Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Res 06-67 and 06-68 Ord 1118 and 1119 GPA 05-04 ZOA 05-05 CZ 05-05 and PP-CUP 02-20 Eugene Breznock
CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT REQUEST: That the City Council approve: A. A general plan amendment adding Policy 10, Program 10.A and 10.13 to the Residential Goals, Polices and Programs section of the general plan. B. A zoning ordinance amendment adding Section 25.112 establishing development standards for an El Paseo Resort Overlay Zone (EPROZ). C. A change of zone to add the El Paseo Resort Overlay Zone to certain R-3 properties located on the north side of Shadow Mountain Drive and Larrea Street, between Larkspur Lane and Portola Avenue. D. A precise plan and conditional use permit to allow the construction of a new 12 unit, 36 keys, hotel condominium project located at 73-811 Larrea Street. SUBMITTED BY: Tony Bagato, Assistant Planner APPLICANT: Eugene Breznock 75-656 Via Serona Indian Wells, CA 92210 City of Palm Desert (Re: GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, and C/Z 05-05) CASE NOS: GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05, and PP/CUP 05-20 DATE: May 11, 2006 CONTENTS: Recommendation Executive Summary Discussion Draft Resolution06-67for GPA 05-04 Draft Ordinance1118 for ZOA 05-05 Draft Ordinance1119 for C/Z 05-05 Draft Resolution 06-68for PP/CUP 05-20 Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact Legal Notice Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 2389 and 2390 Minutes from April 18, 2006, Planning Commission Meeting Staff Report from April 18, 2006, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from March 7, 2006, Planning Commission Meeting Staff Report GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05, AND PP/CUP 05-20 Page 2 of 13 May 11, 2006 Staff Report from March 7, 2006, Planning Commission Meeting Traffic Counts and Trip Generation Plans and project Exhibits Recommendation: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 06-67 approving General Plan Amendment 05-04, adding Policy 10, Program 10.A and 10.13 to the Residential Goals, Polices and Programs section of the general plan. That the City Council pass Ordinance No. 1118 to second reading approving Zoning Ordinance Amendment 05-05, adding Section 25.112 establishing development standards for an El Paseo Resort Overlay Zone (EPROZ). That the City Council pass Ordinance No. 1119 to second reading approving Change of Zone 05-05, adding the El Paseo Resort Overlay Zone to certain R-3 properties located on the north side of Shadow Mountain Drive and Larrea Street, between Larkspur Lane and Portola Avenue. That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 06-68 approving Precise Plan/Conditional Use Permit 05-20, subject to conditions attached. Executive Summary: Historically El Paseo has been unique to the Coachella Valley as an outdoor pedestrian retail/restaurant boulevard. Today, other cities throughout the Coachella Valley are developing commercial centers that will impact and challenge El Paseo. El Paseo's long- term success is dependent on creating a stronger costumer base. Promoting new hotel development adjacent to El Paseo is one way to create a stronger costumer base. Currently, the R-3 zone adjacent to El Paseo allows hotel development as a conditional use. However, no new hotels have been developed in the past 40 years and many of the existing hotels exceed the current R-3 density standard of 18 units per acre. Currently, there is 4.32 vacant acres of vacant land that can be developed as hotels within walking distance to El Paseo. Today, a one -acre vacant parcel costs between $1 million and $2 million. With increased land costs, developers need to maximize use of every square foot of land to insure economic viability. They cannot afford to use half of a one -acre parcel for parking and recreational amenities at ground level. New design standards are needed to promote new hotel development that makes economic sense adjacent to El Paseo. To encourage and promote new hotel development, staff is proposing a general plan amendment, zoning ordinance amendment and change of zone to create an El Paseo Resort Overlay Zone (EPROZ), which will remove the 50% lot coverage, increase the current density requirement of 18 units per acre to 36 and increase the building height from 24' to 30' for the R-3 properties located on the north side of Shadow Mountain Drive and Larrea Street between Larkspur Lane and Portola Avenue. Staff Report GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C2 05-05, AND PP/CUP 05-20 Page 3 of 13 May 11, 2006 Currently, a precise plan/conditional use permit application is being processed to allow a 12-unit 36 keys, hotel condominium with 40 subterranean parking spaces. Each unit has three (3) lockout bedrooms that can be rented separately or in groups of two (2) or (3). The hotel design includes six (6) two-story buildings with the ends built above the subterranean parking lots, a lobby/reception area, multi -purpose room, pavilion with BBQ area, meeting room, exercise room, and a common pool. The proposed project illustrates the need for the proposed development standards under the EPROZ. The proposed project fully utilizes the property to create a unique, village style, high -end boutique hotel, meeting the goals and objectives of the El Paseo Resort Overlay Zone. Except for the tower elements, the proposed project complies with all the development standards of the EPROZ and zoning ordinance. Section 25.56.300 states that tower elements may be erected 25' above the height limit of the zone. The proposed tower elements are 1 foot above proposed 30' height limit. The goal of the proposed EPORZ is to maximize the number of high -end hotel rooms within walking distance to El Paseo while maintaining compatibility and character of the existing neighborhood. This goal will provide El Paseo with a stronger costumer base and make hotel development economically feasible for developers. The proposed overlay zone and project impacts have been analyzed and it has been determined that there will be minimal impacts on the adjacent properties. These findings have been presented at two (2) Planning Commission meetings, a Neighborhood meeting and the El Paseo Improvement District. On April 18, 2006, the Planning Commission unanimously (4-0, Finery absent) recommended approval of the proposed overlay zone and project. I. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT & ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: A. BACKGROUND: For years El Paseo has been unique in the Coachella Valley as an outdoor, pedestrian -oriented, retail/restaurant boulevard. However, emerging commercial centers are being developed in other cities throughout the Coachella Valley challenging El Paseo's uniqueness. El Paseo's ability to successfully compete with other commercial centers is dependent on attracting more people. One way to attract more people is to promote high - end boutique hotels within walking distance to El Paseo. New hotels can provide El Paseo with a reliable costumer base and generate new transit occupancy tax (TOT) for the City. In order to provide for new hotels it is necessary to identify the best possible locations within walking distance to El Paseo. The properties directly south of El Paseo (Shadow Mountain Drive and Larrea Street) are zoned R-3 multi- family. The R-3 zone currently allows hotels as a conditional use. Over the past 40 years no new hotels have been developed in this area. Many of the existing hotels exceed the current R-3 density standard of 18 units per acre. The Mojave and Casa Larrea Inn are 26 units per acre and the Inn at Deep Staff Report GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05, AND PP/CUP 05-20 Page 4 of 13 May 11, 2006 Canyon is 41 units per acre. These hotels were built before the City incorporated. The design standards that currently affect hotel development in R-3 zone are density (18 units per acre max), lot coverage (50% max), and height (24', 18' within 120' of R-1 zoning). To encourage hotels within walking distance to El Paseo, staff is proposing a general plan amendment, a zoning ordinance amendment and a change of zone to create an El Paseo Resort Overlay Zone (EPROZ) that will be applied to the R-3 properties located on the north side of Shadow Mountain Drive and Larrea Street, between Larkspur Lane and Portola Avenue to encourage developers to propose new hotels adjacent to El Paseo. Currently, one such application is in process. The proposed EPROZ and hotel application should be reviewed simultaneously to evaluate the appropriateness of the Overlay design standards. B. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: The purpose of the El Paseo Resort Overlay Zone (EPROZ) is to provide flexible design standards and incentives for hotel development within the R-3 zone adjacent to El Paseo. Adding the EPROZ to the R-3 zone will allow property owners to choose whether to use the EPROZ standards for hotel development or the standards of the base zone for non hotel developments. The proposed general plan amendment will add Policy 10, Program 10.A and 10.6 as described below (Exhibit A), to the Residential Goals, Polices and Programs in the General Plan. The amendment provides the framework for establishing the EPROZ in the zoning ordinance. Policy 10: The City shall encourage new hotel development on the residential properties within walking distance to El Paseo. Program 10.A: The City shall establish an El Paseo Resort Overlay Zone (EPROZ) that will be applied to the R-3 and Planned Residential properties located on the north side of Shadow Mountain Drive and Tumbleweed, between Ocotillo Drive and Portola Avenue, including Larrea Street. Program 10.6: The City shall create a continuous sidewalk plan for pedestrian traffic within the EPROZ district. The proposed zoning ordinance will add Section 25.112 (Exhibit B) to the zoning ordinance establishing the development standards for the El Paseo Staff Report G PA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, Page 5 of 13 May 11, 2006 C/Z 05-05, AND PP/CUP 05-20 Resort Overlay Zone. Under the EPROZ, the development standards are a follows: Density: 36 units per acre Setbacks: Base zone standards apply Height: 30' maximum height Parking: Section25.58, Off-street parking standards apply Exceptions: Standards may be modified by the development plan approved by Planning Commission and City Council The proposed change of zone will add the EPROZ to the R-3 properties located on the north side of Shadow Mountain Drive and Larrea Street, between Larkspur Lane and Portola Avenue. The proposed project illustrates the need for the proposed EPROZ Development Standards. C. COMMISSION AND NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS: On December 15, 2005, the proposed overlay zone and application were presented to the El Paseo Improvement District. The Board of Directors supported creating an overlay zone that will promote hotels within walking distance to El Paseo and unanimously recommended approval of the proposed zone and project. The project was presented to the Planning Commission on March 7, 2006. At that time, the proposed location of the overlay zone was on the R-3 and P.R. properties located on the north side of Shadow Mountain and Tumbleweed Lane, between Ocotillo Drive, Larrea Street and Portola Avenue. The Commission and adjacent neighbors expressed concerns regarding the impacts from the overlay zone. It was continued to allow staff to study the impacts from the proposed overlay zone. After restudying the area and determining where development will initially occur, the location of the overlay zone was changed to the R-3 properties on the north side of Shadow Mountain Drive and Larrea Street, between Larkspur Lane and Portola Avenue. A neighborhood meeting was held on March 23, 2006 to inform the public about the proposed project and impacts. The meeting included the applicant's representative and architect, Commissioner Finerty and Commissioner Tanner, City staff, El Paseo merchants, and adjacent residents. Staff Report GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05, AND PP/CUP 05-20 Page 6 of 13 May 11, 2006 On April 18th, 2006, the Planning Commission recommended approval, on a 4-0-1 vote (Commissioner Finerty absent) of the proposed general plan amendment, zoning ordinance amendment, change of zone, and precise plan/conditional use permit. Commissioner Tanner said that the proposed hotel is a beautiful start of the overlay zone. Commissioner Campbell thought the hotel is great for the area and that the location of the overlay zone was perfect. Commissioner Tschopp liked the idea of reducing the overlay zone location to a more manageable area and thought the project was very good. Chairperson Lopez stated that the current overlay zone was a good location and he believed that the vacant properties on Larrea Street need to be developed and hopes that this project will initiate that. II. EL PASEO RESORT OVERLAY ZONE (EPROZ): A. BACKGROUND: Property description: The property, totaling 40,500 square feet, is located on the south side of Larrea Street, 260' east of San Luis Avenue. Currently, there is an abandoned motel located on the east half of the property and the west half is vacant. It is zoned R-3 (3), Multi -family, which allows hotels as a conditional use with a maximum of 18 units per acre. PP 01-06: On April 17, 2001, a precise plan of design for a two-story 12-unit apartment complex was approved on the subject property. The project was never built and the entitlement has expired. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use: North: R-3 / Parking lot and single story apartments South: R-3 / Two-story apartments East: R-3 / Vacant West: R-3 / Single -story hotel Project Description: The applicant is requesting approval of a precise plan of design and conditional use permit to allow a 12-unit 36 keys, hotel condominium with 40 subterranean parking spaces. Each unit has three (3) lockout bedrooms that can be rented separately or in groups of two (2) or (3). The condominium description is for financing purposes. The project will not be sold as residential condominiums. The hotel design includes six (6) two-story buildings with the ends built above the subterranean parking lots, a Staff Report GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05, AND PP/CUP 05-20 Page 7 of 13 May 11, 2006 lobby/reception area, multi -purpose room, pavilion with BBQ area, meeting room, exercise room, and a common pool. Three (3) driveways, of which two (2) lead to the parking lots, on Larrea Street provide access to the hotel. Ten (10) units are two -stories with roof decks. The first floor has a foyer area that provides access to two (2) bedrooms and a stairway to the other floors. The first floor bedrooms have a private sitting area, bath, mini -bar and patio. The second floor has a living and dining room area, full kitchen, bedroom, bath, balcony and deck. The roof decks have an outdoor fireplace, private pool, spa, and BBQ/sitting area. The other two (2) units are two -stories without roof decks. The first floor has an entryway to one -bedroom and a stairway. The bedroom includes the living and dining area, full kitchen, bath, two (2) patios, and a private spa. The stairway leads to a hallway that provides access to the other two (2) bedrooms, deck, pool and spa. Due to the unique design of the project, setbacks are described in four (4) categories: 1. Main building 2. Architectural Projections 3. Decks: 4. Stairways: 1. Main Building: The main building is setback between 15' and 23' from the front property line (north), 10' from the rear (south) and 10' from both sides (east/west). 2. Architectural Projections: The building design incorporates curved architectural elements and the walls for the subterranean parking lots that extend beyond the main building. The projections are setback 13' the front property line, 5' from the rear and 8' from both side yards. Section 25.56.210 allows architectural projections to encroach 6' into a required front and rear yard setback, and no more than 2' into the side yards. 3. Stairways: There are two exterior stairways that provide access from the parking lot to the first level of the hotel. The two (2) outside stairways are setback 5' from the side yards. Section 25.56.230 allows open, unroofed, steps to project no closer than 3' from the interior side yard. Staff Report GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05, AND PP/CUP 05-20 Page 8 of 13 May 11, 2006 4. Decks: There are two decks on the rear buildings that are setback 8' from the rear property line. Section 25.56.240 allows Decks to project 6' into the required rear yard provided that the setback is not reduced to less than 5' feet. Architecture: If the project is to attract El Paseo customers, it needs to incorporate the highest quality of architectural detail, interior space and amenities. The architecture design is a Mediterranean/Middle Eastern blend that utilizes round bay windows, roof domes, wrought iron guardrails, stone columns, wood doors and window trim, fabric awnings, and smooth stucco in three (3) earth tone colors. On December 13, 2005, the Architectural Review Commission unanimously granted preliminary approval of the building design. Height: In order to achieve the highest quality of architectural detail and interior space the primary building height for the end buildings is 28 feet 6 inches with tower elements at 31 feet. Due to the narrowness of the lot and limits on driveway ramp angle, the semi -subterranean parking lots extend 2 feet 6 inches above grade. The two floor levels with 9 feet 4 inches of interior space and 9 inches of structural floor/ceiling element consume 20 feet 2 inches. The 5 foot 10 inch roof deck parapet provides privacy and noise control for the hotel guests and neighboring residents, totaling 25 feet 6 inches. Where there are no roof decks or subterranean parking the buildings are lower. The front middle building height varies between 25 feet and 28 feet with a dome element at 31'0". The rear middle building height varies between 23 feet and 25 feet 6 inches. Project Data: lHotel Density (Front Setback Rear Yard Setback 18 units per acre 15' 10, 36 12 units, 36 keys 15' 157 13' (projections) 10, 1075' (projections) Staff Report GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C2 05-05, AND PP/CUP 05-20 Page 9 of 13 May 11, 2006 Side Yard 20' combined, one 20' combined, one 1078'(projections) Setbacks side no less than 8' side no less than 8' (Height 24' 30' 28'6"/31' Tower JLot Coverage 50% No max 78% Parking 40 40 40 III. DISCUSSION: Every hotel that has been approved by the City has required an exception. The Marriott Desert Springs, Shadow Ridge and the Courtyard are a few examples. These hotels have been built in Planned Residential zones. The Planned Commercial Resort zone maximum density requirement of 30 units per acre was removed and the height was increased to 35 feet (30 feet within 100 feet of residential) to maximize hotel units developed in the City. The Embassy Suites, Vacation Inn and Holiday Express were developed under the Planned Commercial Resort zone. Both zones have an exception process in the development standards. The R-3 zone does not have an exception process and no new hotels have been developed adjacent to El Paseo. The goal of the proposed EPORZ is to maximize the number of high -end hotel rooms adjacent to El Paseo. This goal will provide El Paseo with a stronger customer base and make hotel development economically feasible for developers. Regardless of how compatible or desirable a land use may be it will not be built if it does not generate a profit. Setback to setback building coverage and semi - subterranean parking are required to achieve this goal. To accommodate the high level of hotel amenities necessary to attract El Paseo customers, roof decks are required. IV. ISSUES / ANALYSIS: During the March 7, 2006 Planning Commission meeting and the Neighborhood meeting concerns regarding density, traffic, height, noise and lighting were discussed. The properties adjacent to El Paseo were studied to identify the existing land uses and impacts from new development. Development under the EPROZ will initially occur on vacant or under developed properties. All properties west of Larkspur Lane are developed and there is little opportunity for redevelopment. East of Larkspur Lane there are five (5) vacant properties totaling 4.32 acres. Three (3) vacant properties are located on Larrea Street, one (1) on Shadow Mountain Drive and one (1) on Larkspur Lane. Based on development of the 4.32 acres, different uses were studied to compare density, traffic, and view impacts: Staff Report GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05, AND PP/CUP 05-20 Page 10 of 13 May 11, 2006 A. Density: The goal of the EPROZ is to maximize the number of high -end hotel rooms adjacent to El Paseo while maintaining compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. The current application is proposing a 12-unit, 36 keys, boutique hotel with subterranean parking on a 40,500 square foot lot. The proposed project density of 36 keys the maximum number of units that can be developed on one -acre under the proposed two-story height limit. The proposed EPROZ density standard would be 36 units per acre. The following table identifies the possible densities for condominiums, apartments and hotel development under the current development standards and hotel development under the proposed EPROZ standards. R-3 (4) 2.02 acres R-3 (3) 2.30 acres 30 30 40 80 1 TOTAL of 4.32 52 52 76 152 Acre area Based on the proposed 4.32 EPROZ area, the maximum number of hotel units is 152. B. Traffic: Shadow Mountain Drive and Larrea Street are designated for two-lane commercial traffic in the general plan. This area has a mix of residential uses, hotels, office and parking lots. The current traffic volume is based on local residents and business owners who live or work in the area. The Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual was used to compare project traffic impacts to alternative land uses in the EPROZ area. Condominiums 52 5.86 305 trips Apartments 52 6.59 343 trips (Hotels (current 18 units) 76 6.24 474 EPROZ (36 units) 152 6.24 948 trips Staff Report GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05, AND PP/CUP 05-20 Page 11 of 13 May 11, 2006 The ITE uses an average number of 6.24 trips per day for hotel suites based on case studies for various hotel suites throughout the country. The 152 hotel units could increase the trips per day by 948. The 948 trips per day would be split onto the Shadow Mountain, Larrea Street and Larkspur Lane. Based on development on these streets traffic on Shadow Mountain Drive may increase from 3,564 per day to 3,730 trips per day and from 1,217 to 1,666 on Larrea Street. In the Planning Commission staff report dated April 18, 2006, a 100% of the trips were applied to both streets, which was incorrect. The traffic impacts have been assigned to the streets where the vacant properties are located. According to the City's Transportation Engineer, less than 5,000 trips per day on these streets is an acceptable traffic level for residents. Level of Service A (60% capacity) in the general plan for these streets is 8,000 trips per day. With the new hotel development, Shadow Mountain Drive would be at 26% capacity and Larrea Street would be at 12% capacity. Given that new hotels will be within walking distance to many to El Paseo, it can be expected that the traffic increase will be less than 948 trips per day. If traffic did increase by 948 trips per day, both streets are well within quality of life standards. The proposed EPROZ will not significantly increase traffic on Shadow Mountain Drive and Larrea Street. C. View Impact: All of the properties within the EPROZ area are zoned for two-story development, although there are single -story developments on Shadow Mountain Drive and Larrea Street. Any single -story developments adjacent to vacant land will be impacted from single -story and two-story development under the current 24-foot height limit. The closest single-family homes on Shadow Lake Drive outside the EPROZ area are 13' higher than the vacant properties on Larrea Street and 6' higher than the vacant property on the north side of Shadow Mountain Drive. These properties are at least 150' away from Shadow Lake Drive. In addition, the views for the single-family homes are to the south and west. The EPROZ area is north of Shadow Lake Drive. Increasing the current height limit by 6 feet, totaling 30 feet will not significantly impact the view of the single-family homes to the south. D. Noise: Adjacent neighbors are concerned that there will be loud noise from hotel guests on the roof decks. A condition of approval has been added restricting hotel guests from using the roof decks after 10:00 pm Sundays through Thursdays and after 12:00 am on Fridays and Saturdays. This Staff Report GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C1Z 05-05, AND PP/CUP 05-20 Page 12 of 13 May 11, 2006 condition will implement a quiet time to reduce noise impacts to the adjacent property owners. The applicant is committed and concerned about potential noise issues due to the fact noisy guests can negatively impact the hotel's business and bottom line. A security guard will be on -site during nighttime hours. E. Lighting: A letter for the Riverside County Sheriff's Department states that lighting is needed in around the complex an in the subterranean parking lots to reduce vandalism. The City has an outdoor lighting ordinance (Chapter 24.16, Municipal Code) that requires lighting systems which reduces and minimizes light pollution. Since the parking lots are underground any lighting will not be seen by the adjacent properties. A 6' high wall surrounding the project will provide adding screening Lighting will not impact the adjacent neighbors. V. CONCLUSION / SUMMARY: A. EPROZ: In 2005, El Paseo generated $210 million in taxable sales, which provides the City with $2.1 million to the City's general fund. El Paseo's retail dominance and its ability to generate revenue for the City are being challenged by new commercial centers throughout the Coachella Valley. The El Paseo Resort Overlay was created to promote new hotel development, a traditional land use in the R-3 zone providing a stronger costumer base for El Paseo. The proposed EPROZ standards will remove the 50% lot coverage requirement, increase the current density limit of 18 units per acre to 36 and increase the building height from 24 feet to 30 feet. The proposed overlay zone will encourage new hotels with minimal impact to the surrounding properties. B. 12 UNIT, 36 KEYS HOTEL: The proposed hotel utilizes superior architecture and site planning to create a village style resort that is within walking distance to El Paseo and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, meeting the goals and objective of the EPROZ. The precise plan complies with all the proposed and current zoning standards. Staff Report GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05, AND PP/CUP 05-20 Page 13 of 13 May 11, 2006 VI. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: For the purposes of CEQA, the Director of Community Development has determined that the proposed general plan amendment, zoning ordinance amendment and change of zone will not have a significant negative impact on the environment and staff has prepared Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. For the purposes of CEQA, the Director of Community Development has determined that the proposed precise plan and conditional use permit are a Class 32, Categorical Exemption, and no further review is necessary. Submitted By: Tony Bagato l Assistant Planner Approval: —- City Man ge�V AGM or Dev t Services 4 Department Head: Phil Drell Director of Community Development RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO ADD POLICY 10, PROGRAMS 10.A AND 10.13 (EXHIBIT A) TO THE RESIDENTIAL GOALS, POLICES AND PROGRAMS SECTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN. CASE NO. GPA 05-04 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 111h day of May, 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by the CITY OF PALM DESERT for approval of the above noted; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 71h day of March 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing, which was continued to April 18, 2006, to consider the said request and by its Resolution No. 2389 recommended approval of the GPA 05-04; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act", Resolution No. 05-52, in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project will not have a negative impact on the environment and staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify approval of said request: 1. That the proposed general plan amendment is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. 2. The proposed general plan amendment will create the framework for establishing an El Paseo Resort Overlay Zone (EPROZ) in the zoning ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. 2. That it does hereby approve General Plan Amendment 05-04 (Exhibit "A") 3. A Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is hereby certified (Exhibit "B" attached). RESOLUTION NO. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this 111h day of March 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: RACHELLE KLASSEN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California JIM FERGUSON, Mayor 1861 RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT "A" RESIDENTIAL GOALS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS: Policy 10 The City shall encourage new hotel development on the residential properties within walking distance to El Paseo. Program 10.A The City shall establish an El Paseo Resort Overlay Zone (EPROZ) that will be applied to the R-3 and Planned Residential properties located on the north side of Shadow Mountain Drive and Tumbleweed, between Ocotillo Drive and Portola Avenue, including Larrea Street. Responsible Agency: City Council, Development; Redevelopment Agency. Program 10.13 Planning Commission, Community The City shall create a continuous sidewalk plan for pedestrian traffic within the EPROZ district. Responsible Agency: City Council, Planning Commission, Community Development; Redevelopment Agency. Public Works, Kl RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT "B" NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NOS: GPA 05-04 as it relates to ZOA 05-05, C2 05-05, and PP/CUP 05-20 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: CITY OF PALM DESERT 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CA 92260 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Approval a general plan amendment to add Policy 10 and Programs 10.A and 10.B (Exhibit A), as it relates to a zoning ordinance amendment to add Section 25.112 (Exhibit B) establishing development standards for an El Paseo Resort Overlay Zone (EPROZ), a change of zone to add the EPROZ to R-3 and Planned Residential properties on the north side of Shadow Mountain and Tumbleweed Lane, between Ocotillo Drive, Larrea Street and Portola Avenue (Exhibit C). The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. May 11, 2006 PHILIP DRELL DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CI RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN / CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A NEW 12 UNIT, 36 KEYS, HOTEL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 73-811 LARREA STREET. CASE NO. PP/CUP 05-20 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, Califomia, did on the 111h day of May 2006, to consider the request by the EUGENE BREZNOCK for approval of the above noted; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, Califomia, did on the 71h day of March 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing, which was continued to April 18, 2006, to consider the said request and by its Resolution No. 2390 recommended approval of the PP/CUP 05-20; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act", Resolution No. 05-52, in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project is a Class 32, Categorical Exemption and no further environmental review is necessary. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify approval of said request: 1. The proposed hotel/condominium meets complies with goals and objectives of the El Paseo Resort Overlay Zone. 2. The proposed location of the boutique hotel, as conditioned, is in accord with the objectives and policies of the general plan and zoning ordinance and the purpose of the district in which the site is located. 3. The proposed location of the office boutique hotel and the conditions under which it will be operated and maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, Califomia, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. 2. That the City Council does hereby approve Precise Plan/Conditional Use Permit 05-20, subject to conditions attached. RESOLUTION NO. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this 111h day of May 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: RACHELLE KLASSEN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California JIM FERGUSON, Mayor 2 RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. PP/CUP 05-20 Department of Community Development: The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Construction of said project shall commence within one (1) year from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted, otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 3. Applicant shall record a conservation easement to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development/Planning and City Attorney for the undisturbed 4.13 acres of the 4.84-acre site that is being annexed into the City. 4. 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: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said landscaping for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which agreement shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. The final landscape plan shall include a long- term maintenance program specifying among other matters appropriate watering times, fertilization and pruning for various times of the year for the specific materials to be planted, as well as periodic replacement of materials. All to be consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801) and the approved landscape plan. 6. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas. Said placement shall be approved by applicable waste company and Department of Community Development and shall include a recycling program. 7. Transient Occupancy Tax (T.O.T.) per Municipal Code Section 3.28.030 will be applied to the room rent for every night a room(s) are rented out for dwelling, lodging 3 RESOLUTION NO. or sleeping purposes regardless of the actual purpose for which such room(s) are rented out. 8. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City regulating non -transient if the condominiums are sold to individual buyers. 9. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the department of public works prior to architectural review commission submittal. 10. The parapets around the exterior elevations facing adjacent neighbors and Larrea Street shall be 5'8" tall to provide privacy to the adjacent neighbors. 11. A detailed parking lot and building lighting plan shall be submitted to staff for approval, subject to applicable lighting standards, plan to be prepared by a qualified lighting engineer. 12. Use of the roof decks shall be prohibited after 10.00 pm Sundays through Thursdays and after 12.00 am on Fridays and Saturdays. Department of Public Works: 1. All landscape maintenance shall be performed by the property owner and the applicant shall enter into a landscape maintenance agreement with the City for the life of the project, consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ord. 801) and the approved landscape plan. 2. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 3. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and Ordinance No. 653, shall be paid prior to recordation of final map. 4. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance. 5. A standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to the issuance of grading permits. 6. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to recordation of final map. 7. Storm drain design and construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to start of construction. 12 RESOLUTION NO. 8. Complete grading and improvement plans and specifications on electric files shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits. 9. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works. 10. Pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 26 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 11. Landscape install shall be drought tolerant in nature and in accordance with the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (24.04). 12. Landscape plans shall be submitted for review concurrently with grading plans. 13. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards and the City's Circulation Network including the following: • 6' curb adjacent sidewalk on Larrea Street. Rights -of -way necessary for the installation of the above referenced improvements shall be dedicated to the City prior to the issuance of any permits associated with the project. 14. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits. 15. Applicant shall comply with provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust Control as well as Section 24.20, Storm water Management and Discharge Control. 16. The applicant shall file a tentative parcel map for condominium purposes. Riverside Countv Fire Department: 1. With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plan check, Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Codes, appropriate NFPA Standards, CFC, CBC, and/or recognized fire protection standards: The fire department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per UFC Article 87. RESOLUTION NO. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20-psi residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible materials are placed on the job site. 2. Provide, or show there exists, a water system capable of providing a potential gallon per minute flow of: a) 3000 for commercial structure. 3. The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant 4"x2-1/2"x2- 1/2"), located not less than 25' nor more than 150' from any portion of a commercial building measured via vehicular travelway. 4 Water plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the water system will produce the required fire flow. 5. Install a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all buildings within a 3,000 square foot total cumulative floor area. The Fire Marshal shall approve locations of all post indicator valves and fire department connections. All valves and connections shall not be less than 25' from the building with 50' of an approved hydrant. 6. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and Water - flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per CBC Chapter 9. 7. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, 10, but not less than 2A10BC extinguisher per 3,000 square feet and not over 75' walking distance. A "K" type fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens. 8. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall be not less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is allowed, the roadway shall be 36' wide with parking on both sides, 32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn around (55' in industrial developments). Fountains or garden islands placed in the middle of these tum-grounds shall not exceed a 5' radius or 10' diameter. City standards may be more restrictive. 9. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers or other means provisions shall be made to install a "Knox Box" key over -ride system to allow for emergency vehicle access. Minimum gate width shall be 16' with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6". 10. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city. 11. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be submitted separately for approval prior to construction. 0 RESOLUTION NO. 12. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when building permits are not obtained within twelve months. 13. Sprinklers shall be installed in the under ground parking lots. 14. Due to compromising access for fire fighting, sprinkler monitoring may be required. 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.2390 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL A PRECISE PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A NEW 12 UNIT, 36 KEYS, HOTEL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 73-811 LARREA STREET. CASE NO. PP/CUP 05-20 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 7t' day of March 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued to April 18, 2006, to consider the request by the EUGENE BREZNOCK for approval of the above noted; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act", Resolution No. 05-52, in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project is a Class 32, Categorical Exemption and no further environmental review is necessary. 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 and reasons to exist to justify recommending to City Council approval of said request: 1. The proposed hotel/condominium meets complies with goals and objectives of the El Paseo Resort Overlay Zone. 2. The proposed location of the boutique hotel, as conditioned, is in accord with the objectives and policies of the general plan and zoning ordinance and the purpose of the district in which the site is located. 3. The proposed location of the office boutique hotel and the conditions under which it will be operated and maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 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 it does hereby recommend approval to City Council of Precise Plan/Conditional Use Permit 05-20, subject to conditions attached. PLANNING COMMISSIC 'RESOLUTION NO. 2390 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 18th day of April, 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: CAMPBELL, TANNER, TSCHOPP, LOPEZ NOES: NONE ABSENT: FINERTY ABSTAIN: NONE ATTEST: PHILIP DREL Secretary Palm Desert PI nning Commission 2 son PLANNING COMMISS� N RESOLUTION NO. 2390 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. PP/CUP 05-20 Department of Community Development: The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Construction of said project shall commence within one (1) year from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted, otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 3. Applicant shall record a conservation easement to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development/Planning and City Attorney for the undisturbed 4.13 acres of the 4.84-acre site that is being annexed into the City. 4. 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: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said landscaping for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which agreement shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. The final landscape plan shall include a long-term maintenance program specifying among other matters appropriate watering times, fertilization and pruning for various times of the year for the specific materials to be planted, as well as periodic replacement of materials. All to be consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801) and the approved landscape plan. 6. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas. Said placement shall be approved by applicable waste company and Department of Community Development and shall include a recycling program. 3 PLANNING COMMISSIC . RESOLUTION NO. 2390 7. Transient Occupancy Tax (T.O.T.) per Municipal Code Section 3.28.030 will be applied to the room rent for every night a room(s) are rented out for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes regardless of the actual purpose for which such room(s) are rented out. 8. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City regulating non -transient if the condominiums are sold to individual buyers. 9. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the department of public works prior to architectural review commission submittal. 10. The parapets around the exterior elevations facing adjacent neighbors and Larrea Street shall be 5'8" tall to provide privacy to the adjacent neighbors. 11. A detailed parking lot and building lighting plan shall be submitted to staff for approval, subject to applicable lighting standards, plan to be prepared by a qualified lighting engineer. 12. Use of the roof decks shall be prohibited after 10:00 pm Sundays through Thursdays and after 12:00 am on Fridays and Saturdays. Department of Public Works: 1. All landscape maintenance shall be performed by the property owner and the applicant shall enter into a landscape maintenance agreement with the City for the life of the project, consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ord. 801) and the approved landscape plan. 2. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 3. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and Ordinance No. 653, shall be paid prior to recordation of final map. 4. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance. 5. A standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to the issuance of grading permits. 6. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to recordation of final map. 0 PLANNING COMMISLN RESOLUTION NO. 2390 7. Storm drain design and construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to start of construction. 8. Complete grading and improvement plans and specifications on electric files shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits. 9. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works. 10. Pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 26 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 11. Landscape install shall be drought tolerant in nature and in accordance with the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (24.04). 12. Landscape plans shall be submitted for review concurrently with grading plans. 13. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards and the City's Circulation Network including the following: 6' curb adjacent sidewalk on Larrea Street. Rights -of -way necessary for the installation of the above referenced improvements shall be dedicated to the City prior to the issuance of any permits associated with the project. 14. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits. 15. Applicant shall comply with provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust Control as well as Section 24.20, Storm water Management and Discharge Control. 16. The applicant shall file a tentative parcel map for condominium purposes. Riverside County Fire Department: With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plan check, Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Codes, appropriate NFPA Standards, CFC, CBC, and/or recognized fire protection standards: 5 PLANNING COMMISSIL . RESOLUTION NO. 2390 The fire department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per UFC Article 87. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20-psi residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible materials are placed on the job site. 2. Provide, or show there exists, a water system capable of providing a potential gallon per minute flow of: a) 3000 for commercial structure. 3. The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant 4"x2- 1 /2"x2-1l2"), located not less than 25' nor more than 150' from any portion of a commercial building measured via vehicular travelway. 4 Water plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the water system will produce the required fire flow. 5. Install a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all buildings within a 3,000 square foot total cumulative floor area. The Fire Marshal shall approve locations of all post indicator valves and fire department connections. All valves and connections shall not be less than 25' from the building with 50' of an approved hydrant. 6. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and Water -flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per CBC Chapter 9. 7. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, 10, but not less than 2A10BC extinguisher per 3,000 square feet and not over 76' walking distance. A "K" type fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens. 8. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall be not less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is allowed, the roadway shall be 36' wide with parking on both sides, 32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn around (55' in industrial developments). Fountains or garden islands placed in the middle of these turn-arounds shall not exceed a 5' radius or 10' diameter. City standards may be more restrictive. 9. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers or other means provisions shall be made to install a "Knox Box" key over -ride system to allow for emergency vehicle access. Minimum gate width shall be 16' with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6". 0 PLANNING COMMISLN RESOLUTION NO. 2390 10. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city. 11. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be submitted separately for approval prior to construction. 12. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when building permits are not obtained within twelve months. 13. Sprinklers shall be installed in the under ground parking lots. 14. Due to compromising access for fire fighting, sprinkler monitoring may be required. 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.2389 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO ADD POLICY 10, PROGRAMS 10.A AND 10.8 (EXHIBIT A), A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ADD SECTION 25.112 (EXHIBIT B) ESTABLISHING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR AN EL PASEO RESORT OVERLAY ZONE (EPROZ), A CHANGE OF ZONE TO ADD THE EL PASO RESORT OVERLAY ZONE TO R-3 AND PLANNED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AS INDICATED IN EXHIBIT C. CASE NOS. GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05. AND C/Z 05-05 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 7t' day of March, 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued to April 18,2006, to consider the request by the CITY OF PALM DESERT for approval of the above noted; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act", Resolution No. 05-52, in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project will not have a negative impact on the environment and staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; and 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 and reasons to exist to justify recommending to City Council approval of said request: That the proposed general plan amendment, zoning ordinance amendment, and change of zone are consistent with the intent of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. 2. The proposed general plan amendment, zoning ordinance amendment, and change of zone will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 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 it does hereby recommend approval to City Council of GPA 05-04 (Exhibit "A"), ZOA 05-05 (Exhibit "B"), and C/Z 05-05 (Exhibit "C"). PLANNING COMMISSI� ' RESOLUTION NO. 2389 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 18"' day of April, 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: CAMPBELL, TANNER, TSCHOPP, LOPEZ NOES: NONE ABSENT: FINERTY ABSTAIN: NONE ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL Secretary Palm Desert PI ginning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMIS6'-..N RESOLUTION NO. 2389 EXHIBIT A RESIDENTIAL GOALS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS: Policy 10 The City shall encourage new hotel development on the residential properties within walking distance to El Paseo. Program 10.A The City shall establish an El Paseo Resort Overlay Zone (EPROZ) that will be applied to the R-3 and Planned Residential properties located on the north side of Shadow Mountain Drive and Tumbleweed, between Ocotillo Drive and Portola Avenue, including Larrea Street. Responsible Agency: City Council, Planning Commission, Community Development; Redevelopment Agency. Program 10.13 The City shall create a continuous sidewalk plan for pedestrian traffic within the EPROZ district. Responsible Agency: City Council, Planning Commission, Community Development; Redevelopment Agency. 3 Public Works, PLANNING COMMISSI . RESOLUTION NO. 2389 EXHIBIT B Chapter 25.112 EL PASEO RESORT OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT Sections: 25.112.010 Purpose 25.112.020 Location 25.112.030 Development Standards 25.112.040 T.O.T. 25.112.010. Purpose. The purpose of the El Paseo Resort Overlay Zone (EPROZ) is to provide flexible design standards and incentives for hotel development within walking distance to El Paseo. Whenever the EPROZ has been added to a base zone, the owner/applicant may choose whether to use the flexible EPROZ standards for hotel development or the standards of the base zone for other development that the zone allows as a permitted or conditional use. In order to obtain approval of a hotel under the EPROZ standards, a conditional use permit application must be filled with the Department of Community Development/Planning. 25.112.020. Location. The EPROZ will be added to the base zone of the R-3 and Planned Residential properties located on the north side of Shadow Mountain Drive and Tumbleweed Lane, between Ocotillo Drive and Portola Avenue, including Larrea Street. 25.112.030. Development Standards. Hotels proposed under the EPROZ will be held to the following development standards: A. Density: Maximum density shall be 36 units per acre for hotel development. B. Setbacks: Setbacks shall be subject to setback standards of the base zone set forth in this chapter. C. Height: The maximum building height for hotels in the proposed EPROZ district shall be thirty feet. D. Parking: Parking shall comply with Section 25.58 Off -Street Parking and Loading standards set forth in this chapter. E. Exceptions: The standards of Sections 25.112.030 shall be required unless modified by the development plan approved by Planning Commission and City Council. 25.112.050. T.O.T. The EPROZ standards will apply to hotel development only, therefore, Transient Occupancy Tax (T.O.T.) per Municipal Code Section 3.28.030 will be applied to the room rent for every night a room(s) are rented out for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes regardless of the actual purpose for which such room(s) are rented out. 4 9r -{ . P C-1, S.P. w/ C-1, S.P. C-1_ R"i[41 R 3(4j/I O.P. ! 3 i l i C-1, S.P STATE HWY 111 III III I IF CHICORTST R=1-t 160�0 i JUNIPElt8T -E �� 00OI� ' L�R-- IL2 P.R.-7 R ;� r / PINYON 8T I= 1 I o ��-� 0010'1 r I +R 1T200� R-3(41 GPrAJZOAJCZ 4T l l �Ri I�wcMo_ST -3�4 _1IR-2 8000(4) 80005 an F� O.S. �= .P_.O.S. O.S.pa EL PASEO _ 'z�� RESORT B zt`a,�F OVERLAY ZONE CAyofPalm Desert GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PLANNING COMMISSION Case Nos. OPA 05-04 RESOLUTION NO. 2 s 8 9 � ZOA 05-05 C/Z 05-05 Date: 04/18/06 EXHIBIT C PLANNING COMMISSI�-' RESOLUTION NO. 2389 EXHIBIT D NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NOS: GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, AND C/Z 05-05 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: CITY OF PALM DESERT 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CA 92260 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Approval a general plan amendment to add Policy 10 and Programs 10.A and 10.8 (Exhibit A), a zoning ordinance amendment to add Section 25.112 (Exhibit B) establishing development standards for an El Paseo Resort Overlay Zone (EPROZ), a change of zone to add the EPROZ to R-3 and Planned Residential properties on the north side of Shadow Mountain and Tumbleweed Lane, between Ocotillo Drive, Larrea Street and Portola Avenue (Exhibit C). The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. �t A'A— ril 18. 2006 PHILIP DRE L DATE DIRECTOR F COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9 ORDINANCE NO. 1118 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 25.112 TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE EL PASEO RESORT OVERLAY ZONE, EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED. CASE NO. ZOA 05-05 The City Council of Palm Desert, California, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN, AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the City Council does hereby approve a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment, as provided in the attached Exhibit "A" to create Municipal Code Chapter 25.112 et. al. The El Paseo Resort Commercial Overlay Zone. SECTION 2: That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is hereby certified as shown on the attached Exhibit "B". SECTION 3: That the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, Califomia, is hereby directed to publish this ordinance in the Desert Sun, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Palm Desert, Califomia, and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this 11th day of March 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JIM FERGUSON, Mayor ATTEST: RACHELLE KLASSEN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California ORDINANCE NO. 1118 Chapter 25.112 EXHIBIT "A" EL PASEO RESORT OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT Sections: 25.112.010 25.112.020 25.112.030 25.112.040 Purpose Location Development Standards T.O.T. 25.112.010. Purpose. The purpose of the El Paseo Resort Overlay Zone (EPROZ) is to provide flexible design standards and incentives for hotel development within walking distance to El Paseo. Whenever the EPROZ has been added to a base zone, the owner/applicant may choose whether to use the flexible EPROZ standards for hotel development or the standards of the base zone for other development that the zone allows as a permitted or conditional use. In order to obtain approval of a hotel under the EPROZ standards, a conditional use permit application must be filled with the Department of Community Development/Planning. 25.112.020. Location. The EPROZ will be added to the base zone of the R-3 and Planned Residential properties located on the north side of Shadow Mountain Drive and Tumbleweed Lane, between Ocotillo Drive and Portola Avenue, including Larrea Street. 25.112.030. Development Standards. Hotels proposed under the EPROZ will be held to the following development standards: A. Density: Maximum density shall be 36 units per acre for hotel development. B. Setbacks: Setbacks shall be subject to setback standards of the base zone set forth in this chapter. C. Height: The maximum building height for hotels in the proposed EPROZ district shall be thirty feet. D. Parking: Parking shall comply with Section 25.58 Off -Street Parking and Loading standards set forth in this chapter. E. Exceptions: The standards of Sections 25.112.030 shall be required unless modified by the development plan approved by Planning Commission and City Council. 25.112.050. T.O.T. The EPROZ standards will apply to hotel development only, therefore, transient occupancy tax (T.O.T.) per Municipal Code Section 3.28.030 will be applied to the room rent for every night a room(s) are rented out for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes regardless of the actual purpose for which such room(s) are rented out. 2 ORDINANCE No. 1118 EXHIBIT "B" NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NOS: ZOA 05-05 as it relates to GPA05-04, C/Z 05-05, and PP/CUP 05-20 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: CITY OF PALM DESERT 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CA 92260 Approval a general plan amendment to add Policy 10 and Programs 10.A and 10.B (Exhibit A), as it relates to a zoning ordinance amendment to add Section 25.112 (Exhibit B) establishing development standards for an El Paseo Resort Overlay Zone (EPROZ), a change of zone to add the EPROZ to R-3 and Planned Residential properties on the north side of Shadow Mountain and Tumbleweed Lane, between Ocotillo Drive, Larrea Street and Portola Avenue (Exhibit C). The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, Califomia, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. Mav 11. 2006 PHILIP DRELL DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3 ORDINANCE NO. 1119 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 107, THE PALM DESERT ZONING MAP BY ADDING THE EL PASEO RESORT OVERLAY ZONE (EPROZ) TO CERTAIN R-3 PROPERTIES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SHADOW MOUNTAIN DRIVE AND LARREA STREET BETWEEN LARKSPUR AND PORTOLA AVENUE, EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED. CASE NO. C/Z 05-05 The City Council of Palm Desert, California, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN, AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That a portion of Ordinance No. 107 referencing Section 25.46.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Map (Chapter 35.46 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code) is hereby amended to read as shown on the attached Exhibit "A". SECTION 2: That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is hereby certified as shown on the attached Exhibit "B". SECTION 3: That the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby directed to publish this ordinance in the Desert Sun, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Palm Desert, California, and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this 11th day of March 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JIM FERGUSON, Mayor ATTEST: RACHELLE KLASSEN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California "f?)III11111-� ! R2, R 3 -li=Zi SIO.1 S:O. 7)IIIIIII '5) 5) R-2(5) R-3 R-3 S.P.I 0.12, 0.13) R-31 O.S. AIirr R-1 (C=1 C-91 R 3(4) i 0.P,. IC-1. S.IP.) L.11111111 C1,IS.P.11 1 11 R(1 14000 L C-1, S.P. C-1 0000 2000 1 01 000 10000 II \\\� C-1 R-3(4) Prriq R1 313000(3) I I R-1, 120001 I�-116000 11111 1l I R-I11-20000 I J R-3(4) • ■ --7 ma, -R;1 At4Vir i*V R=2 O:P.� RR3(4) R-3(4) O.P.IR--3 IC-1, S.P(4) I I I I J-IiI �i'i11 C-1 1 040000(3) I R 43000(3) I R 3,1300,0(_, 1 1 (R it 12000 00`poil 1( 11R-2 SQ00(_4) arga/5at w .17eoe I CHANGE OF ZONE Case No. C/Z 05-05 EXHIBIT A C-1 w 1r i:l N gUFFro IIl11R-�1llllll1llll rL'!. kers -R;1 3(4) G1,s11.11 11,4P;I 1 I I 1 III I [ IC -1, s.P. I I % �C1 1-I Proposed Change of Zone EL PASEO RESORT OVERLAY ZONE CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. Date: ORDINANCE NO. 1119 EXHIBIT "B" NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: C/Z 05-05 as it relates to 05-04, ZOA 05-05, and PP/CUP 05-20 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: CITY OF PALM DESERT 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CA 92260 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Approval a general plan amendment to add Policy 10 and Programs 10.A and 10.B (Exhibit A), as it relates to a zoning ordinance amendment to add Section 25.112 (Exhibit B) establishing development standards for an El Paseo Resort Overlay Zone (EPROZ), a change of zone to add the EPROZ to R-3 and Planned Residential properties on the north side of Shadow Mountain and Tumbleweed Lane, between Ocotillo Drive, Larrea Street and Portola Avenue (Exhibit C). The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. Mav 11, 2006 PHILIP DRELL DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3 Page 1 of 1 Klassen, Rachelle From: Sea4Blis@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 11:26 AM To: Klassen, Rachelle Subject: Re: Letter to City Council regarding EPROZ Dear Mayor Ferguson: We are writing with regard to the EPROZ and the Larrea Street project. We will try to attend the City Council meeting if work permits. We have lived on Shadow Lake Drive for 5 years. We are very concerned about how this project and rezoning will impact our neighborhood as well as our property values. Currently, our street is used as a cut through for speeding cars to Portola and with the passing of this rezoning it will only increase the traffic to our street. We truly believe our safety and most importantly our quality of life will be changed forever. grew up in what was a small town named Corona. Maybe you have been there. Some small business men decided it would be beneficially to change our town, revive it, increase revenue to their businesses thus Urban Renewal! So they bulldozed my town along with all my childhood memories (downtown was a gathering place for all), our stunning turn of the century library was torn down and if you go there now you will see the still vacant lot where this gorgeous building once stood. No one shops in Corona or has since that faithful day a few men decided what was good for our community. What does this have to do with this issue...take a look at what is happening to our desert now. Please listen to your constituents. We love Palm Desert, we love our neighborhood, we co exists with small B & B's now but this is not the place for large commercial hotels. After attending two of the Planning Commission meetings with regard to the Larrea project. It was disheartening to see Phil Drell leaning back in his chair with his eyes closed with little regard to how the residents of this area feel. Perhaps, Mr. Drell's position is not an elected one but I do believe our tax dollars pay his salary. We believe the Larrea project is only opening the doors for larger projects that will change our neighborhoods and the beauty of our valley forever. It is our hope that you will care about our neighborhood and the beauty of our desert by voting no on this project. Sincerely, Cynthia Joy Bliss and Laury Searle • 5/9/2006 Page 1 of 1 Klassen, Rachelle From: Faith Messenger [faithmessenger@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 3:46 PM To: Klassen, Rachelle Cc: rob.bignell@thedesertsun.com Subject: Zoning Overlay Ordinance in Palm Desert Gentlemen I have been a resident of 73-860 Shadow Mountain for 4 years and have lived with the overriding neglect of Larrea Street for way too long. At long last, after nearly 20 years in waiting, the City Council will be able to address the issue of outdated zoning laws and the poor results that they created near the El Paseo area. The current zoning on what should be a fashionable, high end adjunct to El Paseo (i.e., larrea Street), has yielded no new developments or property improvements in nearly 20 years. What it has yielded are vacant semi -commercial lots, abandoned buildings with homeless, drug, and criminal elements, along with some poorly maintained properties from the '50's, not to mention a general feeling of neglect by planners, developers and property owners. Amongst all residents of Palm Desert, none will be more effected that I, in that I live right next to the beautifully designed Paseo Hotel and Villas that is being proposed for approval under the new zoning. We now have before the Council a vision from the Planning Department and the private sector to change all of this. The Zoning Overlay on Thursdays agenda, May 11, 2006, will not only encourage the upgrade of exisitng properties but will incentivize developers to invest substantial sums of money in the high -end boutique hotels of a world class quality. This will enable El Paseo to become a true destination resort in and of itself as people would now have top quality hotels to match the excellent stores and restaurants available on El Paseo. Furthermore, all of this energy and commercial activity would not result in increased traffic because the original design of the city shopping area was to encourage foot traffic. In fact the essential draw to the hotel zone is to avoid having to drive. This will not only benefit our great merchants (especially in the "off season") but will inject energy and vibrance throughout the year. The merchants, planning groups and general community are in enthusiastic support of the overly zone; lets hope that the vision can move forward under the City Councils leadership. