s.f. r - General circulation/mechanical ; 2,300 s.f. e Restaurants, one containing 6,000 square feet of building area and the second .containing 71000 square feet of building area.k s Commercial "Shops", 1,000 square feet of building area (adjacent to the 7,000 square foot restaurant) . • Undeveloped PC(4) Parcel ; 2.5 acres located near the corner of 44th and Painter's Path. Reserved for future uses appropriate to the zoning. F. PARKING .ANALYSIS . (AS REVISED): CONDO HOTEL 780 rooms (1.1 per room) = 858 500 s.f. assessory .commercial (l;jper 250) = 2 3,700 s.f. convention restaurant (15 per 1,000) = 60 2,500 s.f. lounge (15 per 1,000) = 37 DP 03-80 and VAR 03-80 Page Three July 1, 1980 F. PARKING ANALYSIS (AS REVISED): (cont. ) RACQUET CLUB 35 courts (3 per court) = 105 6,210 s.f. spa/massage (1 per 150) = 41 860 s.f. pro shop (1 per 250) = 3 1,680 s.f. gymnasium (1 per 150) = 11 RESAURANTS 6,000 s.f. (15 per 1,000) = 90 7,000 s.f. (15 per 1,000) = 105 1,000 s.f. ancillary commercial (1 per 250) = 4 TOTAL REQUIRED 1,316 APPLICANT IS PROPOSING = 1,316 G. REQUESTED EXCEPTIONS FROM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (AS REVISED) : Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 25.30.260, specific standards of the Planned Commercial (PC) zone may be modified by the approval of a Development Plan. The applicant requests consideration of the following "exceptions": 1. Minimum building setback from Painters Path. - Development Standard, 25 feet. - Proposed Setback, 20 feet. 2. Maximum number of hotel units per acre (of area devoted to the hotel ) . - Development Standard, max. 30 hotel units per acre. - Proposed Density, based on a max. yield of 780 hotel units (rentable rooms), 42.2 units per acre. H. REQUESTED VARIANCES '('P.ER:ORIGINW',REQUEST) : Certain standards of the PC zone may not be waived or modified by the approval of a Development Plan; .therefore, the applicant seeks a formal Variance from the following: 1. Municipal Code Section 25.30.170 Access. "A maximum of two entrances per property* will be allowed subject to their conformance with accept- able circulation patterns and traffic-control measures. " *Note: Administrative interpretation has previously provided for a maximum of two access points per street frontage, where the site had more than one street frontage. (Restaurant Park, Allison Hotel complex, Palms to Pines Phases 3 and 4, and Hahn Center have been previously i considered under this interpretation) - Applicant's Request, to be granted a Variance to allow five (5) access points to Painters Path. 2. Municipal Code Section 25.30.120 Perimeter Screening. "All developments shall be screened according to one of the following alternatives: A. A masonary wall at a minimum height of seven feet shall be provided along all property lines except for those adjacent to public rights-of-way, in which case a setback of 20 ft. will be maintained. B. An opaque hedge row at a minimum height of seven ft. shall be provided along all property lines except for those adjacent to public rights-of-way, in which case a setback of 20 ft. will be maintained (common perimeter screening between adjoin- ing properties is allowable upon mutual consent of the respec-" tive owners) . Planting materials used for perimeter screening shall be the type which shall within eighteen months after property development provide the intended screening effect. C. Perimeter screening will not be required if deemed unnecessary by the Design Review Board, based upon their approval of sub- mitted development and landscaping plans which establish to its satisfaction that attractive development will occur in keeping with the intended residential/resort/recreational nature of the community. " DP 03-80 and VAR 03-80 Page Four JULY 1, 1980 II. BACKGROUND: (Continued) H. REQUESTED VARIANCES : (Continued) - Applicant's Request, to be granted_ a Variance to allow: a five (5) foot wall along Highway 111, with .a thirty-two_ .(32).ff ;setback; no wall 'on 44th Avenue, with parking lot encroachment into the 20 foot setback; and, no wall on Painters Path, with parking lot developed in the 20 foot landscape setback.* *Note: Municipal Code Section 25.30.100, D. , would preclude a parking lot in the required landscaped area, and should also be referenced in any Variance action. 3. ' Municipal Code Section 25.58.31 Commercial and Industrial Off-Street Parking Schedule. "E. Places of assembly, auditoriums, 1 for each 3 seats or 1 for theaters, sports arenas, stadiums. each 35 square feet of gross floor area where there are no "fixed seats" - A licant's Re uest, to be granted a Variance to waive required park- ing (667 spaces for tournament events at the Championship Tennis Courts. The applicant indicates that stadium seating would provide for 2,000 spectators. The applicant projects that tournaments may be held two to four times a year. I. VARIANCE FINDINGS: Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 25.78.070, the Commission must make a finding of fact that establishes that the circumstances prescribed in a, b, c, and d (below) do apply as a basis for approval of a Variance: a. . That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the speci- fied regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance; b. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or condi- tions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the PC(4) zone; c. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the speci- fied regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same vicinity and zone; d. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements . in the vicinity. J. KEY CONSIDERATIONS (REMAINING) : 1. Acceptability of proposed site uses. - See draft Planning Commission Resolution, Special Condition Nos. 1 to 3. 2. Operation .of the hotel relative to condominium owner rights of use. - Refer to draft Planning Commission Resolution, Special Condition No. 2. 3. Justification for granting of Variances. - Refer to Variance Finding required (Staff Report, Background Section "I") . - See draft Planning Commission Resolution, Special Condition . Nos. 3 .and 4. .4. Requested exceptions from Development Standards. See draft Planning Commission .Resolution, Special Condition No. 5, a and .b. 5. Implementation of Fire Marshal 's recommendations. - refer to Fire Marshal 's letter (attached to draft Res. ) . DP 03-80 and VAR 03-80 JULY 1, 1980 Page Five K. MISCELLANEOUS DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS: The following listed subjects are addressed by Special Condition Nos. 6 through 12, found in the draft Planning Commission Resolution. - Highway 111 parkway design with easement and pedestrian/bicycle path. - Depressing tennis court surface below grade or other alternative found acceptable through the Design Review process. - Development of specific alternative emergency vehicular access to all condo/hotel buildings by means of an expanded pedestrian system. - Installation of cul-de-sac street turn around area at Painters Path and the Palm Valley Channel . - Provision of sidewalk along Painters Path. - Screening of all parking lot areas. - Vertfcal :landscape screening/treatment for southern project boundary. III. DISCUSSION UPDATE: This project was originally presented to the Planning Commission on May 14, 1980, (see attached minutes) . Through subsequent continuances, the applicant has reevaluated the proposal and altered the project. The distinctive differences of the plan now before the Commission are as follows: I A. USE REVISION 1. The office and bank building have been deleted. 2. 2.54 acres have been reserved for a future phase. 3. Hotel and convention services have been added/expanded (and the applicant is studing further convention related facilities). 4. The site plan has been adjusted to accomodate changes in 1 to 3 above. B. HOTEL OPERATION - The Commission will „as noted before, need to consider the question ,of multiple (condominium) ownership .in the context of the permitted use. . .a hotel . As long as the operation is the same as any other hotel , a condominium method of ownership would not present a use problem. Conditions related to length of occupancy by the condominium owner and uniformity of room furnishings are provided in the draft Resolution. A precedent for this approach has been established by the Commission in their approval of condo/hotel to be built on Highway 111, at-the eastern City limits. C. VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS - There are still three requirements of the PC(4) zone for which the applicant is seeking a Variance: (1) number of access points; (2) perimeter screening; and, (3) parking for tournament events using the Championship Tennis Court facilities. The location and uniqueness of .the project design would seem to warrant consideration of items one and two, but Staff would recommend an alternative to granting a .blanket Variance for special events and tournaments. The City has a procedure for the granting of Temporary Use Permits by the Zoning Admin- istrator (Municipal Code Title 25.64), which could consider special events contemplated for this facility. It would be in the interesteof the City to assure that special events will not be detrimental to surround- ing properties or to the community, therefore, Staff would not recommend that this item of the Variance be granted, but that Stems one and two receive your favorable consideration. DP 03-80 and VAR 03-80 JULY 1, 1980 Page Six III. DISCUSSION UPDATE: . (cont. ) D. CONSIDERATIONS FOR EXCEPTIONS FROM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - There are two remaining development standards the applicant is seeking exception from by approval of the site plan. The first item is building setbacks from Painters Path. In the context of the project design, this exception appears warranted. The second item is denisty of hotel units (rooms) per acre of land devoted to the hotel use. Rented spearately, the hotel could have a maximum yield of 780 rooms which would result in 12.2 rooms per acre more than the zone provides. It is noted that the parking demand is met for this number of rooms, therefore, no problem is perceived in accomodating them. As a principle use of the zone, an exception for the number of hotel rooms on this specific site is also warranted, in the opinion of Staff. E. FIRE PROTECTION,- with the passage of Proposition A, the community's future ability to serve a development of this scale is more realistic, but that ability to establish an adequate level of fire suppression is dependent upon the measures and facilities that occur oniste and are "built into" the project. The Fire Marshal 's letter of March 18, 1980, details the minimum requirements that should be expected of this development. FL. MISCELLANEOUS DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS - There are several design features, most of which have been anticipated by the applicant in the revised concept plans, which are detailed by draft Resolution, Special Conditions. The conditions will assist in guiding the preparation and evaluation of Design Review plans. G. SUMMARY OF CONCEPT DESIGN .- The applicant has provided, in narrative text, a discussion of the revised project design objectives and has provided revised project site plans. This further amendment of the proposal is considered to enhance the projects viability and to make it more consistent with the provisions of the PC(4) zone. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the justification and findings contained in the draft Resolution: Approve, in modified form, CaseeNos. DP 03-80 and VAR .03-80, by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. subject to the specific conditions attached thereto. q9 L MINUTES PALM DESERT ,PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY - MAY 14, 1980 1:00 P.M. - CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. CALL TO ORDER Th regularly scheduled meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission . was lled to order at1:00 P.M. by Chairman Miller in the City Hall Counci Chambers. II. PLEDGE OF LEGIANCE - Commissioner Berkey III. ROLL CALL Members Present: mmissioner Berkey Co issioner Kryder Comm sioner McLachlan Chairm Miller Staff Present: Paul Willi s, Director of Environmental Services Stan Sawa, A ociate Planner Linda Russell , lanning Secretary Others Present: Clybe Beebe, Direc of Public Works Martin Bouman, City nager Dave Ortegal , Fire Mars 1 A. Seating of New Planning Commissioner Mr. James Richards took the Oath of Office during tudy session; he was welcomed and seated on the Planning Commission. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of regular meeting of April 29, 1980. Mr. Williams noted two corrections: Page 2, 8th paragraph, second sentence; delete "for the climate". Page 4, under ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, second paragraph; amend to read "Mr. Williams explained that the project had not yet cleared environmental review". V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - NONE VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS �----�! A. Case Nos. DP 03-80 and VAR 03-80 - STEIN-BRIEF/VISTA, Applicant Request for approval of a Development Plan to construct a 414 unit hotel/condominium complex with maximum yield of 828 hotel rooms, a 21,365 square foot racquet club and 50,000 square feet of commer- cial and professional spaces and a Variance to allow additional ingress/egress points from adjacent streets, deviation from . perimeter landscaping screening standards and deviation from parking requirements for public assembly spaces, on approximately 29.29 gross acres, within the PC (4) , S.P. (Planned Commercial , Resort, Scenic Preservation Overlay) zone, generally located at the south- west corner of Highway 111 and 44th Avenue. Mr. Williams presented this case stating that all Public Notices had been sent out. He began by pointing out the location and the zoning for the proposed project. Mr. Williams then described the layout and proposed uses, which included: Hotel/Condominium complex, Racquet Club, Restaurant, Commercial Shops, Office/Prof- essional Building, and a commercial Bank. Mr. Williams indicated that the zoning standards related to the PC Zone were questioned by the City Council and Planning Commission, but felt that it could be modified by the approval of a Development Plan. Mr. Williams related to the Commission three requested exceptions to the Development Standards by the applicant, which Staff felt were justified. He then reviewed the variances requested which were in regards to access points, screening and parking for tournament events. Staff recommended that the requested variance for access points and screening be granted but the parking spaces variance not be granted. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 14, 1980 Page Two VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) The primary concerns related to this project were pointed out by Mr. Williams as being: (1) Office Building -- Staff's recommendation was to reserve that area for future building site to be compatible with that Development; and, (2) a Commer- cial Bank, which Staff recommended to not be considered. In regards to Hotel Operation, Mr. Williams felt that as long as the operation was the same as a hotel , multiple ownership would not create a problem. He also indicated there were a few design considerations which were addressed in the Special Conditions. Mr. Williams concluded his presentation stating that Staff felt that the overall project site, design, and proposed uses, were acceptable (except for the Bank and Office Building) . He briefly reviewed some of the conditions and recom- mended approval subject to the specific conditions stated. Commissioner Berkey asked if there were any changes made to the major access point to conform with Clyde Beebe, City Engineer. Mr. Williams replied that it would be considered as a part of the subdivision map, which the applicant was willing to review thoroughly at that time. Commissioner McLachlan asked why the courts were separated from the rest of the project. He was concerned in terms of adequate parking. Mr. Williams explained briefly why the applicant designed it that way and did feel there was sufficient parking. Commissioner Berkey expressed a concern for the condition which stated that the owners of the units were limited to 30 days occupancy which was tied together with the C.C. & R's. Commissioner Berkey noted that the City does not enforce the C.C. & R's and felt that further clarification was needed. Commissioner Richards felt that this was not a Resort Hotel because the Hotel did not have any facilities for dining or large groups, and the density allowed for this zoning was not in conformance with the required Resort Hotel amenities. . Commissioner Berkey also noted that Special Condition No. 1, second paragraph, needed a better clarification. It was agreed to change that condition to read as follows: "Hotel Lobby Building, containing 3,300 sq. ft. , including 1,200 sq. ft. of ancillary commercial space. " Chairman Miller opened the Public Hearing and asked for the applicant to make a presentation. MR. DAVID STEIN, Owner, briefly explained why they acquired that location and what the future plans were. He also explained why they were using the concept of individual ownership. He felt that the total design, including the professional office building and bank, was favorable to this area. MR. JIM SMITH, Stein-Brief/Vista Group, addressed three Special Conditions, which were Nos. 2, 3, and 4. In regards to No. 2 (Office building) Mr. Smith felt that office uses were ancillary uses to a Resort Hotel and asked that the Commission consider this condition. He objected to No. 4 stating that this condition was too strict in terms of what furnishings can be used. He stressed that this complex would be used as a hotel . Commissioner Richards pointed out that there are no dining facilities and conference rooms. Mr. Stein stated that there could be conference rooms included. Commissioner Berkey stated that there would be a Public Hearing on the PC (4) Zone on June 3rd and felt that this was not the time to consider the pro- posed uses. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 14, 1980 Page Three VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) Mr. Stein stated that he could not justify the uses but would wait until the Public Hearing. He stated that he would like to label the office building and bank as ancillary 1 and 2 now, and later bring more information to the Commission. Commissioner Richards explained that: the City enforces a Transient Occupancy Tax, he felt that the hotel/condo complex would affect the revenue stream for the City. Mr. Stein briefly explained the financial aspects of the project. Commissioner Kryder explained to the applicant that they should keep in mind that the Office Building is not an ancillary use to the Hotel . Mr. Stein felt that there is a compromise between Planning and Applicants and asked for consideration. Chairman Miller asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. MR. DON STAGE, 1313 Sandpiper, addressed his concern over the possible building of a bridge across Painters Path. Mr. Williams indicated that the Staff's recommended Conditions of Approval recommend a cul-de-sac in that area. Mr. Stage was . also concerned that the year round rental might not succeed. Mr. Stein explained that if it failed it would fail as any other hotel , but was certain it would succeed. Mr. Stage pointed out that if it failed the individual owners would then have a problem of renting their units. Commissioner Kryder asked the applicant if the common property would be shared by the owners. Mr. Stein stated that they would have private membership. Commissioner McLachlan also explained why the project would be successful if they included a dining area and convention center. Commissioner Berkey stated that the Commission was not prepared to act on this project at this time and that there were a lot of unanswered questions that could be solved in time. He felt a continuance was in order. Motion was made by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, to continue this case to June 18th. Carried unanimously (5-0). VII. OL USINESS - NONE VIII. NEW BU ESS A. Coache a Valley Water District - construction of an eight inch diameter ollection sewer within E1 Cortez Way, between Portola Avenue on a west and Santa Ynez on the east, an approximate length of 1, 0 feet. Mr. Williams recommen that the Planning Commission find the project to be in compliance with the Pa Desert General Plan. Motion was made by Commissio r Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, to adopt Planning Commission Resoluti No. 597, finding this project to be in compliance with the Palm Desert General Ian. Carried unanimously (5-0) . IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS Consideration of cases acted on by the Desi Review Board at their meeting of April 22, 1980. Case No. 113 C - Mr. Sawa presented this case giv g the location and background.- He stated that the Board reviewed it a required some revisions. Mr. Sawa reviewed those revisions and rec mended approval . There was some discussion in regards to the revisions. T Commission felt they were good revisions and upon motion made by Commissioner Kryde seconded by Commissioner Berkey, this Design Review Board action was approved. by option of Planning Commission Resolution No. 598. Carried unanimously (5-0) . L - MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 14, 1980 Page Four X. ISCUSSION ITEMS A. Determination of suntan boothsas personal service. Mr. illiams reviewed the letter received by Madeline Brechlin. He stated that the Staff reviewed the Ordinance and found that it was a "stand alone" aciti ity. He pointed out that the length of stay from customers was short and the parking required seemed excessive. He recommended that it be determined as Personal Service. By Minut Motion the Commission agreed to approve suntan booths as Personal Service ,When provided as a single use. B. League of California Cities statement concerning Proposition 9, the Sta e Income Tax Reduction Initiative. There was no c mment from the Commission on this matter. C. Referral o proposed Council Resolution setting forth funding and timing prog m to meet the required conditions for the development of a regiona center. THERE WAS A FIVE MI UTE RECESS Mr. Williams explaine that the City Council has scheduled a Public Hearing on June 5th in regards to the funding and timing of the required conditions for the Palm Desert Town Center. he Council referred the proposal to the Planning Commission for comments. Mr. illiams then asked Mr. Bouman, City Manager, to present the program. Mr. Bouman gave a lengthy etailed presentation on the program, referring to Exhibit A of Resolution No. 80- 8. The table included (for each project) : estimated cost; the responsibility f the cost; and, remarks and estimated date of completion. The Commission discussed on th matter, and one point Commissioner Berkey brought up was in reference to the Aff dable Housing, which was to be funded by UDAG. He stated that it should be clar fied that the City is considering proposed revisions to the General Plan on some to ations for greater density and the possibility of rezoning. After some discussion on that matte the Commission determined that the proposed program provides for the mitigatio measures and conditions as approved by the Commission when the project was revie XI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE XII. COMMENTS Mr. Williams addressed the Commission on t ee matters: (1) The Columbia Savings and Loan undergrounding was compeleted and andscaping should be completed within the month; (2) The Hope Lutheran parking lot is in sequence with the approval of Planning Commission; (3) Mrs. Gallo expr ssed her opposition to the parking lot across Fairway. XIII. ADJOURNMENT Motion was made by Commissioner Kryder, seconded b Commissioner Richards, to adjourn the meeting at 3: 50 P.M. PAUL A. WILLIAMS, SecAetary ATTEST: CHARLES MILLER, Chairman /lr J City of Palm Desert Mr. Crump Page 3 be delayed until sometime when a more definitive program can be proposed. In eliminating the bank and office, we re-oriented the restaurants and parking near the corner of Highway III and provided better visability and traffic access to the restaurant sites. We have designated a 2.5 acre site in the southwest corner of the project for future development. It is our intention to continue the study of potential principal and ancillary hotel uses, and to propose a site plan for this 2.5 acre parcel in a future development application. We feel that this arrangement allows us a maximum flexibility for future extension of the project while still allowing us to go forward with the operational, financial, and design development of the project. In order to maximize the potential of the future parcel, we scaled down the hotel to 390 units,from the 414 which were originally proposed. In addition to these substantive changes, there are a number of others which we do not mention, which result, primarily, from the major amendment (i.e. revised parking distribution and traffic circulation, etc. ) . We have forwarded, to your office, a copy of the revised technical plan and a technical summary of all of the changes which were made to the original proposal. In summary, we feel that the changes and additions which we have included in the amended plan are a tremendous improvement to the proposed development. They will not only enhance the quality of the project and its economic feasibility, but are also a direct response to the concerns brought out by the City. If you have any questions concerning the amended proposal, please contact me at my office. Sincerely, James W. Smith Stein-Brief City of Palm Desert Mr. Crump Page 2 one of three onsite restaurants, the other two being located across the parking lot from the main lobby. B. A 2,500 square foot cocktail lounge, seating approximately 148 people. This cocktail lounge would function in conjunction with the restaurant as well as providing the ability to serve general cocktail beverages to the public. C. The lobby space was enlarged to allow for additional supplemental customary lobby-oriented uses. The_ dining facility has been designed such that 'a portion of it could be used as a banquet facility for a larger party. A conference/meeting room has been designed so that it can function as one large room, or it can be divided with movable partitions into four or more smaller meetings including those requiring food and beverage service. This arrangement is very typical in hotels of this size in other resort areas. In addition to interior food service, we anticipate that this kitchen will also provide food and beverage via walk-up windows, sidewalk cafe, or other similar arrangements. The landscape and recreation areas have been redesigned to provide more useable space as well as a stronger visual amenity. The focal point of the exterior design concept is a major water element which surrounds the main building, and in some cases penetrates the lobby and restaurant area. This water element would take on a variety of forms including waterfalls, stream beds and larger pond areas. It may provide the opportunity for recreational uses, such as water slides, swimming, and so forth. There are several existing examples of this concept; two of the most notable are the Princess Hotel in Acapulco, Mexico, and the Hyatt Regency Hotel at Kaanapali Beach on the Island of Maui in Hawaii. We are confident that the concept will provide not only a dramatic visual effect but a pleasant living environment for the hotel guest. Perhaps the most significant change to the concept that was originally proposed is the deletion of the office and bank site. Although we feel that some of the uses were originally proposed for the office building are appropriate to a hotel complex, and are allowed by the recently adopted amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, we agreed with the staff's recommendation that approval of these specific uses should June 26, 1980 JUN 2 7 1980 Mr. Murrell Crump City of Palm Desert ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane CITY. OF PALM DESERT Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Dear Mr. Crump, Since our original Planning Commission hearing on May 14, we have devoted a major effort to the reevaluation of the project plan and overall concept for our proposed resort hotel development. In response to the concerns and suggestions made by staff and the Planning Commission, we focused primarily on the following areas: A. Apparent deficiencies in some necessary hotel- related uses (conference facilities, banquet rooms, etc. ) B. The question of compatibility of the proposed bank and office uses with the intent of the PR(4) zoning and the General Plan. C. Financial and operational ramifications of a city's proposed guest restrictions. D. Further ways to generally enhance the project. A discussion at the Commission Hearing resulted in a fairly complex set of issues which had to be addressed during our intervening evaluation. Although many of the points of concern center on some details which we feel are somewhat premature and require a greater degree of. specificity and can be accomplished at this stage of the planning process, we have developed an amended plan which responds to the major concern of the City. The amended plan proposes a substantially larger and more elaborate central building. In this main building, we have incorporated the following which were added to the facility originally proposed: A. A 3,700 square foot restaurant which will seat approximately 218 people (and an additional kitchen of 2,770 square feet) . This restaurant would function as the hotel inhouse central restaurant and coffee shop. Food and beverage room services would also be handled from the kitchen at this restaurant. It would then become 2081 Business Center Drive, Suite 200 • Irvine, CA 92715 • (714) 833-8252 �T I A. --------�---�-- TABULATION HIGHWAY 111, --_——_—___-- --____-----____— —_—_ - F REO. Water Faernment �_ • _ --- CORa�CW (35,TTo e_1J 58AL Ew. P 0 RATI[ -- Ranavxl(7W0aJJ 16ao' 195 tvwa_ w E flestaupe 16,000vU tb ac 90 15/iCU4 '2' 1 'j r /`.�. ,✓� /'m !- �'.._ snaps 1tp00a1) lac 4 vzsal. b / / - 51x a.ao.s ml 1 a �/ Hama T i _ .•J \ &wyYg C.—At at 9 ac Parl m 193 ac. / RenWMI J �EnN/jb(l eso �/ iReeAree Opep Space 6.69 ec pvkMg 94uctue yz�\ Told 9.52 ac. 359 n s• ^� -�s1 �� 7 .��1HOTEL/CONDOMNUM ]� \ /J \'� ./ `\\/ //^�\� \ C., (390 UNts) 3.34 aC. 860 251W "L- `,. (Areas46ac. ec. /�� e/'��/� / _� �6am9aapfier apep an to x. v 4"i �� \ Racwetcw I, a/ / 9 '4aaeacepe 12.97 ac M1 / ei /•4, \ \ 35,770 Fx / *: Tot 17.25 ac 957 �Y �t 35,no OVER1'Y,,-$RE F _ Rx.Area /(V / 254 Pcra5 gaePeea PecPrte / / sheets Porksg 2.3]ac /p uneeeelovea \ J/ /J ' _ It1 P0141 V / l A Open& ep 19.66 ae. t 6peev/ / .1/ gx,Area / \ / F Ume.ewpeL aT . Itpltp I/�` Lwm9e / -/ � � Future T)80 r RecA / I Toial 2429 ac.1316 Etr / / � A TONI PaM1A3 hav 1318 pine 1 \) se Rec.Alas Rm Area Rx N / / ReG.Nea F FNm _ / Rea,Area /Enpinelry /ag s \ \ , � flec,vee i TECHNICAL PLAN \ Area PALM DESERT RACQUET CLUB ^r-, a development by;y :STEIN-BRIEF GROUP/VISTA ��` -- . lan� PACITY OF PALM DESERT OF g and architecture: r 3ALLEW/MC FARLAND inc. DEPARTMENT M., VELA Architects a EI t� STAL , E%HI IH JUN 2 7 1a,40 NO. CASE NO.pr ENt .:ES ✓ ��' CITY Or �. 1 r. 1 ..c..