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Sincerely Faith Messenger 5/11/2006 Page 1 of 2 Klassen, Rachelle From: Gail Basse [gbasse@indio.org] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 9:25 AM ?Dad Y 1 1 Ari 9: 59 To: Klassen, Rachelle Cc: k.kaufmann@thedesertsun.com Subject: Palm Desert Zoning and Larrea Street project variances Importance: High May 11, 2006 Dear Palm Desert City Council, t : C I .. (. SET, CA .. My name is Gail Basse. My husband Jack and myself live at 73298 Joshua Tree Street, on the corner of Tumbleweed. We moved here three years ago to achieve a better quality of life. We feel that the EPROZ will jeopardize that quality of life - if it is put through as proposed. We vehemently oppose EPROZ. Some of the reasons are outlined below. Literally the only people who support this project are those who have a financial interest. Many of those people don't live in Palm Desert. The people who live in or near the EPROZ area are generally opposed. - There has been minimal community involvement, despite clear direction from the Planning Commission. Only two residents met with the developer, and only five people were able to attend the meeting on March 23rd (probably due to the short or NO notice - four opposed, one in favor). - The developer did not make the compromises requested by the Planning Commission in height or density, and only agreed under pressure to meet with the community. During the resultant meeting he threatened to build low-income housing numerous times if he couldn't get the variances he wants. Phil Drell finally told him (with a wink) to not mention low-income housing again. The question comes to mind, who does Phil work for - the city of Palm Desert, or the developer? One of the project's supporters, David Fletcher, said "So they get some letters from tenants. Who cares about them?" How disrespectful to the residents of Palm Desert. And how sad that greed might play a part in the decisions made. - The developer knew the area's zoning and costs when he bought the property. The figures represented at the Planning Commission meeting were based upon the price of land today (the owner did not buy the land at today's prices). If he says he can't make it pencil out, that's his problem to solve. The City Council should not allow wide scale and sweeping zoning changes to be made on his behalf. In all of the meetings we attended regarding the Larrea project, we were made to feel that the City is on his side due to the revenues his project might generate, and that the residents issues were just a bother. Zoning does not exist to allow an individual to maximize his profit, it exists to benefit the entire community. - Most of the Planning Commission members expressed concern about how the EPROZ will change Palm Desert negatively. Despite requests, there is no comprehensive plan for the long-term health of the El Paseo area. There is no guarantee that these hotels will make a positive difference in the El Paseo economy - remember, we as residents in the area are also consumers. - Michael Shimer, head of the El Paseo Merchant's Association, says that he isn't worried about competition from other commercial centers. He was quoted in a March 14th article as saying, "The more development that goes on in the valley - while it may look like direct competition - it will make us look better." - The EPROZ will generate almost 1000 more cars per day on Shadow Mountain Drive. The City Transportation Engineer says this is acceptable. That is only one opinion. We say it isn't. Shouldn't 5/11/2006 Page 2 of 2 we look into the possible adverse traffic issues before jumping into sweeping zoning changes that will have negative effects (some unknown at this time), and which reach far into the future of our city. - Right now Shadow Mountain and Larrea are the transitional zones between the business district and the single-family homes to the south. If the EPROZ is approved, Shadow Mountain could become all hotels. This would have a major impact on the noise level for the neighborhoods to the south. The Planning Department put in a noise mitigation condition for the Larrea Street project, but there is no guarantee that they will do this for future projects. Shouldn't some restrictions be put into effect now to insure they do this? - Having multiple hotels and transient residents near the Washington Charter School increases the potential for dangers to young children. It will increase the traffic on Shadow Lake and Joshua Tree as more people try to cut through. This will add to the already increased traffic created by the school. - Height restrictions are one important criteria that has made and keeps Palm Desert so special. Weren't the height restrictions put into place to stop this very type of thing from happening and to insure the quality of life for the existing residents? Palm Desert is a special, unique place and that character should be preserved and respected. Sincerely, Jack and Gail Basse 5/11/2006 Susan and Doug Myrland 73860 Shadow Mt Drive #6 Palm Desert, CA 92260 (760) 568-6304 May 5, 2006 C'J `= Jim Ferguson, Mayorf� City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive - Palm Desert, CA 92260 N Dear Mayor Ferguson, v �' We will not be able to attend the City Council meeting on May 11th but wish to express our strong opposition to the EPROZ and the Larrea Street project for the following reasons: This rezoning will significantly change the nature of our neighborhood, yet there has been minimal community involvement. There were no public meetings held prior to the March 7"' Planning Commission hearing. Only one notice was sent to each multi- family complex along Shadow Mountain Drive. The Commission chided the Planning Department and the Larrea Street developer for this, and instructed them to do more community outreach. One meeting was held, on March 23rd. Eleven people were sent an invitation via email with one week's notice. Nine more people received an email invitation with three day's notice. As a result, only four people who live in the affected area were able to attend. The developer claims that he met with "all the residents directly around them." That is completely untrue. Our co-op is immediately adjacent to the proposed hotel and it will block our view. The developer met with two of our neighbors, Brian Blatchley and Fred Gerber, and has a financial arrangement with a third neighbor, Faith Messenger. None of the other people in our building, or in the apartment complexes on either side of us, ever received a letter, phone call or email from the developer. The EPROZ changes will have an impact on hundreds who live along Shadow Mountain, Shadow Lake, San Luis Rey, and Joshua Tree — but the community involvement has been limited to a handful of people. Because of the lack of community awareness, it would appear that opposition is minimal. That is not the case. You'll notice that the letters of support for this project mainly come from people who do not live in Palm Desert, are not in the overlay zone, or who stand to benefit financially. The Planning Department received many letters from residents opposed to the rezoning. Only one of those letters was included in the most recent staff report. A leading concern is the amount of traffic that will be generated under the rezoning — almost 1000 more cars per day on Shadow Mountain Drive if all the vacant lots are developed, and even more if existing properties are turned into hotels or if the EPROZ is extended east of Portola. Letter to Mayor Ferguson, Page 2 You only have to stand outside our home on Shadow Mountain to see that this road could not handle 1000 more cars every day. Our safety and quality of life are at stake. We already have cars constantly whizzing by, day and night. Traffic spills over onto Shadow Lake and Joshua Tree, and this will get even worse when the Washington Charter School opens. We have expressed our concerns to the Planning Department, but have been told that they will not do anything about it and that the increased traffic is within acceptable limits. We say it is not. Similarly, our concerns about increased height have been dismissed. We knew when we bought our unit that the lot behind us was zoned for two stories. We agreed to those conditions, but not to the variances that would be allowed under the EPROZ. The Planning Department says that we should just put another story on our building. We have a distinctive mid-century modern complex, one of Palm Desert's oldest, and we cannot just slap another level on it. This proposal does not have the unanimous support that the Planning Department would like you to believe. Both the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board expressed concerns about height and density. When the project came before the Architectural Review Board in December 2005, Commissioner Lambell called it "really squished together for a residential area" and compared it to the Westin Mission Hills. At the Planning Commission hearing on March 7th, Commis- sioner Tanner noted that the EPROZ "opens the door for future establishments with a greater impact than 30 feet ... There was going to be disruption of the beauty of the Coachella Valley." Commissioner Finerty expressed her concerns about "losing Palm Desert as we know it ... This project doesn't belong in one of our neighborhoods." These concerns are being ignored. On March 7d', the Planning Commission told the developer to compromise on the height and density of the Larrea Street hotel. He has not made any compromises. He promised to contribute $20,000 towards putting the utilities underground. This promise does not appear anywhere in the staff report, and the Planning Department doesn't seem to know anything about it. He has threatened repeatedly that he could build low-income housing if he doesn't get the variances he wants. In other words, this developer is only interested in his short-term gain. He knew the area's zoning and costs when he bought the property. If he can't make it pencil out, that's his problem. The City Council should not make far-reaching zoning changes so that an individual can maximize his or her profit at the expense of the larger community. The Planning Department is trying to argue that hotels are necessary to save the Paseo from competition, and that development won't happen without zoning changes. But Michael Shimer, head of the Paseo Merchant's Association, said in the Desert Sun on March 14th that he wasn't worried about competition. At the Planning Commission hearing, the Larrea Street developer said that his project could be built without the overlay zone. Even Phil Drell admitted on March 23rd that the EPROZ "wouldn't transform the Paseo's economy," and that building hotels would not guarantee year- round visitors. Letter to Mayor Ferguson, Page 3 At that meeting, it was very clear that Phil Drell did not take our interests or his responsibilities seriously. He joked about the process and the small turnout of residents. At the end of the meeting he congratulated the developer and his tearn. One of the project's supporters, David Fletcher, said, "So they get some letters from tenants. Who cares about them?" We are hoping that you will care about tenants and homeowners. We believe that the EPROZ has the potential to turn Shadow Mountain Drive into a hotel row, destroying the very qualities that make this area attractive. Our current zoning is the reason why this location is special and valuable. Please vote to preserve our unique, beautiful neighborhood. Sincerely, Susan Myrlan ioug rland 1, a 4t' ` �C �/1 rzh4. Susan and Doug MyriaGnd 73860 Shadow Mt Dr #6 Palm Desert CA 42260 (760)568-6304 April 18, 2006 Dear Planning Commission members: Due to a scheduling conflict, I am unable to attend tonight's meeting regarding the EPROZ and the Larrea Street project. However, I wish to express my continued opposition to the zoning change, the project, and the way the process was handled. At the Commission session on March 7th, you directed City staff and the developer to Involve the community In the planning, and find ways to reduce the height and density of the Larres project to better fit In the neighborhood. Staff held iW meeting, on March 23rd. A week before the meeting, an email went out to eleven people. Three days before, another nine people received an Invitation. As a result of this short notice, only four residents were able to attend. There was no agenda and no explanation about what we were supposed to accomplish. There has been no other resident Involvement or communication since then. The EPROZ changes will affect hundreds who live along Shadow Mountain, Shadow Lake, San Luis Rey, and Joshua Tree - but the community involvement has consisted of fim PROAk. At the meeting on March 23rd, It was very clear that Phil Drell did not take our Interests, or his role as a public servant, seriously. He joked about the process and the small turnout of residents. At the end of the meeting he congratulated the developer and his team. One of the project's supporters, David Fletcher, said, "So they get some letters from tenants. Who cares about them?" His arrogance and condescension sum up the attitude towards residents. It's very clear to the people who live In the neighborhood that we will get this project whether we like it or not. There have been no compromises In the density. City staff have dismissed our concerns about traffic. We have not seen any drawings or other Indicators to show height. The architect was willing to make changes but his suggestions were overruled. Essentially we've been told that we'll just have to put a second story on our building in order to keep our views. The developer knew the existing zoning when he bought this property. He knew construction costs. Now he's saying that you need to change the zoning so that he can maximize his profit. If he paid too much for the land, that's his problem. This project was - and still Is - wrong for the neighborhood and wrong for Palm Desert. Sir~�c elY, Susan Myrla letter to City Council regarding EPROZ Pagel of 3 Klassen, Rachelle From: Susan Myrland [susan@silvergate.us] Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 12:26 AM To: Klassen, Rachelle Cc: k.kaufmann@thedesertsun.com Subject: letter to City Council regarding EPROZ Dear Ms. Klassen, I am sending hard copies of the following letter to each of the Councilmembers. If you do not receive the hard copies in time, please use this electronic version. Thank you for your assistance, Susan Myrland ----------------------------------- Susan and Doug Myrland 73860 Shadow Mt Drive #6 - Palm Desert, CA 92260=^ (760) 568-6304 May 5, 2006 Jim Ferguson, Mayor City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mayor Ferguson, We will not be able to attend the City Council meeting on May 11th, but wish to express our strong opposition to the EPROZ and the Larrea Street project for the following reasons: This rezoning will significantly change the nature of our neighborhood, yet there has been minimal community involvement. There were no public meetings held prior to the March 7th Planning Commission hearing. Only one notice was sent to each multi -family complex along Shadow Mountain Drive. The Commission chided the Planning Department and the Larrea Street developer for this, and instructed them to do more community outreach. One meeting was held, on March 23rd. Eleven people were sent an invitation via email with one week's notice. Nine more people received an email invitation with three day's notice. As a result, only four people who live in the affected area were able to attend. The developer claims that he met with "all the residents directly around them." That is completely untrue. Our co-op is immediately adjacent to the proposed hotel and it will block our view. The developer met with two of our neighbors, Brian Blatchley and Fred Gerber, and has a financial arrangement with a third neighbor, Faith Messenger. None 5/5/2006 letter to City Council regarding EPROZ Page 2 of 3 of the other people in our building, or in the apartment complexes on either side of us, ever received a letter, phone call or email from the developer. The EPROZ changes will have an impact on hundreds who live along Shadow Mountain, Shadow Lake, San Luis Rey, and Joshua Tree - but the community involvement has been limited to a handful of people. Because of the lack of community awareness, it would appear that opposition is minimal. That is not the case. You'll notice that the letters of support for this project mainly come from people who do not live in Palm Desert, are not in the overlay zone, or who stand to benefit financially. The Planning Department received manv letters from residents opposed to the rezoning. Only one of those letters was included in the most recent staff report. A leading concern is the amount of traffic that will be generated under the rezoning - almost 1000 more cars per day on Shadow Mountain Drive if all the vacant lots are developed, and even more if existing properties are turned into hotels or if the EPROZ is extended east of Portola. You only have to stand outside our home on Shadow Mountain to see that this road could not handle 1000 more cars every day. Our safety and quality of life are at stake. We already have cars constantly whizzing by, day and night. Traffic spills over onto Shadow Lake and Joshua Tree, and this will get even worse when the Washington Charter School opens. We have expressed our concerns to the Planning Department, but have been told that they will not do anything about it and that the increased traffic is within acceptable limits. We say it is not. Similarly, our concerns about increased height have been dismissed. We knew when we bought our unit that the lot behind us was zoned for two stories. We agreed to those conditions, but not to the variances that would be allowed under the EPROZ. The Planning Department says that we should just put another story on our building. We have a distinctive mid-century modern complex, one of Palm Desert's oldest, and we cannot just slap another level on it. This proposal does not have the unanimous support that the Planning Department would like you to believe. Both the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board expressed concerns about height and density. When the project came before the Architectural Review Board in December 2005, Commissioner Lambell called it "really squished together for a residential area" and compared it to the Westin Mission Hills. At the Planning Commission hearing on March 7th, Commissioner Tanner noted that the EPROZ "opens the door for future establishments with a greater impact than 30 feet ... There was going to be disruption of the beauty of the Coachella Valley." Commissioner Finerty expressed her concerns about "losing Palm Desert as we know it ... This project doesn't belong in one of our neighborhoods." These concerns are being ignored. On March 7th, the Planning Commission told the developer to compromise on the height and density of the Larrea Street hotel. He has not made any compromises. He promised to contribute $20,000 towards putting the utilities underground. This promise does not appear anywhere in the staff report, and the Planning Department doesn't seem to know anything about it. He has threatened repeatedly that he could build low- income housing if he doesn't get the variances he wants. In other words, this developer is only interested in his short-term gain. He knew the area's zoning and costs when he 5/5/2006 letter to City Council regarding EPROZ Page 3 of 3 bought the property. If he can't make it pencil out, that's his problem. The City Council should not make far-reaching zoning changes so that an individual can maximize his or her profit at the expense of the larger community. The Planning Department is trying to argue that hotels are necessary to save the Paseo from competition, and that development won't happen without zoning changes. But Michael Shimer, head of the Paseo Merchant's Association, said in the Desert Sun on March 14th that he wasn't worried about competition. At the Planning Commission hearing, the Larrea Street developer said that his project could be built without the overlay zone. Even Phil Drell admitted on March 23rd that the EPROZ "wouldn't transform the Paseo's economy," and that building hotels would not guarantee year- round visitors. At that meeting, it was very clear that Phil Drell did not take our interests or his responsibilities seriously. He joked about the process and the small turnout of residents. At the end of the meeting he congratulated the developer and his team. One of the project's supporters, David Fletcher, said, "So they get some letters from tenants. Who cares about them?" We are hoping that you will care about tenants and homeowners. We believe that the EPROZ has the potential to turn Shadow Mountain Drive into a hotel row, destroying the very qualities that make this area attractive. Our current zoning is the reason why this location is special and valuable. Please vote to preserve our unique, beautiful neighborhood. Sincerely, Susan Myrland Doug Myrland 5/5/2006 Baca ato, Tony From: Drell, Phil Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 2:24 PM To: Bagato, Tony Subject: FW: Contact Us Form -----Original Message ----- =rom: Klassen, Rachelle Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 2:16 PM To: Michelson, Wilma; Drell, Phil; Smith, Steve Subject: FW: Contact Us Form -----Original Message ----- From: City of Palm Desert Web Site [mailto:fndorcom@aol.com] Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 1:58 PM To: Klassen, Rachelle; Kim Shannon Subject: Contact Us Form First name: Nancy Last name: Leppert E-mail address: fndorcom@aol.com Addressl: 73860 Shadow Mtn Dr # 3 City: Palm Desert State: CA ZIP code: 92260 Phone: 760 341 7510 Comments: I would like to keep alive the discussion regarding the Planning Commission Resort Overlay zoning changes. While I and many neighbors do not oppose the growth and economic opportunities along El Paseo a project like this will bring to Palm Desert, I would just like for everyone to be certain that the changes are the correct ones, for both residents and business owners, and city coffers. Please do not let them go any higher than the 30 feet that passed this past week. 1 do not feel that they have considered the "whole" impact. Is there a model city they are using? Lets hope it ins not Vegas or Phoenix. What architectural restrictions will there be? What ever changes are passed will be ours for the future. I would like to be notified when this subject wil hit the City Council Chambers. The planning commission folks generally provided us with 2 days notice for any meetings they had - other than the Tuesday night meetings. That is not enough time for many of cur group to be able to plan their attendance. Thank you for your consideration Nancy Leppert 1 Page 1 of 1 Klassen, Rachelle From: Fndotcom@aol.com Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 7:03 PM To: Klassen, Rachelle Cc: k.kaufmann@thedesertsun.com Subject: EPROZ For yours, and the city councils' consideration, please enter my letter to your files on opposition to the EPROZ proposal scheduled for this weeks meeting. Thank you My kindest regards, NancyHammett Leppert "'0 5/9/2006 May 8, 2006 City of Palm Desert, City Council Members 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-25678 Dear City Council Member, I am opposed to the EPROZ. I have been a full time resident of South Palm Desert for seven years. I currently live at 73860 Shadow Mountain Dr. which is situated behind and adjacent to the proposed development of the boutique hotel proposed to be built on Larrea. The rear of my home will face directly onto the southeast corner of this project. My home is ideally located near the shopping and dining district of El Paseo, and it was big draw to my decision to purchase here. I am very concerned about the noise, density and increased traffic this project will bring. Although my view of San Jacinto in the distance will become obliterated, this is a complaint I can't bring to you, as with the current zoning height restriction of 28 feet, it would still vanish. A bummer - yes - adding insult to injury, I stand to be subjected to increased noise levels from the hotel guests on the roof top pools late into the night. I am also concerned for those residing in the rooms under these roof top pools in the event of an extreme earthquake, but I am prepared to assist if needed. I am opposed to EPROZ because of the height issues and density. I am also concerned that the project might also be sold as a 12 deeded project. If this is the case, what would happen to the project if it fails as a hotel and reverts to a condominium project? Will it be grandfathered with the approved heights and density? Parking would become an issue if there are not enough assigned parking spaces in the underground lot. Will it open a ""can of worms" for other condo projects in the future wanting increased height restrictions? These are serious questions that must be addressed before allowing the Larrea project to be approved. I am not opposed to bringing hotels to the area; it will be a big boost to the economies of the existing and future businesses on El Paseo, as well as the city coffers. I am not against this project to continue, but I am against the current proposed EPROZ efforts. You have heard from other residents regarding the traffic issues, I am in agreement with them and do not feel that I should include the statistics for you again - but I can if you want! I would like to ask if you, City Council members and your neighbors would not object to a project in your neighborhood that would increase the traffic by nearly 30%. I am also in agreement with other neighbors of El Paseo that a project such as this should not be approved if it does not benefit the community as a whole. The developer has threatened to put in low-income housing if the variances he requests are not met. Threats do not make a good neighbor. At the time the lot was purchased, current zoning was not a secret. To quote my neighbor Susan Myrland "He knew the area's zoning and costs when he bought the property. If he can't make it pencil out, that's his problem. The City Council should not make far- reaching zoning changes so that an individual can maximize his or her profit at the expense of the larger community. " I am not against the boutique hotel industry making a profitable impact for the city of Palm Desert, nor am I against it being built adjacent to my home, I am against the current EPROZ proposals with regards to the height and density issues. I moved here from a quaint community in Old Town Alexandria, Virginia, established in 1774. Two hundred years later, a redevelopment boon began - it exploded. It took just 20 years to become an area of bumper to bumper traffic, high rise industrial parks and increased crime - Please; do not allow this EPROZ to come to fruition. This unique community will continue to benefit from the quality of life that has already been created. In twenty years, what will we have created for your children and grandchildren? Orange County? Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Nancy Hammett Leppert 73860 Shadow Mountain Dr Palm Desert, Ca 92260 Page 1 0 Bagato, Tony From: Robert Rosteck[RRosteck@collegeofthedesert.edu] Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 11:15 AM To: Bagato, Tony; cfinerty22@aol.com Subject: FW: Resort Zone Designation 1-, 40PC e QK f l'`06 Due to my work schedule, I will be unable to attend tonight's meeting. I have previously emailed a letter against this proposal (see below). Currently, I am still against, not so muc •the development of the proposed areas, but the increase in density and height of the units. I believe development is good for the area until it negatively impacts the aesthetics of the area. Sincerely, Robert Rosteck From: Robert Rosteck Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 8:37 AM To: 'tbagato©ci.palm-desert.ca.us' Subject: Resort Zone Designation am writing with regards to the "resort zone" designation for Shadow Mountain Drive between Portola and Ocotillo. I would also like to express my opinion on height and density waivers for construction on Larrea Street. I have been a resident of the Coachella Valley for the past nine years and in that amount of time I have seen numerous change: sometimes for the better and sometimes not for the better. One thing that attracted me to this area, especially the city of Palm Desert, was its charm. Being from the Southeast, many cities base their entire appeal on the charm they offer visitors and Palm Desert has much to offer in that category. However, changing zoning designations to allow for resorts — especially on the edge i residential properties — will detract from these neighborhoods and allow the commercial to encroach into the residential. Southe Califomia is changing as it grows, but that doesn't mean that a city like Palm Desert has to give up its character while there are areas that have yet to be developed (Cook Street) or commercial areas that could be redeveloped to accommodate resorts. For the past three years, I have lived at 73-880 Shadow Mountain Drive in an apartment complex that spans between Shadow Mountain Drive and Larrea Street. The properties adjacent to the apartment complex on Larrea Street are in need of development due to the homeless people who have presented themselves as a threat at times to the community, the unsightly appearance of the unkempt lots, and the danger the dilapidated buildings present. I am all for development of these properties within the zoning regulations, however, I don't see the need to approve special height and density waivers. Again, this would detract from the charm and the appearance of the valley. It's nice to be able to stand and look at the mountains from almost any point in the city without actually having to drive to the mountains to see them. Thank you for allowing me to express my opinions on this matter. I know urban development is a problem in trying to balance th needs of development with the character of any area. Hopefully, Palm Desert will continue to grow in a manner that doesn't sacrifice its charm for short term gain. Sincerely, Robert Rosteck 73-880 Shadow Mountain Drive #106 4/18/2006 Klassen, Rachelle From: City of Palm Desert Web Site [stephbesant@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 5:51 PM To: Klassen, Rachelle; Kim Shannon Subject: Contact Us Form First name: Stephanie Last name: Besant E-mail address: stephbesant@aol.com Addressl: 73930 Shadow Lake Dr City: Palm Desert State: CA ZIP code: 92260 Phone: 760-340-4504 Comments: I am writing to voice my concern over the hotel/rezoning on Larrea St. My husband is a small business owner so I am usually an advocate of business development and opportunity, however...we live on Shadow Lake, a street just south of Shadow Mountain Unfortunately, our street is already used as a "cut- thru" so people can avoid El Paseo. Now that we have a new baby, the increased traffic is of huge concern to us as people already "barrel" through our street at high speeds. The last thing we need is to add more traffic to a family, residential area. Please consider this when making your decision. There are plenty of places to put hotels in this desert and with a real estate background, I understand how important location is. But South Palm Desert is such a desirable place to LIVE, I am concerned also that real estate sales could suffer in the immediate area with such an increase of traffic- I heard 1000 more cars per day on Shadow Mountain alone, which would then cause our street to get even busier and more unsafe. Please think about all side when making your decision. Thank you. c r 1 CITY Of PRIM D{S[RT 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DFSERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 76o 346—o611 FAX: 760 341-7098 i n Fo@pa l m-dc scr t. o rg CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NOS. GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, CIZ 05-05, AND PP/CUP 05-20 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by CITY OF PALM DESERT / EUGENE BREZNOCK for approval of: A. A general plan amendment adding Policy 10 and Program 10.A to the Residential Goals, Polices and Programs section of the general plan. B. A zoning ordinance amendment adding Section 25.112 establishing development standards for an El Paseo Resort Overlay Zone (EPROZ). C. A change of zone to add the El Paseo Resort Overlay Zone to certain R-3 properties located on the north side of Shadow Mountain Drive and Larrea Street, between Larkspur Lane and Portola Avenue. D. A precise plan and conditional use permit to allow the construction of a new 12 unit, 36 keys, hotel condominium project located at 73-811 Larrea Street. (SEE MAPS ON REVERSE SIDE) SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, May 11, 2006 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information conceming the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 o.m. I 1 I I I •• 11101111 irtaTi atZt 1.1 ,l. :. ��'lii 11 to, CL G, S.P. O.P. tmar C-1, S.P. C-1 2 mu" . aV r• Mir iral . art** za1� s 111111 lc mile 1IIHMV iris.. elk 4 :--- -.� pi at O.P. 1 1 104 s.P. l 1 STATE INN 111 G1 MAU seill m Pis �ti�ti 4(t I I 1 11 f f� ►� ' I I_ I IR-11 1 I i I 1, ,. 0 11 li 11 ■ 11.M.WMsquellig, Nog II" Ira . To- C-1 a Ir w ttigirir • O.S. - a r ' 16 23 S. 0.3. . ...P CAD, OM= Desert 0.S. 'a►� 4� � k111‘ M MINERAL PLAN ASNOMSNT Cass Nos. OPA 05-04. ZOA 05-05 C/Z 05-05 EXHIBIT C PP/CUP 1,'8-20 C- 1 Proposed OPAIZOACZ EL PASEO RESORT OVERLAY ZONE MLA11141NO COIIIRU/ON RI$OLUTPON NO. 2389 Owen 04/18/06 CITY Of Pelf DESEPT 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346-0611 FAX: 760 341-7098 info @palm-dese rt. o rg PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION Date: March 8, 2006 Eugene Breznock 75-656 Via Serona Indian Wells, California 92210 City of Palm Desert Re: GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05 and PP/CUP 05-20 The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its regular meeting of March 7, 2006: PLANNING COMMISSION, BY MINUTE MOTION, CONTINUED CASE NOS. GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05 AND PP/CUP 05-20 TO APRIL 18, 2006. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. 0 _�_ Philip Drell, S cretary Palm Desert lanning Commission /tm cc: Coachella Valley Water District Public Works Department Building & Safety Department Fire Marshal rcua ON utram tort CITY of 1/11111 DESEPT 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346-06E1 FAX: 760 341-7098 in fo@pal m-desert. o rg PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION Date: April 19, 2006 Eugene Breznock 75-656 Via Serona Indian Wells, California 92210 City of Palm Desert Re: GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05 AND PP/CUP 05-20 The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its regular meeting of April 18, 2006: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF CASE NOS. GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05 AND PP/CUP 05-20 BY ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NOS. 2389 AND 2390, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. MOTIONS CARRIED 4-0 (COMMISSIONER FINERTY WAS ABSENT). Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. Philip Drell, Palm Desert /tm v __.0 ecretary lanning Commission cc: Coachella Valley Water District Public Works Department Building & Safety Department Fire Marshal C.)mE1oaWNW WEI MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18. 2006 The public hearing was left open and Chairperson Lopez asked for Commission action. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, by minute motion continuing Case Nos. GPA 06-01, C/Z 06-01 and TT 31676 to a date uncertain. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Finerty absent). B. Case Nos. GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05 and PP/CUP 05-20, EUGENE BREZNOCK AND CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicants Request for approval of a general plan amendment adding Policy 10 and Program 10.A to the Residential Goals, Policies and Programs section of the General Plan; a zoning ordinance amendment adding Section 25.112 establishing development standards for an El Paseo Overlay Zone; a change of zone to add the El Paseo Overlay Zone to R-3 and Planned Residential to certain properties; and a precise plan/conditional use permit to allow the construction of a new 12-unit, 36 keys, hotel condominium project located at 73-811 Larrea Street. Mr. Bagato reviewed the staff report. He also reported on information provided by the City's Business Support Manager relative to the benefit that the proposed project could have on sales tax dollars for the city. Mr. Bagato noted that with the staff report he attached five additional letters in favor and one in opposition, and then today two more letters of opposition from neighbors who had written before and were still opposed to the project, but they could not attend the meeting. Mr. Bagato said staff analyzed the proposals, determined there would not be a negative impact and recommended that Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of Case Nos. GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05 and PP/CUP 05- 20. Chairperson Lopez asked how many years this property has been vacant. Mr. Drell said the motel portion has been abandoned for approximately 10 to 15. There were also many lots that have never been developed. Commissioner Tschopp noted that the overlay zone area had been cut down considerably since the last time they looked at it and asked if there were any 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT_PLANNING_COMMjI_SSION APRIL 18, 2006 plans to increase it in the future. Mr. Bagato replied that over time plans change. Mr. Drell said it depended on the success of this area. It contained the obvious areas for redevelopment; the easy ones. Depending on the success of these projects, that would influence whether there would be demand for more of the same product. Depending on how lucrative the business proposition is, that would determine if it warrants in essence tearing down existing multifamily projects which exist to the west. Again, the economics today probably didn't warrant that, but he didn't know about ten years from now. If it turns out to be a great idea, he was sure the future Planning Commission/Council could decide to expand the area. Commissioner Tschopp understood how supply and demand worked, but asked for confirmation that at this time there were no plans to move forward on additional properties. Mr. Drell said staff didn't anticipate any interest in redeveloping substantial, well -maintained properties to the west. Again, they could be surprised, but that was staffs feeling for the near future within the next five years. Commissioner Tanner noted that this originally came before Planning Commission on March 7 and there were a couple of Commissioners who were concerned about precedent setting. He asked if that had anything to do with the reduction of the overlay zone area since a substantial amount was eliminated. Mr. Drell said it wasn't precedent setting. Precedents could be either good or bad. Their goal was to encourage a certain sort of redevelopment. It didn't appear to be that productive to encourage it in an area where there weren't that many opportunities. It was generating a lot more anxiety and concern by folks who live in those areas when in fact the likelihood of these sorts of things going on in those neighborhoods was remote given the existing quality of development. Changes in the city happen incrementally. The good news with that was that they wouldn't bite off too big of a piece before they know exactly how it's going to taste and then they have the opportunity to change, modify and adjust as they go forward into the future. Commissioner Tschopp asked for and received confirmation that the traffic report they were given was for full development of 152 units. He asked if staff was assuming for this 36-key development that it would be proportionately less. Mr. Bagato confirmed that the 36 units would be part of the 152 analyzed. He said it would be less than 948; it would be around 100. Mr. Drell said it was around a quarter. Commissioner Tschopp said that all in all with this development the traffic trips generated would be fairly insignificant 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING CQMMIS$ION_ __ APRIL 18. 2006 and would also keep the streets at a very acceptable level. Mr. Bagato said that was correct. They were assuming the high side even though the hotel would be walking distance to the area. Commissioner Tschopp asked how calculations were done to determine number of trips for Shadow Mountain Drive, because it seemed that most people would reach this property by coming down Portola, taking Larrea or using San Luis Rey and going down Larrea. He asked how they calculated how many would use Shadow Mountain. Mr. Bagato said they looked at the blanket number of how much traffic 152 hotel units would produce and applied that to the current traffic volume on both streets. This was projected to be the worst case scenario because there was more potential to develop on Larrea and these numbers would be split up on different streets. Chairperson Lopez noted that the public hearing was still open and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. WILLIAM DeLEEUW, President of Villa Property Developers, concurred with the staff report. He said he worked closely with staff to make these amendments to the plan and worked on some of the conditions for approval. He also had the architect at the meeting with him to answer any questions. He didn't have more to add that hadn't already been said at the previous hearing and asked if there were any questions. Chairperson Lopez asked for his address for the record. Mr. DeLeeuw said it was 75656 Via Serena in Indian Wells. Chairperson Lopez asked if there were any questions for the applicant. Chairperson Lopez noted that there was a condition regarding noise and asked how Mr. DeLeeuw would control noise from the deck. Mr. DeLeeuw said that because it was going to be operated as a hotel, they had more concern for noise then even the neighbors because where the neighbors might be irritated, it would affect their bottom line if they had a noisy guest and they had to make a refund from the revenue of a room. They would generally have their own security and a night time security guard and thought they could police their own noise. It was for their own benefit and they also wanted to be a good neighbor. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERTPLANNING COMMISSIQ ... .. 0 . APRIL 18. 20 6 Chairperson Lopez asked if the tower element locations and the dome on top could be pointed out on the map. Mr. Bagato did so. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Lopez asked for Commission comments or action. Commissioner Tanner said he was fortunate to attend the neighborhood meeting and he thought both sides presented themselves in the first 15-30 minutes. There were several questions asked and he thought the applicant not only presented a beautiful start to this overlay zone, but that the residents also would hopefully see as this moved into fruition that this would help the neighborhood as opposed to hindering it. There were concerns about the northerly side and he understood that, but this particular project going in there would be a beautiful start and if they could end up with these kinds of projects along that overlay zone, everyone would benefit. With that, he was definitely moving in favor of granting the variance. He congratulated them on a job well done. Commissioner Campbell concurred. She has been on El Paseo 18 years and many of the lots have been empty for all those years. She thought this was a great project for the area. From looking at the new map, from Portola to Larkspur, for the time being that was perfect. There were many empty lots there and they didn't need to tear anything else down for the time being. She was also happy to see so many letters of approval for the project. She agreed it was a project well done and she wished them luck. Commissioner Tschopp liked the idea of cutting the overlay zone down to a much more manageable area so they could see how it develops out and what happens. He didn't see this project as generating significant traffic that would impact the surrounding neighborhoods given the type of roads that lead to it. Height wise, given the dimensions shown and the way the area slopes down toward El Paseo and Highway 111 and staffs comment that there would be no view impact to the homes to the north any more than a 24- foot home, he didn't have a problem with the height elements. The noise, crime, and lighting weren't too much of an issue given the architectural elements, the conditions placed on the project, and the police department enforcing the laws. So he thought overall it was a very good project. The architecture would be a great boon to the area and he hoped it would be a great start for that whole area right there. He was very much in favor of the project and congratulated them. 0 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18.2006 Chairperson Lopez concurred. He thought the current overlay zone was a good location. He believed that area along Larrea needed to be kick started again and hoped this development would initiate that. He was also happy to see that the overlay zone had been reduced. He also concurred that this project should be a nice addition to that location and asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Finerty was absent). It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2389, recommending to City Council approval of GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05 and C/Z 05-05. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Finerty was absent). It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Finerty was absent). It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2390, recommending to City Council approval of PP/CUP 05-20, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Finerty was absent). C. Case No. TPM 34211 - WILSON JOHNSON CRE, INC., Applicant (Continued from March 21 and April 4, 2006) Request for approval of a tentative parcel map to subdivide 83.2 acres into 22 parcels for property located between Portola Avenue and Cook Street north of Gerald Ford, more particularly described as APN's 653-280-035, 653-390-091 and 653-390-071. Mr. Stendell reviewed the staff report and recommended approval of the project. Chairperson Lopez noted that the public hearing was still open and asked the applicant to address the Commission. F ( . (.. . CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: March 7, 2006 CASE NO: GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05, and PP/CUP 05-20 REQUEST: Recommendation to City Council for approval of: A. A general plan amendment adding Policy 10, Program 10.A and 10.B (Exhibit A) to the Residential Goals, Polices and Programs section of the general plan. B. A zoning ordinance amendment adding Section 25.112 (Exhibit B) establishing development standards for an EI Paseo Resort Overlay Zone (EPROZ). C. A change of zone to add the EI Paseo Resort Overlay Zone to certain R-3 and Planned Residential properties (Exhibit C). D. A precise plan and conditional use permit to allow the construction of a new 12 unit, 36 keys, hotel condominium project located at 73-811 Larrea Street. APPLICANT: Eugene Breznock 75-656 Via Serona Indian WeNs, CA 92210 City of Palm Desert (Re: GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, and C/Z 05-05) I. BACKGROUND: A. General Plan Amendment & Zoning Ordinance Amendment: For years EI Paseo has been unique in the Coache{la Valley as an outdoor, pedestrian-oriented, retaillrestaurant boulevard. However, emerging commercial centers are being developed in other cities throughout the Coachella Valley challenging EI Paseo's uniqueness. EI Paseo's ability to successfully compete with other commercial centers is dependent on attracting more people. One way to attract more people is to promote high- end boutique hotels within walking distance to EI Paseo. New hotels can provide EI Paseo with a reliable economic market and generate new Transit Occupancy Tax (TOT) for the City. r STAFF REPORT GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05, AND I�P/CUP 05-20 MARCH 7, 2006 In order to provide for new hotels it is necessary to identify the best possible locations within walking distance to EI Paseo. The properties directly south of EI Paseo (Shadow Mountain Drive and Larrea Street) are zoned R-3 multi- family and Planned Residential (P.R.). Both zones currently allow hotels as a conditional use. With exception of the proposed application, no new hotels have been proposed or approved adjacent to EI Paseo. In addition, several developers have expressed interest in constructing new hotels in this area that would exceed the maximum density. To encourage hotels within walking distance to EI Paseo, staff is proposing a general plan amendment, a zoning ordinance amendment and a change of zone to create an EI Paseo Resort Overlay Zone (EPROZ) that will be applied to the R-3 and P.R. properties on the north side of Shadow Mountain and Tumbleweed Lane, between Ocotillo Drive, Larrea Street and Portola Avenue to encourage developers to propose new hotels adjacent to EI Paseo. Currently, one such application is in process. The proposed EPROZ and proposed application should be reviewed simultaneously to evaluate the overlay design standards and the project to determine if it will achieve our goal of attracting more people to EI Paseo. On December 15, 2005, the proposed overlay zone and application were presented to the EI Paseo Improvement District. The Board of Directors was in favor of creating an overlay zone that will promote hotels within walking distance to EI Paseo and unanimously recommended approval of the proposed zone and project (see attached letter). B. 73-811 Larrea Property Description: The property, totaling 40,500 square feet, is located on the south side of Larrea Street, 260' east of San Luis Avenue. Currently, there is an abandoned motel located on the east half of the property and the west half is vacant. It is zoned R-3 (3), Multi-family, which allows hotels as a conditional use with a maximum of 18 units per acre. PP 01-06: On April 17, 2001, a precise plan of design for a two-story 12-unit apartment complex was approved on the subject property. The project was never built and the entitlement has expired. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use: North: R-3 / Parking lot and single story apartments South: R-3 / Two-story apartments East: R-3 / Vacant West: R-3 / Single-story hotel � STAFF REPORT � GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05, AND P'p/CUP 05-20 MARCH 7, 2006 I1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A. EI Paseo Resort Overlay Zone (EPROZ): {" The purpose of the EI Paseo Resort Overlay Zone (EPROZ) is to provide flexible design standards and incentives for hotel development within walking distance to EI Paseo. Adding the EPROZ to the R-3 and P.R. zone will allow property owners to choose whether to use the EPROZ standards for hotel development or the standards of the base zone for non hotel developments. The proposed general plan amendment will add Policy 10, Program 10.A and 10.B as described below (Exhibit A), to the Residential Goals, Polices and Programs in the General Plan. The amendment provides the framework for establishing the EPROZ in the zoning ordinance. Policy 10 The City shall encourage new hotel development on the residential properties within walking distance to EI Paseo. Program 10.A The City shall establish an EI Paseo Resort Overlay Zone (EPROZ) that will be applied to the R-3 and Planned Residential properties located on the north side of Shadow Mountain Drive and Tumbleweed, between Ocotillo Drive and Portola Avenue, including Larrea Street. Responsible Agency: City Council, Planning Commission, Community Development; Redevelopment Agency. Program 10.B The City shall create a continuous sidewalk plan for pedestrian traffic within the EPROZ district. Responsible Agency: City Council, Planning Commission, Public Works, Community Development; Redevelopment Agency. The proposed zoning ordinance will add Section 25.112 (Exhibit B) to the zoning ordinance establishing the development standards for the EI Paseo Resort Overlay Zone. Under the EPROZ, the development standards are a follows: • Density: No maximum • Setbacks: Base zone standards apply • Height: 30' maximum height � Parking: Section25.58, Off-street parking standards apply (� STAFF REPORT � GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05, AND 1�P/CUP 05-20 MARCH 7, 2006 (� • Exceptions: standards may be modified by the development plan approved by Planning Commission and City Council The proposed change of zone will add the EPROZ to the R-3 and P.R. properties on the north side of Shadow Mountain and Tumbleweed Lane, between Ocotillo Drive, Larrea Street and Portola Avenue (Exhibit C). B. Precise PlanlConditional Use Permit: The applicant is requesting approval of a precise plan of design and conditional use permit to allow a 12-unit 36 keys, hotel condominium with 40 subterranean parking spaces. Each unit has three (3) lockout bedrooms that can be rented separately or in groups of two (2) or (3). The condominium description is for financing purposes. The project will not be sold as residential condominiums. The hotel design includes six (6) two-story buildings with the ends built above the subterranean parking lots, a lobby/reception area, multi-purpose room, pavilion with BBQ area, meeting room, exercise room, and a common pool. Three (3) driveways, of which two (2) lead to the parking lots, on Larrea Street provide access to the hotel. Ten (10) units are two-stories with roof decks. The first floor has a foyer area that provides access to two (2) bedrooms and a stairway to the other floors. The first floor bedrooms have a private sitting area, bath, mini-bar and patio. The second floor has a living and dining room area, full kitchen, bedroom, bath, balcony and deck. The roof decks have an outdoor fireplace, private pool, spa, and BBQ/sitting area. The other two (2) units are two-stories without roof decks. The first fioor has an entryway to one-bedroom and a stairway. The bedroom includes the living and dining area, full kitchen, bath, two (2) patios, and a private spa. The stairway leads to a hallway that provides access to the other two (2) bedrooms, deck, pool and spa. Due to the unique design of the project, setbacks are described in four (4) categories: 1. Main building 2. Architectural Projections 3. Decks: 4. Stairways: 1. Main Building: The main building is setback between 15' and 23' from the front property line (north), 10' from the rear (south) and 10' from both sides (east/west). 4 �� C STAFF REPORT GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C2 05-05, ANi� �'P/CUP 05-20 MARCH 7, 2006 2. Architectural Projections: The building design incorporates curved architectural elements and the walls for the subterranean parking lots that extend beyond the main building. The projections are setback 13' the front property line, 5' from th�e rear and 8' from both side yards. Section 25.56.210 allows architectural projections to encroach 6' into a required front and rear yard setback, and no more than 2' into the side yards. 3. Stairways: There are two exterior stairways that provide access from the parking lot to the first level of the hotel. The two (2) outside stairways are setback 5' from the side yards. Section 25.56.230 allows open, unroofed, steps to project no closer than 3' from the interior side yard. 4. Decks: There are two decks on the rear buildings that are setback 8' from the rear property line. Section 25.56.240 allows Decks to project 6' into the required rear yard provided that the setback is not reduced to less than 5' feet. Architecture: The architecture design is a Mediterranean/Middle Eastern blend that utilizes cylinder bay windows, roof domes, wrought iron guardrails, stone columns, wood doors and window trim, fabric awnings, and smooth stucco in three (3) earth tone colors. On December 13, 2005, the Architectural Review Commission unanimously granted preliminary approval of the building design. Height: The four (4) end buildings are 28'6" tall with tower elements at 33'6". The first level is designed above of the subterranean parking, which is 3' above grade. The property is narrow requiring short driveway ramps to the parking lots. The short ramps prevent the parking lots from being completely underground. The first and second floor interior space is 9' high with 12-inch floor plates. The parapets around the roof decks are 5'8" to provide privacy for the adjacent neighbors. The front middle building height varies between 25' and 28' with a dome element at 31'6". The rear middle building height varies between 23' and 25'6. 5 STAFF REPORT � ( GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05, AND PP/CUP 05-20 MARCH 7, 2006 Project Data: Hotel Density Front Setback Rear Yard Setback Side Yard Setbacks Hei ht Lot Coverage Parking � IV DISCUSSION: 18 units per acre 15' 10' No max 12 units, 36 keys 15'/ 13' 15' (projections) 10' 10'/5' (projections) 20' combined, one 2Q' combined, one ,, side no less than 8' side no less than 8� 10 /8 (projections) 24' 50% 40 30' 28'6�/33'6" Tower � No max 41 %/ 78% � 40 40 � Every hotel that has been approved by the City has required an exception. These hotels have been built in either the Planned Commercial Resort or Planned Residential zones. Both zones have an exception process in the development standards. The R-3 zone does not have an exception process. The design standards that currently affect hotel development in R-3 zone are density (18 units per acre max), lot coverage (50% max), and height (24', 18' within 120' of R-1 zoning). Modification of development standards requires a variance, which are difficult to obtain. The Planned Commercial Resort zone maximum density requirement of 30 units per acre was removed to maximize hotel development in limited areas of the City. Similar to the P.C. zone, the goal of the proposed EPORZ is to maximize the number of high-end hotef rooms adjacent to EI Paseo. Setback to setback building coverage and semi-subterranean parking are required to achieve this goal. To accommodate the high fevel of hotel amenities necessary to attract EI Paseo customers, roof decks are required. The combination of the semi-subterranean parking and raised roof decks with privacy parapets necessitates the 30' height limit. The height limit in the Planned Commercial zone is 35', 30' if within a 100' of a single-family zone. The EPROZ is proposed on R-3 properties that are more than 150' from the R-1 single-family zone to the south. In addition to being more than 150' away from single-family, these properties are lower than the R-1 properties to the south. The top of curb on Larrea Street is 9' lower than the to of curb on the south side of Shadow Mountain Drive. ANALYSIS: The EI Paseo Resort Overlay provides flexible design standards to promote new high-end boutique hotels adjacent to EI Paseo. The proposed project fully utilizes the � r ��� STAFF REPORT GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C!Z 05-05, AND PP/CUP 05-20 MARCH 7, 2006 property to create a unique, village style, high-end boutique hotel, meeting the goals and objectives of the EI Paseo Resort Overlay Zone. Except for the tower elements, the proposed project complies with all the development standards of the EPROZ and zoning ordinance. Section 25.56.300 states that tower elements may be erected 25' above the height limit of the zone. The proposed tower elements are 3'6" above proposed 30' height limit. Concerns from adjacent neighbors: Staff has received several letters of concerns from adjacent neighbors. The main concems are: 1. Commercial Traffic and speeding on Shadow Mountain 2. Sidewalks within walking distance to EI Paseo 3. Roof Decks 1. Commercial Traffic and speeding on Shadow Mountain: The Department of Public Works staff agrees that truck traffic has probably increased over the years due to the Gardens. The City Council can decide to post a"No Through Commercial Vehicle" sign, however, federal law prohibits the City from interfering with direct routes of delivery vehicles. If the signs were posted, they could not be enforced. If the City wants to stop commercial trucks from using Shadow Mountain to get to EI Paseo, then San Luis Rey, Larkspur, San Pablo, Lupine and Sage would need to be closed between Shadow Mountain and EI Paseo. Public Works does not recommend closing these roads. Shadow Mountain is a collector street that connects may residents to EI Paseo. The speeding issue has been noted and as of Friday, February 24, 2006, the Sheriff's Department has been notified to increase enforcement through the neighborhood enforcement program. 2. Sidewalks within walking distance to EI Paseo: Staff agrees that adequate sidewalks are needed if hotels are going to be promoted within walking distance to EI Paseo. As part of the general plan amendment, Program 10.6, states "the City shall create a continuous sidewalk plan for pedestrian traffic within the EPROZ district." If the general plan amendment is approved, a sidewalk plan will be developed and included in the Capital Improvement Plan. Currently, there is continuous sidewalk that connects the proposed hotel site to EI Paseo. A new sidewalk wi11 be instafled in front of the hotel as a condition of approval. 7 � STAFF REPORT � GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05, AND I'F�l�UF� 05-20 MARCH 7, 2006 4. Roof Decks: � The proposed roof decks are a concern for some of the adjacent neighbors. The parapets around the roof decks are 5'8" high, which wifl screen the eye level of a 6' tall person. The roof decks provide important amenities to the hotel, which will meet the needs of the high-end EI Paseo customers. The 5'8" parapets provide privacy for the adjacent neighbors. V. Vl. VII. CONCLUSION: New design hotels are needed adjacent to EI Paseo to provide a stronger economic market to compete with other commercial centers in Coachella Valley. New design standards need to be implemented to promote high-end boutique hotels. The proposed EPROZ overlay will provide new standards for hotel development and encourage redevelopment adjacent to EI Paseo. The proposed project utilizes superior architecture and site planning to create a village style, high-end boutique hotel on Larrea Street, achieving our goal of providing hotels within walking distance to EI Paseo. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: For the purposes of CEQA, the Director of Community Development has determined that the proposed general plan amendment, zoning ordinance amendment and change of zone will not have a significant negative impact on the environment and staff has prepared Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. For the purposes of CEQA, the Director of Community Development has determine that the proposed precise plan and conditional use permit are a Class 32, Categorical Exemption, and no further review is necessary. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. , recommending to City Council approval of GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C2 05-05, and; That the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. , recommending to City Council approval of PP/CUP 05-20, subject to attached conditions. E: STAFF REPORT (� GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05, AND PP/CUP 05-20 MARCH 7, 2006 . VIII. ATTACHMENTS: A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I . J. K. L. M. Prepared by: � Draft Resolution for GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C2 05-05 Exhibit A, Policy 10 Exhibit B, Program 10.A Exhibit C, Program 10.B Draft Resolution for PP/CUP 05-20 Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact Legal Notice Comments from other departments Comments from adjacent residents ARC Notice of Action ARC Minutes Section 25.56, General Provisions Plans and project Exhibits G1 � ��. , Tony �agato Assistant Planner Reviewed and Approved by: Philip Drell Director of Community Development Homer Croy ACM of Community Development 9 C %,. � PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO ADD POLICY 10, PROGRAMS 10.A AND 10.B (EXHIBIT A), A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ADD SECTION 25.112 (EXHIBIT B) ESTABLISHING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR AN EL PASEO RESORT OVERLAY ZONE (EPROZ), A CHANGE OF ZONE TO ADD THE EL PASO RESORT OVERLAY ZONE TO R-3 AND PLANNED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AS INDICATED IN EXHIBIT C. CASE NOS. GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, AND C/Z 05-05 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Patm Desert, California, did on the 7�' day of March, 2006, hold a duly noiiced public hearing to consider the request by the CITY OF PALM DESERT for approval of the above noted; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the Califomia Environmental Quality AcY', Resolution No. 05-52, in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project will not have a negative impaet on the environment and staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; and 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 and reasons to exist to justify recommending to City Council approval of said request: That the proposed general plan amendment, zoning ordinance amendment, and change of zone are consistent with the intent of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. 