� ot.SLHF 1 a f � June 30, 1980 �9aQ o Mr. Murrel Crump �N� NOEQPMo�sE Principal Planner City of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, California 92260 Re: DP 03-80 and VAR 03-80 Dear Mr. Crump: As you may recall, our development plan and variance application for a 29 acre resort hotel development in the PR (4) zone was continued from the first hearing on May 14 to July 1. At that hearing, the commission and staff raised a number of concerns and questions which this continuance has given us the opportunity to address . We have submitted an amended plan and supplemental in- formation for your consideration on July 1. It is our understanding that you will receive all of this material, along with our summary letter outlining those changes directly from staff. To further help with your review of the project, we are forwarding to you, herewith, the following additional supplemental information which was completed too late to be included in the amended submittal: a) The illustrative plan of the proposed develop- ment. b) A report dated June 26 , 1980 , by Economics Research Associates commenting on various aspects of resort hotel development and operation. We hope that the combined materials of the submittal will sufficiently respond to the points of concern which were brought out at the May 14 hearing. We will plan to have a few larger scale exhibits to illustrate the project in greater detail. If you have any questions concerning this material or the project , please don' t hesitate to contact us . Sincerely, James W. Smith JWS :pw 2081 Business Center Drive, Suite 200 • Irvine, CA 92715 • (714) 833.8252 er& No-cc P� � MEMORANDUM TO: David Stein Jim Smith Stein/Brief Group FROM: Michael L. Horst Economics Research Associates DATE: June 26, 1980 SUBJECT: Palm Desert Racquet Club This memorandum sets forth a summary of our findings upon reviewing your conceptual plan for the Palm Desert Racquet Club. It provides an overview of the transient accommodations market as well as our recommendations for the project. OVERVIEW OF THE TRANSIENT ACCOMMODATIONS MARKET To best put the concept of the Palm Desert Racquet Club in perspective, it is useful to examine the overall transient accommodations market focusing on its history, current trends, and the specialized product: the condo hotel. Historical Perspective Until the 1960's , resort developments were characterized by two basic types of facilities in ownership/management arrangements: • Hotel type facilities • Convention hotel accommodations (rooms, centralized dining facilities, full services) oriented toward the transient guest market, and located in destination resort areas with established vacation visitation. Such facilities were typically owned and managed by the same entity, either the developer/owner or an experienced hotel operator. • Second home or vacation home projects: homes owned by individuals Eor seasonal vacation or weekend use in a resort/recreation area. Resembling typical homes, such units were usually not available for rent , or if they were, it was through the efforts of the individual owner with no formalized rental management program. By the 1960s, several new products began to emerge in response to changing market conditions , and as of today, a number of different types of resort transient accommodations ranging from condominiums to time- sharing are evident in the market place. A much more detailed presenta- tion of trends in resort development is presented as Attachment A. Current Trends Because of a variety of factors, including financial markets, buyer preferences and so forth, today's marketplace contains a number of innovative forms for providing transient accommodations. These . include: • The traditional hotel (like Marriott's Rancho Las Palmas) • Condo Hotel (similar to La Costa in Carlsbad, California) -2- • Traditional condominiums (found in Palm Springs, as well as places like Lake Tahoe and managed by a separate rental management company) • Single family homes (villas or other forms of detached wall housing rented to persons seeking more luxurious accommodations in places like Palm Springs, Lake Tahoe and Sea Pines Plantation) Because of widely fluctuating money markets and the potential to gain a substantial return on the rental of an individual condominium unit, the financing for these types of products has also become more innovative during the past ten years. We have witnessed the following forms of financing transient accommodations: • Traditional mortgage • Limited partnership • Cooperative • Condominiums • Time-sharingl/ As Attachment A also points out, the use of the condominium vehicle to finance transient accommodations has been very prominent in resort development during the past ten years. In general, the accommodations are larger condominium units operated through a rental program such as those found in Hawaii, Lake Tahoe, ski areas, in Carolina projects such as Kiawah Island and Sea Pines Plantation. However, a more specialized form is now emerging which is more appropriately called a condo hotel. It is discussed in greater detail in the following paragraphs. 1/ Time-sharing is much more than just a method to finance transient accommodations. It also allows persons who could normally not afford a whole unit a chance to become involved on a more permanent basis with a particular resort project, thus expanding the potential market for the project. -3- Condo Hotel The "pure" condo hotel is a project whose primary purpose is to provide transient accommodations and not a place of occupancy for its owner. Physically, condo hotels can take many forms . Typically, they are either hotel rooms, bigger hotel rooms with kitchenettes, or larger residential units capable of being converted into two or more hotel rooms. Examples include: - Mullet Bay, St. Marteen - Lakeland Village, Lake Tahoe - Innisbrook, Florida - Camelback Inn, Scottsdale Of these, the most representative is the Camelback Inn in Scottsdale, Arizona, operated by Marriott Hotels. It is a 407 room hotel offering a variety of units including hotel rooms, suites, and studio apartments. Owners are limited to 28 days of use without paying the Camelback Inns , regular daily room rate although they are required to pay a service charge. For any use in excess of 28 days, :owners are charged regular rates. The project is truly a hotel and, in fact, operated as a hotel before Marriott took it over and converted it to condominium. The condominium vehicle was merely a means of financing the project. A special advantage for Marriott is the fact that they have "total control" by operating the program with limited owner occupancy rather than the typical condominium rental management agreement where the owner can come and go as he chooses. DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Based on a review of your concept and our extensive knowledge of the resort industry, we feel that the following recommendations are appropriate for your project. The Palm Desert Racquet Club should include: -4- • A condo/hotel • Full services including restaurants, room services, shops and so forth, to distinguish it from the typical Palm Springs condominium operated through rental program • Mandatory furniture package • Strong amenity focus as provided by the tennis, racquet- ball and spa. facilities • Adequate conference facilities • Innovative marketing such as sports tournaments, executive conferences, etc. , to buoy off and shoulder season business. By -developing the project in this way, we believe you will be creating an excellent transient accommodation and not merely dupli- cating the typical condominium projects now found in over abundance in Palm Springs. -5- Attachment A A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE TRENDS IN RESORT DEVELOPMENT Over the past 15 to 20 years, rather dramatic changes have taken place in the physical form, facilities, types of accommodations, and amenities in resort developments, as well as the types of visitors, to early trends in resorts such as the traditional older resort hotel, its facilities, and clients. This is followed by a description of recent trends in destination resort development with the development of condomin- iums and additional amenities such as tennis. The third portion of the section looks at future resorts and defines the future roles of hotel and condominium development and the impact that seasonality has on the emphasis of the two types of accommodations. Historical Patterns in Resort Development In order to better understand the new directions for resort develop- went, it is useful to analyze the evolution of today's planned resort communities. Early Traditional Resort Hotels Prior to the post World War II growth and, more significantly, prior to the jet aircraft era, resort hotels were of two major types: 1) larger beach-front hotel structures with the beach as its main amenity, .2) large hotels in inland areas, often with hot springs and golf as major amenities. The beach-oriented resort hotels were most notable in Miami Beach, the New Jersey shore, Bermuda, Hawaii, and many others. Examples of the latter type include White Sulphur Springs in West Virginia; Arizona Biltmore in Arizona; Jackson Hole, Wyoming; and Del Monte Lodge, California. -6- The guests of traditional resort hotels tended to be an older group, with high'incomes and net worth, and tended to stay for long periods of time (two weeks or more) . The early hotels in Acapulco were also oriented more to this type of traveler. Land Sales Programs Another phenomenon which characterized the early resort markets were the land sales programs which began initially in Florida and Cali- fornia in the 1950s. Over the next two decades, the land business grew to a multi-billion dollar industry as corporate giants such as GAC and Boise Cascade entered the marketplace. Peak lot sales are estimated to have reached 640,OOO to 750,000 per year, and some projects reported volumes of 6,000 units annually. These programs featured low sales prices and even lower down payments ("$50 down, $50 per month") and set the standard for aggressive marketing. Investment was a principal buyer motivation, as was having a lot in the country for a future second retirement home. Amenities were an important factor in these projects too. Nearly all the large developmental plans called for golf courses, clubhouses, and so forth, although many of the promises were never fulfilled. Recent Trends in Resort/Second Home Development The introduction of jet aircraft in the early 1960s brought about dramatic changes in the resort industry in terms of types of visitors and lengths of stay; however, the nature of the product did not change appreciably until more recently. The speed of the jet, relatively low airfares, and special packages increased the mobility of the traveler and made short trips not only practical but desirable. Every resort area ERA has studied has, shown the same dramatic increases in number of visitors and number of new hotel rooms built during the mid to late 60s, whether it be Hawaii, the Caribbean, or Mexico (although Mexico's tourism increases occurred later than the Caribbean and Hawaii) . -7- Condominiums The major change in the physical form of resort development did not emerge until the late 1960s and early 1970s with the acceptance of condo- miniums as a resort product. Condominium ownership is replacing the purchase of a lot and construction of a single family home as the dominant resort housing pattern. Condominiums have also begun to replace hotels as a major source of resort accommodations (or at least provide a different means of financing them). Seasonal resorts such as the ski areas were the first to demonstrate this trend as hotel operators could not generate sufficiently high year- round occupancies to meet increased operating and debt service expenses. Unlike the early resort hotels in seasonal areas which could close . during the off-season, new hotels must sustain year-round operating profits to offset high mortgage costs. Resort areas which are poorly located, particularly by air, also have difficulty achieving sufficient occupancies to attract hotel operators and rely heavily on condominiums. Poor access as well as seasonality often precludes group tours, which are a key to many hotel chain's operations. Another recent trend has been the shift away from real estate pro- jects by hotel chains. The Hyatts, Sheratons, and others are turning over the ownership of the physical plant to outside investors and generally are only operating the facility on a percentage of contract basis. gene y y p g y p g To fill the void in hotels, the financing of the condominium form of owner- ship has been used to finance hotels. The condo/hotel--a hotel selling rooms to investors as condominiums--has thus become an important resort product. Other New Products A variety of new products in addition to the condo/hotel , charac- terize today's resort environment. Some of the more significant ones are briefly reviewed below. -8- Luxury Products. Resorts have always appealed to the rich, and a continuing sub-segment of the leisure market are luxury products which are designed for persons only in the top income levels. Such products; generally either condominiums or single family homesites, feature extensive amenities (golf, tennis, and so forth) , frontage along a natural amenity (ocean-front homesites) , large size (some projects sell 40 to 100 acre ranches or large condominiums) , or exclusivity (locked gates, private clubs, and the like) . The demand for these products, like that of the Rolls Royce or mink coat, is often inverted: the higher the price, the more sold. Recreation Vehicles. At the other end of the spectrum are recreation vehicles--trailers or self-contained units that offer all the comforts of home. This product was spawned by the desire to escape increasing urban population density by travel to areas suitable for camping and other forms of outdoor recreation. Despite the energy crisis contin- uing, this desire has resulted in a phenomenal boom in the demand for recreation vehicles, particularly among families with children for whom other forms of overnight pleasure travel are prohibitively expensive. To accommodate the tremendous growth in the number of recreation vehicles, overnight camping facilities--many offering extensive amenities-- have proliferated. Normally spaces at recreation vehicle parks are rented on a nightly basis; although, some are. now being sold as condominiums. Time-Sharing. Another form of low-priced ownership is time-sharing, where more than one person or family shares the ownership of the unit and has use rights for periods of one week to three months. Such programs are becoming increasingly popular in well-known resort areas like Florida, Puerto Rico, and the Rockies. Time-sharing offers many advantages (low price to the buyer, exchange privileges, etc.) and has been accepted at some projects. But for the developer, the ability to dispose of land at an acceptable rate is still not clearly demonstrated. -9- Planned Resort Communities A prominent type of development in major new resort areas is the planned resort community which combines hotels, condominiums, and homesites with recreational amenities to form an integrated resort complex. The net result is synergistic; a good project literally creates its own market. A total environment is produced in which the leisure enthusiast can truly "have fun" and is vastly superior to any of the products separately. More importantly, from an economic point of view, the combined effect tends to accelerate the absorption of land and sustain viable operations in future years. Visitors to the hotels are the prime market for condominiums and lots. One of the critical factors in creating such an environment is good land planning--the relationship of the products .to each. other. Resort areas like Miami Beach, Waikiki, and Acapulco have all of the ingredients, yet they do not have the ambience of a Sea Pines Plantation or Kaanapali. In fact, the beginnings of the tourists' rejection of these "strips" of high rise hotels can be seen in the declining tourism of Miami Beach and Acapulco. The other important feature is single ownership of the land. A developer who has a large parcel can control the evaluation of an area as a resort, the pace of its development and aesthetics. Areas with small individually owned parcels suffer from problems of architectural variation, ill timed construction, and so forth. Economies of scale of construction, advertising and promotion, and the like are another asset of the individual owner, as is the added confidence a large developer lends to hotel operators and buyers of real estate products. The developers can either do the construction themselves, or "wholesale" tracts to other developers. -10- Future Resort/Second Home Developments In ERA's opinion, future resorts will contain a balance and variety of products (standard hotel accommodations, condominium units,and home- sites) , as well as a full range of amenities. The complete and balanced complex will be required to provide the flexibility for changes in the economy and changes in the types and motivations of guests and purchasers of real estate. In most situations, hotel accommodations will be more strongly emphasized than condominiums in the early stages of development. This will establish the identity of the area and make the acceptance of condo- miniums easier. Due to the problems in financing, conventional hotels may be financed as condominiums or syndicated to a limited number of investors. In the case of conventional hotel rooms, if sold as condominiums, the major buying incentive is expected to be investment, rather than use, and new marketing programs will be geared accordingly. In fact, a more distinct way of segmenting the market is already emerging. As delineated in Table 1, the spectrum of buyer motivation can be reduced to four categories of prospective purchasers. Normal hotels will be financed strictly as investment vehicles using syndications, private placements, and the like. These might be sold through security brokers like a common stock. Persons who buy homesites purely for speculative purposes are also considered investors. The investor/user will be offered what is more commonly known as a condo/hotel--an investment- oriented, rental pool product which also offers use privileges on a limited basis. The conventional condominium products should appeal to the user/ investor who desires to use his unit at will and also wantes to gain rental revenues. He can do so by placing his unit in a rental programl/ 1/ The difference between a rental "pool" and "program" is that a pool implies limited use privileges, typically 15 to 30 days. -11� Table 1 SEGMENTATION OF THE RESORT PRODUCT MARKET BY BUYER MOTIVATION Buyer Motivation Name Preliminary Secondary Typical Product Investor Investment -- Hotel, Lott/ Investor/User Investment Use Condo/Hotel Rental Pool User/Investor Use Investment Condominium, Villa, Single- Family Home, Rental Program User Use -- Condominium, Villa, Lot, Single-Family Home l/ For speculation purposes. Source: Economics Research Associates -12- in his absence. The final market segment is the pure user who tradition- ally purchased a lot and/or a single-family home and, in recent years, has also become part of the condominium market. The exception to the anticipated trend that hotel rooms will predominate in the early years are two types of developments: 1) ski resorts and 2) resort developments with poor access. In the case of ski resorts, the shortness of the skiing season and the difficulty in attracting off-season visitors makes it very difficult to generate a high enough year- round occupancy to interest major hotel developers. On the other hand, a condominium can operate at a much lower occupancy than a hotel room and still be relatively attractive to the owner. Thus, after the initial ski lodge accommodations which are pretty much mandatory, we anticipate that the balance of the units will be heavily weighted to condominiums. Resorts in locations with difficult access situations are another example of where condominium development may continue to be forced to, lead after the initial lodgings accommodations are completed. The reason again is that a major hotel chain will not come into an area unless it sees a clear potential for achieving a high occupancy pattern through a combi- nation of tourists, group packages, and conferences. Another type of product anticipated to be more frequently found in resort developments is that of conference facilities. A skillful opera- tor in this field can successfully fill hotel rooms during the weekday low periods and significantly increase overall occupancy. Operators of these 'centers normally desire a full range of amenities, particularly golf and tennis, as well as very good dining facilities. Amenities will tontine to play a pivotal role in creating the ambiance of the successful planned resort community. The old rule of thumb that "more is better" will be expanded to include a broad range of new participator'y activities, such as jogging, yoga, cooking classes, and so forth. In fact, future resorts may be designed around a theme of physical and mental improvement of the self. -13_ l TABULATION HIGHWAY 111 _ _. _ _.. ____ _. _._— ._ .._. .__ REQ. water 1 _ _ __ COMMERCIAL AREA—� RATIO R.M. be 000s.0 .tl 1 05 art 0 II6 Arc 160 vanes RealawK .14 Arc 90 5/I000s I. l" Spas I1,000s 1.1 .03 ac 0a1 4 1/95 . m\ $e1eoP P 1 t �. , Perak TeY \ F..[ \Y% \ eulnhy coverage s Arc Arc EnNY Ome b / / R eArea Cpa"SPace 6,6.9 Arc. % J Pra and / /(✓�PaM�g9\e \ Vm�e Teary _ TOIN 92 Arc. J59 //�� A� mb La s� /,20 Te HOTEL/CONDOMINIUM condos (39.OW 3,34be 860 2.5/" Pa1ka 36 Are .4 c. �< �LOYn9e4o00r(T}e0a.p .tees 91 65 >�' q mpsc�e 129T ea ae \\ 95,TT0 OVER SITE C.—ye 4.24 ac_ 2.54 Acres \ /� 1/ / � PaOaf i 4 ell �fi Arc" Unaevalog9a /' V //�///ate//�) Neclvea Rec.Prea FleeAree 66ce� Pak�B 1986 as / PC(4) ReuPrea !( / I fl�nneyekaell 2.7 a.. Lobby/ \ > \U( - (b Lom9e / / Total' 29.29 ec.1316 Futwe Tl8o% Pau Area / / / /� / Total varxn Proy n 1316 \ flea Nee '� Peu Prca /.J Rm Area Peu Aree \ Future Poc.Arse / / 4 Owe 4p / TECHNICAL PLAN A«ae � � :, r Rea Area PALM DESERT RA ET CLUB adevel IJ STEIN-BRIEF GROUP/VISTA — plarmirg and architecture: BALLEW/MC FARLAND inc. MLA ArchiteetS b -� i ( ( )IIGHN!AY 111 T ' _ x � ,.- (� 'mod �u.�� `• ILLUSTRATIVE PALM DESERT RACQUET CLUB a devebpment by STEIN-BRIEF GROUP/VISTA - plannngandarchitechre: BALLEW/MC FARLAND ina MLA Architects 7m. i A® I _. _. "GHWAY y T �,✓ L r �..��- S:,. .. I C art ✓ � i A� �� . tn \ ( L `,art;'?. \ ILLUSTRATIVE \ �:�� . / , , r�� ~ � • Y t i_ pw °�� PALM DESERT `� ��, �� :�� k RACQUET CLUB _ - _"'--- - ew� � = adevelopment by: STEIN-BRIEF GROUP/VISTA �\ -- plannM and architechre: BALLEW/MC FARLAND inc. MLA Architects o;� j 1 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 18, 1980 Page Two -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) Vice Chairman Kryder asked if it was a part of the ordinance. Mr. Crump rep ied that it was a development standard for that zone. Commissioner Richards inquired about setbacks at the existing Palms to Pines Shoppin Center, and discussed this subject with Staff and the Commission. Mr. Crump in icated that the Commission had the ability to grant an exception to the required ft. setback. Commi ioner Richards asked for Staff's suggestions in relation to the location of th structures. Mr. Crump illustrated how the project could be more unified. Vice Chairm Kryder inquired on the number of accesses from the existing Palms to Pines Shop 'ng Center, which Mr. Crump pointed out. Commissioner Mc chlan asked if the first phase of the Chazan project had complied with the requi d 30 ft. landscape buffer. Mr. Crump replied it had. Commissioner McLach n pointed out that parking spaces would be eliminated if the driveway on E1 Paseo as moved as suggested by Staff. Mr. Crump indicated that it would only affect a f w spaces. Vice Chairman Kryder open d the Public Hearing asking if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to t is case. MR. BOB RICCIARDI, 73-700 Hwy 111, representative, did not feel a continuance was necessary. He felt the real issu was the required 30 ft. setback and indicated that the Design Review Board had found othing wrong with the plans. ' Mr. Ricciardi also noted the letter by Mr. Martin. He then explained why they went with this type of concept. He pointed out that the 0 ft. setback worked well at the existing Palms to Pines and no on-street parking wou d occur. Mr. Ricciardi showed some slides giving examples of 30 ft. and 10 ft. tbacks used in previous projects. He concluded his presentation stating he would be willing to restudy some of the recommended revisions but not the setbacks. He asked for approval of the site plan. Vice Chairman Kryder asked if there was an ne present who wished to speak in OPPOSITION to the project. MR. DON STAGE, 1313 Sandpiper, stated he did of object to the project but _ did not receive notice. He urged for a continuance un it proper notice to all Sandpiper homeowners was received. Commissioner Richards asked staff why Mr. Ricciardi 's explanation was not in-line with staff's explanation on procedures. Mr. Crump esponded that the Design Review Board's informal comments were for staff input and not a formal recommendation to the. Planning Commission on a Design Review ase. Commissioner Berkey lead a discussion among the Commissi n which generally concluded .the landscape setback along E1 Paseo was acceptable as presented. He also noted that the other points of the Staff's report should be tudied and ind '- p i cated that he did not concur with granting an exception for the nu er of parking spaces, feeling .that the building area should be adjusted to corres nd to the number of spaces provided.' Commissioner Berkey agreed that notices should be sent to the Sa piper residents, therefore, made a motion to continue this case to the meeting if July 1, 1980, Commissioner McLachlan seconded. Carried unanimously (4-0).\ COMMISSIONER BERKEY WAS EXCUSED AT 2:25 P.M. B. Continued Case Nos. P 03-8 and VAR 03-80 - STEIN-BRIEF/VISTA, Applicant Request for approval of a Development Plan to construct a 414 unit hotel/condominium complex with maximum yield of 828 hotel rooms, a 21,365 square foot racquet club and 50,000 square feet of commer- cial and professional spaces and a Variance to allow additional ingress/egress points from adjacent streets, deviation from perimeter landscape screening standards and deviation from parking requirements for public assembly sces, on approximately 29.29 gross acres, within the PC 4) , S.P.PP1 ned Co@m@rc'a1 Resor Scenic Preservation Overlay zone general y IOcaTT a� the south- west corner of Highway 111 and 44th Avenue. 1 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 18, 1980 Page Three --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) Mr. Crump stated that a letter was received by the representatives for this case, requesting a continuance to the July 1, 1980, meeting. Vice Chairman Kryder opened the Public Hearing asking if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being none, motion was made by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner McLachlan, to continue this case to the meeting of July 1, 1980. Carried unanimously (3-0) . C. Continued Case No. PM 16258 - STEIN-BRIEF/VISTA AND WAGNER-STANDFORD CONSULTANTS, Applicants Request for approval of a Parcel Map to create two parcels for the development of 414 unit hotel/condominium complex with 21,365 square foot racquet club and 50,000 square feet of professional and commer- ial spaces within the PC (4) , S.P. (Planned Commercial Resort, enic Preservation Overlay) zone located at the southwest corner o Highway 111 and 44th Avenue. Mr. Crump ecommended a continuance for this case , noting that it was related to the or ious Case Nos. DP 03-80 and VAR 03-80. Vice Chairma\Kryder opended the Public Hearing asking if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPP ITION to this case. There being none, motion was made by Commissioner Richards, econded by Commissioner McLachlan, to continue this case to July 1, 1980. Carrie\approv mously (3-0) . D. Case No. PM COLUMBIA SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION (Represented by: WEBB ENNG, INC. ) , Applicant Request for 1 of a twelve (12) month time extension of a previously approve Tentative Parcel Map to divide approxi- mately 3.538 acres in o five (5) parcels within the PC (3) S.P. (Planned Commercial , Regional Shopping Center, Scenic Preservation Overlay) z e located on the southwest corner of Highway 111 and Highway 774. Mr. Crump stated that the conditions related to the original approval have not changed and, therefore, recommended a proval . Vice Chairman Kryder opened the Publi Hearing asking if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. T .re being none, the Public Hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner McLachlan, to approve this case, by adoption of Tanning Commission Resolution No. 609. Carried unanimously (3-0). VII. OLD BUSINESS - NONE V11I. NEW BUSINESS A. Adopting of Planning Commission Meeting Sche le for July-December, 1980 Minute Motion was made by Commissioner McLachlan, se onded by Commissioner Richards, to adopt the Schedule as submitted. Carried unani\c0ousistency sly (3-0). B. Capital Improvement Budget - finding of project with the General Plan. Mr. Crump briefly explained that the Capital Improvement projects are required to be submitted to the Planning Commission for determination of compliance with the adopted City General Plan. He asked the Commission to forwar a finding to the City Council . Motion was made by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner McLachlan, finding the proposed City Capital Improvement Budget in compliance with\the adopted City General Plan, by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. &10. Carried unanimously (3-0). + MINUTES^' ,. PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY - MAY 14, 1980 1:00 P.M. - CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. - CALL TO ORDER e regularly scheduled meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission . wa called to order at 1:00 P.M. by Chairman Miller in the City Hall Coun it Chambers. II. PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Berkey III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Commissioner Berkey mmissioner Kryder Co issioner McLachlan Chai an Miller Staff Present: Paul Wi iams, Director of Environmental Services Stan Sawa, Associate Planner Linda Russe 1 , Planning Secretary Others Present: Clybe Beebe, Director of Public Works Martin Bouman, ity Manager Dave Ortegal , Fir Marshal A. Seating of New Planning Commissio r Mr. James Richards took the Oath of Offic during study session; he was welcomed and seated on the Planning Commission. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of regular meeting of April 29, 198 Mr. Williams noted two corrections: Page 2, 8th paragraph, second sentence; delete "for the climate". Page 4, under ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, second paragraph; amend�to read "Mr. Williams explained that the project had not yet cleare environmental review". V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - NONE VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case Nos. DP 03-80 and VAR 03-80 - STEIN-BRIEF/VISTA, Applicant Request for approval of a Development Plan to construct a 414 unit hotel/condominium complex with maximum yield of 828 hotel rooms, a 21,365 square foot racquet club and 50,000 square feet of commer- cial and professional spaces and a Variance to allow additional ingress/egress points from adjacent streets, deviation from perimeter landscaping screening standards and deviation from parking requirements for public assembly spaces, on approximately 29.29 gross acres, within the PC (4) , S.P. (Planned Commercial , Resort, Scenic Preservation Overlay) zone, generally located at the south- west corner of Highway 111 and 44th Avenue. Mr. Williams presented this case stating that all Public Notices had been sent out. He began by pointing out the location and the zoning for the proposed project. Mr. Williams then described the layout and proposed uses, which included: Hotel/Condominium complex, Racquet Club, Restaurant, Commercial Shops, Office/Prof- essional Building, and a commercial Bank. Mr.. Williams indicated that the zoning standards related to the PC Zone were questioned by the City Council and Planning Commission, but felt that it could be modified by the approval of a Development Plan. Mr. Williams related to the Commission three requested exceptions to the Development Standards by the applicant, which Staff felt were justified. He then reviewed the variances requested which were in regards to access points, screening and parking for tournament events. Staff recommended that the requested variance for access points and screening be granted but the parking spaces variance not be granted. i MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 34, 1980 Page Two VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) The primary concerns related to this project were pointed out by Mr. Williams as being: (1) Office Building -- Staff's recommendation was to reserve that area for future building site to be compatible with that Development; and, (2) a Commer- cial Bank, which Staff recommended to not be considered. In regards to Hotel Operation, Mr. Williams felt that as long as the operation was the same as a hotel , multiple ownership would not create a problem. He also indicated there were a few design considerations which were addressed in the Special Conditions. Mr. Williams concluded his presentation stating that Staff felt that the overall project site, design, and proposed uses, were acceptable (except for the Bank and Office Building) . He briefly reviewed some of the conditions and recom- mended approval subject to the specific conditions stated. Commissioner Berkey asked if there were any changes made to the major access point to conform with Clyde Beebe, City Engineer. Mr. Williams replied that it would be considered as a part of the subdivision map, which the applicant was willing to review thoroughly at that time. Commissioner McLachlan asked why the courts were separated from the rest of the project. He was concerned in terms of adequate parking. Mr. Williams explained briefly why the applicant designed it that way and did feel there was sufficient parking. Commissioner Berkey expressed a concern for the condition which stated that the owners of the units were limited to 30 days occupancy which was tied together with the C.C. & R's. Commissioner Berkey noted that the City does not enforce the C.C. & R's and felt that further clarification was needed. Commissioner Richards felt that this was not a Resort Hotel because the Hotel did not have any facilities for dining or large groups, and the density allowed for this zoning was not in conformance with the required Resort Hotel amenities. Commissioner Berkey also noted that Special Condition No. 1, second paragraph, needed a better clarification. It was agreed to change that condition to read as follows: "Hotel Lobby Building, containing 3,300 sq. ft. , including 1,200 sq. ft. of ancillary commercial space. " Chairman Miller opened the Public Hearing and asked for the applicant to make a presentation. MR. DAVID STEIN, Owner, briefly explained why they acquired that location and what the future plans were. He also explained why they were using the concept of individual ownership. He felt that the total design, including the professional office building and bank, was favorable to this area. MR. JIM SMITH, Stein-Brief/Vista Group, addressed three Special Conditions, which were Nos. 2, 3, and 4. In regards to No. 2 (Office building) Mr. Smith felt that office uses were ancillary uses to a Resort Hotel and asked that the Commission consider this condition. He objected to No. 4 stating that this condition was too strict in terms of what furnishings can be used. He stressed that this complex would be used as a hotel . Commissioner Richards pointed out that there are no dining facilities and conference rooms. Mr. Stein stated that there could be conference rooms included. Commissioner Berkey stated that there would be a Public Hearing on the PC (4) Zone on June 3rd and felt that this was not the time to consider the pro- posed uses. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 14, 1980 Page Three ************************************************************************************ VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) Mr. Stein stated that he could not justify the uses but would wait until the Public Hearing. He stated that he would like to label the office building and bank as ancillary 1 and 2 now, and later bring more information to the Commission. Commissioner Richards explained that the City enforces a Transient, Occupancy Tax, he felt that the hotel/condo complex would affect the revenue stream for the City. Mr. Stein briefly explained the financial aspects of the project. Commissioner Kryder explained to the applicant that they should keep in mind that the Office Building is not an ancillary use to the Hotel . Mr. Stein felt that there is a compromise between Planning and Applicants and asked for consideration. Chairman Miller asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. MR. DON STAGE, 1313 Sandpiper, addressed his concern over the possible building of a bridge across Painters Path. Mr. Williams indicated that the Staff's recommended Conditions of Approval recommend a cul-de-sac in that area. Mr. Stage was also concerned that the year round rental might not succeed. Mr. Stein explained that if it failed it would fail as any other hotel , but was certain it would succeed. Mr. Stage pointed out that if it failed the individual owners would then have a problem of renting their. units. Commissioner Kryder asked the applicant if the common property would be shared by the owners. Mr. Stein stated that they would have private membership. Commissioner McLachlan also explained why the project would be successful if they included a dining area and convention center. Commissioner Berkey stated that the Commission was not prepared to act on this project at this time and that there were a lot of unanswered questions that could be solved in time. He felt a continuance was in order. Motion was made by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, to continue this case to June 18th. Carried unanimously (5-0) . VII . OLD BUSINESS - NONE VI NEW BUSINESS A. Coachella Valley Water District - construction of an eight inch diameter collection sewer within El Cortez Way, between Portola enue on the west and Santa Ynez on the east, an approximate le th of 1,300 feet. Mr. William recommended that the Planning Commission find the project to be in compliance ith the Palm Desert General Plan. Motion was made b Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, to adopt Planning Commissi Resolution No. 597, finding this project to be in compliance with the Palm Des e t General Plan. Carried unanimously (5-0) . IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS Consideration of cases acted on by the Design Review Board at their meeting of April 22, 1980. Case No. 113 C - Mr. Sawa presented this se giving the location and background. He stated that the Board revie� d it and required some revisions. Mr. Sawa reviewed those revisions d recommended approval . There was some discussion in regards to the revis\d. by sion felt they were good revisions and upon motion made by Commissonded by Commissioner Berkey, this Design Review Board action wastion of Planning Commission Resolution No. 598. Carried unanimo June 24, 1980 JUN251 fNvr 980 RON OF PArpL SfRv . LM.DfS r�fS . Mr. Murrell Crump fR Planning Dept. City of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Dear Murrell, Per our phone conversation today, we are forwarding to you a copy of our updated proposal for Stein-Brief/Vista; case numbers DP 03-80 and VAR 03-80. Included is a copy of the technical plan and a brief summary of the changes we have made. We are working on a new illustrative and final narrative describing the project in the final state. These two items will follow shortly. Should you have any further questions regarding these exhibits and/or the specifics thereof, please call either Jim Smith (714-833-8252) or me (714-751-4623) . Unfortunately, I plan to be out of town Friday, but back to work on Monday. I hope to see you Tuesday, July 1; ; 1980, at the latest. Thank you for all your assistance in processing this item. Sincerely, Fred M. Arbuckle Vice President Ballew/McFarland, Inc. 74075 EL PA EO SUITE A7 PALM DESERT CALIF.92260 (714)568--5626 PLANNERS & ARCHITECTS CORPORATION June 25, 19800�,R N19 TYo�pNA< F A<41�SFS' �rFS Mr. Murrell Crump Planning Dept. City of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Re:.- Stein-Brief/Vista - Case Nos. DP 03 80 and VAR 03-80 Dear Murrell, The following is a statistical summary of the revised plan for Stein-Brief/Vista. There are a few changes worth highlighting. These are the deletions of the office/professional building and the bank building from the proposal. The number of two bedroom units has been reduced from 414 to 390 and the configuration of the tennis courts and pool area has been rearranged. Finally, the approximate area of the originally designated office/professional building and associated parking is now proposed as an undeveloped PC4 parcel. I have used your staff report, Sections E through K as the basis of the enclosed statistical summary. I hope this is an acceptable and convenient format. There were other areas of your report where comments might have been appropriate but would not have clarified your perception of the changes. I have not included these. However, in your final report you may want to say something further l or alter your statement, as you see fit. Again, thank you for the extra effort you are providing in processing this application during the short period of time allotted. E - PROPOSED USES - Condo/hotel, 390 two bedroom, two bath, kitchen units which may be rented as stated above, or as one-bedroom with =one bath and kitchen and a one 74075 SKY ASEO EAST AJ PALM DESERT,CALIF.92260 (7,4)56,--,626 PLANNERS & ARCHITECTS CORPORATION Mr. Murrell Crump Page 2 bedroom one bath unit. - Hotel lobby building; containing 3,950 s.f. of hotel operations space which includes 500 s.f. of gift shop, an additional 830 s.f. of administration and a 2,500 s.f. of lounge. - Underground parking structure; contains 975 parking spaces. - Recreational pool areas; 14 pools. - Racquet club/convention facility - Championship tennis court with no permanent seating; temporary seating for approximately 2,000 people. - Outdoor tennis courts; 17 courts. - Outdoor paddle tennis courts; 4 courts. - Indoor racquetball and squash courts; 12 courts. - Men's and women's spas; 6,210 s.f. - Pro shop; 860 s.f. - Snack shop and kitchen; 610 s.f. - Gymnasium area; 1,680 s.f. - Restrooms; 360 s.f. - Conference area; 4,880 s.f. - Conference restaurant; 3,700 s.f. - Restaurant/room service kitchen; 2,770 s.f. - General circulation/mechanical; 2,300 s.f. Mr. Murrell Crump Page 3 Restaurants, one each at 6,000 and 7,000 square feet respectively. Commercial shops; 1,000 square feet of shop located adjacent to the 7,000 s.f. restaurant. Undeveloped PC(4) Parcel; 2.5 acres located near the corner of 44th and Painter's Path. Reserved for future uses apprcpriate to the zoning. F - PARKING ANALYSIS CONDO HOTEL 780 rooms (1.1 per room) = 858 500 s.f. assessory commercial (1 per 250) = 2 3,700 s.f, convention restaurant (15 per 1,000) = 60 2,500 s.f. lounge (15 per 1,000) = 37 RACQUET CLUB 35 courts (3 per court) = 105 6,210 s.f. spa/massage (1 per 150) = 41 860 s.f. pro shop (1 per 250) - 3 1,680 s.f. gymnasium (1 per 150) = 11 RESTAURANTS 6,000 s.f. (15 per 1,000) = 90 7,000 s.f. (15 per 1,000) = 105 1,000 s.f. ancillary commercial (l .per 250) = 4 Total req. = 1,316 Applicant is proposing = 1,316 G. - REQUESTED EXCEPTIONS Number one may be deleted as the restaurant along 44th is set back 32 feet. The other two exceptions remain. H. - REQUESTED VARIANCES All requests remain. Mr. Murrell Crump Page 4 1. - VARIANCE FINDINGS No comment. J. - KEY CONSIDERATIONS 1. Two site uses identified in this section have been deleted. 2. No comment at this time on the remaining sections. K. - MISCELLANEOUS DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 1. Highway III parkway design will be in keeping with that existing at Restaurant Park. 2. Tennis courts will be buffered visually from Highway III through the use of landscape walls, berming to 4' above street elevation. If I may be of assistance, please call at your convenience. Sincerely, F ed M. Arbuckle Vice President Ballew/McFarland, Inc. b June 13 , 1980 Mr. Murrell Crump Principal Planner City of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re : Case Nos . DP 03-80 and VAR 03-80 Stein-Brief/Vista Dear Mr. Crump: As representative for the above referenced applicant, we respectfully request continuance of the Public- Hearing before the Planning Commission scheduled for June 18 , 1980, to the next regular meeting of July 1 , 1980. We are pursuing further economic analysis of the plan based on your input at the last meeting with you. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, BALLEW/MCFARLAND, INC . M. P. Martin 740 5 EL PASEO BSUITE A-7 PALM EDE ERT,CALF.9n60 pld)568.562, PLANNERS & A R C H I T E C T S CORPORATION 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 9226O TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE June 19, 1980 APPLICANT Stein-Brief/Vista 2081 Business Center Dr. , Ste. 200 Irvine, CA 92715 CASE NO: DP 03-80 nd VAR 03-80 The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at is meeting of June 18, 1980 X CONTINUED TO July 1, 1980 DENIED BY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PLACED ON THE AGENDA OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF FOR PUBLIC HEARING. Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the Director of Environmental Services, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. PAUL A. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION cc: Applicant File CITY OF PALM DESERT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission REPORT ON: Commercial Development Plan and Related Variance from zone standards. APPLICANT: Stein-Brief/Vista , 2081 Business Center Dr. , St. 200, Irvine, CA 92715 CASE NOS: DP 03-80 and VAR 03-80 DATE: May 14, 1980 I. REQUEST: A request by STEIN-BRIEF/VISTA for approval of a Development Plan to construct a 414 unit hotel/condominium complex with maximum yield of 828 hotel rooms, a 21,365 square foot racquet club and 50,000 square feet of commercial and professional spaces and a Variance to allow additional ingress/egress points from adjacent streets, deviation from perimeter landscape screening standards and deviation from parking requirements for public assembly spaces, on approximately 29.29 gross acres, within the PC(4) , S.P. (Planned Commercial , Resort, Scenic Preservation Overlay) zone, generally located at the southwest corner of Highway 111 and 44th Avenue. "LOCATIONAL"MAP: 0;=_� z -• e.--:¢: Eaiu=Gt �. }li _ VT oA X F V + PASS 4 - — •'�• i`!."_' t t'._' i I'� '•Z.. � Lei w �` r^:::r::::.� I .:i II. BACKGROUND: A. ADJACENT ZONING: North: P.C. (4) , S.P. (Planned Commercial Resort, Scenic Preservation Overlay) South: O.S. (Stormwater Channel ) and PR-6, S.P. (Planned Residential max. 6,'units per acre, Scenic Preservation Overlay) East: P.C. (4), S.P. West: S. I. (Service Industrial ) : P.C. (4) , S.P: and, PR-3, d, h. (Planned Residential max. 1units per acre, Drainage and Hillside Overlay) B. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Planned Commercial Resort (GPA 01-75) C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The proposed project has been previously assessed in connection with the Redevelopment Plan and related EIR, and no further docu- mentation is deemed necessary by the Director. STAFF REPORT CASE- NOS. DP 03-80 and V ,: 03-80 May 14, 1980 Page Two II . BACKGROUND: (Continued) D. PREVIOUS PERTINENT CASES: Tract Map No. 4489, Eagle Development Co. , condominium development on the subject site. The subdivision was recorded, street and utility improvements completed but no units were ever constructed. � E. PROPOSED-USES • Condo/Hotel , 414-two bedroom, two bath with kitchen units; which may be rented as a one bedroom, one bath room and a one bedroom, one bath, plus kitchen room, for a maximum yield of 828 hotel- rooms. - Hotel Lobby Building,=con_taf niny2�0`square feet of hotel.-operations space, plus 1,200 square feeCprovided for related ancillary commer- cial uses. - Underground.,Parking Structure, containing 1,035 spaces. - Recreational Pool Areas, (14) . • Racquet Club, 21 ,365 square feet of building area. - Championship Tennis Court with spectator seating for approximately 2,000 people. - Outdoor Tennis Courts , (17) . - Outdoor Paddle Tennis Courts, (4) . - Indoor Racquetball and Squash Courts , (12) . - Food Service, 2,000 square feet of building area. -, Spa/Massage Facilities , 1,800 square feet of building area. e Restaurants, one containi.ng 6,000 square feet of building area and the second containing 7,000 square feet of building area. • Commercial "Shops" , 1 ,000 square feet of building area (adjacent to the 7,000 square foot restaurant) . • Office/Professional Building, two stories containing 30,000 square feet of building area. • Commercial Bank, with drive-thru teller, containing 6,000 square feet of building area. F. PARKING ANALYSIS: Required Spaces • Condo/Hotel (1. 1 per room) = 911 - accessory commercial uses (1 per 250 square feet) = 5 • Racquet Club (*not including spectator seating) , (3 spaces per court) = 102 - food service (15 per 1,000 square feet) = 30 - spa/massage facilities (1 per 150 square feet) = 12 • Restaurants (15 per 1,000 square feet) - 195 a Commercial Shops (1 per 250 square feet) = 4 • Office/Professional - general business offices (1 per 250 square feet) = 120 or, - medical offices (1 per 200 square feet) = or, (150) • Commercial Bank (1 per 200 square feet) = 30 Sub Total Range,; 1,405 to 1,435 *Spectator seating for Championship Tennis Court (1 per three seats) = 667 STAFF REPORT ZASE NOS. DP 03-80 and VAR 03-80 May i4, 1980 Page Three II. BACKGROUND: (Continued) F. PARKING ANALYSIS: (Continued) Required Spaces I_,-)Total Range 2,082 to 2,112 -lProposed number of spaces 1,550 - Surplus Spaces (excluding Championship Court seating) = 145 to 115 - Deficient Spaces (including seating for Championship Court) = 532 to 562 G. REQUESTED EXCEPTIONS FROM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 25.30.2601- pecific standards of theme -Planned-Commercial (PC) zone may be modified_by the approval of a` �— Development Plan. - The applicant requests considers ion of the following eeptions xc . 1. Minimum building setback from 44th Avenue. - Development Standard, 32 feet. - Proposed Setback, 20 feet. 2. Minimum building setback from Painters Path. - Development Standard, 25 feet. - Proposed Setback, 20 feet. 3. Maximum number of hotel units per acre (of area devoted to the hotel ) . - Development Standard, maximum 30 hotel units per acre. - Proposed Density, based on a maximum yield of 828 hotel units (Rentable Rooms) , 50.5 units per acre. H. REQUESTED VARIANCES: Certain standards of the PC zone may not be waived or modified by the approval of a Development Plan; therefore, the applicant seeks aJormal Variance from the following: 1. Municipal Code Section 25.30.170 Access. "A maximum of two entrances per property* will be allowed subject to their conformance with accept- able circulation patterns and traffic-control measures. " *Note: Administrative interpretation has previously provided for a maximum of two access points per street frontage, where the site had more than one street frontage. (Restaurant Park, Allison Hotel complex, Palms to Pines Phases 3 and 4, and Hahn Center have been previously considered under this interpretation) -- Applicant's Request, to be granted a Variance to allow five (5) access points to Painters Path. 2. Municipal Code Section 25.30.120 Perimeter Screening. "All developments shall be screened according to one of the following alternatives: A. A masonary wall at a minimum height of seven feet shall be provided along all property lines except for .those_ adjacent to public rights-of-way, in which case a setback of 20 ft. will be maintained. B. An opaque hedge row at a minimum height of seven ft. shall be provided along all property lines except for those adjacent to public rights-of-way, in which case a setback of 20 ft. will be maintained (common perimeter screening between adjoin- ing properties is allowable upon mutual consent of the respec tive. owners) . Planting materials used for perimeter screening shall be the type which shall within eighteen months after property development provide the intended screening effect. C. Perimeter screening will not be required if deemed unnecessary by the Design Review Board, based upon their approval of sub- mitted development and landscaping plans which establish to its satisfaction that attractive development will occur in keeping with the intended residential/resort/recreational nature of the community. " STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. DP 03-80 and VAR 03-80 May 14, 1980 Page Four II . BACKGROUND: (Continued) H. REQUESTED VARIANCES •'_ _1 (Continued) - Applicant's Request, to be granted a Variance to allow: a five (5) foot wall along Highway 111, with less than a 20 foot setback; no wall on 44th Avenue, with parking lot encroachment into the 20 foot setback; and, no wall on Painters Path, with parking lot developed in the 20 foot landscape setback.* *Note: Municipal Code Section 25.30. 100, D. , would preclude a parking lot in the required landscaped area, and should also be referenced in any. Variance action. 3. Municipal Code -Section 25.58.31 Commercial and Industrial Off-Street Parking Schedule. "E. Places of assembly, auditoriums, 1 for each 3 seats or 1 for theaters, sports arenas, stadiums. each 35 square feet of gross floor area where there are no fixed seats" - Applicant's Request, to be granted a Variance to waive required park- ing (667 spaces) for tournament events at the Championship Tennis Courts. The applicant indicates that stadium seating would provide for 2,000 spectators. The applicant projects that tournaments may be held two to four times a year. I . VARIANCE FINDINGS: Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 25.78.070, the Commission must make a finding of fact that establishes that the circumstances prescribed in a, b, c, and d (below) do apply as a basis for approval of a Variance: a. That strict .or literal interpretation and enforcement of the speci- fied regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance; b. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or condi- tions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the PC(4) zone; c. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the speci- fied regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same vicinity and zone; d. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements inthe vicinity. J. KEY CONSIDERATIONS: 1. =Acceptabili_ty .of proposed site uses. (specifically 30,000 square feet of Of- ficep rofessional space, and proposed bank) , relative to the permitted uses in the PC(4) zone. - See applicant-sponsored memo by Lord & Associates (Staff Report .Attach- ment No. 1) . - Also, see previous City-sponsored report summary, by Lord & Associates (Staff Report Attachment No. 2) . - Reference Planning Commission action of April 20, 1980, Determination of Uses Not Listed in .the PC(4) Zone, Planning Commission Resolution No. 593 (Staff Report .Attachment No. 3) . - See draft Planning Commission Resolution, Special Condition Nos. , 1 to 3. 2a Operation of.the hotel relative to condominium owner rights of use. - Refer to draft Planning Commission Resolution, Special Condition No. 4. - See "III. Site Development Concept" , bound with reduced project plans booklet (found in separate booklet) . STAFF REPORT CASE_ NOS. DP 03-80 and V;,,. 03-80 May 14, 1980 Page Five II . BACKGROUND: (Continued) J. KEY CONSIDERATIONS: (Continued) 31`. Justification for granting of Variances. - Refer to Variance Finding required (Staff Report, Background Section III it) . - See draft Planning Commission Resolution, Special Condition Nos. 5 and 6. 4. JRequested exceptions from Development Standards. - See applicant justifications (Staff Report Attachment No. 5) . - See draft Planning Commission Resolution, .Special Condition No. 7, a through c. 5. tImplementation of Fire Marshal ' s recommendations. - Refer to Fire Marshal's letter (attached to draft Planning Commission Resolution) . K. MISCELLANEOUS DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS: The following listed subjects are addressed by Special Condition .Nos. 8 through 15, found in the draft Planning Commission Resolution: - Highway 111. parkway design with easement and pedestrian/bicycle path. - Depressing tennis court surface below grade. - Restudy of. 20 foot separation between some condo/hotel building groups. - Development of specific alternative emergency vehicular access to all condo/hotel .buildings by means of an expanded pedestrian system. - Installation of cul-de-sac street turn around area at Painters Path and the Palm Valley Channel . - Provision -of sidewalk along Painters Path. - Screening of all parking lot areas. - Vertical landscape screening/treatment. for southern project boundary. III . DISCUSSION: A. Proposed Uses - the uses described in the subject request appear to be within the context of the PC(4) (Planned Commercial , Resort Center) zone, with two exceptions (30,000 square feet of Office/Professional space and a Commercial Bank) . Related to the two questioned project uses , are two inter- esti.ng market analyses prepared by the same firm, one of which was .` sponsored by the applicant to justify the proposed office use. This analysis indicates that some types of commercial/professional service office uses choose to associate with urban hotels; because urban hotels serve business- men. The analysis points to a future demand for service office space, but predicts a significant surplus in retailing space. The other market analysis, prepared for the City (Redevelopment Agency) , among other things , notes the benefit of hotel uses but, interestingly enough, discourages services uses (offices) because of the lack of benefit to the City. The demand for office/service space has probably not been evaluated thoroughly enough in light of the present commercial lease space available and the future space coming on line, to determine that it could not be housed without including it as a. major use in the Resort Center zone.____ Beyond ;:these market considerations, the question before the Commission is .whether a 30,000 square foot office building is an acceptable use in the project and zone. This size of building becomes somewhat difficult to justify in light of the range of office uses that can be associated with hotel/resort development. Staff's recommended alternative to approval of. an office building, at this STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. DP 03-80 and V,... 03-80 May 14, 1980 Page Six III . DISCUSSION: (Continued) time, would be to reserve this area for a future .building site in the conceptual Development Plan approval , and leave it open for the appli- cant to make some type of "build to suit" arrangements to present to the City for a specific user or users. Then, a more reasonable approach could be taken to qualifying the size and type of building. ", The second use, a.. commercial bank,would appear -to be out of character with the zone; and,_it :has not been demonstrated that the banking'needs of the project,could not_ be served by the_pr esent banking institutions :,and those -three to feur banks now_under construction in_Palm Desert ; and Rancho Mirage._ staff-would recommend that,a.bank' use not be con= I sidered in the conceptual_, Dev_el.opment_ Plan approval . _ B. Hotel Operation - the Commission will need to consider the question of multiple (condominium) ownership in the context of the permitted use. . .a hotel . As long as the operation is the same as any other hotel , a condo- minium method of ownership would not present a use problem. Conditions related to length of occupancy by the condominium owner and uniformity of room furnishings are provided in the draft Resolution. A precedent for this approach has been established by the Commission in their approval of the condo/hotel to be built on Highway 111, at the eastern City limits. C. Variance Considerations - there are three requirements of the PC(4) zone for which the applicant is seeking a Variance: (1) number of access points; (2) perimeter screening; and (3) parking for tournament events using the Championship Tennis Court facilities. The location and uniqueness of the project design would seem to warrant consideration of items one and two, but Staff would recommend an alternative to granting a blanket Variance for special events and tournaments. The City has a procedure for the granting of Temporary Use Permits by the Zoning Administrator (Municipal Code Title 25.64) , which could consider special events contemplated for this facility. It would be in the interest of the City to assure that special events will not be detrimental. to surrounding properties or to the community, therefore, Staff would not recommend that this item of the Variance be granted, but that items one and two receive your favorable consideration. D. Considerations for Exceptions from Development Standards - there are also three development standards the applicant is seeking exception from by approval of the site plan. The first two items are building setbacks from 44th Avenue and Painters Path. In the context of the project design, these exceptions appear warranted. The third item is density of hotel units (rooms) per acre of land devoted to the hotel use. Rented separately, the hotel could have a maximum yield of.828 rooms which would result in 20.5 rooms per acre more than the zone provides. It is noted that the parking demand is met for this number of rooms, therefore, no problem is perceived in accomodating them. As a principle use of the zone, an exception for the number of hotel rooms on this specific site is also warranted, in the opinion of Staff. E. Fire Protection - with the passage of Proposition A, the community's future ability to serve a development of this scale is more realistic, but that ability to establish .an adequate level of fire suppression is:.-dependent - upon the measures and .facilities that occur onsite and are "built into" the project. The Fire Marshal 's letter of March 18, 1980, details the minimum requirements that should be expected of this development. F. Miscellaneous Design Considerations - there are several design features , most of which have been anticipated by the applicant in the concept plans, which are detailed by draft Resolution, Special Conditions. The conditions will assist in guiding the preparation and evaluation of Design Review plans. G. =S'ummary of Concept Design - the applicant has provided, in narrative text, a discussion of the project design objectives, and has provided a booklet of project site plans and artist's views into the development, to conceptualize the architectural approach to be taken. It is apparent that a lot of consid- eration has gone into the preparation of these exhibits. With the noted exceptions in the choice of two site uses (30,000 square foot office building, and bank) , Staff would consider the project proposed to satisfy the objectives of the City for hotel , restaurant, and recreation facility development on this property. STAFF REPORT CASE. NOS. DP 03-80 and V ., 03-80 May 14, 1980 Page Seven IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the justification and findings contained in the draft Resolution: Approve, in modified form, .Case Nos. DP 03-80 and VAR 03-80, by adoption of Planning Commission .Resolution. No. subject to .the specific conditions attached thereto. Attachments : 1. Lord. & Associates memo dated March 26, 1980. 2. Lord .& Leblanc letter dated January 7, 1977. 3. Determination of Uses Not Listed .in the PC(4) Zone, Planning Commission Resolution No. 593. 4. Applicant justification for Variance requests. 5. Applicant justification for Exception .requests. 6. Draft Planning Commission Resolution , with recommended conditions. 7. Response. from City Departments and other agencies. Separate Materials : Narrative text and concept plans and drawings. STAFF REPORT ATTACHMENT NO. 1 LORD &. ABBOCIATES, W4C. CONSULTANTS IN REAL ESTATE 6 URBAN ECONOMICS March 26, 1980 MEMORANDUM TO: Steven Fleshman, Ballew/McFarland FROM: Bruce P. Lord SUBJECT: Review of Stein/Gilroy Proposals for Commercial Office Uses on Parcels Zoned Hotel Resort As we understand it there are two separate projects where the question of integrating office uses into either commercial or hotel projects is being considered by the City of Palm Desert. In the first instance, the Gilroy property, your client is asking the city of a variance to allow office uses of some second story space in a major restaurant complex which he is developing on a parcel on Highway 111 across from the proposed Hahn shop- ping center. In the other instance the developer is proposing construction of a 40,000 square foot office complex as part of a major resort. This project is contiguous with the Gilroy project. The city's zoning will permit office space usage in hotel zones providing that such usage is consistent with a hotel resort complex. No precise definitions are provided, however. We gather, however, the city is also interested in making certain office space additions in the area are orderly and do not result in a large shift of office space users to the new build- ing, away from existing Palm Desert office buildings. In this memorandum we identify the personal, professional and business services that would seem to make sense for a resort complex. The outlook for growth in such services in the Palm Desert area over the next several years is examined. Finally, we review comparison goods retail activity in the Palm Desert area and the implications of present land use trends and policies in the community with respect to future commercial needs . Office Space Users Supportive to Resort Hotels The vast majority of commercial tenants in hotels are retailers, mainly providing comparison goods shopping opportunities for guests . But nearly all major hotels have at least one or more office using tenants that are providing personal, professional or business services. We reviewed 8 major hotels in the Los Angeles and San Francisco areas to determine the characteristics of tentants . 1 ICentury Plaza, The Ambassador, Bonaventure and Hilton in Los Angeles; Standford Court, Fairmont, St. Francis, and Hyatt in San Francisco. 2950 PINE S1REET • SAN FFIANCISCO. CA 94115 • (415) 931-1915 A broad range of services was provided in all the hotels . The number of times any specific type of services tenant came up in these 8 hotels is pre,sented in the righthand column. As can be seen, barber shops and beauty shops appeared 7 times; in 6 of the hotels there were general and professional offices of one form or another. Exercise Spa i Stock Brokerage 2 General & Professional Offices 6 Auto Rental 2 Optometrist 1 Financial Institution 1 Barber/Beauty Shop 7 Real Estate Office 3 Limousine 3 Tours 5 Airline Offices 4 Photography 2 Ticket Agency 2 The City of Palm Desert permits "ancillary" or "supportive" office space uses in resort hotel zones. What this space is has never been fully defined, however. The majority of hotels, whether resorts or in urban areas, tend to have some office users. Space users in big city hotels are for the most part providing personal or general business services, although some are professional firms that may or may not have a direct linkage to the hotel. Urban hotels are patronized to a large extent by business men,, and locations providing close proximity to these persons is advantageous to some firms that provide business and professional services. Guests at resorts have somewhat different requirements, and we have listed in Table 1 those more specific personal, professional and business services that would tend to make sense in a resort community. Some of these may well be debatable with respect to their applicability, but it seems to us that a case could be made for all, as they do provide, in one form or another, services to visitors and resort guests which would be advantageous to have in close proximity. The categories revolve around miscellaneous personal services; convention services; some professional services; and travel services . The personal services are very obvious; they represent services that resort guests frequently need and are not provided or are provided very inconveniently by hotels. Hotels rely heavily on convention business, and it is advantageous to have a number of services handy to facilitate management of these events . A stationery and engraving operation leases office 2 space in the Lodge at Pebble Beach, for example, and we were advised by management of the Lodge that this is a very busy and important service there. Photography services for taking pictures at gatherings is an important service. Banks would be useful to assist in the financial needs of conventioneers. Stock brokerage houses in resorts seem to be well supported, suggesting that guests like to have the opportunity to keep track of investments while on holiday; and medical services are attractive as guests tend to be older and have heavier reliance on medical services than do younger persons. Dentists, real estate and insurance brokers, and most professional categories, on the other hand, would seem to us to have little or no applicability to a resort. This list is by no means all-inclusive, but rather suggestive of the types of office uses that would make sense in a resort environment. Table 1 SUGGESTED PERSONAL, PROFESSIONAL & BUSINESS SERVICES ANCILLARY TO ' RESORT HOTELS Personal Services Professional Beauty Shop Stock Brokerage Barber Shop Physicians Tailor, Seamstress Secretarial Service Health Club Masseuse Shoe Repair Laundry & Drycleaning Convention Services Travel Secretarial Service Stationery & Engraving Travel Agent Security Service Car Rental Agency Photography Sight-seeing Service Duplicating Service Airline Ticket Office Convention & Visitors Bureau Convention Decorators, Caterers, Managers Banks Source: Standard Industrial Classification Manual. 