2. The proposed general plan amendment, zoning ordinance amendment, and change of zone will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, Califomia, as follows: Tha# the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That it does hereby recommend approval to City Council of GPA 05-04 (Exhibit "A"), ZOA 05-05 (Exhibit "B"), and C/Z 05-05 (Exhibit "C"). ( l, PI.ANNING COMMISSIt�N RESOLUTION NO. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 7th day of March 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JIM LOPEZ, Chairperson ATTEST: PHIUP DRELL, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 �.. PLANNING COMMISSIC�N RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBiT A RESfDENTIAL GOALS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS: Policy 10 The City shall encourage new hotel development on the residential properties within walking distance to EI Paseo. Program 10.A The City shall establish an EI Paseo Resort Overlay Zone (EPROZ) that will be applied to the R-3 and Planned Residential properties located on the north side of Shadow Mountain Drive and Tumbleweed, between Ocotillo Drive and Portola Avenue, including Larrea Street. Responsible Agency: City Council, Planning Commission, Community Development; Redevelopment Agency. Program 10.B The City shall create a continuous sidewalk plan for pedestrian traffic within the EPROZ district. Responsible Agency: City Council, Planning Commission, Public Works; Community Development; Redevelopment Agency. 3 PLANNING C�MMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT B Chapter 25.112 EL PASEO RESORT OVERLAY ZONE DfSTRICT Sections: 25.112.010 25.112.020 25.112.030 25.112.040 Purpose Location Development Standards T.O.T. r� 25.112.010. Purpose. The purpose of the EI Paseo Resort Overlay Zone (EPROZ) is to provide flexible design standards and incentives for hotel development within walking distance to EI Paseo. Whenever the EPROZ has been added to a base zone, the owner/applicant may choose whether to use the flexible EPROZ standards for hotel development or the standards of the base zone for other development that the zone allows as a permitted or conditional use. In order to obtain approval of a hotel under the EPROZ standards, a conditional use permit application must be filled with the Department of Community Development/Planning. 25.112.020. Location. The EPROZ will be added to the base zone of the R-3 and Planned Residential properties Iocated on the north side vf Shadow Mountain Drive and Tumbleweed Lane, between Ocotillo Drive and Portola Avenue, including Larrea Street. 25.1'12.030. Development Standards. Hotels proposed under the EPROZ will be held to the following development standards: A. Density: Density shall be determined by the setbacks, height and parking requirements. B. Setbacks: Setbacks shall be subject to setback standards of the base zone set forth in this chapter. C. Height: The maximum bui{ding height for hotels in the proposed EPROZ district shall be thirty feet. D. Parking: Parking shall comply with Section 25.58 Off-Street Parking and Loading standards set forth in this chapter. E. Exceptions: The standards of Sections 25.112.030 shall be required unless modified by the development plan approved by Planning Commission and City Council. 25.112.050. T.O.T. The EPROZ standards will apply to hotel development only, therefore, Transient Occupancy Tax (T.O.T.) per Municipal Code Section 3.28.fJ30 will be applied to the room rent for every night a room(s) are rented out for dweliing, lodging or sleeping purposes regardless of the actual purpose for which such room(s) are rented out. � , N, S.O. ; p, �C-'1, S� P. y�< 11 I_ r I J RT � SN • � � U C=r, S.PJ G1, S.P. � I � I I RALM �Esi R��i _IS_ � � C=1, S.P. —�1,-S.-P!— C-1, S.P. C-1, S.P. ► I� � � E4QAS�Q—_� c-t / c-� J�r` c-� ( c-�, s.p o ��� 4�\ \'�,� J ��m Tu )�! �,� �.�\��.� � v...�.a �`: ��k��\ \\t C-1 c �l�l �I l i VECI �LN� — 9M1M1— — i i� II I I I I Il i-i7 1 ZOU(i. L i�_1u " Q P � � . I� � �, � � `��� R _—a >ciR��, �� � �-a1 — .o� �; _ �1 W—N � ., �o a=�. , `Y/ � _ — �_ o—� � 8- o _ 1`00'�-- Proposed GPA/ZOA/CZ �:r,r�:� /��o�/�•,�� ��� �—g� e� `i v ~`<N EL PASEO ?0000 ���rZi ��Oo ° t o.s. RESORT ' OVERLAY ��� E_� �y� �-R- 8oa ��a� ��� I I f I f I I I R-�1$�10,p(4Jm� ZONE , N � - � � � � , , , � i i i � � �� GRAF�VI Nf �Q^ City of Palm D�sert GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT P�NN/NG COMMISSlON �°'_ Case Nos. GPA 05-04 RESOLUTION NO. � � ZOA 05-05 C/Z 05-05 � EX H I B f T C Da�e: 3107106 � r • r � �� C� �,�S.P. � � � � � � C-i, S.P� � �`-,I C-i FALM�DESERT�fi STATE HWY 19 � —P 4LM-DESER� )R-S � PA 1�.,, 5:��!-- �.��-s . � �i�i �i �i��� � ,� EL PASEO �. � C-1 P..� C-1 I �< z�.� I p � � �} �y��R,3.-Ob0?0(3)'�_a ��� - r�\�\��I�S����rt �,. . r, . v. �. � �. �,. �. �. L' , � _. �.� , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,_ , . , , , rr, , , , , , , , , , . . , , , . . � � -- PLANNING COMMISSI N RESOLUTION NO. {� EXHIBIT D NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NOS: GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, AND C/Z 05-05 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: CITY OF PALM DESERT 73-510 FRED WARING DR1VE PALM DESERT, CA 92260 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATfON: Approval a general plan amendment to add Policy 10 and Programs 10.A and 10.B (Exhibit A}, a zoning ordinance amendment to add Section 25.112 (Exhibit B) establishing development standards for an EI Paseo Resort Overlay Zone (EPROZ), a change of zone to add the EPROZ to R-3 and Planned Residential properties on the north side of Shadow Mountain and Tumbleweed Lane, between Ocotillo Drive, Larrea Street and Portola Avenue (Exhibit C). The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. March 7, 2006 PHILIP DRELL DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT � ( {-- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL A PRECISE PLANiCONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A NEW 12 UNIT, 36 KEYS, H�TEL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 73-811 LARREA STREET. CASE NO. PP/CUP Q5-20 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, Califomia, did on the 7�' day of March 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by the EUGENE BREZNOCK for approval of the above noted; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act", Resolution No. 05-52, in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project is a Class 32, Categorical Exemption and no further environmenta! review is necessary. 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 and reasons to exist to justify recommending to City Council approval of said request: The proposed hotel/condominium meets complies with goals and objectives of the EI Paseo Resort Overlay Zone. 2. The proposed location of the boutique hote{, as conditioned, is in accord with the objectives and poficies of the generai plan and zoning ordinance and the purpose of the district in which the site is located. 3. The proposed location of the office boutique hotel and the conditions under which it wil! be operated and maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, Califomia, as fol{ows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That it does hereby recommend approvaf to City Council of Precise P{an/Conditional Use Permit 05-20, subject to conditions attached. PLANNING COMMISS1t�N RESOLUTION NO. � PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Pianning Commission, held on this 7th day of March 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JIM LOPEZ, Chairperson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSIUN RESOLUTION NO. � CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. PP/CUP 05-20 Deaartment of Communitv Development: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Construction of said project shall commence within one (1) year from the date of final approval unless an e�ctension of time is granted, otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 3. Applicant shall record a conservation easement to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development/Planning and City Attorney for the undisturbed 4.13 acres of the 4.84-acre site that is being annexed into the City. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shalf first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said landscaping for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which agreement shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. The final landscape plan shaH include a long-term maintenance program specifying among other matters appropriate watering times, fertilization and pruning for various times of the year for the specific materials to be planted, as well as periodic replacement of materials. All to be consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801) and the approved landscape plan. 6. Transient Occupancy Tax (T.O.T.) per Municipa{ Code Section 3.28.030 wilt be applied to the room rent for every night a room(s) are rented out for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes regardless of the actual purpose for which such room(s) are rented out. 3 � �.. PLANNING COMMISS{ON RESOLUTfON NO. � 7. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall enter into a agreement with the City regulating non-transient if the condominiums are sold to individuaf buyers. 8. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the department of public works prior to architectural review commission submittal. 9. The parapets around the exterior elevations facing adjacent neighbors and Larrea Street shafl be 5'8" tall to provide privacy to the adjacent neighbors. Department of Public Works: 1. All landscape maintenance shall be performed by the property owner and the applicant shall enter into a landscape maintenance agreement with the City for the life of the project, consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ord. 801) and the approved landscape plan. 2. A complete prefiminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 3. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and Ordinance No. 653, shall be paid prior to recordation of final map. 4. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance. 5. A standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to the issuance of grading permits. 6. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to recordation of final map. 7. Storm drain design and construction shali be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to start of construction. 8. Complete grading and improvement plans and specifications on electric files shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits. 9. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works. 10. Pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 26 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. n PLANNING COMMISSIC�N RESOLUTION NO. ( 11. Landscape install shail be drought to�erant in nature and in accordance with the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (24.04). 12. Landscape pfans shall be submitted for review concurrently with grading plans. 13. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards and the City's Circulation Nefinrork including the following: • 6' curb adjacent sidewalk on Larrea Street. Rights-of-way necessary for the installation of the above referenced improvements shall be dedicated to the City prior to the issuance of any permits associated with the project. 14. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits. 15. Applicant shall comply with provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust Control as well as Section 24.20, Storm water Management and Discharge Control. 16. The applicant shall file a tentative parcef map for condominium purposes. Riverside County Fire Department: 1. With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plan check, Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Codes, appropriate NFPA Standards, CFC, CBC, and/or recognized fire protection standards: The fire department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per UFC Article 87. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20-psi residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible materials are placed on the job site. 2. P�ovide, or show there exists, a water system capable of providing a potentiai gallon per minute flow of: a) 3000 for commercial structure. � PLANNING COMMfSSION RESOLUTION NO. (�� 3. The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant 4"x2- 1/2"x2-1/2"), located not less than 25' nor more than 150' from any portion of a commercial building measured via vehicular travelway. 4 Water plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the water system will produce the required fire flow. 5. Install a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all buildings within a 3,000 square foot total cumulative floor area. The Fire Marshal shall approve locations of all post indicator valves and fire department connections. All valves and connections shall not be less than 25' from the building with 50' of an approved hydrant. 6. A11 valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and Water-flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per CBC Chapter 9. 7. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, 10, but not less than 2A10BC extinguisher per 3,000 square feet and not over 75' walking distance. A"K" type �re extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens. 8. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150' of all portions of the exterior waUs of the first story. The roadway shall be not less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is allowed, the roadway shall be 36' wide with parking on both sides, 32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius tum around (55' in industrial developments). Fountains or garden islands placed in the middle of these turn-arounds shall not exceed a 5' radius or 10' diameter. City standards may be more restrictive. 9. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers or other means provisions shall be made to install a"Knox Box" key over-ride system to allow for emergency vehicle access. Minimum gate width shall be 16' with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6". 10. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city. 11. Afl fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be submitted separately for approval prior to construction. 12. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when building permits are not obtained within twelve months. 13. Sprinklers shall be installed in the under ground parking lots. 14. Due to compromising access for fire fighting, sprinkler monitoring may be required. L•'� �I�IjY Of Pfll�l DES��1 73—St0 FttED W�vtING Dtuve P,�.M DFs�tr, CALIFORNIA g2260-2578 rFa.: �60 346—o6�i Fnx:76o 34�-7a98 info@palm-daercorg CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NOS. GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05, AND PPICUP 05-20 NOTICE IS HEREBY GNEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Pianning Commission to considet a request by CITY O� PALM DESERT / EUGENE BREZNOCK for approval of: A. A general plan amendment adding Policy 10 and Program 10.A (Exhibit A) to the Residential Goals, Polices and Programs section of the general plan. B. A zoning ordinance amendment adding Section 25.112 (Exhibit B) establishing development standards for an El Paseo Resort Ove�lay Zone (EPROZ). C. A change of zone to add the E1 Paso Resort Overiay Zone to R-3 and Planned Residential properties as indicated in Exhibit C. D. A precise plan and conditional use permit to allow the construction of a new 12 unit, 36 keys, hotel condominium project located at 73-811 Larrea Street. (SEE MAPS ON REVERSE SIDE) SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 7, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, Califomia, at which time and place al1 interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments conceming all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information conceming the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in oourt, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondance detivered to the Planning Commission (or city council) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL, Secretary February 24, 2006 Palm Desert Planning Commission t,.-. C � i.-",. � ,, E 1 Pase� .�,.�,��, Treasures...Every Step OS The Way. J��y s, 2006 Mr. Philip Drell Planning Department City of Pa1m Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mr. Drell: RECEIVED .��.,�, � o zo� ;;OM!�UKITY DEVELOP:MIENT DEPART1iEN'f CITY OF PALSt DESEtZT The Board of Directors of the El Paseo Business Improvement District took a quorum vote on December 15, 2005, regarding the plan to add more hotel rooms to an area immediately behind EI Paseo. A morion was unanimously passed approving to recommend the plan presented by Tony Bagato of the City of Palm Desert's Planning Department. Board of Directors El Paseo Business Improvement District MS: dbf Copies: David Fletcher, Sonia Campbell. Heather Sacre, Bob Fliday, Janet Hanson, Ruth Ann Moore EI Poseo Business Improvement District P.O. Box 1371, Palm Dese�t, CA 92261 Ph. 760.735.7273 � Fax 760.568.9958 � www.elpaseo.com r�- � CITY OF PALM DESERT INTEROFFfCE MEMORANDUM ,- .�-- � _ TO: Department of Community DevelopmenUPlanning Attention:Tony Bagato FROM: Mark Greenwood, City Engineer SUBJECT: PP 5-20 Breznock Vil{as on Larrea DATE: December 14, 2005 The following are conditions of approval for the above-named project. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 1. All landscape maintenance shall be performed by the property owner and the applicant shall enter into a landscape maintenance agreement with the city for the tife of the project, consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ord. 801) and the approved landscaped plan. 2. A complete preliminarfi`soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of a grading permit. BONDS AND FEES 3. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code shall be paid prior issuance of a grading permit. 4. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance. 5. A standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits. 6. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permit. ��. � -_ DESIGN REQUIREMENTS �. F... . 7. Storm drain design and construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to start of construction. 8. Complete grading and improvement plans and specifications on electronic files shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. 9. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the issuance of va{id encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works. 10. Pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 26 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 11. Landscape installation shall be drought tolerant in nature and in accordance with the City_s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (24.04}. 12. Landscape plans shall be submitted for review concurrently with grading plans. 13. Full pub{ic improvements, as required by Section 26 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards including the following; . 6' curb adjacent sidewalk on Larrea Street Rights-of-way necessary for the installation of the above referenced improvements shall be dedicated to the city prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS 14. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits. No occupancy permit shall be granted until public improvements have been completed. 15. Appficant shall comply with provisions of Pafm Desert Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust Control as well as Section 24.20, Storm water Management and Discharge Control. . � r- ,�--. C. _ . 16. Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shail submit satisfactory evidence to the Director of Pubfic Works of intended compliance with the National Poltutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Pennit for storm water discharges associated with construction. Developer must contact Riverside County Flood Control District for informational materials. SPECIAL CONDITIONS 17. Subdivision map required to subdivide the two lots. 18. Turnaround spaces shall be provided within garages. Mark Greenwood, P. E. � F_* y�w c����i \ � � ' �����. ,� N..�r.r., ) Tom Tisdale Fire Chief Proudly serving the unincorporated areas of Riverside County and the aties of: Banning � Beaumont � Calimesa � Canyon Lake 0 Coachella O Desert Hot Springs � Indian Wells 4 Indio 0 Lake Elsinore 9 La Quinta 0 Moreno Valley 0 Palm Desert a Perris � Rancho Mirage � San Jacinto a 7emecula Board or supervisors Bob Buscer oishict t John 7avaglione District 2 Jim Venable Distr�ct 3 Roy Wilson District 4 Tom Mullen District 5 / F . �. � RIVERSID� �-vUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT In Gooperation with the California Uepartment of Forestry and Fire Protection 210 West San Jacinto Avenue • Perris, California 92570 •(9U9) 940-6900 • FAX (909) 940-6910 Covc Fire Marshal's Officc 73710 Fred Waring Drivc # 102 Palm Desert CA 92260 (760) 346-1870 To:--��,� ��o REF:'�/�c�� �S � ZU If circled, conditions apulv to nroiect ��._._- / �`./ 3. � S 6. Q 8. 9' 10. DATE: ��� � � C4�s�t� C.cx1-4 c� -v 13 With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced project, the fire department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Code, NFPA, CFC, and CBC or any recognized Tire Protection Standards: The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fre flow far tl�e remodel or construction of all buildin�s oer UFC article 87. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20 psi residual pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the iob site. Provide or show there eaists a water system capable of providing a gpm tlow of• 1500 gpm for single family dwellings 2500 gpm for multifamily dwelliogs 3000 ��m for commercial buildin�s The required fire tlow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant (s) 4"x 2%:" x 2'/z", located not less than 25' nor more than: 200' from any portion of a single family dwelling measured vi1 vehicular travelway 165' f'rom any portion of a multifamify dwelling measured via vehicular travelway 150' from any portion of a commercial building measured via vehicular travelwav Water Pians must be approved by the Fire Marshal and inctudc verification that the water system will oroduce the reauired fire flow. Please be advised the proposed project may not be feasible since the existin� water mains witl not meet the reauired fire flow. � � � �✓. � Install a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. TI►is applics to all buildings with a 3000 square foot total cumulative tloor area. Tl�e T'ire Marshai sha11 approved the locations of all post indicator v:�ivcs �nd fire department connections. Al! valves and connections sl�all not be less than 25' from the building and within 50' of an approved hvdr�ntt;. Exemated are a�e an�# �r� iamilv �lwellin�s. � All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and Water-flow switches shal! be monitored and alarme�i per CBC Chanter 9. 9�g�« � n t� 4��� . � 13. install a fire alarm system as reauired bv the UI3C Chaoter 3. 14 Install portablc fire eatinguishers per 1�iFPA 10, but not less than one 2A l OBC extinguisher per 3000 square feet and not over ?5' walking distance. A"K" type fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens. 15, Install a Hood/Duct automatic fire extinguishing system per Nf PA 96 in all public and privatt cooking operations except single-family residential usa�e. 16. Install a dust collecting system per CFC Chapter 76 if conducting an oaeration that produces airborne uarticles. QAll buitding shalt be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shalt not be less than 24' of unobstructed width 1nd 13' 6" of vertical ciearance. Where parallel parking is required an both sides of the street the roadway must be 36' wide and 32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' sfiatl be provided with a minimum 4S' radius turn-around SS' in industrial develoaments. � Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers or other means provisions shail be made to install :� "Knox Box" key over-ride system to allow for emergency veliicle access. Minimum gate width shall be 16" with a minimum vertic�l clearance �f l3'6". 19. A dead end single access over 500' witl require a secondary access, sprinklers or other mitigative measures approved by the Fire Marshaf. Under no circumstance shal! a dead end over 1300' be accented. ; �-- � � ��- r , 20. 21. � � � 2S. A second access is required. This can be accomplished by two main access points from a main roadway or an emergency gatc from an adioining develoument. This project may require ticensing by a state or county agency, to facilitate ptan review the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Marshal a letter of intent detailing the proposed usage and oCCUDanCV h'De. All buildings shalt have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city. All fire�sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be submitted separately to the Fire Marshal for approval orior to construction. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, [aws, or when building permits are not obtained within twelve months. Alt elevators shal! be minimum �urnev size. All questions regarding the meaning ot these conditions should be referred to the Fire Marshal's Office at (760) 346-1870 in Palm Desert. Location: 73710 Fred Warin� Drive #222. Palm Desert CA 92260 Other. _c 1�' � 'n-� �Y!��-�.�vv, s �.=ti. A�+ C � a- � � �'zl�4'T 't' 3t �.r� c-e ;i�f'(� -��T�- YY�CaY1 �',� J ?�.2 �'�r.x�e-+-L�i ���71? _� d SI,�OrL�. ��' � rTQ �c�Ki� � i7v� 'iz� CGt�Q�,,r„ � �z� !��� A '�'rr�2 ''�z.P �,cl�Tt�-� -'� hQ�vvLL.�,^ �1tTua .��.-P r�� •3� i`zs+� s � ► ;, , � � Sincerely, David A. Avila Fire Marshal /, � :- �� , .` ( . __ ( - PALM DESERT POLICE DEPARTMENT Served by the Riverside County Sheriff's Department Bob Doyle, Sheriff-Coroner 73520 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 (760) 83b-1600 Fax (760) 836-1616 City of Palm Desert Planning Department 73510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 ATTN: Tony Bagatp, Assistant Planner RE: PP/CLJP OS-20 Dear Nir. Bagato, September 17, 2005 RECEIVED 5��' � 9 � COWl�1N C1TY OF PALbI D� p�T Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the plan to build a 12 unit, 36 keys condominium hotel with underground pazldng at 73-811 Larrea Street. The recommendations in this report aze not intended to contradict or override any order of the Fire Marshal or Palm Desert Building Codes. The following issues of concern related to public safety and law enforcement aze presented: 1. Addressing: In addition to the address of the building, each unit should be clearly mazked with a building number or letter along with individual unit numbers. 2. Ezterior Lighting/Security: The exterior of the complex should be illuminated at night neaz the all stairways, front entryways, sides of the complex, and underground garage. Lighting in these azeas should reduce the threat of theft, vandalism, or the potential for individuals to hide in the darkness. The underground parking might be of great concern for theft or vandalism. People on vacation tend to carry expensive cameras, cash, and other valuable items inside their vehicles; which would be an attractive target for thieves. In addition to sufficient lighting, the pazking garage should have a monitored/recorded video security system installed with the base unit located at the front desk. The exterior staiiways should be locked with a pass-key entry from the exterior and a push-bar opening from the interior. The two velucle entryways should be gated with a pass key entry as well to prevent any unauthorized people from entering the parking area. 3. Condominium Security: The exterior doors of the each unit should be a solid core door with reinforced locking mechanisms and doorframes to resist burglary. Each unit could also have a security alarm system installed and monitored by an alarm company or the front desk. In the event of illegal entry into a unit by thieves, an audible alarm would sound and the alarm monitoring company would contact the complex manager or renter, as well as the Palm Desert Police. �.. l Page 2 (.. 4. Construction: Prior to construction of the building, a material storage area should be established along the perimeter of the property and enclosed by a six (6) foot chain link fence with locking gates to inimi7e theft of materials and/or equipment. "No Trespassing" signs should be clearly mounted on a11 outward facing fence areas. All expensive appliances should be installed in the units only after a11 doors and windows aze installed and locked to prevent theft of these appliances. Should the Planning Department, developer, or construction staff have any questions regazding the above law enforcement and public safety concerns, they may contact Deputy Robert Bishop at (760) 836-1671, between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday. Re lly S mitted, eputy o ert shop ID # 2759 Palm Desert Police Department ; � �� � ,. C �� CITY OF PALM DESERT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: TONY BAGATO ASSISTANT PLANNER FROM: DIANE HOLLINGER LANDSCAPE SPEC{ALIS DATE: October 6, 2005 SUBJECT: PPICUP 05-20 Tony, I have reviewed the landscape plan that was submitted to Planning Dept. for the aforernentioned project. The landscape plan as shown is acceptable. I do have questions as to what borders the project as this may or may not change the proposed landscape. I have made a few comments on the pfan itself but on the whole its fine. If you have any comments or questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. /kg G:\PubWork5lDiane HdlinpeAWard DataWlemos\Tony-PP-CUP OS-02.doe � February 23, 2006 Mr. Tony Bagato Assistant Planner City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 � �,�L�I�ED h ;� = � G i L�u •'J'a�iL�iTY �c'�°I,OP`,i£\T DEPART�SE:IT l,j'iY uF PnL�1 DES61�T MORON60 BAND Of MISSION INDIANS � sovta�wr+ runoN Re: Proposed General Plan Amendment 05-04, EI Paseo Resort Overlay District Dear Mr. Bagato: Thank you for your letter of February 21, 2006 addressed to Tribal Chairman Maurice Lyons concerning the above referenced project in relation to Govemment Code §65352.3 (SB18). I have been asked to respond to your letter. Because the Morongo Band of Mission Indians (the "Tribe") has no knowledge of any specific cultural resources on the site and because the deve{oped nature of the area has precluded the possibility of much if anything being left on the surFace, there is technically nothing on which to consult. 5618 consultation triggers when a c'ity is processing a general or specific plan and it must follow a notificatios� procedure and request consu{tation with the affected tribes. Consultation, however, is based upon cultural resources as defined in the Pubic Resources Code and those resources must either be sacred sites (e.g. religious or ceremonial site) or on the Califomia Historical Register (CHR) or eligible for the Register. Since there are no known Native American cultural resources on the site, and the Tribe has no knowledge of any sacred sties on the subject property, there is nothing on which to consult. That nofinrithstanding, the Tribe would like to request that the cifiy of Palm Desert voluntarily consider imposing the following, standard conditions on any development within the project area: o If human remains are encountered during grading and other construction excavation, work in the immediate vicinity shall cease and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code §7050.5. o In the event that Native American cultural resources are discovered during project development/construction, all woric in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the overall project may continue during this assessment period. 