3 Projected Office Space Demand, Palm Desert We gather that inclusion of commercial office space in David Stein's resort proposal was motivated by reluctance of lenders to participate if the project were exclusively a resort. They want, in other words , a package including somewhat more secure real estate to be included with the higher risk resort investment. One of the apparent concerns on the part of the city is that office space may be developed more rapidly than is warranted, with the result that tenants would leave existing buildings to move to new structures , leaving a correspondingly high vacancy rate in the older spaces. The question, then, is what is the apparent annual requirement for office space in the Palm Desert area? How rapidly, in other words, could the Stein and Gilroy spaces by absorbed without im- pacting the community's office space market? There is no breakdown of employment in the Coachella Valley area prior to the 1970 census . The best data that are available are the Riverside County employment statistics . Inferences can be drawn from these data. Table. 2 shows the structure of employment in 1975 and 1979 in the county and growth in the individual categories or subcomponents . Total employment in the county grew from 350,000 persons in 1975 to 427,000 in 1979, an annual compound growth rate of 5 . 1 percent. Rapid growth in employment is one reason why Riverside County is presently apparently the most rapidly growing county in the state of California. Rapid growth in the desert area as a second home community is another. Some of the employment categories grew more rapdily than others but all except government and wholesale trade increased rather substantially . Retail trade, the services, and finance , insurance and real estate employ- ment increased by nearly 50,000 during this 5 year interval, for a combined annual growth rate of 7 .6 percent. These 3 categories accounted for approximately 45 percent of the county's total 1979 employment. Services, finance, real estate and insurance accounted for 25 percent of the total. Although the structure of employment in Riverside County is somewhat different from the state as a whole, with the state accounting for a substantially higher percentage of persons engaged in manufacturing and considerably less in government, the share of total employment in these 3 categories was nearly identical to the state. Both had about 25 percent of Its employment in services and finance, insurance and real estate . While the employment composition in the desert is somewhat different from the county, the differences are not marked. The desert has substantially fewer people working in manufacturing jobs than the county, while construction employment is probably somewhat greater in the desert. Government employment in the county is composed to a great extent of military personnel. Population growth in the Palm Springs to Indio area was considerably more rapid than Riverside County as a whole. The county increased by some 4 Table 2 TOTAL WAGE & SALARY EMPLOYMENT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, 1975 & 1979 Net Annual 1975 1979 Change % Change Total employment 350.4 427.3 76.9 5 . 1 Agriculture 17.5 .1 Construction 12.8 29 .3 16 .5 23.0 Mining 2.3 2.6 .3 Manufacturing 51. 1 67.4 16 .3 7.2 Transportation & public utilities 19 .0 23.6 4.6 5.6 Wholesale trade 13. 1 14.4 1 .5 2.4 Retail trade 64.8 89 .0 24 .2 8.3 Services 68. 1 87.6 19 .5 6.5 Finance, insurace & real estate 12.6 18.6 6 .0 10.2 Government 89 .2 97 . 3 8.1 2.2 Unemployment rate 10.1 6.6 - - 5 94,000 persons between 1975 and 1979 , to a total Of 620,000, a 4 .2 percent compound growth rate over this 4 year period. The desert communities and their unincorporated environs increased on a combined basis by approximately 11.3 percent. This suggests that the Riverside County employment composition provides a helpful basis for projecting future employment in the desert, but that that there will be important differences in the rates of growth between the two areas . Nearly all of the finance, insurance and real estate companies require commercial office space but only about 56 percent of Riverside County 's services employment requires office space. Services such as hotels and motels , movies and other entertainment, many personal services , automobile and many other repair services, do not use conventional office space. Palm Desert probably accounts for about 30 percent of the Upper Coachella office-oriented employment at the present (no precise numbers are available) . This total should increase to on the order of 40 percent by 1985, as Palm Desert is growing more rapidly and attracting more investment than Palm Springs of late . Palm Desert is becoming the center of the region's population. Space required per office employee varies from 100 to 250 square feet, depending upon job function. Physicians require considerably more, on the order of 1,000 square feet on the average. We have assumed an average of 175 square feet per employee will be required over the next several years. Using these assumptions, it can be seen in Table 3 that roughly 580,000 square feet of commercial office space was probably required to accommodate Palm Desert's 1978 office employment. This requirement will expand to nearly 1,700,000 by 1985, for a net annual incremental requirement of 155,000 square feet. We reviewed the experience in one major professional services category, physicians, and found that their numbers had increased from 162 in 1974 to 285 in 1979, an increase of 123 or 12 percent on an average annual basis during this 5 year period. In California the ratio of physicians is 218 per 100,000 population. In the Upper Coachella area extending from Indio to Palm Springs, the ratio is 268 (285 physicians for a population of approximately 106,000 persons) . We would expect the ratio to be somewhat higher in the desert. The population is very heavily weighted towards older persons ; 32.5 percent of the population is 62 years of age and older, compared to 14 percent that are age 60 and over for the state of California as a whole . Older persons tend to spend a higher percentage of incomes on physician 's services . Given this growth rate in physicians's services , the area would require on the average of 25 new physicians annually over the next 5 or 6 years . 6 Table 3 OFFICE SPACE EMPLOYMENT 6 SPACE REQUIRED, ESTIMATED 1975 6 PROJECTED, 1985, CITY OF PALM DESERT Annual Net Rate of 1978 1985 Change Growth Population, Indio to Palm Springs areas 106,300 224,300 118,000 11.3 Implied total employmentb 70 ,000 149,600 79 ,600 11.4 Services , finance, insurance 6 real estates 17,500 37,400 19,900 11.4 Office space using 11,100 23,800 12, 700 11.5 Palm Desert shares 3,330 9 ,520 6 ,190 16. 1 Office space required (square feet) 582,800 1,666,000 1,083, 200 16 . 1 Sources: aCoachella Valley Association of Governments ; bSee Table 2; cSee text; F.I .R.E. represents 4.4 percent and services 20.5 percent of total employment; dAssume 100 percent of F.I .R.E. employment and 56 percent of service . See U.S . Department of Commerce, County Business Patterns , California; eSee text and Table 4; (Assumes 175 square feet per employee . 7 II Table 4 PHYSICIANS, UPPER COACHELLA VALLEY COMMUNITIES, 1974 6 1979 Annual Change Percent Percent 1974 1979 1974/79 Change Change Palm Desert 42 113 71 169.0% 22..0% Palm Springs 80 122 42 52.5 8.8 Rancho Mirage 3 2 ( 1) - 33.3 - 6.0 Indio 37 48 11 29 . 7 5. 3 Total 162 285 123 75.9% 12.0% Source: General Telephone Directory, 1974 6 1979. 8 Presently Palm Springs has the largest block of physicians--122 or 43 percent of the area's total. However, the most rapid growth in numbers has been in the Palm Desert area, with a net gain of 71 over the 5 year period, or 169 percent. The gain was inspired in part by desire to be reasonably close to the Eisenhower Medical Center, but also to locate in the desert area experiencing the most rapid population growth. Combining Palm Desert's and Rancho Mirage 's physician count, the physician/population ratio is reasonably comparable to the Palm Springs area. We would expect total numbers of physicians to increase in Palm Desert area by at least 90 over the next 6 years. This represents an annual requirement for 90,000 square feet of medical office space, in light of the average per physician space requirement of roughly 1,000 square feet. Comparison Goods Space Demand & City Policies Comparison goods sales have been expanding rapidly in Palm Desert and the outlook is for this to continue. The city's policy is to encourage relatively widespread dispersion of such space. In light of recent and projected major additions to supply, it may well be advisable for the city to review this policy. Table 5 shows the growth in retail sales in the Palm Desert area since 1975 and the total amount of additional retail space that could have been supported in the area over this interval. Retail sales , which were $12.5 million in 1975, increased to $27. 7 million in 1979 . We deflated these sales by appropriate deflators , and found that the total increase was, in 1975 prices , on the order of $22.4 million, for a net change of nearly $10 million, a 15. 3 percent average annual increase over this 4 year period. Gains were substantial for all categories (including general merchandise stores, whose sales were virtually nonexistent in 1975 and were still comparatively low in 1979) . The amount of space required to accommodate these increased sales should have grown from the 211,000 square feet which was available in the community in 1975, to over 380,000 square feet in 1979. However, there was a 50,000 square foot surplus of space in 1975; an increase of 121 ,000 square feet would have been sufficient to accommodate growth in demand for comparison goods in the community between 1975 and 1979 . Using this experience as a basis, Palm Desert retail sales should expand to $52 million by 1985, in 1975 prices , for a real gain on the order of approximately 130 percent over the 1979 level . This represents a 15. 3 percent compound annual gain. Past sales gains were fueled by rapid growth in population and non-resident visitors attracted to the area. Population grew by 7.8 percent and real income by 2 to 3 percent annually during this period, accounting for about two-thirds of the total annual gains in sales. Expenditures by tourists and other non-residents obviously accounted for . the remainder-. If this experience continues over the next five years there 9 Table I COMPARISON GOODS SALES & RETAIL SPACE REQUIREMENTS, CITY OF PALM DESERT, 1975 & 1979 , & PROJECTED, 1985 1979 Net Annual 1975 1979 Deflated Chanpe % Change 1985 Retail sales (000) Apparel $ 4,900 $ 9,051 $ 7, 803 $ 2,903 12. 3 $18,025 General merchandise (D) 841 662 662 64.0 529 Home furnishings 1,926 6,673 5, 133 3,207 28.0 11,857 Specialty goods 5 ,816 11 , 120 8, 756 2,940 10.8 20,226 Total $12,642 $27,685 $22,354 $ 9, 712 15.3 $51,637 Product- ivity 1975 Norms Space Space required 1975 1975 Surplus 1979 1985 (sq . ft.) - Apparel $65 75,400 7,500 120,000 277,300 General merchandise 50 13,200 30,600 Home furnishings 50 38,500 15,000 103,000 237, 140 Specialty goods 60 97,000 27,000 146,000 337, 100. Total 210, 838 49, 724 381,879 882,140 Source: 1975 Data from Lord & LeBlanc, Review of Future Commercial Land Requirements, City of Palm Desert California, January 7, 1977; 1979 data from State of California State Board of Equalization, Taxable Retail Sales in California. 10 +- would be a requirement in the community for some 882 ,000 square feet of retail space, an approximate 130 percent increase over the total amount that could be supported at the present time without creating windfalls or problems for existing retailers in the community . On the other hand, there are no reliable statistics on the actual amount of commercial space added to the community since 1.975. It is apparent, however, that a considerable amount of space was added. Table 6 shows the dollar value of commercial building permits in Palm Desert between 1976 and 1979. These increased from $533,000 dn. 1976 to over $8.5 million by 1979. The city reports that it uses as a basis for valuing commercial permits $29 per square foot. This figure has been increasing over the last 4 years to account for inflation. Actual building costs are sub- stantially higher, but this provides a consistent basis for determining roughly how much additional square footage of commercial space has been added. Approximately 482,000 square feet of additional commercial space was constructed in the community over the past 4 years, over 120,000 square feet per year. This represents major projects only, those with values in excess of $100,000. Much of this space was defined as office buildings, but a quick review of what has happened in the community suggests that the vast majority of what was constructed was for retail use, including restaurants . Hence, in contrast to convenience centers in Palm Desert, where there has been no significant alteration in available space supply, there have been substantial additions to the comparison goods retail space inventory . One survey taken by an El Paseo tenant's association, found that there will, by summer, be a 300 percent increase in the total inventory of stores in the El Paseo area over that which was available prior to 1978, from 76 to 305 stores . Of the 203 presently available for lease, 81, or 40 percent, were presently vacant. There were also an additional 102 individual stores under construction on or near E1 Paseo . Assuming an average of 2,000 square feet for individual shops, the 129 new shops added to the El Paseo area in these 2 years alone would account for 258,000 square feet, or 150 percent of the total space justified in light of sales gains between 1975 and 1979 . I1 .. - _� Table 6 ESTIMATED COMMERCIAL SPACE ADDITIONS, 1976 to 1979, PALM DESERT Value of Estimated Commercial Cost Per Commercial Building Sq. Ft. of Space Permits New Space Additions 1976 $ 533,000 $21. 10 25 ,300 1977 2,949,000 23.50 125 ,500 1978 926,000 26. 10 37 ,400 1979 8 ,524,000 29 .00 293,900 Total $12,982,000 482,100 Average Annual $ 3,245,500 $26.90 120,500 Source: Security Pacific c is National Bank, California Construction Trends; City of Palm Desert Building Department. 12 , E1 Paseo Retail Stores, February, 1980 Constructed prior to 1978: 76 Leased 71 Vacant 5 Constructed since 1978: 127 Leased 51 Vacant 76 Total 127 Ready to lease : 203 Leased 122 Vacant 81 Under construction, E1 Paseo: 72 Adjacent to E1 Paseo: 30 Total possible 305 versus 76 2.5 years ago In addition to the rather substantial increase in comparison goods space along El Paseo, the proposed Hahn Regional Shopping Center will add 750,000 square feet of retail space, including 5 department stores and 120 shops . This pro- ject has received preliminary approvals, and awaits resolution of a variety of other matters, such as participation on the part of the federal government in a number of capital improvement measures . that will be required by the pro- ject. Assuming these measures are successfully dealt with, the community would have 250,000 square feet of comparison goods space over and above that which is projected for 1985 (see Table 5) . This suggests to us (1) introduction at one time of a massi•-e amount of space in the Hahn Center could create at least temporary problems for all comparison goods retailers in Palm Desert, particularly along the E1 Camino, and (2) the city should be very careful about how much additional such comparison goods retail space it encourages outside of these two areas. It should give some 13 serious thought, in other words , to concentrating shoppers 's attentions on these 2 areas , rather than encouraging widespread dispersal of such space, thus diluting the capability of these 2 areas to operate successfully . Convenience goods centers need to be dispersed to efficiently meet shoppers 's needs . Widespread dispersal of comparison goods retailers only weakens their potential to serve satisfactorily. Conclusions By using the incredible rates of growth Palm Desert and the Upper Coachella areas experienced over the past few years as a basis for projecting future needs, the numbers begin to look rather crazy, with commercial space requirements increas- ing by leaps .and bounds . The U.S. economy is presently going through a difficult phase and this may presage continued difficulties in the future. But the country (and the Palm Springs to Palm Desert area) have experienced periodic slowdowns in the past and bounced back with even greater vigor. However, slowing the expected growth rate to one-half of the present pace (with population growing at 4 percent and commercial space demand at 7 to 8 percent) , presents some interesting potential situations: Office space demand will still be substantial. The area would require roughly 70,000 additional square feet each year on the average . The projected surfeit of comparison goods space will be even greater with completion of the regional shopping center. There would be a surplus of roughly 500,000 square feet in 1985 rather than the projected 250,000 square foot surplus . The center may be able to attract patronage from a much larger geographic area than is presently anticipated, particularly if no other regional centers emerge in the upper valley, but even the remote potential for such a large surplus definitely suggests caution in the further dispersion of comparison goods retail space in Palm Desert 1n future years. 14 STAFF REPORT ATTACHMENT NO. 2 'A . Leap s_EBLAnt zz BATFPRY STRLi r - SAN FRANCISCO,CP.LIFO�IJIA 9qi» (415) 989'0459 January 7, 1977 113-6 Mr. Martin Bouman City Manager City of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickly Lane Palm Desert, California 92260 Dear Mr. Bouman: This report provides our findings and conclusions regarding future absorp- tion of commercial lanJ in the central- area of the city of Palm Desert, and an analysis of the relative impacts and attributes of alternative types of commercial land uses on the community. Our principal conclu- sions and recommendations are outlined below. 1. Supply and demand for commercial retail. and -services space is pres- ently roughly in balance in the community. While there is an approxi- mate 10 gerccnt vacancy rate in such space in the community, this situation is expected to be short-lived. 2. Demand for commercial space is projected to grow at a rate of-7—to .2e_rcent compounded over the next decade, resulting in a virtual doubling in the amount of space required in the community to accom- modate both retail and services demand. On the order of 850,000 to 1,000,000 square feet of retail and services floor area will be required; with parking, total land area required should be on the order- of 2.5 million to 3 million square feet by 1985. 3. There is presently on the order of '1y10 acres of vacant land within the redevelopment project. area. This amount. is 3. 7 percent of the total project area land. By 1987 , only about 70 acres will have been absorbed for commercial retail :and services uses, despite very rapid growth in commercial- land demand. The total absorption of commercial land for retailing and services could be as high as 90 acres if the structure of retailing shifts in the community, Con>um n!9 i❑Urbrn and Rq;ional Pmnomic: San rr:nci.mi Poirlvid Mr.. Martin Bouman Page 7toa January 7, 1977 towards a more balanced, broader line of merchandise and services and away somewhat .from its heavy orientation to tourists and other nonresidents. 4. Hotel and motel demand is expected to continue its rapid growth in the Upper Coachella Valley, with on the order of 250 rooms being absorbed annually. Palm Desert has a capability of attracting a growing share of this total over time because of its strategic loca- tion and relatively new image to vacationers.. An average annual absorption of 75 rooms per year should be achievable in the city over the next decade. This requirement would absorb on the order of 55 acres of commercial land in the community by 1990. 5. Despite rapid growth in retail, services, and hotel land uses, there will continue to be commercially zoned land available within the Palm Desert redevelopment project boundaries some IS to 20 years into the future. We see no problem with this condition; it should serve to keep commercial land prices down somewhat in the future. The city may wish to change some of its existing commercially zoned land to condominiums, however; as back-up to its hotel objectives. 6. Both retail and hotel land uses provide substantial revenues to the city of Palm Desert in excess of their costs, by a margin of nearly 500 percent in both cases. Hotels are somewhat more productive in terms of land area used. They cost somewhat more or he ci'ty to service, but generate greater revenues (from room taxes and other fees) than do shopping centers, assuming an identical amount of commercial land is used.. 7. Retail and service uses will absorb nearly twiceas much Palm Desert commercial land as hotels over the next 13 years. However, the revenue contribution to the city's general funds from one of these uses -- services -- is substantially less than the other two. The majority of service firms pay zero sales taxes; services account for 40 percent of all non-hotel commercial land presenter in use in the city. Hence, unless the city levies a property tax, future contributions made by commercial land uses to city of Palm Desert revenues will be no greater than hotels. Hotels, in short, are important for the city's future economic health if it is important to the city that its total and per capita revenues grow more rapidly than they have in the past. 8. The city will undoubtedly have pressures put upon it for a regional shopping center within the next decade. It is not clear now whether M i Mr. Martin Bouman Page Three January 7, 1977 a full-fledged regional center could be justified. This would depend upon whether such a center emerged somewhere else within the Upper Coachella Valley. The potential impacts and implications of such a center should be worked out in considerable detail, however, before such an installation is permitted. It could create significant problems with respect to the present small shop character of the community. Many of the small boti_ques and specialty shops along El Pasco could be faced with some serious problems of survival with the emergency of a strong regional center. 9. It would be desirable, in our judgment, to contain commercial retail development along Highway Ill as much as is possible. Retat Jng is probably alrea y strung ou more-Ch n Is necessary for .the city. There is, in fact, a need to consolidate some of the commercial uses within the area between Highway 74 and Portola, as this area is somewhat lacking in cohesion and unity, and efficiency for shoppers. 10. It would be desirable, for example, to have some more substantial comparison goods shopping facilities, such as department stores, along the Portola to Highway 74 commerci_al. area In order to au ment and embellis existing retai insta ations. Department stores located somew ere a ong or near E1 Paseo, for example, would provide the same kind of benefit to the community as would a conventional regional center, but strengthen rather than weaken the El Paseo shopping area. The only way this would be possible is for the re- development agency to intervene by consolidating parcels and provid- ing adequate parking. 11. Caution should be taken with regard to the composition of the regional center. Since the area around the existing regiona center srt-9--can --contain as many as 300 hotel units, the center should have a strong complement of restaurants (such as Newport Beach) to service tFis' area. 12. There is an unmet demand for some of the other types of retail uses in Palm Desert that provide substantial revenue benefits to other cities in the desert. Uses such as gas stations, automobile dealer- ships, and building materials suppl3.ers may not e in keeping wit fhe area s image as a resort, ut such uses can be effectively inte- grate or hidden rom tie main commercial activity along igiway 111. 13. Marriott is likely to be the new flagship hotel for the region and others should be filling in around the Marriott Hotel as a consequence of its emergence. Mr. Martin Bouman. Page Pour January 7, 1977 14. Land should be set aside next to hotels for condominium developments so these can tie in effectively for the benefit of both the hotels and the condominium developers. 15. Care should be taken in placing more supermarkets on E1 Pasco and Zighway 111. Placement of these on the north side of the highway, and east of Portola, would appear to us to be helpful. The bases upon which these conclusions were derived are contained in the report. We are pleased to have been of assistance to the city. Sincerely, LORD & LEBLANC Bruce P. Lord STAFF REPORT ATTACHMENT NO. 3 I - STAFF REPORT ATTACHMENT NO. 4 JUSTIFICATIONS FOR VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR PALM DESERT RACQUET CLUB DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION 03-80. ITEM A: Number of entrances from Painter's Path We request a variance from ordinance 25.30. 170 which limits the number of project entrances. We feel that traffic volumes entering and leaving the project of this size will be more efficiently handled with 6 points of ingress/egress. We are prohibited by City and County policy from taking any direct access from Highway III. Instead, all entrances must be located such that they take access from the remaining two adjacent streets, (44th Avenue and Painter's Path) . Due to the configuration of the site, only 560 feet of frontage on 44th Avenue, we feel that this is insufficient frontage to allow a second access from 44th Avenue without resulting in traffic conflicts. Additionally, our entrance was specifically located to coincide with that of the adjacent property across 44th Avenue (Restaurant Park, Parcel Map 13559) . This location is necessary if full turning movements from both projects are to be accommodated on 44th Avenue. Therefore, the remaining points of access would necessarily be taken form Painter's Path. We have located these entrances in such a way as to minimize potential conflicts and to maximize site distance and visibility. Each of the entrances from Painter's Path serves relatively few hotel units and therefore we would not anticipate significant traffic volumes at any single location. The potential for making Painter's Path a cul-de-sac and the reduced R.O.W. that ' is being considered, indicate minimal traffic loads from outside the project. _ Literal interpretation of the code would result in only 3 points ofingress unless other policies or standards of the City and good planning practice were overlooked (i.e. direct access to Highway III and adequate separation of ingress points on 44th Avenue) . If these additional criteria are observed, the site would only be allowed 3 points of access. This is clearly inadequate for a site of this size with the uses contemplated by the code and the general plan. ITEM B: Landscape Screening We request a variance from requirements to provide a standard screen (ordinance 25.30.120) on all perimeter streets. In lieu of standard requirements we wish to provide a combination of landscaping, berms, and decorative walls (see technical plan) . We feel that it is appropriate to provide a decorative block wall along a major portion of Highway 111, however we feel that a simple 7 foot wall is much less desirable than a lower wall used in conjunction with more sensitively located trees and landscape berms. We feel that the view of not only the project site, but of mountains beyond to the west is such that a 7 foot wall would result in a significant negative visual impact. In locations where automobile parking is adjacent to a public street and is visible from off site, we propose to use a combination of recessing the parking areas and providing raised landscaped berms and low hedges to screen the automobiles. This should result in a much more pleasing visual effect while accomplishing the goals of the ordinance. It also allows the flexibility to provide other desirable landscape components such as water elements, sculpture, etc. , which can be enjoyed by those within the project and the passerby as well. Literal interpretation would not only result in a less effective or aesthetically pleasing solution than the one proposed, but, also, due to the prohibition against access from Highway III the site would be deprived for traffic visibility and identity enjoyed by other hotel and commercial sites in the city. ITEM C: Spectator The project concept includes 1 championship stadium tennis court. We hereby request a variance from the parking requirement for places of assembly (ordinance 25.58.310) requiring 1 space per every 3 seats. Although we anticipate scheduling championship professional tournament play, and other events similar to those scheduled elsewhere in the Desert area, it is unlikely that these events would occur more than 2 to 4 times per year. We anticipate these events would be scheduled at_ fim'es _dur'ing .the.,day-or week when the majority of the nearby on site parking is available for spectators. In particular, the 30 spaces located at the bank site, some portion of the 195 spaces at the restaurant location, and most of the 143 spaces located at the office building will be available during the most likely times for special events. These parking spaces combined with others provided at the racquet club are all within easy walking distance of the stadium court. Additionally, approximately 80 cars can be accommodated along our side of Painter's Path. We will be subject to the temporary use permit process during the times events will be staged. Literal interpretation of the code would necessitate approximately 666 additional parking spaces which would be used only a minimal percentage of the time. STAFF REPORT ATTACHMENT NO. 5 STAFF REPORT ATTACHMENT NO. 6 t, PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IN MODIFIED FORM A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A HOTEL/CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX, RACQUET CLUB, AND COMMER- CIAL AND PROFESSIONAL SPACES, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND 44TH AVENUE. CASE NOS. DP 03-80 and VAR 03-80 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 14th day of March, 1980, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of STEIN=BRIEF/VISTA for approval of a Develop- ment Plan to construct a 414 unit hotel/condominium complex with maximum yield of 828 hotel rooms, a 21,365 square foot racquet club and 50,000 squareafeet of commercial and professional spaces and a Variance to allow additional ingress/ egress points from adjacent streets, deviation from parking requirements-for public assembly spaces, and deviation from perimeter landscape screening standards, on approximately 29.29 gross acres, within the PC(4) , S.P. (Planned Commercial , Resort, Scenic Preservation Overlay) zone, generally located at the southwest corner of Highway 111 and 44th Avenue, more particularly described as: Tract Maps 4489-1 and 4489-2 WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Environmental Quality Procedure Resolution No. 78-32", in that the Director of Environmental Services has determined that the project has been previously assessed in connection with the Redevelopment Plan and related Environmental Impact Report. WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts to justify their actions, as described below: ' Modified Development Plan Approval a. The proposed project as modified generally conforms to the purpose and intent of the PC(4) Zone District, Redevelopment Plan and City General Plan. b. The proposed project as modified, and with specific exceptions to development standards granted, is adequately suited for the subject site and is compatible with existing and proposed development in the area. C. The proposed project, as modified, will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the-community. Modified Variance Approval a. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of Sections 25.30.170, and 25.30.120 of the Municipal Code would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the.objectives of the zoning ordinance.; b. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply gen- erally to other properties in the PC(4) zone; C. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of Sections 25.30.170, and 25.30.120 of the Municipal Code would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same vicinity and zone; d. That the granting of the variance in modified form will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improv- ments in the vicinity. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PAGE TWO NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby approve in modified form Case Nos. DP 03-80 and VAR 03-80, as specified in, and subject to, those conditions attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 14th day of March, 1980, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CHARLES MILLER, Chairman ATTEST: PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretary ' /lr PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. Page -3.- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NOS. DP 03-80 and VAR 03-80 Standard Conditions: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with Exhibits A thru K (Case Nos. DP 03-80 and VAR 03-80) on file with the Department of Environmental Services, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any uses contemplated by this approval , the applicant shall first complete all the procedural requirements of the City which include, but are not limited to, Design Review, Subdivision process, and building permits procedures. 3. Construction of the total development may be done in phases; however, each individual phase shall meet or exceed all Municipal Code require- ments to the degree that the City could consider each phase as a single project, and have specific approval from the Planning Commission. The Hotel shall be constructed as a part of the first phase. 4. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval otherwise said approval shall become null , void and of no effect whatsoever. 5. Prior to the issuance of any City permits for the commencement of construction on said project, the applicant shall agree in writing to these Conditions of Approval . 6. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and State and Federal Statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 7. All existing electrical distribution lines, telephone, cable antenna television, and similar service wires or cables, which are adjacent to the property being developed shall be installed underground as a part of development from the nearest existing pole not on the property being developed. 8. All requirements of the City Fire Marshal shall be met as part of the development of this project per attached letter dated March 18, 1980. 9. Construction plans shall be submitted for approval to the City Fire Marshal prior to issuance of building permits. All conditions shall be made a part of construction and no certificate of occupancy shall be issued until completed. 10. Traffic control provisions shall be provided as required by the Director of Public Works. 11. Curb, gutter, sidewalk or approved pathways, and tie-in paving shall be provided in conformance with City Standards and/or as required by the Director of Public Works. 12. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval , the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Riverside County Department of Health Palm Desert Design Review Board Process City Fire Marshal Coachella Valley Water District Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the Dept. of Building and Safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 13. No development shall occur on the subject property prior to i.ts conso li.dation or`.resubdivision and recordation .of a final map. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. Page -4- SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1. Within this approval action the following site user facilities are authorized: e Hotel (with condominium ownership allowed) , consisting of 414 hotel units yielding a maximum of 828 rentable rooms. • Hotel Lobby Building, containing 3,300 square feet of gross building area; included within 1,200 square feet of ancillary commercial space. • Hotel Recreational Pool Areas (14) . • Racquet Club Building, containing 21,365 square feet of gross building area; included within facilities related to the rac- quet club use, plus 2,000 square feet of food service and 1,800 square feet for health club/spa and related facilities. e Outdoor Tennis Courts (17). o Outdoor Paddle Tennis Courts (4) . e Championship (ex:ibition) Tennis Court (without permanent seating provided). • Restuarants (2) , containing 6,000 and 7,000 square feet of gross building area (excluding dirve=in or drive-thru operations) . • Commercial Shops Building, containing 1,000 square feet of gross building area which may contain ancillary sales or service establishments. i Surface and subsurface parking facilities. 2. Use labeled as Office/Professional building, containing 30,000 square feet of building area is not authorized in this action. Developer may reserve this building site pad area and related surface parking lot for future use. Developer shall submit a subsequent amendment to this Development. Plan for use of the reserved area. 3. Use labeled as Bank, containing 6,000 square feet of building is not authorized in this action. Develop may`reserve this building site pad area and related surface parking lot for futu er use. Developer shall submit a subsequent amendment to this Development Plan for use of the reserved area. .4. 'If proposed hotel units are to be sold to separate individuals, the applicant (developer/subdivider) shall provide, as a part of the Tentative Tract application, proposed covenants, conditions and restric- tions which limits the rights of use by said individual (or assignee) to 30 calendar day per year. Except for maintenance and repair, each hotel unit and room shall be made available for transient rental 335 days per year. Further. the CC&R's shall specify that hotel unit furnishings are to be provided and owned by the owners association in common. Personal property of the unit owner may not be stored on the premises in conflict with the operation of the facility as a commercial hotel , and shall be so stated in the CC&R's. 5. Hereby granted as a part of this approval action is a Variance from Municipal Code Section 25.30.170, to allow five (5) site access points on Painters Path; and, Variance from Municipal Code Section 25.30.120, to allow subparagraph "C" of said section to operate. 6. Special events and tournaments taking place in conjunction with the racquet club facilities shall be the subject of a Temporary Use Permit request as provided in Municipal Code Chapter 25.64. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. Page -5- Special. Conditions (continued) 7. Hereby authorized as a part of this Development Plan approval are the exceptions as listed in the following: a. Minimum setback from 44th Avenue, twenty (20) feet. b. Minimum setback from Painters Path, twenty (20) feet. C. Maximum number of rentable area devoted to hotel development, fifty and one-half (50.5) per acre. 8. -A_m.inimum 32 ft:. wide area_parallel_,to the curb line on Highl ay 11l,` con-SA sting of the public parkway and an easement granted for public access, shall be developed with ornamental landscaping and a meandering 8 foot wide pedes- train/bicycle path; and, thereafterrshall be maintained by the associated owners of the adjacent property. 9. Outdoor tennis courts provided ,in this project shall be :recessed_ bel:ov natural grade to a depth determined through the Design Review process. 10. The minimum :distance separation between hotel building groups shall be specifically restudied,in the Design Review process to determine the minimum acceptable distance separation. 11. The specific design details of a system providing alternative emergency vehicular access to all hotel buildings by means of an expanded pedestrian system, as approved by the City Fire Marshal , shall be included in the required exhibits for Design Review of the hotel development. 12. Subdivision and Design Review exhibits shall include the installation of a cul-de-sac street turn around area, designed to the specifications of the Director of Public Works, at Painters Path and the Palm Valley Storm Channel . 13. A sidewalk shall be provided along Painters Path, as approved by the (.f': City Director of Public Works and the Design Review process. 14. All surface parking lot areas shall be screened pursuant to the require- ments of;Municipallode, Chapters 25.56 and 25.58. 15. Landscape plans submitted and approved for the Design Review process shall provide vertical landscape screening along the ssouthern site boundary. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. P'•°� -'- 0 DEPARTMENT OF FIRE PROTECTION IN COOPERATION WITH THE COUNTY .9? CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF FORESTRY OF �RIVERS►DK..M.'' DAVID L. FLAKE P.O. eox 24e COUNTY FIRE WARDEN 210 WEST SAN JACIN TO STREET PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370 March 18, 1980 TELEPHONE (7141 657-3183 Paul A. Williams Director of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Reference: Case No. DP 03-80 (revised) Dear Mr. Williams: The following requirements shall apply to this project: Fire Protection Water System: 1. Install a water system capable of delivering 4000 GPM fire flow for a four (4) hour duration in addition to domestic or other supply. The ' computation shall be based upon a minimum of 20 psi residual operating pressure in the supply main from which the flow is measured at the time of measurement. 2. Install Riverside County super fire hydrants so that no point of any building is more than 150 feet from a fire hydrant measured along approved vehicular travel ways. Hydrant spacing not to exceed 300 feet. A. Hydrants shall not be located closer than 25 feet to any building. B. Exterior surfaces of hydrant barrels and heads shall be painted chrome yellow and the tops and nozzle caps shall be painted green. C. Curbs (if installed) shall be painted red 15 feet in either direction from each hydrant. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original and three (3) copies of the water system plan to the Fire Marshal for review. Upon approval , one copy will be sent to the Building Depart- ment, and the original will be returned to the developer. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. Page -7- Paul A. Williams 3/18/80 Director of Environmental Services Page 2. City of Palm Desert Fire Protection Water System (continued) : 4. The water system plan shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, and approved by the water company, with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system in Case Number DP 03-80 is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Fire Marshal . " 5. Prior to delivery of combustible materials to the building site, the required water system shall be installed, operating and delivering the required flow. Vehicular Access : 1. A minimum of 20' all weather access road shall be provided to all buildings. 2. Interior streets to major buildings shall be a minimum of 28' in width. (Now shown as 25' . ) Fire Protection Systems : 1. The following buildings shall be protected with a complete automatic fire sprinkler system: Office/Professional Building Racquet Club Underground Parking Garage Hotel/Condominium Units 2. Hotel/Condominium units and the underground parking garage shall be provided with wet and dry standpipe systems. Sincerely, David L. Flake Co fire Warden David J. Ortegel Fire Marshal DJO:dt STAFF REPORT ATTACHMENTS NO. 7 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert TO: Director of Environmental Services FROM: Director of Public Works SUBJECT: DP 03-80 (REVISED) DATE: April 28, 1980 (1 ) It appears the main entrance off 44th Avenue is too close to the intersection of Highway 111 . A left-turn center median should be installed at the inter- section of Highway Ill and 44th Avenue. This left-turn pocket would inter- fere with the location with the left-turn pocket into this development. To compound the problem, the restaurant park that is adjacent to and westerly of 44th Avenue will also generate a traffic volume that will interfere with this intersection as proposed by this development. Another suggestion would be to have the main street entrance to this development off Painters Path. This possibility should be explored .to its fullest. (2) It is recommended that a cul-de-sac be planned for the end of Painters Path located at the flood control channel at the southeasterly end of this pro- posed p i� L. CLYDE BEEBE, P.E. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS LCB/ms ner>o�� I ' City of RANCHO MIRAGE 69-825 HIGHWAY III RANCHO MIRAGE CALIFORNIA 92270 TELEPHONE (714) 324-4511 March 14, 1980 �Nv�R�NO DPP M D£g�Rj Mr. Paul A. Williams Director of Environmental Services 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, California 92260 RE: Request for comments; Case DP 03-80 Dear Mr. Williams, We are in receipt of your request for comments regarding probable environmental impacts of the proposed development. Our cents are noted below: - Flood Control: The Palm Valley Flood Control Channel will "carry" storm water from the project and although the channel is designed for this purpose, it should be noted that it is much wider and its carrying capacity larger in the City of Palm Desert than here in the City of Rancho Mirage. Our concern is that at present, we have flood problems in the area where the improved and unimproved sections of the storm channel converge. The cumulative impacts of the commercial and residential projects storm water discharge will further intensify those flood problems. - Traffic Circulation: The proposed project will further impact Highway 111. The interconnection of the traffic signals along Highway 111 between the City of Palm Desert and the City of Rancho Mirageoshou�ldnsidered. We appreciate the opportunity tolook rvard to the project's development and consideratiarks. , Director Co y Services RE:mm �pD6`o- - r r 190 i ( -o r WLQs-+t vt oyve (�- Urn.. OvL ct,,tcL 1a-rr par+,kid �e -la you �, s a J `z rid e�- /, s ok h wSln�GSS' !� 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE May 16, 1980 APPLICANT Stein-Brief/Vista 2081 Business Center Dr. , Ste 200 Irvine, CA 92715 CASE NO: DP 03-80 and VAR 03-80 The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of May 14, 1980 X CONTINUED TO June 18, 1980 DENIED BY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PLACED ON THE AGENDA OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF FOR PUBLIC HEARING. Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the Director of Environmental Services, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. PAUL A. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION cc : Applicant C.V.C.W.D. ,/'Fi 1 e ' lol � . 10 006, -� e 44 CITY OF PALM DESERT �`n DEPARTMENT OF �j oc, C), ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES EXHIBIT A_ N0. CASE N0.'flP Of 3-SO 1 � STEIN-BRIEF/VISTA PALM DESERT RACQUET CLUB I. SITE LOCATION The site is located on the southwest corner of Hwy III and 44th Avenue, near the western edge of the City of Palm Desert. To the east, across the flood control channel and Hwy 111, is the site of the future Hawn Regional Shopping Center. Across 44th Avenue to the north is the location of the Los Sombras Restaurant Park, presently under construction. II. GRADING The site had been graded based on an earlier approved grading plan. The cross fall is approximately 15 feet over a 1500 foot distance; for an average I grade of about 1%. The existing drainage patterns result in approximately 75% of the site draining into an existing storm drain near the intersection of Hwy III and 44th. The remaining portion of this site flows to a low area adjacent to the 1 bridge on Hwy 111. _ The proposed development concept employs the 1 use of subterranean parking. While surface run-off will be accommodated by the existing storm drain system and some minor 1 modifications to it, drainage into the subterranean parking areas Jwill be removed by a sump pump system. These systems are commonly 1 used and wherever they are subject to inundation have proven to be J1 relatively problem-free where back-up power generators have been J used and adequate safety conditions have been observed. j � I III. SITE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT During the course of the past 9 months, we have engaged in IIan extensive planning study of the subject property. Stein-Brief Group and Vista Development, current owners and developers of the project; Ballew/McFarland, planning; MLA Architectects, architecture; Residential Concepts, market research; Mr. Paul Williams and Mr. Murrel Crump, with the Planning Dept. of the City of Palm Desert, - have been involved in this planning process. The present zoning _J for the site is Planned Commercial - Resort Center (PC4) . We have J proposed a project which we feel to be consistent with that zoning and which will result in an exciting and prestigious project for both the developer and the City of Palm Desert. The site takes its main entry off of 44th Avenue. This tree-lined entry road divides the site into three basic components and focuses on the racquet club and hotel lobby. Beyond the lobby are the 414 hotel condominium units. To the northeast of the entry road are the 2 restaurants, 1000 sq. ft. J1 of commercial and a bank; while to the south lies the office pro- .1 fessional building and its associated parking. The racquet club consists of both indoor and outdoor recreational opportunities. These consist of 18 outdoor tennis courts, including a championship court, 4 paddle tennis courts, and 12 indoor raquetball and squash courts. Within the racquet club itself, there are a number of ancillary facilities including spas, showers, sauna, message rooms, locker rooms, juice and sandwich bar, administrative offices and lounge areas. The championship court is intended primarily 1 for normal daily use. However, it will function equally as well for 1 1 tournament play and special events which are planned to occur several times a year. The hotel condominium focuses on the racquet club and a series of 14 recreational pool areas. The hotel units themselves are designed as 2 bedroom, 2 bath, living room and dining room and are intended to be rented out as such; or they may be rented as a one-bedroom, one bath and an adjacent, one-bedroom, one-bath plus kitchen, living room and dining room unit. These hotel rooms are grouped in a three story structure with a central courtyard and elevator which reaches all levels including the subterranean parking. The concept of parking below grade removes the car from view while maintaining good access to the auto from the individual units. It also allows for a maximum amount of visible space to be devoted to landscape development. The hotel buildings were sited in a manner 1 such that the individual units could take maximum advantage of the 1 views of the surrounding mountains, which is one of Palm Desert's i greatest natural resources. Those units not directed towards one of 1 these mountain views focus instead on a large landscaped open space and recreational areas, or instead they look onto the activity provided by the 18 tennis courts. The hotelJcondominium will operate as a hotel, while allowing a limited number of persons the opportunity to own their own unit. We anticipate that the operation of this hotel will not violate the city's requirements for temporary 1 occupancy. Because of unpredictable economic trends, financing ] requirements, and future demand for hotel uses, we feel it very J1 1 I � important to minimize restrictions which would limit the future flexibility and viability of the complex. Structuring the resort 1 hotel to allow condominium ownership will merely broaden the possibilities of ownership arrangements and provide the flexibility 1 which we are certain is essential to the success of the project. 1 The restaurants are intended to provide 2 different types of Jeating environments for the hotel guests and the general public. This activity extends the hours of use of the development well into the evening. The setting of the restaurants along Hwy III is intended to welcome the public to the site and encourage their patronage. Associated with these restaurants are about 1,000 sq. ft. of tourist oriented commercial. Adjacent to the restaurants and at the corner of Hwy III and 44th Avenue is the location of the proposed bank. The bank is intended to attract guests of the hotel as well as people 1 of the Valley and neighboring resorts. During the seasons of high activity, the resources of the hotel would be-severely taxed in any effort to meet strong financial demands of the many guests of the hotel and racquet club. The bank is intended. to satisfy that demand. Finally, a 2 story office/professional building has been located near the corner of 44th and Painters Path. This use is proposed to speak to the needs of the hotel guests. Addendum I, Lord & Associaties report of March 26, 1980, suggests a beginning list of viable tenants for the building. Physicians are one of the many proposed. They provide a vital service to many of the generally older guests who visit Palm Desert resorts. It's our intent to work with Mr. Lord and the City in exploring other uses which will be beneficial to the hotel guests and the City of Palm Desert. I� � - HI_�iWAV 111 - �YEW tjyP.k'�N5 ILLUSTRATIVE % PALL DESERTRACQUET CLUB c c _ admlopment by: STEIN-BRIEF GROUP/VISTA plarnng and archdechue: BALLEW/MC FARLAND inc. MLA Architects -- --- ------------------�---�-- TABULATION REQ. COMMERCIAL AREA 143 V, P RAM¢pw1 pW(a 1.) .aaee 105 tn50a 1. eaib (]O bvn1 18,WOJ.1 fj Het.feet 10s 15/W Pw . W 15/1OWa 0,000a1J .02a a 1/25pe.1. l6,Wp,1J .1<ec d0 5/1WOa1. .Pft wreP .25ecec y mP 1 \ St aoao.o 1 Pecpw\V Opmspecr TMtl 10,36 103fic 012 A aS I OFFICE b/t R�' '3pOMce/crolevebMl3p.000cq teat NO Thl. usm ))) NN M1 Tolel 255x 149 V� O �b Zemr pullie 0 / / HOT OMMNM�.obo/LaWYlI1O LHle1 13.55w,01. ipJS 35/Vh ( / 66 Mree e6ec 1035 To ac� tfi.06 1035 OVER 4 SrtE PxMe A Re[.Aree A 6�beett Whig 1902. Ta1M \ 29.2.e 1 0 Tow PmMhq.".•••L`_w_ 1550 Wow xe<e n«.nroe n.c rw`\ IICAL PLAN �� _ M DESERT ,QUET CLUB ` -- ,ent by: BRIEF GROUP/VISTA �� -- id archi ect re: —_— W/MC FARLAND inc. rchitects i _HIGHWAYJp C \ e 9 LOWER LEVEL V A PARKING PLAN ` PALM DESERT - \ RArQUET CLUB a development tN STEIN-BRIEF GROUP/VISTA - plarmgandarchitechre: BAH LEW/MC FARLAND rC. MLA Architects \ ,, ) 1, ,, 4 ' ' �! }4 e �>•'``1,�yi �`-�-��< ,. '� ,4a ,.. 4 � 2i• b\ � I r + d� � � ` r.j�'\a'�! 1 � i�t s i� w _/�� -'�:(:i l�� i wu�m..hyl �IO�IA1 �� Xab.^t.41 '��- /�' }� 7�/��1,��I�/��rit � � • S , ' ' '.f. r,. u"41� 150-72 WON Z VIEW FROM CORNER OF HWY. 111 &44TH AVE. !er.�t lYi%ig' ;J t v....... ... ,IN 1p q t C JiI 36, f will Omer. KI KI 42 WNW M W OMN k�-_-MMC MORO FAA ;eo W: -Ilk I , t�A 4 � l�j � .111 t%i`" ! f r •v. I/ 4�„.�✓ r r\//�/.p,'D` r j rh'1ti ttbr!• ' Il /A� :� ', .�,��// t\ J r'/ ..�,.r !�.,y. �i a1��'c�'s,al �`ri� Afi• //. I..ri '/ 11 ��' �/^ 1/ ' r,. { ,-r � •�//�"�' :♦ ( ��.�.�b / iay \1 ♦a ! . v i : \rr,t s` a� �� ti4; 4 / '' r 5�► F"�x�� b� ��f{tRLr� d ./ •., � jz��,+ 1 {, r ../ //. r /1 i,yt�° :1�'>r�.. � - it .�''`i"Y�ir t1�j/'�,vA�./{� .!/4 y L_* �. F' i-. ( .I�f fi• �.1•� �4.` 7�;r�i �7// / �✓r �f/ t/�;f 'A; � � ~ kY., ;� ( �.�"i��',..•'� r/ Ji. lh � `� •h'r y rll.•.v silai♦ J��i�; �Y' i/ r ! ��_� � da�aYlr� � _ ��► .fit,3 � A� ��(v!.. 0f r n i 8"� • n t RUM Zr a.xI-N 11 JIVl �l170K"-,�� =b�� 1 r, '•� �i :A li III � c _ 111. .i.y. —! u�✓111Wy��.�,J11 .y`/i i.� `_ VI -N " %.� � �'��e ��quar'�" t!� tr��! tom_ 3 �_ A#` /ku !•> �j ' r - - 4+f7i'>n �(�/�X1� � .� ��+�/J� ' -��• fi .y, t' t, s—* --+c- �.. Sbl".. VIEW OF RESTAURANTS FROM PARKII s 111t"i" � r � ..�I _ _� (P� $��q.% •• P ILA: a :7R Oa � ., i€r r � �'f•II Iffllil Ills r � �i` F,} +� ,r1 r _ #4 ti ' Y^,av- Iz±2 • m• `� i+ ..� �� ,� � ✓?�I �'?('� �. / lip. + Int /J'r i�" c� a"Y` ur>• � tl M+�� .,iw�w r q � � ,.� 3. Y � ,/'�� •//i''' rr-d'�. �r��1+ �„F F ,�A!YYwS.'�',�F"d �• tty3sL� 13 ,:-•'� fie. i4 �`� 'i�*.^''"i�,�F� �t�1 '-'-.-- -vC- r\S��d 9 r,+ .ii/,+pJ�/�'� xS _' C /'r {.i Jiq►— e�l� � �yt�t 1 T C t , !�! ii� � % .C��! ;.� it/ � 4,��/; �,.✓�_ _fir_ � >►� rh�.��, —aaa; ,.��.�� lhM�r� '�� rA FI•+'E-ac�ci� �� y � � .tea 1�. � -"p�� — ,., �'kN ! F � 4�i11f11 Iff�iI%full I��.,�y "�� 1� b ": t�--- �• ;�,a i -a.� a��YIx �•�� ® I ll, .ue1:6... Ilill 1a. 1'liNfloltYl u'if._t „.Yp�'lM I�J!iVl y4✓• ■ v - t .t.' ( /.3.:,[✓ X 1 .. r/ / I. ` --aFWo �•In1�r•L�II�:Irnr�•Irn_ - �`- II r/— �iill(V "Jim � �,.� ► :;fir'-.� :r �.,�;��.%I�'_-.�-� -r � ♦ ,�' ' it 219.,j f ifi££iii!5�'Gi f};(�;!;f(•s•r.Nsiyylt'N'I;£s3F�ll�}t3%i.„{!,ts?!Y„i,!':3stY'�t:£is�„.�y; !{i�{l'GIs;,Ns;ila(!:!'.Ni";:!{}s:!;4giE ::��'!s%t'i" f?ss;/ 'A%:::s '�%.;}{,::;£%}!{:^st>. 1p,{,r.R.,, ., .n,.(V; i..t YYSSS..iIt,{f{t}It';'/,:NS':'lta'i 11I,f!Y/I,•:'f':N, UI:;!' 3f':•:};S!!£sv:;t;i'u;•;!:>r,:�NsG€}, y. ,}s ;:s•r1::!'a,tu:r?;:uF. !., : q;,..l<;. %t•£i!i}:fssi ilEY:•}''°:s„s•:•}s:a:3.I/:��,•3,?;•,:.:ss}.,s,!:•},.;:;:�!(f;•,as1:::£} :r;t:(%; z{,,tG,>:5 ?:t:i�.rs°a:R�•.;};/;:•£:u;Y:S I ; i!.f:• = i •I:.ly N g•;ts{,. n....s:Ys if€k• �s:�:v.££!£t,...:sh.Y.u••:Iv,:!:&6•::: s3u:4�/, •.yts:r,;:•f•s::?,=:. K.}•:r•i< D!S%/.srs%...As£:usSs J;I':I;�3�5£( {;�}4 s .:;I s£ ' £ 3, ��"•t.././.�! (! ;�SSI'tJL£J:nti£S=`ia%./.::;;..L,^,:(r'a'�::f{•r '{:!IIf:.:Se,..;lf%:LS!f'';•Yv;: =sl;I%Ii!: t,••;Y..i:/:n,P::/4,fl S.I}':i+,t,..;{i' 1If1 I£�.,y',F is,LY.•I S If;11•Y• ft.Yf• t�,,f.,l .........t,,.......{:;lu...£s,S,N.,...tnLFaE......,....<,...._i..,..�.r:L Vt., N 3N.et::•, }ar St 377 i .. Itaf:• €�. :..'•nYttf,;,Yll.•t:; :::: ;: !{.1' 33/;;:fd;i:£i}s:::tsAp•,f,3 .t.s .£,,, , , ../•,f/:•As£/;:g;. .;!!:lstri ;sntY•s,s. ..£", Yl:ti Os£:. tsE/. l�;s,. ./. ..... - ,;;.q!s :•.,,/.,.. v;•✓r 1,:....;::• ;ys••. .;•F ie £!!, ulut:El.:: i^ :{:•t...+.• !:s:aY;:: .,a.. .�...�^m: .'•-�.=.:ry::N e•:.•:!:: �m�;n:::en , t.. .. , s..... .r S. .. ...,Ls;%££till ti'1.31£f�ii�.0)3EE!!!i•�N'I':••�. mi��;jt' �...,is f £ �s Is., 1... :::.Fhl:.nr........ £..:...... .... ...... .i.,. ,,: s.t,::....£t., .....,s... £.:•.jl,.,in .. .,.. I ....0:d �'u�.., ,t.,.vNi31N'fi; / y:N t:i i It :, i:'iiti: :;,i�!!!r�%^sN.siS!;�iij �.s., l.;t... .�i:....-- :::.—: �:::.�'-r-�,.e:. ,�,, �i:.. r..: ;.t.ui. :! ! I . it•. , � >a {%>t,•Y, si?-s sy y..:N .,U:.Ett�,/. e... i:'i.,i:..::, s•i.,..{s;ts;...:N.;:,a..s.,sl•;..I 'r•,::;,tfs•jui;:a ,;>r,;z::l3!z:£E nYt£S;./.En....f. . i k:LIi a•,,ECN: , .�/sIn IE .4{s.;•, •No.=!•;n(•..S u�s ;I t, :3�:>t.. ,3:i;,•. ;..,..:; s•..,Ins„lss.f•I. — ::,,:rn,n: :n!xn;nn:�:r: .r,.n�:�:/../fsx .. J,../..;•:,.£;....¢... E;i i . .�.:> . •✓{.{:.iNtf••s As .;talLi£S..E...:n...i,{,..LI::££v,:::)s.;tsf .:.::,.....uw•:..,' :m:ca.N:• .z 'r,: 1:gSB.411�ii:� .., ..,., v,Y .. ..:.... .!.<y.c:':•i.!rs:nS '-((E•„ ff.n�i{ �£I G:!i' s i�• . I{�tS... .LtX:}'. .Ni I/ {t � i — i� // :i.::• f r:,fY:?:r�:;tu::,� £,!:�I iS:iz.tf!t(I�N..:s s s� i.,2f3t si�;;• £ t..}!!psi: s:i s NN•,;�.A;',ir;/'/,jf' n:nr.::•t::trs:t: am:�t::mu[rrs!:: : •rsr.::rs::ry �•w.v��e- ir_rrr•w.t, 3:I�s: ji t!{ ..,: :4i:: n�?:r:.s., , � ,�. ..tr: ;t... '(il3{(s�s,•.•:•}t!£{�;,£�I:i�iii':4i% i!;:Y!;! ';qs:•s: � .........t......... ..,t..t....?............ !'?,£lx.......... I, . •i Q�s: : .uf;::'{3•s£! -::-� :...:,, �� t• • L• gn; ,✓+i � � I;i ti%;,i {� #[ (yy�� is!;;s� '3's!4= i it7(•'i�3„��!i :Y{., ,si �:-�:::t—"^• �`��':a:n:i:ii: .ai:: aa:! .�. ��34ib�.z%/f(,° ,,v. � i S. .£i� d(�I��"iii:.��3�I..t•13��s ��i�131�AI r 0: � :� ?;£ ,f. !! ? s?n£{%�'�•'•i'.'ii=i�i 1 - :(y,�%i�!S. d:f;; , I,:. .£ Si; '•a:ii%:J i��: ii•"]t/r'rK1' ?�"�P ' .it 33._ ar1...�..)!i...�i�ll�...£...igi:ii..,i{�I�•V•t::3:•/•'�f: - ,:v r£Isr:ee,,�:(•s L..IL ' � f;; yF1 • :,s.:.i s.l•. sy. ,y.,. j:£:3E•i,s:�:Y s�:"..; -F�f <(!� !; JV £;:st%::.t: ,=, Y;:i(£�;sf�izi( �•yy _;G —.iyss�}Ia 9 u: ,_ fi£�/ti!i��)!.: qq sx:£,/,fs•i^.:M: „ 8- / G , � "'kitc s 'i•,•,' G!'a..s•."'•.• a. stt f1Gi%iI•:i;ii ,,.} ,...u:s,; C N u fi!Nl:ELA yl1}is! �"vii is;•3.Essv, � �� "y x 0L•,I qi :�. N +.+N!}t:RN,�ilY,t.: �� i!�"�{�i(�i%,!is�>: . �Y::✓,.i:!4 . : '�ij!%iifs!il!!il:7sil � , ,i is.Nar£. sI 9•� , ..;;•�sljl! J. �= Iq �i'� ;:;;�; �� Ism^N .•7il!;i';;-}'�;��'•;�i ;s I Ining livingZEE .: _, ,;,!lyy � ► � � ;Ylt is; li! :; 3'? 'i : _��. � ;,,; .:.� -ems: �v'" . ieE. •:: ;. • � ♦ .1ry�µ. ':i'J.�'' J�+'•t�; •//(�/�5:i� � S'i''F'�r jE� j,,;',/.,ti�'.j. e: �;; , t�:,�51, t'G:,44•. 'r'i:»-'4/ �L7L� i-E'!CI£�! /s.. 'iz � ' �'•:£:,}::{;,:��,P,,�rt,.{.:j::;}f�m�"Y. s `1't; rS�f ':..i .o'a:�� r�'v%f.:rt'.'.,v .�.'I of i !iEi is ,. �[alu !33 �i7.%: ;..;./„(�y°•�:.>i;Y;- s^,,i: fail:�;,;, ' I�{! 1.J��l;i'+tli'iSiG.t' ,��j'�q;ii��ls?75�>%�Y :,�•ri �'[�] p pa';y i _ II;r•s/� ;:FS.br', , ��,, ,14 { , � :!��lili,; ! ,fe !,,.,�tlt I +,5;s t. ;�! �Is s L�IL ��lfi('r•�,:; y� •,:::. !t,}�£�"rr," :;;Fw;y:JF j /, t��'o.?(£: .,.I, : 6 f;. f} fif^i::•ril%s;2;: is H9. ri/;F! :t :r 6 i; �' �] � .' (1't /%„ t ;�, f�:� 3 , . I :!.,r.:. l!il i. a ,ti•,3:C_u,.,_::�';'s�f��_�.::�a:a ,i£��' it` �°!• f �,-_. i" ��' •'nf�:r-yw,,fj s s� III" �!'}t•ii=1,,...:;�... - - - i"=E%�i'It(t.°:3! �1 ��(3(i�4�Y(ykl�'ytlit•'�t�{'�ts;)'�il'�.''�'.��t�45..(r.�'s•i - , I �� !'?�;:�,.I:€!;!i?i; +'�6.. I',vfldis?: ?s;{ne:3!�•{!:£ie �''N �0:.l;{:e4Fj.•jiT, ry}:��. 11 k�i."�C !a f{ E'i'!ii!y"(t4' ' �� — .�J I �s��f♦J� I T _�!E F_! t(�(��I!".$`(t�!iIt"i),f; Ulm .xMH .'. !�_.'.. to �,�rl'��(!'•'•Sjjit! � !� I �� !t fic �!I!{ _6 j{ " i 2';!r` .i':yG• '�/sz��•Mhf�i,..J:mS� �� •j' i•' �+• �� / 1 j�l( A% - :Lli .. !! • y ;& ?'LY".!!!Sdf �. ,i� s:;:s.�ww,..l !"` 1 !liii!€:iii::..'i...!• NEi!li...._�: I Y'. r` i parapet to screen mech. equip. and solar collectors tile roof tree planters <—stucco t3�r1 �over columns unit A : unit ° tileY ; 1, I,IYi av l,:'.4 IIIIII unit Bufillllllllll'G1111111113�Iw111111�� unit Bgroundcover over structure unit Ct Cparking garage to elev. �Z ��, .a i.� BLDG. ap • I I ,1 iL.C.a_cJ Le--�L[-✓.tti"�i�<✓�v`�a°'<.� `'"l✓.mot/ �� ,--✓�„ ��c.��v f oc.v/ ' �-�/ �',`i a� .ter c/ AZ RECEIVED MAY 12 JI-110 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY OF PALM DESERT. JI M� 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Case No. : DP 03-80 (Revised) and VAR 03-80 Project: Development Plan Applicant: Stein-Brief/Vista Enclosed please find materials describing a project for which the following is being requested: Development Plan and related variance from development standards approval of 414 unit hotel/condominium complex with 21,365 square feet racquet club and 50,000 square feet of professional and commercial spaces. Said project is located at southwest corner of Highway 111 and 44th Avenue and is zoned P.C. (4) S.P. (resort commercial with scenic preservation overlav) - The attached data was prepared by the applicant and is being forwarded to you for comments and recommended Conditions of Approval . The City is interested in the probable impacts on the natural environment (e.g. water and air pollution) and on public resources (e.g. demand for schools, hospitals, parks, power generation, sewage treatment, etc. ) Your comments and recommended conditions of approval must be received by this office prior to 5:00 p.m. May 5 , 1980, in order to be discussed by the Land DivisionCommittee at their meeting of May 7 The Land Division Committee (comprised of Director of Environmental Services, City Building Official , City Engineer, Fire Marshal and a representative of CVCWD) will discuss the comments and recommended conditions of approval and will forward them to the Planning Commission through the staff report. Any information received by this office after the receipt deadline will not be discussed by the Land Division Com- mittee nor will it be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consid- eration. Ver truly yours aul A. Williams Director of Environmental Services PAW/s s PLEASE RETURN MAP WITH COMMENTS i+h I . y 7HIGHWAY 111 Y ` 1• Z LIE Vzl n tt ILLUSTRATIVE PALM DESERT RACQUET CLUB 4.1. a development by: \ STEIN-BRIEF GROUP/VISTA planning and architecture: BALLEW/MC FARLAND inc. MLA ArchitectS d i v DEPARTMENT OF FIRE PROTECTION IN COOPERATION WITH THE COUNTY 1�J.. ., CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF FORESTRY RIVERSIDE :: DAVID L. FLAKE P.O. BOX 248 COUNTY FIRE WARDEN 210 WEST SAN JACINTO STREET PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370 March 18, 1980 TELEPHONE 17141 657-3183 Paul A. Williams Director of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Reference: Case No. DP 03-80 (revised) Dear Mr: Williams : The following requirements shall apply to this project: Fire Protection Water System: 1. Install a water system capable of delivering 4000 GPM fire flow for a four (4) hour duration in addition to domestic or other supply. The computation shall be based upon a minimum of 20 psi residual. operating pressure it the supply main from which the flow is measured at the time of measurement. 2. Install Riverside County super fire hydrants so that no point of any building is more than 150 feet from a fire hydrant measured along approved vehicular travel ways. Hydrant spacing not to exceed 300 feet. A. Hydrants shall not be located closer than 25 feet to any building. B. Exterior surfaces of hydrant barrels and heads shall be painted chrome yellow and the tops and nozzle caps shall be painted green. C. Curbs (if installed) shall be painted red 15 -feet in either direction from each hydrant. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original and three (3) copies of the water system plan. to the Fire Marshal for review. Upon approval , one copy will be sent to the Building Depart- ment, and the original will be returned to the developer. Paul A. Williams 3/18/80 Director of Environmental Services Page 2. City of Palm Desert Fire Protection Water System (continued) : 4. The water system plan shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, and approved by the water company, with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system in Case Number DP 03-80 is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Fire Marshal . " 5. Prior to delivery of combustible materials to the building site, the required water system shall be installed, operating and delivering the required flow. Vehicular Access : 1. A minimum of 20' all weather access road shall be provided to all buildings. 2. Interior streets to major buildings shall be a minimum of 28' in width. (Now shown as 25' . ) Fire Protection Systems: 1. The following buildings shall be protected with a complete automatic fire sprinkler system: Office/Professional Building Racquet Club Underground Parking Garage Hotel/Condominium Units 2. Hotel/Condominium units and the underground parking garage shall be provided with wet and dry standpipe systems. Sincerely, David L. Flake Co ty fire Warden David J. Ortel Fire Marshal DJO:dt ��----- oil F inn m 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 March 25, 1980 Stien-Brief/Vista 2081 Business Center Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92715 Re: velopment Plan No. 03-80 Hotel/Condo and Commercial pro7ec ocate on Lne sou�hwest corner of 44th Ave. and Hwy 111. Ladies/Gentlemen: A detailed evaluation of the proposed project, referenced above, indicates that the concept plan is at variance with SectionV25.30.170, of the City Municipal Code, which limits the number of property entrances in the Planned Commercial zone to two (2); and, Section'125.30.120, which requires a 20 foot landscaped perimeter adjacent to all street side property lines (perimeter walls must also be set in 20 ft. ) . The Planning Commission could not consider approval of your project, as it is presently designed, without the procedural requirement of having a companion Variance Case also filed and noticed for Public Hearing. It is also found that the application material and request is further in- complete relative to site use descriptions and justification (vis-a-vis the uses permitted in the P.C. (4) zone). Therefore, further processing of the referenced. case will be suspended until the following information is submitted: pe g OW • Description of how the condo/hotel will operate. (Please note that only temporary occupancy is allowed in permitted P.C. (4) zone hotels). �• Provide hydrologic/grading/drainage information relative to water retention on-site, impact on stormwater channel , and drainage of underground parking. elldwy H0M e List of proposed office building uses and justification for SP�41$�Jd� 30,000 sq.ft. ,fpW /VvAe Justification for Commercial Bank Use. List of all uses, and assigned floor area, for the 21,365 sq.ft. 11! Racquet Club. V List and floor area for all uses in the 3,300 sq.ft. hotel lobby. Stien-Brief/Vista .___—...March 25, 1980. Page -2- Reference location of the 1,000 sq.ft. of "shops", which is not shown on the site plan. '-ve List of all exceptions you requested from P.C. (4) Development Standards. _`-V• Variance application filin number of access oints and perimeter treatment or redesign site access and perimeter:' Futher, several additional "exceptions" to the P.C. (4) Development Standard have been observed which the Planning does have the ability to consider with- out a separate variance application, but which you will either have to redesign to bring the project in line with the Standards, or either specifically request in writing that the Planning Commission grant "exceptions", pursuant to Municipal Code Section 25.30.260, as follows: �• Maximum 30 hotel units per acre - Proposal would yield up to 828 separate rooms, on 16.38 acres, which is equal to 50.5 rooms/acre. V,03#1P Minimum building setback from Highway 111 and 44th Avenue is 32 ft. - 30 ft. proposed (additional setback will be recommended to provide for pedestrian/bicycle path along Hwy 111 frontage) . • Minimum building setback from Painters Path is 25 ft. - 20 ft. proposed. The other questionable subjects vis-a-vis the P.C. (4) zone would, of course, include the whole subject of proposed uses. Also, it is noted that the condo/ hotel buildings are designed to the 30 ft. height maximum, but in the practical application, we question whether you can accomplish three stories and mechanical equipment, within that maximum height. We are unable to fully advise you on compliance with parking requirements, because a complete description of uses and floor areas has not been provided. Beyond the items mentioned, your attention is directed to the following list of design comments, which you may want to consider in any additional design effort on your part. Similar recommendation would be offered to the Planning Commission, based on the present project design: o Install median island with left turn pocket on to Highway 111; relocate project entrance now shown on 44th Avenue so that it does not conflict with median left turn pocket, or present stacking (left turn) problems in 44th Avenue , as present design location would suggest. The entrance on 44th Avenue is consi- dered to be too close to the intersection with Highway 111. • Restudy all other project entrances to combine and eliminate where practical (i .e. have ramp entrance to the first set of condo/hotel buildings come from commercial parking lot area, versus Painters Path, eliminate parking access ramp adjacent -- " 1..: __e Path nar0� - Stien-Brief/Vista March 25, 1980 Page -3- • Move building (now shown as "Bank") away from corner, and provide enhanced corner treatment. -_1�0 • Provide a 30 ft. wide landscaped area parallel to Highway 111. Landscaped area to contain an eight (8) ft. .wide meandering pedestrian/bicycle path. e Substantially increase landscape treatment along the storm channel to soften the visual impact of three story buildings. • Provide area for cul-de-sac on the subject property at Painters Path and the storm channel , and install if subsequently deter- mined necessary by the City. O((ks Provide commercial sidewalk with tree wells, along Painters Path. • Provide alternative emergency vehicle access to all condo/hotel buildings by means of an expanded pedestrian system with entrance near hotel lobby. Also, restudy delivery access needs. `-'s Evaluate building elevations for solar exposure and protection. • Restudy distance between condo/hotel building groups; a minimum of 20 ft. may not be acceptable for 3 story. buildings. �s Provide central trash collection system with the use of trash compactor(s). \Of, o Show seating detail for championship tennis court (if special 66 events are planned and stadium seating is provided, parking �P``� k(X may be in question) . /v The case had been scheduled for hearing on April 1, 1980, but because of the circumstances described, Staff will be advising the Planning Commission that the item is to be removed from the Agenda. This Department's recommendation to you, the applicant, is that you seriously reconsider the proposed project and its design, to bring it in line with the purpose and standards of the Planned Commercial , Resort Center (P.C. W) zone. At a minimum, to receive consideration of the project as it is now proposed, you would need to supply the noted missing application information items and file for a variance from the referenced standards. The next application filing date is April 1, 1980, and thereafter, the first working Monday of each month. If you choose to revise your plans, so a variance is not required, you should be prepared to submit the revised application material on the filing date. Stien=Brief/Vista Page -4- March 25, 1980 You many contact the undersigned for additional filing information and/or questions you may have. A variance application form is enclosed. Very truly yours, ; PAUL A. WILLIAMS, AICP Director of Environmental Services MURREL CRUMP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER pw/mc/lr J cc: Ballew-McFarland c/o John Ballew Enclosure: Variance Application ' ( l Stien-Brief/Vista March 25, 1980 Page -3- • Move building (now shown as "Bank") away from corner, and provide enhanced corner treatment. • Provide a 30 ft. wide landscaped area parallel to Highway 111. Landscaped area to contain an eight (8) ft. :wide meandering pedestrian/bicycle path. • Substantially increase landscape treatment along the storm channel to soften the visual impact of three story buildings. • Provide area for cul-de-sac on the subject property at Painters Path and the storm channel , and install if subsequently deter- mined necessary by the City. • Provide commercial sidewalk with tree wells, along Painters Path. • Provide alternative emergency vehicle access to all condo/hotel buildings by means of an expanded pedestrian system with entrance near hotel lobby. Also, restudy delivery access needs. • Evaluate building elevations for solar exposure and protection. • Restudy distance between condo/hotel building groups; a minimum / of 20 ft. may not be acceptable for 3 story. buildings. • Provide central trash.collection system with the use of trash compactor(s). • Show seating detail for championship tennis court (if special events are planned and stadium seating is provided, parking may be in question) . The case had been scheduled for hearing on April 1, 1980, but because of the circumstances described, Staff will be advising the Planning Commission that the item is to be removed from the Agenda. This Department's recommendation to you, the applicant, is that you seriously reconsider the proposed project and its design, to bring it in line with the purpose and standards of the Planned Commercial , Resort Center (P.C. (4) ) zone. At a minimum, to receive consideration of the project as it is now proposed, you would need to supply the noted missing application information items and file for a variance from the referenced standards. The next application filing date is April 1, 1980, and thereafter, the first working Monday of each month. If you choose to revise your plans, so a variance is not required, you should be prepared to submit the revised application material on the filing date. Stien=Brief/Vista March 25, 1980 Page -4- You many contact the undersigned for additional filing information and/or questions you may have. A variance application form is enclosed. Very truly yours, PAUL A. WILLIAMS, AICP Director of Environmental Services MURREL CRUMP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER pw/mc/lr J cc: Ballew-McFarland c/o John Ballew Enclosure: Variance Application i CITY OF PALM DESERT ®EPAF.T:v:c-NT CF j ERVIECVMENTAL j S RViCES -------------------------- ---�--- EM!@i8 T N0. �� 1� -7H VVAY 111- -- -- -� CASE NO�VJ \ \ LOWER LEVEL PARKING PLAN PALM DESERT 4 RACQUET CLUB `\ -- adaMopment by STEIN-BRIEF GROUP/VISTA \ — — phnring and architectLre: INCjv a Ar BALLEW/MC FARLAND inc. MLA Architects GF• z:;C t. Cd iloN ' kobw/K@Fwkni d April 9 , 1980 Planning Department City of Palm Desert Palm Desert, California 92260 Attention:, Mr, Murrel Crump Dear Mr. Crump: In response to your letter of March 25 , 1980 , to Stein-Brief/ Vista concerning Development Plan Application No, , 03-80 , we wish to provide you with additional information which we feel should clarify the intent of our project concept as well as address the issues which were raised in that letter. We have reviewed each of the points in detail and feel that a number of them were very valid and warranted some change in the original plan. Others re- flected some points of concern which we feel could be sufficientl mitigated by a more complete explanation of the concept as it re- lated to each issue. You will note that these changes to the pla include an adjustment to the bank location, elimination of two points of access and the addition of additional landscape materi- als. For ease of reference, I have included a copy of your March 25th letter with a numerical index in the margin adjacent to each of your points. i .will use that numerical index in each of the respective responses below, 1. Description of Condo/Hotel Operation We anticipate that the operation of this hotel will not violate the City' s requirements for temporary occupancy. Because of unpredictable economic trends, financing re- quirements and future demand for hotel uses, we feel it is very important to minimize restrictions which would limit the future flexibility and viability of the complex. The physical site plan and the operation of the hotel will not differ in any way from other resort hotels in the city, Structuring the resort hotel to allow condominium ownership will merely broaden the possibilities of owner- ship arrangements and provide us the flexibility which we are certain is essential, We are suggesting that no spe- cific restrictive conditions pertaining to occupancy be placed on the project at this time. Instead, we would suggest that we explore a condition which would allow the city to review the actual operation within a year after 17846 SKY PARK RLVD. IRVINE,CALF.9714 Vlq 751-4627 PLANNERS & ARCHITECTS A CALIFORNIA ON 74075 EL PASEO SURE A 7 PALM DESERT,CALF.92260 (714)5685626 Mr. Crump April 9 , 1980 Page -2- completion to satisfy itself that the resort hotel does not violate the intent of the general plan and zoning. 2. Hydrology and Grading The site has been previously graded based on an earlier grading plan. The cross fall is approximately 15 feet over a 1500 foot distance for an average grade of about 1%. The existing drainage patterns result in approxi-. mately 75% of the site draining into an existing storm drain near the intersection of Highway 111. The remaining portion of this site flows to a low area near the bridge on Highway 111. The concept employs subterranean parking which will be below ground level. Although normal runoff should be accommodated by the existing storm drain system and a few additions to it, any drainage into the subter- ranean parking areas resulting from more severe storm con- ditions will be handled by sump pumping systems. These systems are commonly used and wherever they are subject to inundation, they have proven to be relatively problem free where back-up power generators are used and adequate safety conditions are observed. 3&4. Office & Commercial Bank Justification (See Appendix "A") At the City ' s suggestion, we employed the firm of Lord and Associates, Inc. , consultants in real estate and urban economics , to analyze the economic viability as well as. the appropriateness of the various land uses proposed in our project. I direct your attention to Page 14 of the report which contains their conclusions as to the economic justification for the office uses. You will also note that in the report (Page 3) , a variety of uses which they feel are ancillary to resort uses and would require rentable office space. 5. Racquet Club Uses We anticipate that the racquet club would be 21,360 square feet in size. This space would be allocated approximately as follows : a. Spa facilities , showers , sauna, etc. = 1500 square feet b. Massage rooms = ;300 " c. Locker rooms and showers = 3500 " d. Juice and sandwich bar = 2000 " e. Administrative offices = 600 " 'Mr. Crump April 9 , 1980 Page -3- f. Storage area = 765 square feet g. Lounge and quiet spaces = 1200 " h. Halls , circulation and mechanical spaces = 1000 " i. Racquetball and squash courts =10504 " 6. Hotel Lobby Uses The hotel lobby is expected to be approximately 3300 square feet in size. We expect to utilize this area generally as follows : a. Lobby, guest registration,. cashier and lounging areas = 1250 square feet b. Bell captain area = 100 " C. Office management and clerical areas = 500 " d. General storage = . 200 " e. Ancillary use space = 1200 " We have allocated this area for uses which cannot be specifically determined at this time, which we feel are not only supplementary but, in many cases, essen- tial to the proper operation of a resort area. These could include travel agents' desks, car rental area, news stand, etc. 7. Location of Shops These shops were shown on the original plan with the label "Shops. " We have enhanced the identity of thier location . by the addition of a zip-a-tone pattern on the enclosed site plan. 8&9. List of Exceptions/Variances A list of exceptions which we request is included herewith as Appendix "B" . mr. Crump April. 9, 1980 Page =4- . . 10. Hotel unit Density ' The proposed plan provides for 414 units. Each of the units has 2 bedrooms. ,The allowable density .in 'this zone is 30 .units. per acre or 491 units. Therefore, . we feel that we are actually below, the allowable density: If we were to consider the overall site area,and we be- lieve that the ordinance allows this; and we were to consider the hotel rooms as units (we do not subscribe to this approach) , the effective density is 28.27; be- low the allowable 30 per acre requirement. In any case, all parking requirements have been exceeded. 11. Minimum Setbacks along Highway 111 and 44th Avenue . The building setback is now proposed to be 32 feet from right-of-way line. The 44 foot setback dimensioned from back-of-curb appears to meet minimum setback re- quirements and provide enough space to accommodate an 8 foot meandering public bike-way along Highway 111. 12. Minimum Setback along Painters Path The primary frontage of the site .is along Highway 111. This is clearly the "front" of the project for setback determination purposes. Therefore, we feel that the minimum setback requirement along Painters Path should comply with rear yard setback requirements. Further- more, we used much care in attempting to juxtaposition the buildings adjacent to Painters Path in such a way that for a length of over 2300 feet, none of the units are closer than 30 feet to the right-of-way. This re- sults in less than 3% of the total frontage along Painters Path falling below a 30 foot standard. In' fact, the average setback exceeds 50 feet and in no case does any portion of any building setback less than 20 feet from Painters Path. 13. Building Heights The City zoning (Ordinance 22.56. 300) provides that roof- top mechanical equipment is exempt from the 30 foot height limit. Therefore, it appears that the height of the buildings could be 30 feet plus reasonable mechan- ical spaces. At this point in time, it is nearly im- possible to determine the exact height of the buildings due to the fact that the structural systems involved will not be designed until a later stage. Since we in- tend to completely comply with the zoning code relative to the height limit, we feel that this issue is best addressed at a later point in time. Mr. Crump April 9 , 1980 Page -5- 14. Turn Pocket on 44th Avenue a. The proposed entrance to the project is set at a .distance of 228 feet from the center line of High- way 111. This was specifically located to coincide with the entry into Restaurant Park which is cur- rently under construction on the opposite side of 44th Avenue from our proposed project. b. The current proposal provides for at least 11 cars to stack along 44th Avenue before conflicting with traffic along Highway 111. C. Traffic along 44th Avenue will primarily be limited to automobiles that result from our proposed pro- ject and Restaurant Park. Due to the limited uses along Painters Path, normal traffic volumes along 44th Avenue should be minimal. 15. Project Entrances After re-evaluating this concern, we concur that fewer points of ingress would be desirable. Therefore, we have eliminated two points of ingress along Painters Path (the original entrance closest to the flood con- trol channel and the one closest to the intersection with 44th:NAvenue) . This provides the site with a total of six points of access (an average of 2 per street frontage: Ordinance 25.30.170) . . Since we are unable to take direct access from Highway 111, it is necessary to take all other points of access from 44th Avenue and Painters Path. Due to the minimal site dimension along 44th Avenue, it seems reasonable to consolidate the other available points of access along Painters Path. 16. Bank Relocation After re-evaluating this concern, we concur that it would be desirable to have additional open space at the corner. By moving the bank back and reducing the service area of the proposed adjacent restaurant, it would allow us to provide additional landscape materials or special landscape treatment (such as fountain water elements, sculpture, etc. ) . 17. Additional Landscape Area on Highway 111 As pointed out earlier in Item 11, the proposed plan currently provides for a 44 foot building setback from the back of curb along Highway 111. This should be more than adequate to accommodate the meandering public bike path and all landscape and public access improvements. -Mr. Crump April 9 , 1980 Page -6- 18. Landscape along Storm Channel We feel that the siting and the proposed architectural concept 'minimizes negative visual impacts from offsite and would, in fact, provide a positive image along Highway 111.. We don 't feel that it would be neces- sarily appropriate to provide a dense screen of land- scaping along the flood control channel that.:would f, reduce views of the valley from the hotel units. How- ever, we have provided additional plant materials along the flood control channel which would more closely ap- proach a continuous edge of planting. 19. Painters Path Cul-de-sac (See enclosed Site Plan) Per your request, we have accommodated a future cul-de- sac which would be located entirely within the existing right-of-way or our property. Therefore, no additional property .would be required to complete this cul-de-sac nor would it impact the siting of our buildings. 20. Commercial Sidewalk The proposed concept provides a public sidewalk along Painters Path. The project design also provides a major internal circulation system which will clearly minimize pedestrian circulation from our project to and along Painters Path. We do not propose any commercial use on our side of Painters Path, therefore, we feel that the requirement for a commercial sidewalk is not ap- propriate. We feel that it is more appropriate to provide a 5 foot sidewalk and use the additional width for landscaping. 21. Emergency Vehicle Access On or about April 1, we submitted to your offices an emergency access plan as a supplement to the original submittal package. This plan demonstrated that the proposed project provides for a moving van and emer- gency vehicle access to within 150 feet of all struc- tures. It' s our intention to provide for necessary thickening or special treatment of sidewalks and ac- cess drives required by the increased loads. 22. Solar Exposure The proposed buildings have been designed in such a way as to minimize adverse solar effects. Roof over- hangs and raised planters will significantly limit direct solar exposure to upper level units and '%__ _- Mr. Crump April 9 , 1980 Page -7- virtually eliminate it from units- on .the lower level. Balconies and adjacent buildings will provide protec- tion for windows which open into courtyards . 23. Distance Between Buildings The proposed buildings have been sited in such a way that when they are in close proximity to one another, the windows from each structure do not directly face other windows. As a guideline when planning the site, we usdd your residential standards for multi-family residential (Ordinance 25.20. 070) and planned residen- tial (Ordinance 25.24.260) both of which set 20 feet as the minimum distance between units. We have re- searched other jurisdictions who have similar land uses and have found 20 feet to be more than adequate. 24. Central Trash Collection The hotel will operate a private trash collection . system throughout the project. We intend to utilize private vehicles which will collect trash at each building and take it to a central location near the restaurants for later pick-up by the trash disposal agency serving the city. 25. Stadium Seating It is unlikely that special events would be scheduled during normal operating times for the office and bank uses. Therefore, we anticipate providing for shared parking at these locations. Additionally, there is ample space for at least 80 parallel parked vehicles on our side of Painters Path. The actual details of the championship court seating have not been deter- mined at this time. Using a commonly accepted average of 7 square et er d estimate at p- proximately 2e p seat, 000peoplewouldcbel h accommodated during special events. t that this supplementary information will sufficiently trust immediately We able to i Y address the City' s concerns and that you will at the earliest Pos- sible our application for public hearing date. If you have any additional questions concerning the project concept or the submittal, please do not hesitate to contact me. 4Sin�ere1 , Fr d M. Arbuckle Vice President FMA:pw INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert TO: MURREL CRUMP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER FROM: DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES SUBJECT: DP 03-80 DATE: March 20, 1980 Pursuant to our recent conversation, I am unable to complete the Staff Report for the Stein Brief Vista Development Plan. I am relying on you to complete this report and thought I would pass on to you some thoughts that I have had regarding this project. First, and most important, of course, is the letter from the Fire Marshal which accompanies this memorandum dealing with their apparent lack of capability of service for this complex. I think that it's important that we get a handle on the weakness of our system to service such a complex and do whatever is necessary to improve this service in conjunction with this project. Secondly, the developer's representatives have committed to providing an analysis relative to the potential use mix in the project as to its compliance with PC(4) zone district. They have promised me that the information will be available to you on Friday. I think this information would have to go a long way to convince me that a bank with "drive-up" windows is in compliance with the zoning designation on the property. In addition, the uses specified in professional office building would be an important matter to consider. Third, in relationship to the underground parking, special conditions should be created to provide for an alternative surface system to service the buildings with service vehicles, emergency vehicles , etc. This system should be as unob- trusive as possible. While it will be available for these uses , it would not be available for the occupants to use in lieu of the underground parking. It would appear that the most viable alternative would be some kind of expanded pedestrian system controlled through the lobby of the condo/hotel . Fourth, this type of project requires a centralized trash collection point and I think that you might want to consider trash compaction in said area also. Fifth, the proximity of this project to the Palm Valley Channel and its provision of underground parking appears to require that the flood control channel be improved to protect the property. Sixth, the wall treatment along Highway 111 and 44th Avenue should be set back at least 30 feet on Highway 111 and 20 feet on 44th Avenue from the curb line to be consistent with the treatment we have required elsewhere - refer to Ordinance. In addition, the meandering bicycle path treatment should be required along Highway 111. Seventh, Painters Path should have some form of cul-de-sac at the flood control channel or some consider- ation should be given to a bridge structure in that area. Eighth, I don 't believe. a setback of 20 feet between two-story buildings is suffi- cient.. You may want to require more. Ninth, the design relies on the utilization of Painters Path for access to the undergrounding parking. I think that Painters Path will become secondary guest parking area and that a sidewalk is mandatory along said street. You may want to consider the more commercial design of sidewalk with tree wells in this area. At least, think about it. Tenth, regardless of what uses J INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM DP 03-80 March 20, 1980 Page Two are ultimately arrived at for the bank site, it should be relocated with an increased setback from the street to provide for a larger landscape area at the intersection of Highway 111 and 44th Avenue. Eleventh, the landscaping along the flood control channel needs to be substan- tially increased to soften the impact of the two-story buildings on the adjacent residential development. Twelvth, the tennis court should be recessed as you deem appropriate. Thirteenth, you should give careful consideration to the elevations of the three-story buildings as to' their compliance with the building height in the zone and also more sensitivity to the sun action on the patio areas. Therefore, the overhang should be substantial . Fourteenth, the driveway entrance just southerly of the intersection of 44th and Painters Path appears redundant. Fifteenth, the entry ramp to the first southerly building from the commercial core could be reversed so it would be accessible from the commercial area and this would take one of the curb cuts off of Painters Path. You may want to consider that. It would appear that this approach would provide a stronger relationship with the lobby of the hotel than what is presently being proposed. Sixteenth, light, air and access is important for underground parking. Seventeenth , on-site water retention should be required. In addition, drainage from the under- ground parking will be an important consideration of this project. Finally, you should review Development Plan Case No. DP 11-77 for conditions allotted to occupancy and uniform furniture. I hope the above comments will be useful to you in your development of the report on this project. PAUL A. WILLIAMS DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES cc: File DP 03-80 I I April 23, 1980 �NVIRop4`ppLM pESER�s CI Y Mr . Paul Williams , AICP Director of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert , CA 92260 Dear Paul : Thank you for taking the time and effort to advise me of the status of our Palm Desert Racquet Club project (PD 03-80) . I very much appreciated the information contained therein as well as the attitude expressed by your letter of April 14 . I hope we have satisfactorily complied with the requirements of the City and are now on schedule for the May 14the Planning Commission hearing. We look forward to maintaining close communication with yourself and Murrel Crump in order to eliminate any problems caused by a lack of communication on the part of ourselves or our consultants . Again, thank you for all the help you have thus far provided. I look forward to seeing you in the near future. Sin rely, David F. Stein DFS/js 2081 Business Center Drive, Suite 200 • Irvine, CA 92715 • (714) 833.8252 Oil F� __ � Ik�S�P�SIAO:> __.. �${Fi� O� SP�fi1a� '�o "� r38`� � MAY-�'RG tj:��i: i�l• 't'i "�'C �� ^- 45-276 PRICKLY PEAR LANE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 82280 TELEPHONE(714) E46-0611 \k ReTUNy� i Eagle Development ro ° 4262 Campus Dr. SENDER Newport Beach, CA 92660 FORWARDING TIME HAS EXPIRED' . 629-732-044 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 April 24, 1980 CITY OF PALM DESERT r�� i) s LEGAL NOTICE �N v`�NME OF pPO4 p�SERs REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT PLANC ND VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A HOTEL/CONDO- MINIUM COMPLEX, RACQUET CLUB, AND COMMERCIAL AND PROFESSIONAL SPACES, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY III AND 44TH AVENUE. CASE NOS: DP 03-80 and VAR 03-80 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by STEIN-BRIEF/VISTA for approval of a Development Plan to construct a 414 unit hotel/condominium complex, a 21,365 square foot racquet club and 50,000 square feet of commercial and professional spaces and a Variance to allow additional ingress/egress points from adjacent streets, deviation from perimeter landscape screening standards and deviation from parking requirements for public assembly spaces , on approximately 29.29 gross acres , within the PC(4) , S.P. (Planned Commercial , Resort, Scenic Preserva- tion Overlay) zone generally located at the southwest corner of Highway 111 and 44th Avenue, more particularly described as : Tract Maps 4489-1 and 4489-2 L r C, J 4T o ®�•� v r � j 'F VAR PASE Ll 4 _ 1 - � I full I r--•._ SAID Public Hearing will be held on Wednesday, May 14, 1980, at 1:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the Palm Desert City Hall , 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. This request, if approved, will allow the construction, with deviations from established standards, of a hotel/condominium complex and related racquet club and commercial and professional spaces. PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission PUBLISH: Palm Desert Post May 1, 1980 c 4 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-061I April 24, 1980 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A HOTEL/CONDO- MINIUM COMPLEX, RACQUET CLUB, AND COMMERCIAL AND PROFESSIONAL SPACES, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY III AND 44TH AVENUE. CASE NOS: DP 03-80 and VAR 03-80 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by STEIN-BRIEF/VISTA for approval of a Development Plan to construct a .414 unit hotel/condominium complex, a 21,365 square foot racquet club and 50,000 square feet of commercial and professional spaces and a Variance to allow additional ingress/egress points from adjacent streets, deviation from perimeter landscape screening standards and deviation from parking requirements for public assembly spaces , on approximately 29.29 gross acres, within the PC(4) , S.P. (Planned Commercial , Resort, Scenic Preserva- tion Overlay) zone generally located at the southwest corner of Highway 111 and 44th Avenue, more particularly described as: Tract Maps 4489-1 and 4489-2 _._�_ir:JIJ k � - I 000e Lll✓I - r _ % r o❑ L ?r III i:e oiicni k.� �JJ .,+ 44� AVE H LP _PAS E ' ir� � r- • ? ..;.