245 V. MURRAY STREET, SUITE C - BANNING, CA 92220 - 951-849-8801 - rnx.951-922-8146 � February 23, 2006 Mr. Tony Bagato City of Pa1m Desert Page 2 of 2 f ... If significant Native American cultural resources are discovered, the developer or his archaeologist shall contact the Morongo Band of Mission lndians ("Tribe")'. lf requested by the Tribe, the developer or the project archaeologist shall, in good faith, consult on the discovery and its disposition (e.g. avoidance, preservation, retum of artifacts to tribe, etc.). As you know, the first condition is merely a reiteration of State law and the second condition is consistent with state law which prohibits knowingly destroying an archaeological site. Therefore, the Tribe does not believe the City would be averse to imposing these conditions. The Tribe has no objection if the City has some other wording for these type of standard conditions but they should have the same salient points as in the above stated conditions including subsequent consultation with the Tribe if any inadvertent discoveries are made. The Tribe thanks the City of Palm Desert for voluntarily considering the comments of the Tribe. As previously indicated, since there is technically nothing to consult on, the Tribe deems the consultation process complete. Thank you for contacting the Tribe. If you have any questions, please contact me at (951) 755-5206 or Br'itt wilson@morongo.org Sincerely, Britt W. Wiison Project Manager/Culturai Resources Coordinator ' The Morongo Band of Mission Indians realizes that there may be additional tribes claiming cultural affiliation to the area; however, Morongo can only speak for itself. The Tribe has no objection if the archaeologist wishes to consult with other tribes and if the city wishes to revise the candition to recognize other tribes. t- ; ,_ lr- C�jY OF(��t1� 73-5�0 FRED �ARING ZiRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 D ecember 13, 2005 rE[.: 760 346--OE1II F,Uc:76o 34t-7og8 info@palm-deun.org DESERI ARCH{TECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION C�4SE NO.: PP/ CUP 05-20 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI:OCH4A DESIGN ASSOCIATES,73-626 Highway 111, Paim Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PRQJECTIAPPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of elevations for a 12-unit, 36-key condominium hotel with the building height varying between 24' to 31'. (Height limit is 24' for this zone.) LOCATION: 73-811 Larrea Street ZONE: R-3 Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff, the Architectural Review Commission granted preliminary approval. Date of Action: December 13, 2005 Vote: Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Van Vliet and Lopez absent. (An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. Any amendments to this approved plan would need to be re-submitted to Commission for approvat.) STAFF COMMENTS: It is your responsibility to submit the plans approved by the Architectural Review Commission to the Department of Building and Safety. CONTINUED CASES: In order to be placed on the next meeting's agenda, new or revised plans must be submitted not later than 9:00 a.m. the Monday eight days prior to the next meeting. ������w ( �.-- �_ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMfSSION DECEMBER 13, 2005 MINUTES � � Commissioner Lambell commented that it's absurd to have houses along Monterey. Who in the world is going to pay to live on this street? To have residentiaf along this hugely trafficked intersection is absurd. Are there nine people who could live here a�d not care? It's going to be a tough thing. Mr. Greenburg stated that the sound will be mitigated on the other side of the buildings through the construction of the building. tt meets the requirements. These units will probably be priced lower than the other units, but I'm sure that we'll find buyers. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for preliminary approval, subject to (1) Plan 0- Elevations A& B rafter tails to be thickened to 4" x 4", trellis to made of select structural lumber and be free of knots, exterior walls to be 2 x 6 with 2 x 3 nailers to inset windows as far as possible, (2} Plan 1 X elevations shaN have 2 x 3 nailers on exterior wails and inset windows as far as possible, (3) Eievation B- improve to architectural standard of the other models and shall be reviewed by staff, and {4) subject to approval by the Landscape Manager. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Van Vliet and Lopez absent. 5. CASE NO.: PP/ CUP 05-20 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI: OCHOA DESIGN ASSOCIATES, 73- 626 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECTlAPPROVAL SOUGHT: Request pre{iminary approval of elevations for a 12-unit, 36-key condominium hotel with the building height varying between 24' to 31'. (Height limit is 24' for this zone. ) LOCATION: 73-811 Larrea Street ZONE: R-3 Mr. Bagato stated that in 2001, a 12-unit apartment complex was approved on this one-acre site. The project was never buiit. Staff is considering an EI Paseo Resort Overlay District which would apply to the lots and would allow more hotels to be closer to EI Paseo. The applicant is proposing underground parking. The first floor has a deck with a community pool, the second level has pools that overflow into the lower pool. There are decks on the third floor with covered trellises and barbeque areas. This project will exceed the height limit, which is 24'. The buildings will range in height from 26'-31' at the top of the tower efements. They're.going to be asking for 12 units with 36 rooms. G:PlanninglDonna Gluaive�lwpdocsWgmin1AR051213.MIN 16 0 �� �r ( - ARCH{TECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 2005 MINUTES This project wiil be presented as part of a general discussion with the Planning Commission and the City Council. We want to promote resort-type of uses close to EI Paseo. As land prices go up, we have to find ways to make the codes more flexible so we're working on a possible overlay designation. The properties wilf be delineated for the Planning Commission and the City Council. It will also be presented to the EI Paseo merchants as well at their next meeting. We wifl recommend approval of this project. Juan Cartos Ochoa, designer, was present to answer questions. Commissioner Hanson commented that she thought that it was a very exciting project. It looks really great. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it's a wonderful project and has so much going on. It's really amazing. We're really lucky to have this standard being set for this type of deve{opment. Commissioner Oppenheim asked if the project would be visible ftom Shadow Mountain. Mr. Ochoa stated that you won't be able to see it from Shadow Mountain. There's a two-story building located right behind this property. Commissioner Lambell asked about the total number of units. Mr. Bagato stated that there are 12 units, with 3 rooms in each unit. There are 36 keys. Bedrooms can be locked out and can be rented individually. Each of the 12 units will be individually owned by one investor. The developer stated that since the property is zoned for 12 condominiums, we wanted to build 12 condominiums but we wanted to have a CUP to operate it as a 36-key hotel. Our studies show that typically, couples would rent a unit for a week or more at a time on a vacation rental basis. There would be surplus units and we would like to have the opportunity to rent them on a nightly basis for the hotef market. We're going to be addressing two different business markets. Mr. Drell stated that people could rent two of the bedrooms in a unit or if someone had a big family they could rent all three bedrooms. Probably at any one time, it would be unlikely that there would be 3fi keys out because there would be a combination of a fufly occupied three bedroom, some one bedroom units and two bedroom units. Most likely, there would be about 24 rooms being rented. Commissioner Lambell stated that it seems rea{ly squished together for a residential area. It seems squished together for a hotel as well. Some of the elements are very reminiscent of the Westin Mission Hills. They have some elbow room to move around. Mr. Drell stated that this is an urban hotel. Commissioner Lambell stated that she agreed with Mr. Drell, but it still seemed squished for an urban and condominium facility. On the opposite side, I think that the elements are fabulous. IYs a very exciting look that's going to come to an otherwise dreary street. Commissioner Oppenheim commented that there's a lot of old G:PlanninglDonna QuaiverlwpdocsWgmin�4R051213.MIN 1 � (, .... ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 2005 MINUTES r r-,. . t . stuff on that street. This is an exciting project and it's in keeping with The Gardens and with that levei of sophistication in that area. Mr. Drell commented that for EI Paseo to go to the next level, it has to have resort customers right there. Commissioner Hanson stated that it's the thing that we're missing in Palm Desert. While there are trade-offs with density, I think it actually adds to the excitement of the architecture and a{so the mix of people in our desert. The project is wonderful. Action: Commissioner Lambefl moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for preliminary approval. Motion carrieti 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Van Vliet and Lopez absent. C. Miscellaneous 1. CASE NO.: MISC 05-48 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): EUGENE S. VORWALLER, 72-875 Park View Drive, Palm Dese�t, CA 92260 NATURE OF PRO.lECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of an 18' roof height on a single-family residence. LOCATION: 72-875 Park View Drive ZONE: R-1 Action; Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambelf for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Van Vliet and Lopez absent. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:17 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:PlanninglDonna QuaiverlwpdocslAgmin�AR051213.MIN 18 CIiY 4��� Pfll�l DESERt 73-5io Ftten Wnnttac DstvE Pnt.At Desertr, CALIFORNIA 922GOr��ii'1'Tj� IVED 'tEu 760 346-06[� IbL` V l� Fnx: 760 34i-7o98 �''�S � g 2� info�palm-dercrt.or` CITY OF PALM DESERT 1��uLy`�TY OF PALM DESERT��T�� LEGAL NOTICE CASE NOS. GPA 05-04� ZOA 05-05� C2 05-05, AND PP/CUP 05-20 NOTICE IS HEREBY GNEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to oonsider a request by CITY OF PALM DESER7 / EUGENE BREZNOCK for approval of: � A. B. C. A general plan amendmeM adding Policy 10 and Program 10A (Exhibit A) to the Residentlal Goals, Polices and Programs seciion of the general plan. A zoning orclinance amendment adding Section 25.112 (Exhibit B) establishing development standards for an EI Paseo Resort Overiay Zone (EPROZ). A change of zone to add #+e EI Paso Resort Oveiiay Zone to R-3 and Planned Residential properties as indicated in Exhibit C. D. A precise plan and conditional use permit to allow the consUuction of a new 12 unit, 36 keys, hotel condominium project located at 73-811 Larrea Street � �t�„u�- _ �..�� �oo� '�x� ;� �,�� �, �+�'� . �.��.� , ��;'� �� �o ' �����=� G�..� - . ' �c��`�, (SEE MAPS ON REVERSE SIDE) d�1'c.�c�*-� � . �� � .�� ���fs � 9���� ��� � G� �.�.� ��,,�^�� ,, , SAID public hearing wia be held on Tuesday. March 7, 200B at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambe[ at the Palm. Desert Civic Center, 73�510 Fred Wa�ing Drive, Palm Desert, Califomia, at which tltr�e and place atl irtiterested persons are invited b� attend and be heard. Written oomments conceming all items oovered by this public hearing no�ce shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Infom�ation conceming the proposed projed and/or negative deGaration (s avalable for review in the Departmerrt of Community Developmerrt 'at the .above, add►�ess be/ween the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed adions irt court� you may be limited to raising only those issues you pr someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in writter� carrespondence delivered to the Planning Commission (or city c�undl) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL, Secretary February 24, 2006 Palm Desert Pianning Commission c: . Ba�c ato, Tony From: Susan Myrland [susan@silvergate.us] Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 11:20 AM To: Bagato, Tony Subject: public comment meeting on Larrea project c Hi Tony, thank you for taking the time to meet with me recently regarding the hotel that is proposed for Larrea Street. As it turns out, I will be out of town for part of January, and I'm concerned that I will miss the announcement about the public meeting. There are six units in my complex but your mailing list only had my address, so that means my neighbors won't hear about it either. Will the meeting date be posted on the City's website? Or, can I add one of my neighbors to your list? His address is: Brian Blatchley 73860 Shadow Mountain Drive #5 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Thanks in advance, Susan Myrland 568-6304 1 .+v . vav�,rauvau vu L411 VA JIiGG� Page 1 0 , � ' �. � . • Bagato, Tony From: FRED GERBER [twoslackerboys@msn.com] Sent: Friday, December 23, 2005 9:38 AM To: Klassen, Rachelle Cc: Bagato, Tony; susan@silvergate.us Subject: Development on LaRea Street Deaz City Council and Planning Cortunission, I am a resident and homeowner on Shadow Mountain Drive in Palm Desert. Before we approve any large scale development in our area we need to address the concerns of the residents first to the deteriorating quality of life in our area. Since the opening of The Gazdens we residents now have to put up with heavy trucks using our street for quick access for deliveries to The Gardens. Besides the constant vibrations, we notice hairline cracks in our ceilings and wonder if the mulri-ton tiucks are to blame. Shadow Mountain should have limited access to commercial vehicles like Fairway, Haystack, and Grapevine. With the continued development along El Paseo more traffic uses Shadow Mountain as a shortcut, and drive at high speeds. No attempt to control ttus speed has been made. A 30 mph speed limits means most people drive 40+mph which is too fast for a pedestrian area, especially one lacking sidewallcs and crosswallcs. The children in the area walking to Washington Charter school aze forced to walk on the street, with heavy tra�c, due to lack of sidewalks. Larrea has no sidewallcs or s�eetlights, so hotel guests will be wallcing on the street in the dark. Trash from the commercial operations blows down our street and collects on the empty lots, and in the gutters giving the area a wom, seedy look. Any multi-storied building will have visual access to our private back yards and take away our privacy. While I understand the desire for a municipality to increase it's revenue sources we have to weigh the effects of this development on the quality of life in our community. We believe before anymore high density development occurs in aur azea the in&ashvcture must first be improved. Please keep us informed of any upcoming meetings regarding the hoteUcondo development on Larrea Street and in the azea. Thank you, Brian Blatchley Fredy Gerber 760.776-1679 2l28/2006 Page 1 0 Bagato, Tony From: stephbesant�aol.com Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 3:53 PM To: Bagato, Tony SubJect: Proposed 36 room Hotel on La�rea Dear Mr. Bagato, Since I am not abie to attend the meeting on March 7th, I am voicing my disapprovaJ and concern of the proposed hotel on Lar�ea via thls email. I Iive at 73930 Shadow Lake Drive which is just south of the San Luis Rey/Shadow Mountain intersection. Unfortuanately, MANY peopte use our street as a short cut to avoid Shadow Mountain and EI Paseo or a as a cut- through to Fairway. My husband and I are already concerned not only with the amount of traffic that continues to increase on our street, but also with the fast speeds at which these cars travel. We have a 4 month old so thi is obviously of great concern to us. If this hotel is approved, traffic will only increase on our street and our fear is that someone may, at some potnt, get hurt due to the high speeds at which cars come down the street and turn the bend. More traffic will only adc to the problem. Please feel free to call us with any questions. Thank you for your ttme, Todd and Stephanie Besant 73930 Shadow Lake Drive 760-340-4504 2/27/2006 ,f � � � Bagato, Tony \ ....._.. . - From: Meliki88@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 1:29 PM To: Kiassen, Rachelle Cc: Bagato, Tony Subject: Hotel on Shadow Mountain Drive Page 1 c i live in south pafm desert and would like more information on the citys view of the proposed hotel as neighbors have informed me of this issue. To increase the hieghts from what is legally on the books at 24 feet is not in the best interest of the neighbor hood. i'm sure the 24 foot maximum height is a numbe� that was not just pulied out of the sky but a number that would not be abusive to the surrounding neighborhood. Viewing to the hotel or having the hotel users view back into our backyards is not ar ideal situation. I would like to get the city's idea on this as I can go on and on about the future exposure problem of living next to or Gose by the proposed hate4. The current hotels and apartments are a mix that is working well in the neighborhood. There have to be people who are concemed about the mix and not emotionally charged as that is never a good result, designers are paid to design and neighbor have to live in the proposed area, i'm sure that is why there are stipulations in hieghts. Thanks for your time and please let me know future meetings and information so this dosen't become an ugly situation for the city and nieghborhood. Sincerely George Johnson 12/28/2005 � - � Page 1 of i� � Bagato, Tony From: debbi hall [debbihall99@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 4:32 AM To: Bagato, Tony Subject: Public Hearing March 7,2006 Legal notice re case Nos. GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-Q5, C/Z 05-05 and PP/CUP 05-2 I will be out of the country and not be available to attend the public meeting concerning the above case nos. Please take into consideration and read at the meeting my comments as follows. I live on the corner of Jashua Tree St. and San Luis Rey St. directly across San Luis Rey St. from my property is Shadow Mountain Country Club. This creates a large amount of pedestrian traffic on San Luis Rey St. There are no sidewalks so they of course walk in the street. While the speed limit on Joshua Tree St. is 25 mph and on San Luis Rey St. it is 30 mph it is rarely observed by drivers. The majority of the vehicles go between 40 mph and 50 mph on both streets. In the last 3 1/2 years I have personally witnessed at least twenty near misses of pedestrians being struck by speeding vehicles. I believe the increase in traffic in an aiready unsafe pedestrian area could be deadly. The creation of a"resort zone" from Portola to Ocotilfo would most assuredly increase both noise pollution and traffic creating making an unsafe pedestrian condition go from bad to worse. I am vehemently opposed to a change in the zoning. This neighborhood is unique. There are very few areas that one can live in and walk to the shops, restaurants. Fortunately, we do not need to build a artificia{ mixed use area, we already have one. The zoning laws are in place to protect and enhance the area. Please let these laws do there intended job and protect the neighborhood and surrounding area from becoming another Palm Springs. Thank You Deborah W. Hall 73673 Joshua Tree St. Palm Desert, Ca 92260 3/1/2006 ,- Page 1 of r'� r � t Bagato, Tony From: BRENDAVIRG0911@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 5:11 PM To: Bagato, Tony Subject: Legaf Notice / Ref. Shadow Mt. Dr. Mr. Tony Bagato, I am writing you regarding Case No's..... GPA 05-04. ZOA 05-05. C/Z 05-05 and PP/CUP 05-20 I am a homeowner on Tumbieweed Lane, but will not be able to attend the meeting of March 7, 2006. I would like to strongly voice my opinion against the project. This is a residential area not a"RESORT ZONE" and a 3 story complex will be like a GIANT WHITE ELEPHANT in our area. My husband made the comparison of EI Paseo being our deserts Rodeo Drive, which most if not all people that live in the desert would agree. They choose, with all the congestion of that area, to keep the area looking special and welcoming to people. If they would have let such building go on in and around that area it would have been it's down fall... Look at Palm Springs. It's an eclectic area of mishmash buildings that has turned into a ghost town.... It's not speciai anymore. There are plenty of RESORT Zones in the Palm Desert Area... the EI Paseo area does not need to be one of them...... 3/2/2006 C Jim Lopez,Ct►air Palin Y7esc�t Planz�ing Commission 73-� 1 Q Fred Waring Drive Pa1m Desert, Ca 92260 Mr. Lopez, � R,ECEI�T�D ;��E�;►� � 0 2a�'6 �'OMMliVITY DEVELOP�iE!�T DEPART?dENT CITY OF PAL1� DESERT I was very disturbed to see the suggested changes that are being discvssed at the public hearing on Tncsday, Mau�ch 7, 20a6. I was a member of the original general planning committee and felt v�ry comfartablc with our plan. I do not �elieve that we should rnake the entire area surrounding El Paseo into an ar�a for commercial hotels. I am awarc o�the hotel on Larrera and am not opposeci to it as long as it stays within thc current height and density restrictions. I would Iike to see the a,rea remain a mixture of homes, small hotels aad other businesses. I have liveci in the Shadow 1V�ountain Estates are for o�vcr 10 yeaors. With increased comtnercial dcvelopment our traffic it that area has increascd and become dangcrous. The neighborhood is nsed for a pathway from EI Paseo ta Portola and back again. My address is 45-950 Mountain. View. T am at the fa�r end af Mountain View and can still hear the music from Augusta which is very disturbing. I arn not an expe.rt on what the totat intent af the city is in this regard. I can only express that it does not sound like these changes arc in the best interest of our mei�hboz�hood. I have been an active participate not oniy on the General Plan �ammittee but most currently Art and PubIic Places. Unfortunately I will not bc abYe to attend the Public Heazing but am available if you have any questions or concetns. Sin el Yo � Donald and Maureen Thampson 45-950 Mountain Vicw Palm Desert, Ca. 9226Q (?60) 346-1676 898-� 200I100�d 110-1 9898 ill+ 13NNOSa3d-��d �d1E�90 90�Z-��N-94 \ /r� \ DESERT S,�NDS U�iIFIED 5CEi00L DISTRICT -47-950 DUNE P�►LMS R�r1.D L�t QUI[�ti':1. C � 922�3 FACSIMIi.E TRANSMI'ITAL 5HEET , / TG J % � J r ��,�� ('RO1M: �r�l��' 'r ' �� � ` � v J /""�'J i i GdIMlANY: DATSt r • �--�-o� F u -�d��,/�T /� To�res. Nc� oP rncss �Hcwau�c cav�: �� ry P B NUI�BE1t 5F�a5RS AEFERENGg i�1LJW�6t RFa RGENT L� FOR R6Vt�1V Np7'FS/COMMffir'i'� f /,��.� rn,��'�� YdU1 �EFBtiNCfi 1VUStbE�t Q PLEAS� COMMEN7 O PLEAS$ REPLY ❑ pLEAS� �TCYCL$ �..p�� ,��y`;�' � � -- �-o�G 898-� Z00/ZOO�d ll0-i 9899 11l+ 13NHOS�3d-�o�a wd�r.:cn ann�-»-a� Page 1 0 . � _ �� � . Bagato, Tony � From: Gail Basse [gbasse@indio.org] Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 4:09 PM To: Bagato, Tony Cc: jlopez@ci.palm-desert.ca.us Subject: Larrea SUEI Paseo Resort'Overlay opposition Mr. Bagato, I am among a large group of South Palm Desert residents who vehemently oppose the changing or amending of current zoning ordinances and/or subsequent designation oi a Resort Overlay Zone that would adversely affect the traffic, noise, views, and characteristic architectural styte of our South Palm Desert neighborhood. The current zaning of this a�ea was undoubtedly put into place to inhibit just such over blown developments as the one proposed in the "EI Paseo Resort Overlay area and specifically the project on Larrea Street. If exceptions are allowed, the future of the area and exact types of developments approved to be built in the area in the future are unknown, but the welcome mat for large developments and special zoning waivers will be open. As a city employee myself, I know the responsibility of the City of Palm Desert Planning Commission and City Council is to represent the best interest of the residents first and foremost, not the manetary gain of deve{opers. It certainly is not for the good of the residents of this area to have zoning changed to allow for higher structures with more "keys" than current zoning allows. Each "key" potential{y represents at least two automobiles and two or more residents, and higher stn.ictures block vieH and jeopardize privacy of the surrounding residents. We are proud of the uniqueness of our neighborhood and the "small town feel" when you walk down EI Paseo and the surrounding streets. We came to live here precisely for the way this neighborhood area is right now and urge the Planning Commission and City Counci! to use sound judgment that supports our way of life. We can support reasonable development that fits within the current zoning constraints but let the big developments continue to over populate Orange County and Los Angeles and allow our neighborhood to prosper under the current zoning limitations. Sincerely, Gail A. and Jack L. Basse 73298 JOSHUA TREE STREET PALM DESERT, CA 92Z60 (760J 34a-9454 3/?/2006 ( `. _ Page 1 o Bagato, Tony From: Thompson, Maureen [Maureen.Thompson@dsusd.us] Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 4:07 PM To: Bagato, Tony Subject: Resort Zone I am a resident in Shadow Mountain Estates. I{ive at 45-950 Mountain View in Piam Desert. My husband and I a�e very much opposed to the change in zoning to a resort zoning changes. I was a member of the general plan committee and have aiways been very p�oud of our city and the great planning that is done with both commercial and neighborhood planning. I was aware th of the Larrea St. Hotel and felt that it was a needed feature. I do not want to see it increased above the current restriction of 24 feet. I do not want to see the general plan amended and certainly do not want this to become a corridor of hotels. Our neighborhood community already become a dangerous Vaffic pattem as people cut through from EI Paseo to Portola. We need t protect our enviornment not add more commerical hotels. As I state one fine but do not change a11 of the zoning. Thank-You fo� your attention to this matter. Maureen Thompson Director of Certificated Personnel Desert Sands Unified School District (760) 771-8787 3/7/2006 rau�� Lesen neignt anc1 liensity Waivers ( Page 1 0: Bagato, Tony From: �mey, Russ [Russ.Omey@experian.com] Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 11:36 AM To: Bagato, Tony Subject: Palm Desert Height and Density Waivers Dear Mr. Bagato, Since f am currently traveling on business and will miss tomorrow's meeting, I decided to email you to register my NO on the proposed zoning changes. I see no benefit for our great city. I live two b{ocks from the proposed resort overlay, and i see only bad effects from this, and the precedent that coufd be set, with proceeding with such an approval. Again, I strongly urge a NO vote. Sincerely, Russ $ Colette Omey 73-510 Juniper St. Palm Desert 92260 3i�i2oa6 �, .. {. - Page 1 c Bagato, Tony From: Fred Gerber [fred.gerber@verizon.net] Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 4:47 PM To: Bagato, Tony Subject: zoning change, EI Paseo Resort Ove�lay Zone (EPROZ) From: Fred Gerber Sent: Monday, Mazch 06, 2006 To: Tony Bagato Subject: Development on Larrea Street, proposed zoning change Dear City Counsel and Planning Commission, I am unable to attend tomorrows meeting regarding new development / zoning change. My main concern in regards to the proposed zoning change is the ever-increasing traffic on Shadow Mountain Drive. During the last few years several factors have contributed to a great increase in private as well as commercial traffic o our street: • The Gardens, with all it's employees, deliveries as well as customers . The raising of the speed limit from 25 mph to 30 mph . Installation of traffic signal at Shadow Mountain and Portola I would expect that with additional development traffic will continue to increase and I ask that you consider taking mitigating action. One of the reasons so many drivers use Shadow Mountain is that there are few stop signs, speed limit is rarely enforced and that it saves time versus driving on Hwy 111 or El Paseo. I would like to propose the following: � Shadow Mountain be closed to commercial through traffic • Every intersection have all-way stop signs • Speed limit reduced to 25 mph • Continuous sidewallc from Portola to Tumbleweed before any new construction I have read the note about the "no commercial through traffic" rule not being enforceable, but I do remember that the city of San Francisco has been doing so for many years on selected streets. Thank you for your time, Fred Gerber 73860 Shadow Mountain Drive #5 Palm Desert 760.861.4844 fred. gerber@verizon.net 3/7/2006 {,; ... Ba�ato, Tony From: Ken Seals [kensealsQmsn.com] Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 8:39 PM To: Bagato, Tony Subject: Resort Zone � I am a resident of Palm Desert and also a resident of Shadow Mountain Dr. strongly feel this would be a big mistake for the citizens of Palm Desert. There is already an enormous amount of traffic that frequents Shadow Mountain Dr. and flow oif of El Paseo. Please stop the Planning Commission on voting for the "resort zone" for this area. Thank you Linda Buchanan 73820 Shadow Mountain Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 C� ,._ � Susan and Doug Myrland 73860 Shadow Mountain Dr #6 Palm Desert CA 92260 760 . 568 . 