� � ifs � �� rr- SAID Public Hearing will be held on Wednesday, May 14, 1980, at 1:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the Palm Desert City Hall , 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. This request, if approved, will allow the construction, with deviations from established standards, of a hotel/condominium complex and related racquet club and commercial and professional spaces. PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission PUBLISH: Palm Desert Post May 1, 1980 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Case No. : DP 03-80 (Revised) and VAR 03-80 Project: Development Plan Applicant: Stein-Brief/Vista Enclosed please find materials describing a project for which the following is being requested: Development Plan and related variance from development standards - approval of 414 unit hotel/condominium complex with 21,365 square feet racquet club and 50,000 square feet of professional and commercial spaces. Said project is located at southwest corner of Highway 111 and 44th Avenue and is zoned P.C. (4) S.P. (resort commercial with scenic preservation overlay) , The attached data was prepared by the applicant and is being forwarded to you for comments and recommended Conditions of Approval . The City is interested in the probable impacts on the natural environment (e.g. water and air pollution) and on public resources (e.g. demand for schools, hospitals, parks, power generation, sewage treatment, etc. ) Your comments and recommended conditions of approval must be received by this office prior to 5:00 p.m. May 5 , 1980, in order to be discussed by the Land Division Committee at their meeting of May 7 The Land Division Committee (comprised of Director of Environmental Services, City Building Official , City Engineer, Fire Marshal and a representative of CVCWD) will discuss the comments and recommended conditions of approval and will forward them to the Planning Commission through the staff report. Any information received by this office after the receipt deadline will not be discussed by the Land Division Com- mittee nor will it be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consid- eration. Ver truly yours aul A. Williams Director of Environmental Services PAW/ss PLEASE RETURN MAP WITH COMMENTS Name of Project: Case Nos. A- 19400 MONTH SUN MORN TUE WED THU FRI SAT r A <> d t................................. .................................. �I c�� CI Y � d RE1/IERfOI O �-B7 D V 1 G A EE I IDS D m. 5 ................................. ............................ :>::»::>:»>::>::»>::>:«««<:»:»>::;:::>::::>::»:::>:»»>::>:«<:>:>:>:;. :i1JfiH,i;.NIS:M;ibi;NrS:�Y111Y:�:F- ........... 1� {wy. /V a®I�1 E� I II� v r� T 5 � d3 I 00 � i J:Y�:IBNJIi1i ( k� wv::wvv: �in.?M•i+.t1::4: .:.::':KI61�18L1LAViNLlw�.::::ii. 1 >� E E 13 AG .......... Y. I 5.1 ET � 21 � If s LAB � d /mo > E! IE � COMMTTE > EET rsr E ll�d �® lil O •� t1 t . . i9 7 9 .. Legend: p�atin� aIndicates Meetings of which project will be discussed. Applicants must attend or prdject will not be considered. (��Rg. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1980 Page -6- VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) Commissioner Miller asked if the guard gate on Cook Street had sufficient turn-around. Mr. Fleshman replied that it did and illustrated on the exhibit how this would be provided. Chairman Snyder opened the Public Hearing asking if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being none, the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Berkey believed that it would be discriminative to not allow access of Cook Street, and with the new access being proposed he suggested to delete Special Condition No. 1. Commissioner Kryder concurred. Commission agreed to amend Special Condition No. 1 to read as follows: "A secondary access shall be provided from Via Cinta. " Chairman Snyder asked Mr. Beebe, City Engineer, if he had any comments. Mr. Beebe referred to his memorandum, which concurred with. Staff that the proposed main entrance should be relocated to Via Cinta. After a brief discussion the motion was made by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, to approve Case Nos. DP 04-80 and 204 MF, by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 587, as amended. Carried unanimously (4-0) . VII. OLD BUSINESS - NONE VIII. NEW BUSINESS - .NONE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS WERE DEFERRED TO A LATER POINT IN THE MEETING. X. ORAL COMMUNICATION NOTE: Case No. DP 03-80 - STEIN-BRIEF/VISTA, Applicant Request for approval of a Development Plan to allow construction of a hotel/condominium complex, racquet club, and commercial and professional spaces, located at the southwest corner of Highway 111 and 44th Avenue. This application was noticed for Public Hearing, but subsequently found to be incomplete, and processing was suspended. MR. STEPHEN FLESHMAN briefly explained to the Commission what the request was for and what the problems were at this point. He requested from the Commission that they grant the applicant more time to complete the necessary processing and for this case to be put on the April 16th Agenda. Mr. Crump stated that State Law provides for the rejection of applications if found incomplete within 30 days of filing. Mr. Fleshman pointed out that they were not notified of the case not being on the Agenda until last week. He also added that there were several pre-filing meetings with Staff. Mr. Crump stated that the applicant was aware that Staff needed more application information along with other procedural requirements. Commissioner Berkey asked if this matter could be done within the next meeting date. Mr. Crump again stated that this case has not been properly submitted therefore, action could not be taken. MINUITES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1980 Page -7- X. ORAL COMMUNICATION (continued) MR. JOHN BALLEW addressed the Commission and explained that the matter was an honest dispute between the applicant and Staff, in regards to a variance requirement which involved the number of driveways proposed for this project. He felt that the Commission should state whether a variance is needed to be filed or not. He hoped that this matter could be resolved in two weeks and if it was determined that they be required to resubmit they would. He asked for more time to continue with the application. The Commission concurred that because this case was already publicized they agreed to allow this matter to continue to the next meeting. IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS Consideration of cases acted on by the Design Review Board at their meeting of March 25, 1980. 205 MF - Mr. Sawa presented this case noting that this was previously approved as a CUP Amendment. He stated that the Board reviewed this case and approved with some revisions. He reviewed those revisions and recommended approval . Upon motion made by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, the Design Review Board Case No. 205 MF was confirmed acceptable by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 588. Carried unanimously (4-0) . XI . COMMENTS A short discussion between Staff and Commission proceeded regarding the Stein-Brief/Vista case. XII. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion made by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 P.M. PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretary ATTEST: WALTER SNYDER, Chairman /lr ti 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 9226O TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 April 14, 1980 Stien-Brief/Vista 2081 Business Center Drive Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92715 Re: DP 03-80 Dear Mr. Stien: As a follow-up to the meeting with Mr. Arbuckle and Mr. Smith on April 10th, relative to completion of materials for submittal on DP 03-80, I would like to confirm that all necessary materials _"- should be submitted by April 18th so that we can process the completed application for hearing before the Planning Commission on May 14th. I believe that you are well aware of what' s needed to complete this application, hopefully you can meet this deadline. The above described meeting further leads me to want to clarify one misunderstanding that appears to exist relative to this case; that is the matter of this office finding the application incomplete. You have received notice by letter on March 25th of what this office considers to be deficiencies as to the content of the application. Said letter was sent in part because of procedural deficiencies with the application that could not have been determined without complete evaluation. I consider these very minor problems which can be resolved by formally applying for variances and/or exceptions: However, the other items which include the plan for management and the expanded description of proposed uses, were items which were supposed to be submitted with the original application and were not. These items were discussed by all of us previously and apparently were not submitted because of some lack of understanding as to their impor- tance. I believe that I may be at fault for not more strongly stressing their importance. I do apologize for this misunderstanding. Finally, the remaining items specified in our letter of March 25th, resulted from input from those agencies that reviewed the project as part of circulation. I do not believe that anybody could have foreseen these concerns and therefore, I don't think that any blame can be placed on anyone for the lack of this information. Specifically these items are method of handling trash amd service and fire access to the units. Stien-Brief/V t April 14, 1980 Page Two +In summary;' 1 think that we are now on track with regards to com- pleting this application and that everyone is well aware of what's needed to be done, and it is now time to meet these commitments so that we can get the project to the Commission for their consideration on May 14th. Sincerely, , \p� PAUL A. WILLIAMS, AICP Director of Environmental Services PAW/lcr cc: Ballew-McFarland Palm Desert Office File `� April 9 , 1980 Planning Department City of Palm Desert Palm Desert, California 92260 Attention:, Mr. Murrel Grump Dear Mr. Crump: In response to your letter of March 25 , 1980 , to Stein-Brief/ Vista concerning Development Plan Application No. 03-80 , we wish to provide you with additional information which we feel should clarify the intent of our project concept as well as address the issues which were raised in that letter. We have reviewed each of the points in detail and feel that a number of them were very valid and warranted some change in the original plan. Others re- flected some points of concern which we feel could be sufficient) mitigated by a more complete explanation of the concept as it re- lated to each issue. You will note that these changes to the pla include an adjustment to the bank location, elimination of two points of access and the addition of additional landscape materi- als. For ease of reference, I have included a copy of your March 25th letter with a numerical index in the margin adjacent to each of your points. I :will use that numerical index in each of the respective responses below. 1. Description of Condo/Hotel Operation We anticipate that the operation of this hotel will not violate the City' s requirements for temporary occupancy. Because of unpredictable economic trends , financing re- quirements and future demand for hotel-uses , we feel it is very important to minimize restrictions which would limit the future flexibility and viability of the complex. The physical site plan and the operation of the hotel will not differ in any way from other resort hotels in the city. Structuring the resort hotel to allow condominium ownership will merely broaden the possibilities of owner- ship arrangements and provide us the flexibility which we are certain is essential. We are suggesting that no spe- cific restrictive conditions pertaining to occupancy be placed on the project at this time. Instead, we would suggest that we explore a condition which would allow the city to review the actual operation within a year after BLVD.178AS SKY PARK A CALIFORNIA 740 5 EL RASEO SURE AJ ALMED DESERT, CALIF. IF.92260 (714)568-5626 PLANNERS & ARCHITECT S CORPORATION Mr. Crump April 9 , 1980 Page -2- completion to satisfy itself that the resort hotel does not violate the intent of the general plan and zoning. 2 . Hydrology and Grading The site has been previously graded based on an earlier grading plan. The cross fall is approximately 15 feet over a 1500 foot distance for an average grade of about 1% . The existing drainage patterns result in approxi-. mately 75% of the site draining into an existing storm drain near the intersection of Highway 111. The remaining portion of this site flows to a low area near the bridge on Highway 111. The concept employs subterranean parking which will be below ground level. Although normal runoff should be accommodated by the existing storm drain system and a few additions to it, any drainage into the subter- ranean parking areas resulting from more severe storm con- ditions will be handled by sump pumping systems. These systems are commonly used and wherever they are subject to inundation, they have proven to be relatively problem free where back-up power generators are used and adequate safety conditions are observed. 3&4. Office & Commercial Bank Justification (See Appendix "A") At the City ' s suggestion, we employed the firm of Lord and Associates, Inc. , consultants in real estate and urban economics , to analyze the economic viability as well as the appropriateness of the various land uses proposed in our project. I direct your attention to Page 14 of the report which contains their. conclusions as to the economic justification for the office uses. You will also note that in the report (Page 3) ,= a variety of uses which they feel are ancillary to resort uses and would require rentable office space. 5. Racquet Club Uses We anticipate that the racquet club would be 21,360 square feet in size. This space would be allocated approximately as follows : a. Spa facilities , showers , sauna, etc. = 1500 square feet b. Massage rooms = '300 " C. Locker rooms and showers = 3500 " d. Juice and sandwich bar = 2000 " e. Administrative offices = 600 " Mr. Crump April 9 , 1980 Page -3- f. Storage area = 765 square feet g. Lounge and quiet spaces = 1200 " h. Halls , circulation and mechanical spaces = 1000 " 1NT6R� Racquetball and squash courts =10500 " 6 . Hotel Lobby Uses The hotel lobby is expected to be approximately 3300 square feet in size. We expect to utilize this area generally as follows : a. Lobby, guest registration, cashier and lounging areas = 1250 square feet b. Bell captain area = 100 " C. office management and clerical areas = 500 " d. General storage = 200 " e. Ancillary use space = 1200 " IT We have allocated this area for uses which cannot be specifically determined at this time, which we feel are not only supplementary but', in many cases , essen- tial to the proper operation of a resort area. These could include travel agents ' desks , car rental area, news stand, etc. 7 . Location of Shops These shops were shown on the original plan with the label "Shops. " We have enhanced the identity of thier location by the addition of a zip-a-tone pattern on the enclosed site plan. 8&9 . List of Exceptions/Variances A list of exceptions which we request is included herewith as Appendix "B" . Mr. Crump April 9 , 1980 Page -4- 10 . Hotel Unit Density The proposed plan provides for 414 units. Each of the units has 2 bedrooms. The allowable density in this zone is 30 units per acre or 491 units. Therefore, we feel that we are actually below the allowable density. If we were to consider the overall site area,and we be- lieve that the ordinance allows this; and we were to consider the hotel rooms as units (we do not subscribe to this approach) , the effective density is 28.27 ; be- low the allowable 30 per acre requirement. In any case, all parking requirements have been exceeded. 11. Minimum Setbacks along Highway 111 and 44th Avenue The building setback is now proposed to be 32 feet from right-of-way line. The 44 foot setback dimensioned from back-of-curb appears to meet minimum setback re- quirements and provide enough space to accommodate an 8 foot meandering public bike-way along Highway 111. 12. Minimum Setback along Painters Path The primary frontage of the site is along Highway 111. This is clearly the "front" of the project for setback determination purposes. Therefore, we feel that the minimum setback requirement along Painters Path should comply with rear yard setback requirements. Further- more, we used much care in attempting to juxtaposition the buildings adjacent to Painters Path in such a way that for a length of over 2300 feet, none of the units are closer than 30 feet to the right-of-way. This re- sults in less than 3% of the total frontage along Painters Path falling below a 30 foot standard. In fact, the average setback exceeds 50 feet and in no case does any portion of any building setback less than 20 feet from Painters Path. 13. Building Heights The City zoning (Ordinance 22. 56. 300) provides that roof- top mechanical equipment is exempt from the 30 foot . height limit. Therefore, it appears that the height of feet plus reasonable mechan- ical could be 30 p the g aces. At this point in time, it is nearly im- possible to determine the exact height of the buildings due to the fact that the structural systems involved will not be designed until a later stage. Since we in- tend to completely comply with the zoning code relative to the height limit, we feel that this issue is best addressed at a later point in time. Mr. Crump April 9 , 1980 Page -5- 14. Turn Pocket on 44th Avenue a. The proposed entrance to the project is set at a distance of 228 feet from the center line of High- way 111. This was specifically located to coincide with the entry into Restaurant Park which is cur- rently under construction on the opposite side of 44th Avenue from our proposed project. b. The current proposal provides for at least 11 cars to stack along 44th Avenue before conflicting with traffic along Highway 111. C. Traffic along 44th Avenue will primarily be limited to automobiles that result from our proposed pro- ject and Restaurant Park. Due to the limited uses along Painters Path, normal traffic volumes along 44th Avenue should be minimal. 15 . Project Entrances After re-evaluating this concern, we concur that fewer points of ingress would be desirable. Therefore, we have eliminated two points of ingress along Painters Path (the original entrance closest to the flood con- trol channel and the one closest to the intersection with 44th;\Avenue) . This provides the site with a total of six points of access (an average of 2 per street frontage: Ordinance 25. 30 . 170) . Since we are unable to take direct access from Highway 111, it is necessary to take all other points of access from 44th Avenue and Painters Path. Due to the minimal site dimension along 44th Avenue, it seems reasonable to consolidate the other available points of access along Painters Path. 16. Bank Relocation After re-evaluating this concern, we concur that it would be desirable to have additional open space at the corner. By moving the bank back and reducing the service area of the proposed adjacent restaurant, it would allow us to provide additional landscape materials or special landscape treatment (such as fountain water elements, sculpture, etc. ) . 17. Additional Landscape Area on Highway 111 As pointed out earlier in Item 11 , the proposed plan currently provides for a 44 foot building setback from the back of curb along Highway 111. This should be more than adequate to accommodate the meandering public bike path and all landscape and public access improvements. Mr. Crump April 9 , 1980 Page -6- 18. Landscape along Storm Channel We feel that the siting and the proposed architectural concept minimizes negative visual impacts from offsite and would, in fact, provide a positive image along Highway 111. We don 't feel that it would be neces- sarily appropriate to provide a dense screen of land- scaping along the flood control channel that,.would ; reduce views of the valley from the hotel units. How- ever, we have provided additional plant materials along the flood control channel which would more closely ap- proach a continuous edge of planting. 19 . Painters Path Cul-de-sac (See enclosed Site Plan) Per your request, we have accommodated a future cul-de- sac which would be located entirely within the existing right-of-way or our property. Therefore, no additional property would be required to complete this cul-de-sac nor would it impact the siting of our buildings. 20. Commercial Sidewalk The proposed concept provides a public sidewalk along Painters Path. The project design also provides a major internal circulation system which will clearly minimize pedestrian circulation from our project to and along Painters Path. We do not propose any commercial use on our side of Painters Path, therefore, we feel that the requirement for a commercial sidewalk is not ap- propriate. we feel that it is more appropriate to provide a 5 foot sidewalk and use the additional width for landscaping. 21. Emergency Vehicle Access on or about April 1, we submitted to your offices an emergency access plan as a supplement to the original submittal package. This plan demonstrated that the proposed project provides for a moving van and emer- gency vehicle access to within 150 feet of all struc- tures . It' s our intention to provide for necessary thickening or special treatment of sidewalks and ac- cess drives required by the increased loads. 22. Solar Exposure The proposed buildings have been designed in such a way as to minimize adverse solar effects. Roof over- hangs and raised planters will significantly limit direct solar exposure to upper level units and 34r. Crump April 9 , 1980 . Page -7- virtually eliminate it from units on the lower level. Balconies and adjacent buildings will provide protec- tion for windows which open into courtyards . 23. Distance Between Buildings The proposed buildings have been sited in such a way that-when they are in close proximity to one another, the windows from each structure do not directly face other windows. As a guideline when planning the site, we used your residential standards for multi-family residential (Ordinance 25. 20.070) and planned residen- tial (Ordinance 25. 24.260) both of which set 20 feet as the minimum distance between units. We have re- searched other jurisdictions who have similar land uses and have found 20 feet to be more than adequate. 24. Central Trash Collection. The hotel will operate a private trash collection system throughout the project. We intend to utilize . private vehicles which will collect trash at each building and take it to a central location near the restaurants for later pick-up by the trash disposal agency serving the city. 25. Stadium Seating It is unlikely that special events would be scheduled during normal operating times for the office and bank uses. Therefore, we anticipate providing for shared . parking at these locations. Additionally, there is ample space for at least. 80 parallel parked vehicles on our side of Painters Path. The actual details of the championship court seating have not been deter- mined at this time. Using a commonly accepted average of 7 square feet per seat, we could estimate that ap- proximately 2 ,000 people would be accommodated during special events. We trust that this supplementary information will sufficiently address the City' s concerns and that you will be able to immediately reschedule our application for public hearing at the earliest pos- sible date. If you have any additional questions concerning the project concept or the submittal, please do not hesitate to contact me. SiOdelFr . Arbuckle Vice President FMA:pw • 9 � �' „ . ; � ♦ • fir.• � � - T ��. � / •` / �_ `� � /� .10 WIN WA Iola dam .� VA4%: ► � ./ � � � is ! � / .• j / ,%..1, _ �0 A ' .� . � IMF . / �\ /. / IN 1 , �� , / _ .. _ ./ice ► / '�� / • y _� I , I - L44 tom ►... . �� .� r •.. / l !1 i � �� U � I• 1Aj �.•' r . ,I�I��i � �� • • I � tom•` � \ _1.\�1\ . � .,� ' / / ' � / � , �� Jill � � � r�1/ . / �/` \ =� ( • � ' as. I�,� / ` � �'% �`r�?� `� &• ` � �—• 1 � _ a ��1r P& 41) �r.'�'",. -'. •fir,/ ..,��A �.. �� w �� / � . l - 45 ` .�` �� ,�� •.• � ` in �,�� \ � /, y/ � \y �/ ,�/!/�� •� v. 3 • � ` / � �� / M,�' i ' • •� �/ i ��f '� , • / , �A ! ,� ` / :.\ . ♦ ! 1 �'� '+ \ / ^/• >� I \= .ice` �' • �� II / `► 'h .. :1.i.. a •- �. !. • 6 .�I �� ! / , / �� ap . Mi 1 A �""r' /. �� -'' � � � r, ` �i • / / / 1,� /�� 1�� i � �' _ / ��. ;�/� � w/ •� ,, � � ��, � � � ,�I'� _ , � / 01 1. - ` ' . w � , . :. .- : s�. � .1� �/ .�.�,,,: ,�. - . ► . � / liter '; �. •- . �. ',i . ,. r ••w� ,/ ;�' .,, ��1�,� ., � � . �, • l � � 4i �`I � �{1• -� � / t I • � ,.� " .Imo' � x ;I �•� ,. ., r � . / (fit� / ��- �- �i. � _ ... , PVAN x •_ �. +�,` .��.1 / �/� — //' / / \ , \ t�� •• �, - _ . +�►, , i' ��'' �j•-��•+�., .,,,. .= try , ' /I , ® , / SAM . �. •,' ,�� /'/, ,• ,. ► r , ` I ! \ It 1 ..• / � 1 / � � .. ��. / / •� ..•d' � - - .�. . - ; � . _,� / _ �, Ili ♦ / `, MISS, Wi NOW a-MqT VIS 11 NR� 10 %,,, h�,--. �� \ ` / �., �►� .� ° / I' ` ,ti t� / \� A� . ' +�/��/./ � . •�� '�li. Cam/ A 1 _i � _�. �� .. • s / L .�►�� / � / � � /i WFA4Iwo J � \ � � �� / � � •_ � � • : �i � � / / � � - ♦ � : 140 1 v -4w dwV All I WE M Wp 1 / •.. • . • / • •� I►. _ \' ! !ram l\ A', Nvp PT _ _ ,� Situation Description: Application for a Development Plan, in the P.C. (4) zone, was received by the Department of Environmental Services on March 3, 1980. A subsequent review of the application found that the proposed project design required a Variance from the zone standards, and furthermore, that the Development Plan applica- tion was incomplete with regard to the information required to be filed with a Development Plan in the P.C. zone. This matter was discussed with a principal of the firm representing the appli- cant, by telephone on March 24, 1980; followed by a formal written rejection of the application directed to the applicant (with copy to the representative firm) citing where the application was found to be incomplete and how it might be made complete. This letter was mailed on March 25, 1980. Prior to the determination that the application was incomplete; and before processing had been suspended, a Legal Notice of Public Hearing appeared in the newspaper and the Notice had been sent to surrounding property owners. A note was placed on the subject Public Hearing agenda advising that the case had been found to be incomplete, subsequent to noticing, and that processing had been suspended. The applicant's representative addressed the Commission under the agenda item for Oral Communications, requesting that rather than rejecting the application for incompleteness, that the Commission continue the "Public Hearing" to their next meeting, to allow the applicant to make his application complete (this was to be inlieu of a new filing of an acceptable complete application) . Staff advised the Commission that this subject was not before them for Public Hearing (therefore, no hearing existed to continue) and that discussion of the case was moot, because the application had been formally rejected for incom- pleteness. Notwithstanding this Staff explanation, the Commission adopted a Minute Motion to continue the case to their next meeting (presumably as a Public Hearing) . Questions: 1. Does the Department of Environmental Services have the authority to reject an application found incomplete, for purposes of Municipal Code, Section 25.30.060, within thirty (30) days of receipt of the application? 2. What effect does Legal Noticing of a Public Hearing prior to a determina- tion of application incompleteness have, if any? 3. With reference to 1 and 2 above, what authority does the Planning Commission have to act on this matter (further noting, in this case, that the secretary of the Planning Commission did not place this item on the meeting agenda for Public Hearing)? Attachments : Rejection letter Excerpt from State Planning Law 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 March 25, 1980 Stien-Brief/Vista 2081 Business Center Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92715 Re: velopment Plan No. 0 0 Hotel/Condo and Commercial projec ocate on tine southwest corner of 44th Ave. and Hwy 111. Ladies/Gentlemen: A detailed evaluation of the proposed project, referenced above, indicates that the concept plan is at variance with Section 25.30.170, of the City Municipal Code, which limits the number of property entrances in the Planned _ Commercial zone to two (2) ; and, Section 25.30.120, which requires a 20 foot landscaped perimeter adjacent to all street side property lines (perimeter walls must also be set in 20 ft. ). The Planning Commission could not consider approval of your project, as it is presently designed, without the procedural requirement of having a companion Variance Case also filed and noticed for Public Hearing. It is also found that the application material and request is further in- complete relative to site use descriptions and justification (vis-a-vis the uses permitted in the P.C. (4) zone) . Therefore, further processing of the referenced case will be suspended until the following information is submitted: • Description of how the condo/hotel will operate. (Please note that only temporary occupancy is allowed in permitted P.C. (4) zone hotels). • Provide hydrologic/grading/drainage information relative to water retention on-site, impact on stormwater channel , and drainage of underground parking. e List of proposed office building uses and justification for 30,000 sq.ft. • Justification for Commercial Bank Use. • List of all uses, and assigned floor area, for the 21,365 sq.ft. Racquet Club. 0 List and floor area for all uses in the 3,300 sq.ft. hotel lobby. ` Stien-Brief/Vista ,E _____._March 25, 1980 Page -2 • Reference location of the 1,000 sq.ft. of "shops", which is not shown on the site plan. • List of all exceptions you requested from P.C. (4) Development Standards. • Variance a lication filin number of access oints and perimeter treatment or redesign site access and perimeter:' Futher, several additional "exceptions" to the P.C. (4) Development Standard have been observed which the Planning does have the ability to consider with- out a separate variance application, but which you will either have to redesign to bring the project in line with the Standards, or either specifically request in writing that the Planning Commission grant "exceptions", pursuant to Municipal Code Section 25.30.260, as follows: • Maximum 30 hotel units per acre - Proposal would yield up to 828 separate rooms, on 16.38 acres, which is equal to 50.5 rooms/acre. • Minimum building setback from Highway 111 and 44th Avenue is 32 ft. - 30 ft. proposed (additional setback will be recommended to provide for pedestrian/bicycle path along Hwy Ill frontage) . • Minimum building setback from Painters Path is 25 ft. - 20 ft. proposed. The other questionable subjects vis-a-vis the P.C. (4) zone would, of course, include the whole subject of proposed uses. Also, it is noted that the condo/ hotel buildings are designed to the 30 ft. height maximum, but in the practical application, we question whether you can accomplish three stories and mechanical equipment, within that maximum height. We are unable to fully advise you on compliance with parking requirements, because a complete description of uses and floor areas has not been provided. Beyond the items mentioned, your attention is directed to the following list of design comments, which you may want to consider in any additional design effort on your part. Similar recommendation would be offered to the Planning Commission, based on the present project design: o Install median island with left turn pocket on to Highway 111; relocate project entrance now shown on 44th Avenue so that it does not conflict with median left turn pocket, or present stacking (left turn) problems in 44th Avenue , as present design location would suggest. The entrance on 44th Avenue is consi- dered to be too close to the intersection with Highway 111. • Restudy all other project entrances to combine and eliminate where practical (i .e. have ramp entrance to the first set of condo/hotel buildings come from commercial parking lot area, versus Painters Path, eliminate parking access ramp adjacent -- _. .. to storm channo� m _._ Stien-Brief/Vista March 25, 1980 Page -3- • Move building (now shown as "Bank") away from corner, and provide enhanced corner treatment. • Provide a 30 ft. wide landscaped area parallel to Highway 111. Landscaped area to contain an eight (8) ft. :wide meandering pedestrian/bicycle path. s Substantially increase landscape treatment along the storm channel to soften the visual impact of three story buildings. • Provide area for cul-de-sac on the subject property at Painters Path and the storm channel , and install if subsequently deter- mined necessary by the City. • Provide commercial sidewalk with tree wells, along Painters Path. • Provide alternative emergency vehicle access to all condo/hotel buildings by means of an expanded pedestrian system with entrance near hotel lobby. Also, restudy delivery access needs. • Evaluate building elevations for solar exposure and protection. • Restudy distance between condo/hotel building groups; a minimum of 20 ft. may not be acceptable for 3 story. buildings. • Provide central trash collection system with the use of trash compactor(s) . • Show seating detail for championship tennis court (if special events are planned and stadium seating is provided, parking may be in question) . The case had been scheduled for hearing on April 1, 1980, but because of the circumstances described, Staff will be advising the Planning Commission that the item is to be removed from the Agenda. This Department's recommendation to you, the applicant, is that you seriously reconsider the proposed project and its design, to bring it in line with the purpose and standards of the Planned Commercial , Resort Center (P.C. (4)) zone. At a minimum, to receive consideration of the project as it is now proposed, you would need to supply the noted missing application information items and file for a variance from the referenced standards. The next application filing date is April 1, 1980, and thereafter, the first working Monday of each month. If you choose to revise your plans, so a variance is not required, you should be prepared to submit the revised application material on the filing date. Stien=Brief/Vista Page -4- March 25, 1980 You many contact the undersigned for additional filing information and/or questions you may have. A variance application form is enclosed. Very truly yours, PAUL A. WILLIAMS, AICP Director of Environmental Services 4i MURREL CRUMP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER pw/mc/lr J cc: Ballew-McFarland c/o John Ballew Enclosure: Variance Application CASE .NO.4 cuf:i]�Tr OO ff 1FMM n1 Imcp=(:�zV(h, Environmental Assessment Form TO THE APPLICANT: Your cooperation in completing this form and supplying the information requested will expedite City review of your application pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. The City is required to make an environmental assessment on all projects which it exercises discretionary approval over. Applications submitted will not be considered complete until all information necessary to make the environmental assessment is complete. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1 . Name, address , and telephone number of owner, applicant or project roup, 2081 Business Center Drive, sponsor: The Stein G Suite 200, Irvine , CA 92715 (714)833-8252 2. Name, address and telephone number of person to be contacted con- cerning the project (such as architect, engineer, or other repre- sentative) : Bal lew/McFar land, Inc. , 17848 Sky Park Blvd. , Irvine, CA 92714 (714) 751-4623 3. Common name of project (if any) : Palm Desert Racquet Club 4. Project location (street address or general location) : Highway 111 , 44th Avenue, Painters Path. 5. Precise legal description of property (lot and tract number, or meets & bounds) : 6. Proposed use of the site (project for which the form is filed; describe the total undertaking, not just the current application approval being sought) : Planned development involving commercial shop uses ,i'ro ei, offices , a hotel/condo and racquet club . 7. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects (describe how this project relates to other activities, phases, and develop- ments planned, or now underway) : The project is surrounded by vacant land excepting a project under construction directly tot then dnort}� The tworpya cts relate to one other i that they 8. Lis an escr1be any othher e a ed permits and other pubic approve s blluu required for this project, to go forward, including those required by the City, Regional , State and Federal agencies (indicate sub- sequent approval agency name, and type of approval required) : EXISTING CONDITIONS: 9. Project site area: 29.29 acres (Size of property in sq. ft. or acreage) 10. Present zoning: PC (4,S.P. ) (Proposed zoning) : No change 11 . General Plan land use designation: Resort commercial 12. Existing use of the project site: Vacant 13. Existing use on adjacent properties : (Example - North, Shopping Center; South, Single Family Dwellings; East, Vacant, etc. ). North: commercial office complex; South: Drainage channel and vacant land; East: State Highway III/vacant beyond; West: Painters Path w/vacant land beyond. 14. Site topography (describe) : Generally flat 15. Are there any natural or manmade drainage channels through or adjacent to the property? NO YES X — Adjacent to South 16. Grading (estimate number of cubic yards of dirt being moved) : N/A 17. List the number, size and type of trees being removed: N/A 18. Describe any cultural , historic, or scenic aspects of the project site: None 19. Residential Project (if not residential do NOT answer) A. Number and type of dwelling units (Specify no. of bedrooms) : N/A B. Schedule of unit sizes: N/A C. Number of stories N/A Height feet. D. Largest single building (sq. ft. ) (hgt. ) E. Type of household size expected (population projection for the project) : N/A F. Describe the number and type of recreational facilities : N/A G. Is there any night lighting of the project: N/A H. Range of sales prices or rents : $ N/A to $ I. Percent of total project devoted to: Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N/A Paving, including streets. . . . . . . . . . . N/A q Landscaping, Open, Recreation Area . . . . . . N/A g 20. Commercial , Industrial , Institutional or Other Project: A. Type of use(s) and major function(s) (if offices, specify ,type & number) : Commercial , flt4fixavia( offices , bank, hotel condo and racquet club. B. Number of square feet in total building area: Office WOOsg . ft. (2 Story) ; 2 Restaurants 7000 and 6000 sq. ft. ; commercial shops 1000 sq. ft. ; Range from C. Number of stories 1 to 3 Height feet. D. Largest single building (Sq. Ft. ) 30,000 S .F(.Hgt. ) 30'Feet E. Number of square feet in outdoor storage area: N/A . : F. Total number of required parking spaces 15!sb number provided 1550'— G. Hours of operation: Presently undetermined H. Maximum number of clients, patrons, shoppers, etc. , at one time: Undeterminable I . Maximum number of employees at one time: Presently undetermined J. If patron seating is involved, state the number: 6000 sq. ft'. gross 7000 sq . ft. gross K. Is there any night lighting of the project: Yes X- No L. Percent of total project devoted to: Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.5 % Paving, including streets. ,(includes patios) . . 18 .5 % Landscaping and Open Space (Recreation). . 65 20B. Bank 6000 sq. ft. ; Racquet Club 21 ,400 sq. ft. ; reception Lobby Building 3300 sq. ft. ; Hotel Condo 414 Units total . Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects: Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary) . YES NO 21 . Change in existing features of hillsides, or substantial alteration of ground contours. 22. Change in the dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors / in the project vicinity. V 23. Subject to or resulting in soil errosion by wind or flooding. 24. Change in ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. 25. Change in existing noise or vibration level in the vicinity. Subject to roadway or airport noise (has the required acoustical report been submitted?) 26. Involves the use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, / flammables or explosives. 27. Involves the use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy. V. 28. Changes the demand for municipal services (police, fire, sewage, etc. ) 29. Changes the demand for utility services, beyond those presently available or planned in the near future. 30. Significantly affects any unique or natural features, including mature trees. 31 . Change in scenic views or vistas from existing / / -C residential areas or public land or public roads. V `V 32. Results in the dislocation of people. �/ y. , YES NO 33. Generates controversy based on aesthetics or other features of the project. [ ] Additional explanation of "yes" answers attached. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation, to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Name Print or Type For Signature Date INITIAL STUDY FEE: $30. 00 (Make check payable to the City of Palm Desert and sub- mit with this form. ) - Cd /(d1z) � �° PROJECT LOCATION The Stein property consists of approximately 30 acres located on the southwest corner of Highway 111 and 44th Avenue. PROJECT CONCEPT The concept for the Stein property is to create a planned com- mercial development consisting of a variety of land uses which are consistent to the City' s land use designation and zoning for the property. The uses involved include a Hotel/Condo and Racquet Club complex complimented by a variety of commercial chop activities and professional offices . SITE PLAN The site plan reflects the concept described above with the breakdown of uses and building sizes as follows : Hotel/Condo : 414 Units Total Racquet Club : 21 ,400 square feet Reception/Lobby Bldg. : 3300 square feet Office Complex: 30 ,000 square feet Commercial Shop : 1000 square feet Two Restaurants : 6000 square feet and 7000 square feet Bank: 6000 square feet The total building coverage on site accounts for 16.5% of the site area with paving and open space being 18 .5% and 65% respec- tively. PHASING Construction of this project will occur concurrently and will not be phased. (51ftllwro:ap amnM.n„,, IMMMMIM FAG 6" 09' 0:'9n7. 0 3t3U j �J.S.POS(ALEi: 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE)PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 RETURN TELEPHONE(714) 346-0911 NOT DI�.E_;X.VI=;FiF4h:l.-Ei. f)E' 65;E7I:? 9b �_ Lli�O BLEi' 'T'O FORW) :D Eagle Develppment 4262 Campus Dr. Newport Beach, CA 92660 629-732-044 " %'�ftij�ZF Oc 2 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 March 12, 1980 CITY OF PALM DESERT F LEGAL NOTICE REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A HOTEL/CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX, RACQUET CLUB, AND COMMERCIAL AND PRO- FESSIONAL SPACES, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY iil AND 44TH AVENUE. CASE NO. DP 03-80 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by STEIN-BRIEF/VISTA for approval of a Development Plan to construct a 414 unit hotel/condominium complex, a 21,365 square foot racquet club and 50,000 square feet of commercial and professional spaces on approximately 29.29 gross acres , within the P..C. (4) , S.P. (Planned Commercial , Resort, Scenic Preservation Overlay) zone generally located at the southwest corner of Highway 111 and 44th Avenue, - more. particularly described as : Tract Maps 4489-1 and 4489-2 '. 7:::COLLEGX OF i ui 44+" AVE. 4+- w { SAID Public Hearing will be held on Tuesday, April 1, 1980, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the Palm Desert City Hall , 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are in- vited to attend and be heard. This request, if approved, will allow the construc- tion of a hotel/condominium complex and related racquet club and commercial and - professional uses. PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission PUBLISH: Palm Desert Post March 20, 1980 PROOF OF PUBLICATION. (2010, 2015. 5 CCP) PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF CITY OF PALM DESERT-LEGAL NOTICE OP 03-80 CITY OF PALM DESERT I 2fi a citizen Of the United _REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT NOTICE E OPMENT PLAN TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A States and a resident of the HOTEL/CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX,RACQUET CLUB,ANDCOMMERCIAL AND PROFES- County aforesaid ; I am over the SIOAVENUE NAL SPACES, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY Ill AND 44TH age of eighteen CASE NO. DP 0380 g years and not NOTICE m HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be Af before the Palm Desert PlenninG Commission to consider o request by STEIN-BRIEF/VISTA for approval of c Del club 2 party to or interested in the ment Plan to construct p 474 unit hotel/condominium complex, a 21,065 square foot rpcquel club or�d P,000 square feet of commercial and professional spaces on approximately 29.29 gross acres, above entitled matter. I air. the w n lthhe P.C.(A),S.P. (Planned Commercial,Resort,Scenic Preservation Overlay)zone general. Principal cleric of the printer ly located of the southwest corner of Highway Ill and 44th Avenue, more particularly described as: of PALM DESERT POSTS a newpaper Of Tract Maps 4489-1 and 4489.2 general circulations printed and published daily in the - city of Riversider County of Riversides and which newspaperaa has been adjudged a newspaper of •� "Y'- �av-- — L � : ( ^ general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of i'. ��\ b f) �' E ;: Piversideq State of Californians- under date of October 5, 19649 '<<.�,�`�, Case number 83658; that the (;, /�=✓f j j ' _,1 i L notice,, of which the annexed is a printed copy , has been published }.�I in each regular and entire issue �F of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following - �'. �� 1� �' �• datesq to-wit: ' ' SAID Public Hearing will be held on Tuesday. Agri 980, at ig p.m. In the Council Chambers In the Palm Desert City Hall, 45-275 Prickly P ne. Palm Desert, California at which time and �lore all Interested persons ore Invited t antl and be heard. This reaues�( if 0 3/2 0 s 1980 approved, will allow the construction of a hotel/condomini m complex and related racquet club and commercial and professional uses. PAUL A. WILLIAMS. Secretory e Palm Desert Planning Commission PDP-0/20 I Certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated March 20$ 1980 at Riversidelr California CITY OF PALM DESERT NATEq ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC A� ..:Y �isrRlct COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058 COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (714) 398-2651 DIRECTORS OFFICERS RAYMOND R.RUMMONDS,PRESIDENT LOWELL O.WEEKS,GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER TELLIS CODEKAS,VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON,SECRETARY C.J.FROST DENNIS M.HACKETT,AUDITOR PAUL W.NICHOLS REDWINE AND SH ERRILL,ATTORNEYS STEVE D.BUXTON March 25, 1980 File: 0163. 11 0421 . 1 f; 0721 . 1 Department of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert P. 0. Box 1977 Palm Desert, California 92261 Re: D.P. 6s6lNo. 03-80 NWz, Seel% T5S� S.B.M. Gentlemen: This area is protected from stormwater flows by a system of channels and dikes. This area may be considered safe from stormwater flows except in rare instances. The District will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with the currently prevailing regulations of this District. There may be conflicts with existing District facilities. We request the appropriate public agency to withhold the issuance of a building permit until arrangements have been made with the District for the relocation of these facilities. Very tr ny yours Lowell 0. Weeks General Manager-Chief Engineer DBP: ra cc: Riverside County Department of Public Health 46-209 Oasis Street Indio, California 92201 Attention: Don Park 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (7I4) 346-0611 March 25, 1980 Stien-Brief/Vista 2081 Business Center Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92715 Re: Development Plan No. 03-80, Hotel/Condo and Commercial project located on the southwest corner of 44th Ave. and Hwy 111. Ladies/Gentlemen: A detailed evaluation of the proposed project, referenced above, indicates that the concept plan is at variance with Section 25.30.170, of the City Municipal Code, which limits the number of property entrances in the Planned Commercial zone to two (2) ; and, Section 25.30. 120, which requires a 20 foot landscaped perimeter adjacent to all street side property lines (perimeter walls must also be set in 20 ft. ) . The Planning Commission could not consider approval of your project, as it is presently designed, without the procedural requirement of having a companion Variance Case also filed and noticed for Public Hearing. It is also found that the application material and request is further in- complete relative to site use descriptions and justification (vis-a-vis the uses permitted in the P.C. (4) zone) . Therefore, further processing of the referenced. case will be suspended until the following information is submitted: • Description of how the condo/hotel will operate. (Please note that only temporary occupancy is allowed in permitted P.C. (4) zone hotels). • Provide hydrologic/grading/drainage information relative to water retention on-site, impact on stormwater channel , and drainage of underground parking. •. List of proposed office building uses and justification for 30,000 sq.ft. a Justification for Commercial Bank Use. • List of all uses, and assigned floor area, for the 21,365 sq.ft. Racquet Club. • List and floor area for all uses in the 3,300 sq.ft. hotel lobby. Stien-Brief/Vista March 25, 1980 Page -2- • Reference location of the 1,000 sq.ft. of "shops", which is not shown on the site plan. • List of all exceptions you requested from P.C. (4) Development Standards. • Variance application filing (number of access points and perimeter treatment or redesign site access and perimeter: Futher, several additional "exceptions" to the P.C. (4) Development Standard have been observed which the Planning does have the ability to consider with- out a separate variance application, but which you will either have to redesign to bring the project in line with the Standards, or either specifically request in writing that the Planning Commission grant "exceptions" , pursuant to Municipal Code Section 25.30.260, as follows: e Maximum 30 hotel units per acre - Proposal would yield up to 828 separate rooms, on 16.38 acres, which is equal to 50.5 rooms/acre. • Minimum building setback from Highway 111 and 44th Avenue is 32 ft. - 30 ft. proposed (additional setback will be recommended to provide for pedestrian/bicycle path along Hwy 111 frontage) . • Minimum building setback from Painters Path is 25 ft. - 20 ft. proposed. The other questionable subjects vis-a-vis the P.C. (4) zone would, of course, include the whole subject of proposed uses. Also, it is noted that the condo/ hotel buildings are designed to the 30 ft. height maximum, but in the practical application, we question whether you can accomplish three stories and mechanical equipment, within that maximum height. We are unable to fully advise you on compliance with parking requirements, because a complete description of uses and floor areas has not been provided. Beyond the items mentioned, your attention is directed to the following list of design comments, which you may want to consider in any additional design effort on your part. Similar recommendation would be offered to the Planning Commission, based on the present project design: • Install median island with left turn pocket on to Highway 111; relocate project entrance now shown on 44th Avenue so that it does not conflict with median left turn pocket, or present stacking (left turn) problems in 44th Avenue , as present design location would suggest. The entrance on 44th Avenue is consi- dered to be too close to the intersection with Highway 111. • Restudy all other project entrances to combine and eliminate where practical (i .e. have ramp entrance to the first set of condo/hotel buildings come from commercial parking lot area, versus Painters Path, eliminate parking access ramp adjacent to storm channel , and combine other Painters Path parking entrances) . Stien-Brief/Vista _ -- March 25, 1980 Page -3- • Move building (now shown as "Bank") away from corner, and provide enhanced corner treatment. • Provide a 30 ft. wide landscaped area parallel to Highway ill. Landscaped area to contain an eight (8) ft. .wide meandering pedestrian/bicycle path. ♦ Substantially increase landscape treatment along the storm channel to soften the visual impact of three story buildings. ♦ Provide area for cul-de-sac on the subject property at Painters Path and the storm channel , and install if subsequently deter- mined necessary by the City. ♦ Provide commercial sidewalk with tree wells, along Painters Path. • Provide alternative emergency vehicle access to all condo/hotel buildings by means of an expanded pedestrian system with entrance near hotel lobby. Also, restudy delivery access needs. ♦ Evaluate building elevations for solar exposure and protection. ♦ Restudy distance between condo/hotel building groups; a minimum of 20 ft. may not be acceptable for 3 story. buildings. ♦ Provide central trash collection system with the use of trash compactor(s) . ♦ Show seating detail for championship tennis court (if special events are planned and stadium seating is provided, parking may be in question) . The case had been scheduled for hearing on April 1, 1980, but because of the circumstances described, Staff will be advising the Planning Commission that the item is to be removed from the Agenda. This Department's recommendation to you, the applicant, is that you seriously reconsider the proposed project and its design, to bring it in line with the purpose and standards of the Planned Commercial , Resort Center (P.C. (4)) zone. At a minimum, to receive consideration of the project as it is now proposed, you would need to supply the noted missing application information items and file for a variance from the referenced standards. The next application filing date is April 1, 1980, and thereafter, the first working Monday of each month. If you choose to revise your plans, so a variance is not required, you should be prepared to submit the revised application material on the filing date. Stien=Brief/Vista March 25, 1980 Page -4- You many contact the undersigned for additional filing information and/or questions you may have. A variance application form is enclosed. Very truly yours, PAUL A. WILLIAMS, AICP Director of Environmental Services AWMU—RREL7-RVMP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER pw/mc/lr J cc: Ballew-McFarland c/o John Ballew Enclosure: Variance Application INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert TO: MURREL CRUMP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER FROM: DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES SUBJECT: DP 03-80 DATE: March 20, 1980 Pursuant to our recent conversation, I am unable to complete the Staff Report for the Stein Brief Vista Development Plan. I am relying on you to complete this report and thought I would pass on to you some thoughts that I have had regarding this project. First, and most important, of course, is the letter from the Fire Marshal which accompanies this memorandum dealing with their apparent lack of capability of service for this complex. I think that it's important that we get a handle on the weakness of our system to service such a complex and do whatever is necessary to improve this service in conjunction with this project. Secondly, the developer's representatives have committed to providing an analysis relative to the potential use mix in the project as to its compliance with PC(4) zone district. They have promised me that the information will be available to you on Friday. I think this information would have to go a long way to convince me that a bank with "drive-up" windows is in compliance with the zoning designation on the property. In addition, the uses specified in professional office building would be important matter to consider. Third, in relationship to the underground parking, special conditions should be created to provide for an alternative surface system to service the buildings with service vehicles, emergency vehicles , etc. This system should be as unob- trusive as possible. While it will be available for these uses, it would not be available for the occupants to use in lieu of the underground parking. It would appear that the most viable alternative would be some kind of expanded pedestrian system controlled through the lobby of the condo/hotel . Fourth, this type of project requires a centralized trash collection point and I think that you might want to consider trash compaction in said area also. Fifth, the proximity of this project to the Palm Valley Channel and its provision of underground parking appears to require that the flood control channel be improved to protect the property. Sixth, the wall treatment along Highway 111 and 44th Avenue should be set back at least 30 feet on Highway 111 and 20 feet on 44th Avenue from the curb line to be consistent with the treatment we have required elsewhere - refer to Ordinance. In addition , the meandering bicycle path treatment should be required along Highway 111. Seventh, Painters Path should have some form of cul-de-sac at the flood control channel or some consider- ation should be given to a bridge structure in that area. Eighth, I don't believe a setback of 20 feet between two-story buildings is suffi- cient.. You may want to require more. Ninth, the design relies on the utilization of Painters Path for access to the undergrounding parking. I think that Painters Path will become secondary guest parking area and that a sidewalk is mandatory along said street. You may want to consider the more commercial design of sidewalk with tree wells in this area. At least, think about it. Tenth , regardless of what uses INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM DP 03-80 March 20, 1980 Page Two are ultimately arrived at for the bank site, it should be relocated with an increased setback from the street to provide for a larger landscape area at the intersection of Highway 111 and 44th Avenue. Eleventh, the landscaping along the flood control channel needs to be substan- tially increased to soften the impact of the two-story buildings on the adjacent residential development. Twelvth, the tennis court should be recessed as you deem appropriate. Thirteenth, you should give careful consideration to the elevations of the three-story buildings as to their compliance with the building height in the zone and also more sensitivity to the sun action on the patio areas. Therefore, the overhang should be substantial . Fourteenth, the driveway entrance just southerly of the intersection of 44th and Painters Path appears redundant. Fifteenth, the entry ramp to the first southerly building from the commercial core could be reversed so it would be accessible from the commercial area and this would take one of the curb cuts off of Painters Path. You may want to consider that. It would appear that this approach would provide a stronger relationship with the lobby of the hotel than what is presently being proposed. Sixteenth, light, air and access is important for underground parking. Seventeenth , on-site water retention should be required. In addition, drainage from the under- ground parking will be an important consideration of this project. Finally, you should review Development Plan Case No. DP 11-77 for conditions allotted to occupancy and uniform furniture. I hope the above comments will be useful to you in your development of the report on this project. PAUL A. WILLIAMS DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES cc: File DP 03-80 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 March 12, 1980 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A HOTEL/CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX, RACQUET CLUB, AND COMMERCIAL AND PRO- FESSIONAL SPACES, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND 44TH AVENUE. CASE NO. DP 03-80 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be .held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by STEIN-BRIEF/VISTA for approval of a Development Plan to construct a 414 unit hotel/condominium -complex, a 21,365 square foot racquet club and 50,000 square feet of commercial and professional spaces on approximately 29.29 gross acres, within the P.C. (4) , S.P. (Planned Commercial , Resort, Scenic Preservation Overlay) zone generally located at the southwest corner .of Highway 111 and 44th Avenue, more- particularly described as: Tract Maps 4489-1 and 4489-2 '. ep � Y .: COLLEGE inr kil [J.� •��4 r 0.5 w: °. 4 1 �71 a i SAID Public Hearing will be held on Tuesday, April 1, 1980, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the Palm Desert City Hall , 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are in- vited to attend and be heard. This request, if approved, will allow the construc- tion of a hotel/condominium complex and related racquet club and commercial and professional uses. PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission PUBLISH: Palm Desert Post March 20, 1980 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Case No. : DP 03-80 Project: Development Plan Applicant: Stein-Brief/Vista Enclosed please find materials describing a project for which the following is being requested: Devel_opment_P_l.an approval_ of 414 unit hotel/condominium complex - - - - - - — _ - with 21,365 square-foot racquet club and 50,000 square feet of professional and commercial spaces. Said project is located at southwest corner of Highway 111 and 44th Avenue and is zoned P.C. (4) S.P. (resort commercial with scenic preservation overlay) . The attached data was prepared by the applicant and is being forwarded to you for comments and recommended Conditions of Approval . The City is interested in the probable impacts on the natural environment (e.g. water and air pollution) and on public resources (e.g. demand for schools, hospitals, parks, power generation, sewage treatment, etc. ) Your comments and recommended conditions of approval must be received by this office prior to 5:00 p.m. March 21 , 1980, in order to be discussed by the Land Division Committee at their meeting of March 26 The Land Division Committee (comprised of Director of Environmental Services, City Building Official , City Engineer, Fire Marshal and a representative of CVCWD) will discuss the comments and recommended conditions of approval and will forward them to the Planning Commission through the staff report. Any information received by this office after the receipt deadline will not be discussed by the Land Division Com- mittee nor will it be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consid- eration. Very truly yours, q �%� Paul A. Williams Director of Environmental Services PAW/ss PLEASE RETURN MAP WITH COMMENTS CITY OF PALM DESERT —DEPARTM ENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES EXHIBIT A—J NO. s ®6p CASE N0. ®�U A - II-WsT#2AT V6 VP -A p B _ 'T5c jlcALV StTo- PAN C _ koWSr, I-EV6I. P SUE IEW � zp►A CUCz�wiz }�WY. 111 > - Vl� of t-FD�L t,oSBY Fr N�AI�T!-� GI.UB �f�ON1 ENT2}' D2. u p�Gtzb� TKO NAM6NT GI•U cooK-T V) BHOvs� � t �UST� PLAN l - � „ �it,�G. SEG-CIDN J 45-275. PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT CA. 92260 ***DEVELOPMENT PLAN*** DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES COMMERCIAL PLANNING DIVISION (, STFIn1 - f50 eF u 15rA Applicant (please pant) - f _. 2 Dgj Zoo 7r�- 833-$252 Mailing Andress Telephone r fzv1oc- gZ714- . City - State Zip-Code .. REQUEST: q(-Dees-tribe specific nature of approval requested) t�� 1,�t a ' PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: T +✓�T Cr E� Q RwJ f I I f 1 N)uktr : ASSESSOR IS PARCEL N0. f ��L� 111W J'as, EXISTING ZONING I ti• ( t GJ •�� Property Owner Authorization THE ERSIGN ED STATES THAT THEY ARE THE OWNER(S)OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN AND HEREBY GIVE AUTHOR- IZATI N FOR THG.FI �THIS AP ATION. SIGNA URE DATE AGREEMENT ABSOLVING THE CITY OF PALM DESERT OF ALL LIABILITIES RELATIVE TO ANY DEED RESTRICTIONS. I DO BY MY SIGNATURE ON JMIS AGREEMENT, ABSOLVE THE CITY OF PALM DESERT OF ALL LIABILITIES REGARDING ANY DEED RES- STRINS THAT MAY BE APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN. lew SIGNAT RE DATE Applicants Signature SIGNATUR DATE (FOR STAFF USE ONLY) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS ACCEPTED BY ❑ MINISTERIAL ACT EA No ATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONA00zW4l O ✓' CASE No. - ❑ NEGATIVE DECLARATION - - ❑ OTHER - - - REFERENCE '- CASE NO. DEVELOPMENT PLAN CHECKLIST NOTE: Planning Division Staff are required to reject applications if any appli- cable exhibits are not received and checked at the time of filing. Complete : I . Completed Application Form (one (1) copy) II . Written Documents (one copy typed) - Legal Description/Ownership �� - Statement of Planning Objectives - Preliminary Development Schedule - Quantitative Data - Water District Letter III . Property Owners Information - Typed listing of owners, Assessor ' s Parcel ' Numbers (two (2) copies) - Assessor ' s Parcel Map(s) (one set ) - Gummed mailing labels (two (2) sets) IV. Address labels for project sponsors ('three (3) / sets) * V. Site Plan - Six (6) full size (one of which is to be C7 �' colored) - rr ) iredu reduced copies (8z"xll" , or 13" ) s� * VI . General Landscape Plan - Three (3 ) copies full size , or may be incor- porated into Site Plan * VII . Preliminary Grading Plan Three (3 ) copies full size , or may be incor- porated into Site Plan , where appropriate _� Development Plan Checklist Page Two VIII . Architectural Renderings Three (3 ) copies full size (one of which is to be colored ; DO NOT DISPLAY THIS COPY ON A BOARD) l (/ u'ced copies (81"xll" , or 1311 ) IX. Environmental Assessment Form (received by Plan- ning Division two weeks prior to formal tiling` of application) X. Application Filing Fee: VVVV - With Change of Zone Request , $650.00 or , - No Change of Zone Request , $550.00 XI . Optional plans and exhibits, as required by the Dept . of Environmental Services - Aerial Photo(s) of site - Other Exhibits ( ) specify * Items V, VI , and VII may be combined. Development Plan Exhibits Received and Checked by : a / Plug. Div. aff Date I PROJECT LOCATION The Stein property consists of approximately 30 acres located on the southwest corner of Highway 111 and 44th Avenue . PROJECT CONCEPT The concept for the Stein property is to create a planned com- mercial development consisting of a variety of land uses which are consistent to the City' s land use designation and zoning for the property. The uses involved include a Hotel/Condo and Racquet Club complex complimented by a variety of commercial chop activities and professional offices . SITE PLAN The site plan reflects the concept described above with the breakdown of uses and building sizes as follows : Hotel/Condo: 414 Units Total Racquet Club : 21 ,400 square feet Reception/Lobby Bldg. : 3300 square feet Office Complex: 30,000 square feet Commercial Shop: 1000 square feet Two Restaurants : 6000 square feet and 7000 square feet Bank: 6000 square feet The total building coverage on site accounts for 16.5% of the site area with paving and open space being 18 .5% and 65% respec- tively. PHASING Construction of this project will occur concurrently and will not be phased.