6304 .R� C:� I�TE D March 6, 2006 ]im Lopez, Chair Palm Desert Planning Commission 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 �f ��� t� � 2006 -QMMtiViTY DEVELOPtifE:VT DEP�1RT5iE�T !'ITY OF PAL�f DESEt�T Dear Mr. Lopez, We are urging you to vote NQ on any height and density waivers for the proposed hotel on Larrea Street. This neighborhood is a{ready dense, with row after row of multi-family housing units along Shadow Mountain Drive. Shadow Mountain, Shadow Lake, Mountain View and Joshua Tree are all used as shortcuts for people racing through the neighborhood, trying to avoid the Paseo and Highway 111. We do not want "traffic calming" devices that inconvenience residents — we want to avoid building big hotels that will bring in more cars! The current boutique inns are good neighbors. Their architecture is consistent with the character of nearby homes, so they blend in. They increase the appeal of this area, rriaking it attractive for visitors and residents alike. We cannot see how a 36-unit hotel crammed onto the Larrea lot, and topped by a 5' 8" block wall, will be anything but an eyesore. The Architectural Review Commission called it "really squished together." This hotel will exceed even the relaxed standards proposed under the EPROZ. With the grade buildup for the parking garage, it will be over 36', destroying our mountain views and sense of space. There is also the issue of the noise this project will generate, particularly with so many rooftop pools and spas. I'm sure you know that the Augusta restaurant and nightclub is a nuisance. The noise moves up the hillside, disturbing people blocks away, The Larrea Street project will simply increase that problem. We support reasonable development that preserves the character of this neighborhood. Palm Desert is unique and distinctive, and that is what attracts people to visit, shop, work and live here. The area is valuable because the current zoning is logical and has been enforced. Our neighborhood is a great example of equitable mixed use, and we are depending on you to keep it that way. Sincerely, � �� / / i � . �� � f ,���� , i i �• / . � City Planning Departrnent/Planning Commissian City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Deseat, CA Dear Commissioners, � ��CEIVED .h�t��� � � 2006 ,'O�fML'YITY DEVELOPNEVT DEPARTMENT CITY OF Pe1LH DESERT Having been Palm Desert homeowners for over 20 years we are extremely distressed at the 3 siory development cwrently being negotiated for the property at 73-811 Lanea St. and the proposed rezoning amendment to establish an El Paseo Resort Overlay Zone. The City Charter of Palm Desert was developed for and has always held as a primary tenet of it's existence the sunnort flf tl�e residentc of the citv. This proposal and the variance being sought is not in the best interest of the residents in the surrovnding azea for the following reasons: * The increased traffic resulting from the rebuilt Washington Charter School (to house 700 + students,) coupled with that which could result from development in the proposed redesignation zone and the Larrea project, will significantly impact the areas on and around Portola Av., Shadow MouIItain Av., San Luis Rey, Shadow Lake Dr. and Larrea S� This increase in traffic could potentialty endanger the walking student population and residents of those streets. * The impact on the privacy of r�sidents in properties adjacent to the Larrea St. project will be negative. The residents of the projected development will have an activity area two full stories (20+ feet) above their neighbors allowing the invasion of the privacy of those in spaces below. * Increased noise factors will disrupt the peace of the surrounding homeowners. There are already cosst�nt noise code violations being perpetratad on area homeawners by the Augusta Restaurant. The Larrea project sits immediately south of the Augusta facility and would add one more layer of noise pollution to our environment. * Local residents have a sense of who is familiar and who is not in our give� areas. The possible increase in transience generated by the variance of the cunent zoning designations will make it more difficult to idecrtify those who are justified in being in an area and those who are not. * Home property values will be negatively afi'ected by noise and traffic issues. The beauty of Palm Desert has always been found in it's gorgeous views and peaceful style of living. We certainly don't want to see our spectacular views blocked or our peace lost. Both of these proposals lead us down those paths. As residents of Palm Desert, we care about our community and consider it important that reasonable growth and developrnent be allowed in the appropriate areas. The singie family homes were in this area long before the first shops and/or hotel complexes existed. The introduction of retail shops and hotels were allowed within the guidelines of the "neighborhood community" and those in charge were good stewards of thase guidelines. We are not suggesting that development be disallowed in the south Palm Desert/El Paseo azea, but that those developers who wish to work within a residential community (of long tenure) embrace the essence of that community rather than attempt to detract from it. We ask that our Planning Commissioners and City Council membecs continue the stewardship of the original founders of our community. We thank you for your consideration in this matter and expact that you will work to preserve the "essence" of this wonderful community. Sincerely, � � ._ ���,. � ���-<-►�,�, Q Ron L. Buries and Beverly A. Buries 45-831 Mt. View Av., Palm Desert, CA 92260 �- Page l o � � ' Bagato, Tony From: Robert Rosteck [RRosteck@collegeotthedesert.edu] Sent: Tuesday, March O7, 2006 8:37 AM To: Bagato, Tony Subject: Resort Zone Designation I am writing with rega�ds to the "resort zone" designation for Shadow M�untain Drive between Portola and Ocotillo. I would atso like to express my opinion on height and density waivers for construction on LaRea Street. I have been a resident of the Coachelta Valtey for the past nine years and in that amount of time ! have seen numerous changes sometimes for the better and sometimes not for the better. One thing that attracted me to this area, especially the city of Palm Desert, was its charm. Being from the Southeast, many cities base their entire appeal on the charm they offer visitors and Palm Desert has much to offer in that category. However, changing zoning designations to allow for resorts — especially on the edge c residential prope�ties — will detract from these neighborhoods and allow the commercial to encroach into the residential. Southei Califomia is changing as it grows, but that doesn't mean that a city like Palm Desert has to give up its character while there are areas that have yet ta be developed (Cook Street) or commercial areas that could be redeveloped to accommodate resorts. For the past three years, I have lived at 73-880 Shadow Mountain Drive in an apartment complex that spans between Shadow Mountain Drive and Larrea Street. The properties adjacent to the apartment complex on Lanea Street are in need of development due to the homeless people who have presented themsetves as a threat at times to the community, the unsightly appearance of the unkempt lots, and the danger the dilapidated buildings present. I am atl for development of these properties within the zoning regulations, however, I don't see the need to approve special height and density waivers. Again, this would deVact from the charrn and the appearance of the valley. It's nice to be able to stand and look at the mountains from almost any point in the city without actually having to drive to the mountains ta see them. Thank you for allowing me to express my opinions on this matter. I know urban development is a problem in trying to balance the needs of development with the character of any area. Hopefully, Palm Desert will continue to grow in a ma�ner that doesn't sacrifice its charm for short term gain. Sincerely, Robert Rosteck 73-880 Shadow Mountain Drive #106 3J7/2006 . ' �,� �.� Bac�ato, Tony Frcm: Bill D Etherton [pdwiliy@juno.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 20Q6 1:37 PM To: Bagato, Tony Cc: gbasseQindio.org Subject: larrea StJEI Paseo Resort Overlay. Palm Desert is the best city in the desert. Due in large part to the fine work our city council & planning department has done in the past. I implore you not to change the zoning South of El Paseo to accommodate developers. Do what is best for the residents of this area. Hotels belong on Hwy. lll.especially those asking for height variances. Let's keep Palm Desert the best city in the Coachella Valley. Thanks, Bill Etherton � Bagato, Tony Page 1 c Cf - � From: Eva DeRosier {ederosier@dc.rr.comJ Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 1:05 PM To: � Bagato, Tony Subject: Tonight's public hearing To: City Planning Department Attn: Tony Bagato This is to voice my strong opposition to the proposal outlined in the City of Palm Desert Legal Notice regarding Case IVos. GPA OS-04, ZOA OS-05, C/Z OS-O5, and PP(CUP OS-20. Unfortunately I wili be unable to attend the public hearing today on this subject so I request you accept this email as my input. I live on Mountain View Avenue which is a neighborhood that would be directly affected, I believe to its great detriment, by the approval of the proposal. The benefits of living in our quiet, safe, low-traffic community would be lost forever. Please do not approve this proposal! I pray the Planning Commission shows consideration for the existing year-roun� residents by not making these changes. Eva DeRosier 73940 Mounta.in View Avenue 3/7/2006 � CITY OF PALM DESERT � DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOFMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: April 18, 2006 CASE NO: GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05, and PP/CUP 05-20 REQUEST: Recommendation to City Council for approval of: A. A general plan amendment adding Policy 10, Program 10.A and 10.B (Exhibit A) to the Residential Goals, Polices and Programs section of the general plan. B. A zoning ordinance amendment adding Section 25.112 (Exhibit B) establishing development standards for an EI Paseo Resort Overlay Zone (EPROZ). C. A change of zone to add the EI Paseo Resort Overlay Zone to certain R-3 and Planned Residential properties (Exhibit C). D. A precise plan and conditional use permit to allow the construction of a new 12 unit, 36 keys, boutique hotel condominium project located at 73-811 Larrea Street. APPLICANT: Eugene Breznock 75-656 Via Serona Indian Wells, CA 92210 City of Palm Desert (Re: GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, and C/Z 05-05) I. BACKGROUND: After the March 7, 2006, P(anning Commission meeting, the properties adjacent to EI Paseo were restudied to identify the existing land uses and impacts from new development. A neighborhood meeting was held on March 23, 2006. The meeting included the applicant's representative and architect, Commissioner Finerty, Commissioner Tanner, City staff, EI Paseo merchants, and adjacent residents. During both meetings concerns regarding density, traffic, height, noise and lighting were discussed. Existing Land Uses: Historically the R-3 properties south of EI Paseo, between Highway 74 and Deep Canyon, has been a transitional land use area between the City's commercial core (Highway 111 and EI Paseo) and south Palm Desert's single-family neighborhoods. These properties consist of hotels, apartments, condominiums, medical and general STAFF REPORT C�._ ( . GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05, AND PP/CUP 05-20 APRIL 18, 2006 office uses. Many of the existing hotels exceed the current R-3 density standard of 18 units per acre. The Mojave and Casa Larrea Inn are 26 units per acre and the Inn at Deep Canyon is 41 units per acre. These hotels were built before the City incorporated. Since the City incorporated, no new hotels have been developed adjacent to EI Paseo. The goal of the EPROZ is to provide development standards to encourage development of new hotels, a traditional land use in the R-3 zone. New Development Impacts: Development under the EPROZ will initially occur on vacant or under developed properties. All properties west of Larkspur Lane are developed and there is little opportunity for redevelopment. East of Larkspur Lane there are five (5) vacant properties totaling 4.32 acres. Three (3) vacant properties are located on Larrea Street, one (1) on Shadow Mountain Drive and one (1) on Larkspur Lane. Based on current development opportunities, the proposed EPROZ should be applied to the R- 3 properties on north side of Shadow Mountain Drive and Larrea Street, east of Larkspur to Portola Avenue. Based on development of the 4.32 acres, different uses were studied to compare density, traffic, and height: A. Density: The current application is proposing a 12-unit, 36 keys, boutique hotel with subterranean parking on a 40,500 square foot lot. The proposed project density of 36 keys is the maximum number of units that can be developed on one-acre. The proposed EPROZ density standard would be 36 units per acre. The following table identifies the possible densities for condominiums, apartments and hotel development under the current development standards and hotel development under the proposed EPROZ standards. R-3 (4) 2.02 acres R-3 (3) 2.30 acres TOTAL 22 30 52 22 36 30 40 52 76 72 E:�i7 152 Based on the proposed EPROZ, the maximum number of hotel units is 152. 2 �- r � � STAFF REPORT \ GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C1Z 05-05, AND PP/CUP 05-20 APRIL 18, 2006 B. Traffic: The current traffic volume is 3,564 trips per day on Shadow Mountain Drive, east of San Pablo Avenue, and is 1,217 trips per day on Larrea Street. These streets are designated for two-lane commercial traffic in the general plan and this area has a mix of uses. The current traffic volume is based on local residents and business owners who live or work in the area. The goal of the EPROZ is to provide hotels within walking distance to EI Paseo limiting the need for vehicle use around EI Paseo and Shadow Mountain Drive. For analytical purposes the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual was used to identify project traffic impacts for new development. Condominiums Apartments Hotels 52 52 76/152 5.$6 6.59 6.24 305 trips 343 trips 474 trips / 948 trips The ITE uses an average number of 6.24 trips per day for hotel suites based on case studies for various hotel suites throughout the country. The 152 hotel units could increase traffic from 3,564 trips per day to 4,512 on Shadow Mountain Drive and from 1,217 to 2,165 on Larrea Street. According to the City's Transportation Engineer, less than 5,000 trips per day on these streets is an acceptable traffic level for residents. Level of Service A(60% capacity) in the general plan for these streets is 8,000 trips per day. With the new hotel development, Shadow Mountain Drive would be at 32% capacity and Larrea Street would be at 15% capacity. Given that new hotels will be within walking distance to many to EI Paseo, it can be expected that the traffic increase will be less than 948 trips per day. If traffic did increase by 948 trips per day, both streets are well within quality of life standards. The proposed EPROZ will not significantly increase traffic on Shadow Mountain Drive and Larrea Street. C. Height: The goal of the EPROZ is to promote new hotel devetopment, making them economically feasible to provide EI Paseo with a stronger economic market. Regardless of how compatible or desirable a land may be it will not be built if it does not generate a profit. � � STAFF REPORT GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05, AND PP/CUP 05-20 APRIL 18, 2006 � E. Currently, a one-acre vacant parcel on Larrea Street or Shadow Mountain Drive costs approximately $1 to $2 million. With increased land costs, developers cannot afford to use half of a one-acre parcel for parking spaces and recreational amenities whether or not the project is for condominiums, apartments or hotels. Developers need to utilize as much land possible to make economic sense while providing for on-site parking and recreation amenities. Any new development in this area will require subterranean parking structures and roof decks to attract consumers. Due to the narrow lot depth of these properties, subterranean parking lots will extend above the ground by 2'6" to 3'. To design an attractive and successful project, the interior space for each floor needs to be at least 9' high with 1-foot floor plates. To provide privacy for the hotel guests and adjacent neighbors, the parapets around the roof decks needs to be a minimum af �'8" to screen the eye level of a 6' tall person. The current 24-foot height limit does not allow for new development with subterranean parking and roof decks. If vacant or under developed properties in this area are going to be redeveloped, then the height limit needs to be increased with minimal impact on the adjacent residents. Larrea Street is 13' lower than the single-family homes on Shadow Lake Drive. The north side of Shadow Mountain Drive is 6' lower than Shadow Lake Drive. These properties are at least 150' away from Shadow Lake Drive. Increasing the current height limit by 6 feet, totaling 30 feet will not impact the view of the single-family homes to the south. The north side of Shadow Mountain Drive consists of one-story and two-story developments. The single-story development adjacent to vacant properties will be impacted fram two-story development whether the height is 24 feet or 30 feet (see section drawing}. All of these properties are zoned for two-story development and may be redeveloped over time. Noise: Adjacent neighbors are concerned that there will be lou guests on the roof decks. A condition of approval has bee hotel guests from using the roof decks after 10:00 pm Thursdays and after 12:00 am on Fridays and Saturdays. implement a quiet time to reduce noise impacts to the owners. Lighting: d noise from hotel n added restricting Sundays through This condition will adjacent property A letter for the Riverside County Sheriff's Department states that lighting is needed in around the complex an in the subterranean parking lots to reduce vandalism. The City has an outdoor lighting ordinance (Chapter 24.16, Municipal Code) that requires lighting systems which reduces and minimizes light pollution. Since the subterranean parking lots are underground any 4 �� � STAFF REPORT ` GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05, AND PP/CUP 05-20 APRIL 18, 2006 lighting will seen by the adjacent properties. A 6' high wall surrounding the project will provide adding screening Lighting will not impact the adjacent neighbors. � tli. IV. SUMMARY/CONCLUSION: Last year EI Paseo generated $210 million in taxable income, which provides the City with $2.1 million to the City's general fund. The general fund pays for police and fire protection, parks and recreation, street improvements, general government and many other services that the City provides. New commercial centers are being developed thraughout the Coachella Valley that will challenge EI Paseo's market base. There are vacant or under developed properties adjacent to EI Paseo that need to be redeveloped. Land uses that do not generate a profit will not be developed whether or not it is compatible or desirable. Based on land costs, new development standards are needed to encourage any type of development. The EI Paseo Resort Overtay was created to promote new hotel development, a traditional land use in the R-3 zone while providing a stronger economic market for EI Paseo. The proposed EPROZ standards will increase the current density requirement of 18 units per acre to 36 and increase the building height from 24' to 30'. The proposed overlay zone will encourage new hotels with minimal impact to the surrounding properties. The proposed hotel utilizes superior architecture and site planning to create a village style resort within walking distance to EI Paseo, meeting the goals and objective of the EPROZ. The precise plan complies with all the proposed development standards, except for the 31-foot tall tower elements. The City Council may approve architectural tower elements above the height limit. Since the last Planning Commission meeting, five (5) letters of support and one (1) letter opposed to the overlay zone and precise plan have been received. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: For the purposes of CEQA, the Director af Community Development has dete�rnined that the proposed general plan amendment, zoning ordinance amendment and change of zone will not have a significant negative impact on the environment and staff has prepared Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. For the purposes of CEQA, the Director of Community Development has determine that the proposed precise plan and conditional use permit are a Class 32, Categorical Exemption, and no further review is necessary. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. , recommending to City Council approval of GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05, and; 5 STAFF REPORT ( (^ GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C1Z 05-05, AND PP/CUP 05-20 APRIL 18, 2006 V. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft Resolution for GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05 B. Exhibit A, Policy 10 and Programs 10.A and 10.8 C. Exhibit B, Chapter 25.112 EPROZ Development Standards D. Exhibit C, EPROZ Locaiion Map E. Draft Resolution for PP/CUP 05-20 F. Minutes from March 7, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting G. Traffic Counts and Trip Generation H. Comments from adjacent residents I. Exhibits Prepared by: �� � Ton Bag Assistant Planner Reviewed and Approved by: ' , /�� P ilip Drell Homer Cro� Director of Community Development ACM of Com nity Development � C- C PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO ADD POLICY 10, PROGRAMS 10.A AND 10.6 (EXHIBIT A), A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ADD SECTION 25.112 (EXHIBIT B) ESTABLISHING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR AN EL PASEO RESORT OVERLAY ZONE (EPROZ), A CHANGE OF ZONE TO ADD THE EL PASO RESORT OVERLAY ZONE TO R-3 AND PLANNED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AS INDICATED IN EXHIBIT C. CASE NOS. GPA 05-04. ZOA 05-05, AND C/Z 05-05 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 7�' day of March, 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued to April 18,2006 to consider the request by the CITY OF PALM DESERT for approval of the above noted; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act", Resolution No. 05-52, in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project will not have a negative impact on the environment and staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; and 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 and reasons to exist to justify recommending to City Council approval of said request: 1. That the proposed general plan amendment, zoning ordinance amendment, and change of zone are consistent with the intent of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. 2. The proposed general plan amendment, zoning ordinance amendment, and change of zone will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That it does hereby recommend approval to City Council of GPA 05-04 (Exhibit "A"), ZOA 05-05 (Exhibit "B"), and C/Z 05-05 (Exhibit "C"). PLANNING COMMISSIGN RESOLUTION NO. � PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 7th day of March 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES; ABSENT: ABSTAIN: J�M LOPEZ, Chairperson ATTEST: PHlLIP DRELL, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission � � PLANNING COMMISSI�N RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT A RESIDENTIAL GOALS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS: Policy 10 The City shall encourage new hotel development on the residential properties within walking distance to EI Paseo. Program 10.A The City shall establish an EI Paseo Resort Overlay Zone (EPROZ) that will be applied to the R-3 and Planned Residential properties located on the north side of Shadow Mountain Drive and Tumbleweed, between Ocotillo Drive and Portola Avenue, including Larrea Street. Responsible Agency: City Council, Planning Commission, Community Development; Redevelopment Agency. Program 10.B The City sha(I create a continuous sidewalk plan for pedestrian traffic within the EPROZ district. Responsible Agency: City Council, Pfanning Commission, Public Works, Community Development; Redevelopment Agency. 3 PLANNING COMMISSI�N RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT B Chapter 25.112 EL PASEO RESORT OVERLAY ZONE DISTRlCT Sections: 25.112.010 25.112.020 2�.112.030 25.112.040 Purpose Location Development Standards T.O.T. C 25.112.010. Purpose. The purpose of the EI Paseo Resort Overlay Zone (EPROZ) is to provide flexibie design standards and incentives for hotel development within walking distance to EI Paseo. Whenever the EPROZ has been added to a base zone, the owner/applicant may choose whether to use the flexible EPROZ standards for hotel development or the standards of the base zone for other development that the zone allows as a permitted or conditional use. In order to obtain approval of a hotel under the EPROZ standards, a conditional use permit application must be filled with the Department of Community DevelopmenUPlanning. 25.112.020. Location. The EPROZ will be added to the base zone of the R-3 and Planned Residential properties located on the north side of Shadow Mountain Drive and Tumbleweed Lane, between Ocotillo Drive and Portola Avenue, including Larrea Street. 25.112.030. Development Standards. Hotels proposed under the EPROZ will be held to the following development standards: A. Density: Maximum density shall be 36 units per acre for hotel development. B. Setbacks: Setbacks shali be subject to setback standards of the base zone set forth in this chapter. C. Height: The maximum building height for hotels in the proposed EPROZ district shall be thirty feet. D. Parking: Parking shall comply with Section 25.58 Off-Street Parking and Loading standards set forth in this chapter. . E. Exceptions: The standards of Sections 25.112.030 shall be required unless modified by the development plan approved by Planning Commission and City Council. 25.112.050. T.O.T. The EPROZ standards will apply to hotel development only, therefore, Transient Occupancy Tax (T.O.T.) per Municipal Code Section 3.28.030 will be applied to the room rent for every night a room(s) are rented out for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes regardless of the actual purpose for which such room(s) are rented out. 4 ;� �-�}I�ItI I I I I -`� �,I ALESSANDRO �3�4TJ�:p� iR 3(4� R�3�(4� � 3R� )��O.P.1R-3 -�l �' I �I �C-�iI Gil ALESSANf�l.�0 DR - _ r4� i � IC;1�, S.P., �,� � I I I I �; T,�P• I�� I � C-1, S.P: � �' V C-1, S.P. �! 4SE_O j Gi, $.F. ,a �� �° , W�_ .e PALM-DESERTDR"Pi ' STATE HWY 111 � � �P1i M-DESEF��- )R- ,-� � L C-1, S.P. C-1,—S:P. C 1�S�P. j �1�11111 � I I� � 1 �, EL PASEO � � +C-1 P C-1 ���� i I� �, I .�`�_�a �==== =� i �-s C � . t SI JWn �IIII R� ! � �� I i f � °°°° I � I R. , �� �I I I I �l � R, cTI I I I I IOl� _ �IR-2 8000(4) _ �R-2 � � 8000,� - --.L S�P.-a ;�"W� o _ o.s. ;��� � ��,�N - n x e�` � r,--�. . �� i - ���:��� .. -��'..'� � �'" -. .��R �'?a � � � = �... 5, N � �� �� i I I�LELLcaR a � S' "' P'AL-M� IESIEI I Q.� •�.i:� `, � � sr � Proposed GPA/ZOA/CZ ����� EL PASEO RESORT OVERLAY o.s. I O.,S. 1� ZONE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT p�NNING COMM/SS/ON Case Nos. GPA 05-04 RESOLUTION NO. ZOA 05-05 C/Z 05-05 EX H I B I T C °ate: .P.i C r l PLANNING COMMISS UN RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT D NEGATIVE DECLARATlON CASE NOS: GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, AND C/Z 05-05 APPLICANTlPROJECT SPONSOR: CITY OF PALM DESERT 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CA 92260 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Approval a general plan amendment to add Policy 10 and Programs 10.A and 10.B (Exhibit A), a zoning ordinance amendment to add Section 25.112 (Exhibit B) establishing development standards for an EI Paseo Resort Overlay Zone (EPROZ), a change of zone to add the EPROZ to R-3 and Planned Residential properties on the north side of Shadow Mountain and Tumbleweed Lane, between Ocotillo Drive, Larrea Street and Portola Avenue (Exhibit C). The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. April 18, 2006 PHILIP DRELL DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 0 C �-- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANN(NG COMMISSION 4F THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL A PRECISE PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A NEW 12 UNIT, 36 KEYS, HOTEL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 73-811 LARREA STREET. CASE NO. PP/CUP 05-20 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Patrn Desert, California, did on the 7m day of March 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued to April 18, 2006, to consider the request by the EUGENE BREZNOCK for approval of the above noted; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act", Resolution No. 05-52, in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project is a Class 32, Categorical Exemption and no further environmental review is necessary. 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 and reasons to exist to justify recommending to City Council approval of said request: The proposed hotel/condominium meets complies with goals and objectives of the EI Paseo Resort Overlay Zone. 2. The proposed location of the boutique hotel, as conditioned, is in accord with the objectives and policies of the generai plan and zoning ordinance and the purpose of the district in which the site is located. 3. The proposed location of the office boutique hotel and the conditions under which it will be operated and maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, Califomia, as follows: That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That it does hereby recommend approval to City Council of Precise Plan/Conditional Use Permit 05-20, subject to conditions attached. PLANNING COMMISSI�iV RESOLUTION NO. < PASSED, APPR�VED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 7th day of March 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JIM LOPEZ, Chairperson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSiUN RESOLUTION NO. �^ CONDITI�NS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. PP/CUP 05-20 Department of Communitv Development: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Constn�ction of said project shall commence within one (1) year from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted, otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 3. Applicant shatl record a conservation easement to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development/Planning and City Attorney for the undisturbed 4.13 acres of the 4.84-acre site that is being annexed into the City. 4. 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: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said landscaping for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which agreement shall be recorded. It is ihe specific intent of the parties that this condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. The final landscape plan shall include a long-term maintenance program specifying among other matters appropriate watering times, fertilization and pruning for various times of the year for the specific materials to be planted, as well as periodic replacement of materials. All io be consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801) and the approved landscape plan. 6. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas. Said placement shall be approved by applicable waste company and Department of Community Development and shall include a recycling program. 3 PLANNING COMMISSI�N RESOLUTION NO. � 7. Transient Occupancy Tax (T.O.T.) per Municipal Code Section 3.28.030 will be applied to the room rent for every night a room(s) are rented out for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes regardless of the actual purpose for which such room{s) are rented out. 8. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City regulating non-transient if the condominiums are sold to individual buyers. 9. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the department of public works prior to architectural review commission submittal. 10. The parapets around the exterior elevations facing adjacent neighbors and Larrea Street shall be 5'8" tail to provide privacy to the adjacent neighbors. 11. A detailed parking lot and building lighting plan shall be submitted to staff for approval, subject to applicable lighting standards, plan to be prepared by a qualified lighting engineer. 12. Use of the roof decks shall be prohibited after 10:00 pm Sundays through Thursdays and after 12:00 am on Fridays and Saturdays. Department of Public Works: 1. Ail landscape maintenance shall be performed by the property owner and the applicant shall enter into a landscape maintenance agresment with the City for the life of the project, consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ord. 801) and the approved landscape plan. 2. A complete preiiminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shal! be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 3. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and Ordinance No. 653, shall be paid prior to recordation of final map. 4. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance. 5. A standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to the issuance of grading permits. 6. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Dese�t Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to recordation of final map. 0 PLANNING COMMISSIdN RESOLUTiON NO. � 7. Storm drain design and construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to start of construction. 8. Complete grading and improvement plans and specifications on electric files shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits. ,, J 10. 11. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works. Pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 26 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. Landscape install shall be drought tolerant in nature and in accordance with the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (24.04). 12. Landscape plans shall be submitted for review concurrently with grading plans. 13. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be insta(led in accordance with applicable City standards and the City's Circulation Network including the following: • 6' curb adjacent sidewalk on Larrea Street. Rights-of-way necessary for the installation of the above referenced improvements shall be dedicated to the City prior to the issuance of any permits associated with the project. 14. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits. 15. Applicant shall comply with provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust Control as wel! as Section 24.20, Storm water Management and Discharge Control. 16. The appticant shall file a tentative parcel map for condominium purposes. Riverside County Fire Department: With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plan check, Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Codes, appropriate NFPA Standards, CFC, CBC, and/or recognized fire protection standards: � � PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. C The fire department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per UFC Article 87. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20-psi residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible materials are placed on the job site. 2. Provide, or show there exists, a water system capab(e of providing a potential gallon per minute flow of: a) 3000 for commercial structure. 3. The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant 4"x2- 1/2"x2-1/2"), located not less than 25' nor more ihan 150' from any portion of a commercial building measured via vehicular travelway. 4 Water plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the water system will produce the required fire flow. 5. Install a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all buildings within a 3,000 square foot total cumulative floor area. The Fire Marshal shall approve locations of all post indicator valves and fire department connections. Ali valves and connections shall not be less than 25' from the building with 50' of an approved hydrant. 6. All valves controfling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and Water-flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per CBC Chapter 9. 7. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, 10, extinguisher per 3,000 square feet and not over 75' fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens but not less than 2A10BC walking distance. A "K" type 8. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall be not less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is allowed, the roadway shalf be 36' wide with parking on both sides, 32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius tum around (55' in industriai developments). �Fountains or garden islands placed in the middle of these turn-arounds shall not exceed a 5' radius or 10' diameter. City standards may be more restrictive. 9. Whenever access into private property is controlied through use of gates, barriers or other means provisions shall be made to install a"Knox Box" key over-ride system to allow for emergency vehicle access. Minimum gate width shall be 16' with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6". C: . � l_ � PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTtON NO. 10. All buildings shail have iiluminated addresses of a size approved by the city. 11. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be submitted separately for approval prior to construction. 12. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when building permits are not obtained within twelve months. 13. Sprinklers shall be installed in the under ground parking tots. 14. Due to compromising access for fire fighting, sprinkler monitoring may be required. 7 r" MINUTES PA�M DESERT PLANNING COMMISSIQN � :-: . it: Cornmissioner Tschopp stated that he still believed the best use of this property was commercial. Given that, the project implemented the residenbal goals identified in the General Plan and moved this forward. He thought the proposed proje�t would be a togical transition and was in favor. Chairperson Lopez also thought it was a great project. He said it was a very attractive project that woukf add to the stabil'ity at that comer in the future. He thought it was outstanding. Before going forward, he wanted to make sure the rec:orci showed they have incorporated the revisions to the resolu�ons as noted in the Public Works Condition Nos. 20, 26 and 27, and Community Development Condition Nos. 11 and 12. Mr. Drell asked if they wanted to discuss or mention at all the remaining issue of the construction access on Via Scena. The letter from the Association basically took issue with it. He asked if they wanted to talk about it any further. Commissioner Finerty asked for confirmation that it was a public street. Mr. Drell concurred. Chairperson Lopez said it is signalized and that there was a recommendation to the resolutions and conditions of approval that the street will be cepaired prior to comptetion of the project. Mr. Drell concurred. It was noted that there was a motion and second for approval incorporating the condfions of approval as amended and Chairperson Lopez called for the vote. �#lS?11� It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty. seconded by Commissioner Campbell. adopting Ptanning Commission Resolution No. 2380� approving Case Nos. PP 05-28 and TT 33120, subject to conditions as amended. Motion camed 5-0. .�..�� D. Case Nos. GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C2 05-05 and PP/CUP 05-20, EUGENE BREZNOCK AND CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicants Request for approval of a general plan amendment adding Policy 10 and Program 10.A to the Residential Goals, Policies 0 � � � �� � ► �.1 ► ► � li 11 � �,.. �_.: ■ �ti: and Programs section of the General Plan; a zoning ordinance amendment adding Section 25.112 establishing development standards for an El Paseo Ove�iay Zone; a change of zone to add the EI Paseo Overlay Zone to R-3 and Planned Residentlal to certain properties; and a precise planlconditional use permit to allow the construc�tion of a new 12-unit� 36 keys� hotel condominium project located at 73-811 Larrea Street. Mr. Bagato reviewed the staff report, explaining the proposals. He said they were looking at both simultaneously to detemnine if this is the policy that the City is loowng to go in the future and if the proposed project met the goals and policies. He informed the Commission that the proposed EI Paseo Overlay Zone and project were both presented to the EI Paseo Merchant {mprovement Distrid and a{etter from them was received in support. He noted that staff received letters from neighbors and some of the concems were addressed in the staff report. Concems induded commercial traffic and speeding on Shadow Mountain. He talked with Public Works Department staff and they agreed that commercial traiflc has probably increased with deliveries to The Gardens and the delivery routes coming from other locatlons off of Portola. One suggestion by a neighbor was to post a"No Thru Commercial Traffic" sign; however, according to Mark Greenwood, federal and state law prohibit cities from stopping delivery vehicles from using the most dired route. He said it would basically be unenforceable because they would have to take truck drivers bo court and prove that this isn't the best and most direct route. It also wouldn't stop trucks from making necessary deliveries on Larrea and Shadow Mountain themselves. There were some offices located on Larrea and Prickly Pear and those trucks couldn't be stopped. Mr. Bagato said the other option was dosing the streets in that area. However, that wasn't a good idea because Shadow Mountain is a collector street, not a local street, and there is more traffic on a collector street. It also provided aocess to EI Paseo for the residents. That wasn't supported by the Public Works Department. He stated that the speeding issue has been addressed and the Police Department has been informed. He said there should be increased enforcement throughout the neighborhood; they were notified on February 24. Another neighbor concem had to do with sidewalks within walking distance to EI Paseo. Mr. Bagato said that was also something the City wanted to 4] r' MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANN{NG C�JMMISSIt�N �� ��:: ■ ��: promote. One of the poltcies in the general plan amendment stated that the City sha{I design a unifonn, continuous sidewatk pian if this general pian amendment is approved. The City could adopt a strategic sidewalk plan into a capital improvement plan. For the proposed project there would be a continuous sidewalk to EI Paseo and a new sidewalk would be constructed with the project. Mr. Bagato said another issue had to do with roof decks and he indicated that parapets addressed those privacy concems. He said that after writing the staff report 16 letters in opposition were received citing co�cems with traffic. height, and density. He said there was a{so a tetter in favor in addition to the one received from the EI Paseo Merchants. In conclusion� staff fooked at the need to provide a stronger economic market for EI Paseo to compete with other commercial centers in the valley and the new design centers implemented would hopefuily promote high end bou�que hotels. The hotel overlay zone would pr�vide the standards for hotel development and encourage redevelopment around EI Paseo. He felt the propased project met those goats and objedives. He reoommended approval of the EI Paseo Overiay Zone and the proposed project. He asked foc any questions. Commissioner Tschopp indicated that Mr. Bagato spoke to the EI Paseo Merchants Association and received a unanimous vote of approvai. He asked if staff held any studies with residents in the area regarding the overiay or this project in particular. Mr. Bagato said no, just the legal noticing for this meeting. Chairperson Lopez o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. W ILLIAM DeLEEUW. President of Vilta Property Developers, the applicant in this matter, came forward. He said the architeat was also present to answer questions about the project architecture. Mr. DeLeeuw also said he would be happy to address anything that staff hadn't covered with the economics of the project or the plans for the project. He thought the staff report addressed many of the issues, was very complete, and they worked with staff over the best part of the last year to get the project where it is today. it wasn't the first rendering or first shot at it. He said they worked very closely with staff to address many of the issues of the neighbors in the area. 10 / � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSInN � !�:.: , ��; He thought something that was very important and the reason for the overlay zone and what this hearing was really about� because this project could be built without the overlay zone, it just wouldn't be as good a project. The project, iike staff indicated� was approved once before at 12 units. This was basically a 12-unit condominium project that could be built under the exis�ng zoning. The height and everything else could be built. It wouldn't be as good as the one proposed and he thought the overiay zone addressed some major issues in the area. Anybody in the area, and he read the letters from people in the area� he thought their issues and concems were very valid, but they didn't really effect this projec:t. If they walk up and down the street at Larrea, what they would see is an abandoned building, one warehouse, and a bunch of vacant lots. No developmerit whatsoever in the area in the last 15 years. Why? Because it was not economically feasible under exis�ng zoning and exis�ng regula�ons. How long would that be? He didn't know. He didn't know what the neighbors really wanted to happen. They talked about the status quo and how great it is, but he thought they haven't looked down that street. They also talked about the disco at Augusta and that was valid, but he didn't think that affected this project or the overlay zone. If anything, the overlay zone would help with that. With the traific, he didn't see anything in this project that really effected the traffic. He thought the biggest fear in the letters he read was change. This wasn't a major change and was a change he thought was needed for the Palm Desert area. Mr. DeLeeuw said there is a threat to the economic viability of the area by other cities. He said Indian Wells was trying to attract projects fike this to their c'rty and trying to get the merchants on EI Paseo to move dovm to Indian Wells. Two major developments were for lease right now. They haven't broken ground yet, but they've contacted most of the upscale merchants. The merchants want to stay in Palm Desert and he thought the City wanted to keep them. The overtay zone would bring people in. Hotels increase the tax base for the City and secondly it hopefully brought affluent people into the area to spend money and not drive to restaurants in other outlaying areas. They will eat at restaurants and shop right in the EI Paseo 11 � MINUTES PALM DESERT P NNING COMMISSI4N � .:..: ■ � i : area. In addition. he said the hotels would generate signficant Vansient occupancy tax for the city. So the City would win in a lot of ways. He a{so thought the neighbors in the area� if they thought about their concems, other than the fact that it wou{d change some things, it really was the best thing for the area. tt is economic development and it gets vibrancy into an area that is do�mant Mr. DeLeeuw said right now there are homeless people living there. The subject property has had about frve notices over the tast five years for vagrants inhabiting the property. There was a motel that would be demolished for this project. He said he woutd like the architect to address some of the architectural features regarding the height, but basically didn't consider the hea�ing so much about this project as it was about the overtay zone and about the economic viability of what would happen to the EI Paseo area. He thanked them and said he was present to answer any questions from the Commission or the opposition. There were no Commission questions. MR. JUAN CARLOS OCHOA. 73-626 Highway 111 in Palm Desert� stated that he was the projecc:t archited and would be happy to answer any questions. There were no questions for the architect. Chairperson Lopez said he would ask for testimony in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the matters before the Comrnission. Starting with testimony in favor and referring to the Request to Speak cards submitted, he invited Mr. Fletcher to address the Commission. MR. DAVID FLETCHER, 73-061 EI Paseo, Suite 200, in Palm Desert, came forwar�d. He stated that he manages a number of buildings on EI Paseo� seven different properties. He has been managing the buildings since 1987. He stated that he was present fo� two reasons. First, to comment on the project itself. He thought it was a great project architectu�ally and on its own. He was present more to speak on the overlay zone and impart on them his feeling that this overlay zone is very important to the ongoing success of EI Paseo. They are getting more and more oompetition in the valley for their retail stores and the more customers 12 MINUTES �si iu eE�FRT p�eNNING COMMISSI�IN �- �. _.: ■ ��: they can bring to EI Paseo that are close by, the better it would be for those stores and their economic viability. One of the things they see with their stores is the challenge to bring people from the hotels the City has put in place. They are great hotels, but they are a distance from EI Paseo and it is a challenge to get people into their cars when they are on vacation and get them to EI Paseo. He noted the difference in current foot traffic on EI Paseo versus downtown Palm Springs or Union Square. A coupie of years ago he was in San Franasco and was standing at Union Square and wondered where all the people were coming from in the middle of tMe day. Didn't they have to go to work? He looked around and realized that eoonomic base was surrounded by a million hotets 20-30 stories tall. They were missing that from EI Paseo. And he wasn't sugges�ng they have 20-story tall buildings in the middle of Palm Desert, but thought if they could put in some upscale boutiques near El Paseo that would be a big benefit to the street. He thanked them. Referring to the next card, Chairperson Lopez invited Ms. Messenger to come forward. He said the card didn't indicate whether the testimony would be in favor or opposition. MS. FAtTH MESSGENGER, 73-860 Shadow Mountain in Palm Desert� said she is a resident of Palm Desert living on Shadow Mountain. She was present to voice her approval of the proposed project on Larrea and the proposed general plan amendment that would add the EI Paseo Resort Overlay Zone. She informed the Commission that she has lived and wo�lced in the valley for well over 25 years. She has been witness to the growth of Palm Desert and the building of the original Hahn shopping center, which is now Westfield. When that project was first proposed to the City of Palm Springs and that City declined Mr. Hahn's invitation to bring value to the city by consbucting a regional shopping mall with an ice skating rink that would attract revenue and growth. The City of Palm Springs had no future vision and was soon to discover what a dramatic impact that would have on their business. Mr. Hahn went to the City of Palm Desert and built his Town Center. From that point an the city of Palm Springs has never recovered from the loss to business to Palm Desert. 13 � ,. � MlNUTES PALM DESERT PLANNINC CnNj�ISSinN 1 � :; ■ ��: Within a short time after the development and success of the Town Center, EI Paseo was developed. In its original conception it was designed to appeal to more luxurious shoppers that wou{d enjoy the intimacy of a smatl street setting to walk and enjoy outside window shopping and buying. Ms. Messenger said the proposed EI Paseo Resort Overiay Zone would enable the City of Palm Desert to enhance the special and unique qual'�ies of EI Paseo by allowing upgrading of existing zoning. The proposed boutique hotel with its qualiiy design would speak to visitors who wish a higher standard of accommodations that are within walking distance to ali of our shopping. This would translate to more dollars spent here in Palm Desert. Ms. Messenger thought it was important today to keep pace with Indian We{1s and their proposed development They needed to hold onto and capture revenue for our businesses here and this ove�lay zone was the Frst step. They have a unique opportunity to enable someone with a vision who is willing to take the risk with the City to provide a new di�ection. She thanked them. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. There was no response. Referring to the Request to Speak Cards expressing opposition, he invited Ms. Cynthia Bliss to come forwarci. MS. CYNTH{A BLISS� 73-780 Shadow Lake Drive, came forward. She stated that she opposed the zoning change. She moved here about five years ago and chose Palm Desert because it is quiet, she can see the beautifuf starry nights, and the traffic. Those were the reasons she moved there. Now she sees the change of zoning and she was worried about her property value, the increased traffic already on her street with people driving through to go through to Portola, and she was concemed about that She was also concemed about the increase in noise, increase in crime, and the loss of her view. She said she has a view going out, which would be toward the hotel, oi the mountains. She grew up in Corona many years ago and watched the changes there. She watched what they did tu that city. When she retums there, there is nothing left of what she grew up with. She was concemed because this is her home, her only home, and she was concemed 14 i MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION % ,�:: , ��- about the value. She hoped the Commission wouid consider her comments. She was against changing the zone. MR. GEORGE JOHNSON� 73-775 Shadow Lake Drive� addressed the Commission. He said he lived two or three blocks just above the area. He met with Mr. Bagato, who showed him the plans for the new building. He said he had no problem with any new projects going in. He understood that money was usually what happened and that was why a lot of those places in that type of area can't be developed the way developers warrt to do them. There were parameters that City Council and all the members have put up, for instance the variance they are asking for is to go higher. He was doing something for himself, but also was speaking for people who might not want to go out or voice their opinion until iYs too late. If they don't get out and voice their opinion or concems, things won't happen. With this� he had no problems with any of the things going on architecturally, it was a good looking design. The problem he had is when they are going above a 24-foot level already, they are adding a 5'8" wall onto a sun deck or what was going to be the jacuzzi area for people to go up and orrto. They would fove to have great people who would not come in, have a few drinks, get loud and obnoxious and then they would have to call the police and the rest of the people who would have to get involved. It was hard enough for them to take care of the disco or whatever it was that plays music down further. He currently lives three and a half to four blocks from that area and it carries through there like it's at the next door neighbor's house. He called the police several different times and they say they will go and take care of it. So that is a problem he has with the noise level that will be impacting the neighborhood. Mr. Johnson said the next thing that was going to happen, in the police report that they reported badc to Commission, they were concemed about a crime rate that was maybe going to start to happen because of the parking structure undemeath the building. And that would take more lighting that would go into adjacent houses and single apartment buildings. He didn't know if they got to see any of the pictures, but a neighbor took a picture out toward the mountains. Not only would that picture be erased, they wouldn't be able to see the mountains any more because of the structure going up. His neighbor 15 `, . ':, �, � : _�► ► •�i�� • � MAR woutd also have I'�ghting impeding into her piace and he thought Palm Desert had a low light situation and thaYs why there weren't a bunch of street lights all over the place. Other than that. the noise was a concem. He was all for the archite�ture and related stuff. He would fove to see the city get better and better and love to see the whole community and EI Paseo get better. He thought it was doing a great job aiready with the renova�ons the City has commissioned so the face prints of all the o{der buildings got redone. Everything was looking really good, so he had no problem with the actual development of the area. Mr. Johnson did have a problem with the height and the privacy issue because he thought people were usually above 5'8" with the exception of some women and being able to Iook over into a woman's unit, maybe when she was changing and forgot to close her drapes, and that would be pretty devastating to a person. So those were the issues he had. MS. NANCY LEPPERT, 73-860 Shadow Mountain Drive, addressed the Commission. She said her property is on the south and east comer of where this project is going. So she had concems, mostly having to do with height� noise and lighting. She wasn't against having a proje�t go through� the height was her basic problem. And the other thing that Mr. Johnson mentioned regarriing the police report and the anticipated vandalism in the garage area and having additional lighting and that sort of thing. That was going to be right in her back yard. In addition to that, her view would be changed as well because she can Iook out her I'iving room and see San Jacinto. IYs a nice view. The project was pretty with nice colors, but it would block her view and that was something she was very concemed with. She embraced the change that was anticipated with this project and throughout the whoie EI Paseo and hotel district and whaYs going on. She thought it was a very good idea, but didn't fike the height, the noise or the light. Even though there wasn't a lot of single residential homes right in that Shadow Mountain area, there were numerous families that live there. She thanked them. 16 �` t i, � : :..�► ► •i��� �� �- MAR MS. SUSAN MYRLAND, 73-860 Shadow Mountain Drive, Unit 6, addressed the Commission. She said that was the same one-story co-op as Nancy and Faith. She walked around Larrea and around the neighborhood and was very familiar with i� The first thing she wanted to do was commend Mr. Bagato because she has been wo�lcing with him since she heard about this project in December and even though he knows she is against it, he has never failed to be responsive. professionaf and friendly. She thanked him for that. She stated that she was most definitely against this project, as was her husband and several of their neighbors. What drew them to this part of the valley is that it is an ideal maed use neighbofiood. They can walk to EI Paseo, they can shop� have dinner and yes, contrary to conventional wisdom, residents spend money on EI Paseo. She has dropped her fair share of cash in those stores and restaurants. It wasn't just tourists. Yet they can still hea� the birds and see the stars at night. It is a very unique� special place. They can still feel safe walking around the neighbofiood. She hadn't seen any homeless in two years. Ms. Myrland said the hotel kept growing and growing. It started out at 24 feet and then it became 28 and 31 and now it is 33 with the towers and another three feet with the increased grade, so they are looking at 3fi. Having that in her backyard would just destroy tha� Right nvw like Nancy she has a lovely view of the mountains and instead she would be looking at a five foot eight inch stucco wall. The walt was not the solution. The developer didn't want it, they don't want it, the customers weren't going to like it. The high end customer wasn't going to want to have their pool sumounded by a wall. The worst thing was it wasn't going to solve the problem because noise travels up that hillside. She didn't even realize until she started tatking to her neighbors how much of an issue the noise from Augusta and the night ctubs are along there. That noise funnefs right up the hi{{side and they would be able to hear it very clearly. So the solution wasn't to keep going higher. The solution was to stay within the existing zoning which was developed for a reason. All she could say is don't kill the goose that has been tuming out the golden eggs by squishing in an overly dense project into an area where it doesn't belong. What makes this area attractive to visitors and to residents is it isn't like anywhere else. Indian Wells can build 17 l � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSInN �- J1�:_ _• i�; something, it wouldn't be like the EI Paseo neighborhood because the EI Paseo neighbofiood is very distinc�'rve. It has grown over the years and has different styles of architecture. It wasn't cookie cutter. She stated that the existing hotels are very good neighbors. They have functioning attractive good boutique hotels in the area that increase the appeal for visitors and for residents and they are busy, so they are making money. When she sees that they want to aliow unlimited density and high waivers red flags went up for her because this particular project, although lovely, a{ready exceeded the height limit they would have under the resort zone. So that told her that this was the first of many and they were all going to keep going up and up and up. As Mr. Bagato said, severai of them have expressed their concems to the Commission in writing and they are concemed about the increase in traffic and the potential for crime. They are concemed about the comment that the Palm Desert Police Department made about the underground parking garage being a great concem for theft and varxialism� so now they are going to light up the building at night She would be iooking �ight at that building. The Architectural Review Boa�d totd them it looked too squished even for an urban environment, so putting a 36-key project in a space zoned for 18 keys was not the way to go. Ms. Myriand was concemed that they have been working on this project for a year and this is really the flrst �me that the community has been invofved and leamed about it. As Mr. Bagato said� they have lots of muldfamily units down Shadow Mountain Drive, so each of those units received only one no�ce and it was up to the landiord to circulate it around to everybody. So there are lots of people who are completely unaware of how this project in particular and the overlay zone might effect them. She was asking the Planning Commission to take into account what the resort zone in this par�cular project will do to the residents because they are the people who wi11 be looking at it,listening to it, dealing with the trash and the traffic day in and day out. They were saying they can five with reasonab{e change. She thought the existing zoning was the reason why the area is valuable and attractive. They were not supporting height waivers and special exemptions. What has been working is working and is what has made this area beautiful and valuable. She thanked them. i�:3 ;- � MINUTES P4�M DESERT PLANNING COMM{SSICIN �� �:..: . ��: MS. GAIL BASSIE, 73-298 Joshua Tree Stceet, addressed the Commission. She stated that Joshua Tree is one street south of Shadow Mountain. She said they started coming to EI Paseo about 10 years ago and about three years ago they bought a house to be within walking distance of EI Paseo. She knew that EI Paseo was not wanting for business or people. They have special places they go to and they can't get in right now because it's really busy. One big red flag that wer�t up for her is seeing that studies were done without the knowledge of the residents. It sounded like it was on purpose, that the reason is so they can slip it through and they weren't contacted. She noted that Mr. Bagato stated that iYs not a large change in the height for this particular one, but she asked what happens in five years when the next guy wants to oome in and maybe add another six feet or eight feet. Then they were talking about four stories. ThaYs the problem with the changes. In a sweeping motion of the change of the overiay like that, they don't know what the effect will be in three years or next year because they don't know what might come in. Traffic was already being divetted up her street Her property backs up to Shadow Mour�tain one group of houses past, so she expected this would change that. Someone spoke comparing this to Palm Springs and foot traffic in Palm Springs. The main difFerence she saw to foot traffic on EI Paseo and the Palm Springs people is that the people on EI Paseo are all carrying bags full of inerchandise that the�ve purchased. She thanked them. There was no one else wishing to speak regarding the project. Chairperson Lopez offered the applicant the opportunity to respond. Mr. DeLeeuw indicated that the architect could address the issue of height. He was present if the Commission had any questions regarding the density or other issues. MR. JUAN CARLOS OCHOA said he knew he probably wouldn't change the minds of the people in oppositi�on, but wanted to provide clarification. They have a two-story building behind this property on the south side. That pad is about four feet higher then their pad. The elevation ofi that building which is already two-stories and the elevation of their building was basically the same. Whoever had the 19 / � ' � �� � : :.► ► ► • ►� u . • � _.: ■ � � view on that side certainly wouldn't have any view blocked because their building would be the same height. That's one of the things. He also indicated that someone mentioned how nice it was to walk to EI Paseo and he said why not share that experience w'rth visitors if it was something we like and would like to promote. He said the buiiding was not 36 feet high. The parapets were about 28.5 feet on the end buildings and about 27 feet on the center building. There were certain elements raised three or four feet higher than that, but the buildings were not 3G feet high. Regarding the parking ooncem, they saw the comments and were considering putting in a gate for the residents of the project so they would have a gate at the parking. So that issue they could also address. He said that pefiaps people were not aware of this project because up to this point they have been working with the City trying to address any concems or comments. It did take them about a year to get to this point. They weren't trying to shove this or hide this, or have it at the last moment, it was just that it had taken this long to get to this point. They weren't trying to put anything behind anyone or b�ing it in at the last minute. Mr. Ochoa said if they saw the rendering, especially the 3-D exhibit. they would see that this isn't a fow end type of project. This is very high end and they were trying to make it the best as possible. They were certainly not going to attract those not affluent enough to shop on EI Paseo. ThaYs what they were trying to do. Another comment he heard is that El Paseo gets a lot of people during the wintertime. He stated that his office used to be on Highway 111 on the south side for about six or seven years, so he has driven EI Paseo at night and during the summertime and it is absolutely deserted. There was no one there. He didn't think it was only this project, but also the other elements needed to be addressed along side the whole length of EI Paseo to really attract more people. EI Paseo operates futl year, not just during the wintertime. He wasn't trying to change anyone's point of view, he was just trying to clarify some of the comments he heard. He thanked thern. 20 l MINUTES ae� �u oE�FRT a�at�NtNG G�MMISSION % I�,:..; . ��: Chairperson Lopez ciosed the public hearing and asked for comments or action from the Commission. Commissioner Campbeii said after living in Palm Desert for 20 years, being on EI Paseo in business for 18 years, and seeing how many changes have taken place just on the street itseif� when she opened her business 18 years ago, there were many empty lots. The Gardens wasn't there and now they see it and it's ali fiiled up. There are tw�o-story buildings there. She noted that there were many people who were against The Gardens at the time because it was going to bring in more traffic on Shadow Mountain and now it just seemed like everyone was living in a great environment. Also, people have moved recen�y to Palm Desert to be close to EI Paseo. They want to have that feeling of walking to a street� shopping and having all those conveniences dose to home. She didn't think they shouldn't be able to share this with other people who want to go ahead and come to the desert to have these big larger hotels. This hotel wouldn't be any different then Shadow Ridge. lt was lower in height and they could see from the rendering that there weren't that many windows that people would be peeking out of to see what was on the other side. Commissioner Campbetl also noted that people are saying there are so many people on EI Paseo now and they can't get into the restaurants� but when someone is in business, the three months from January through March are their peak months. Then they struggle through those summer months and it was the other people they want to bring into the city. If they have little intimate hotels iike this, and there are little hotels right there on Larrea and Shadow Mountain which they really appreciate having� but to bring this higher scaie hotei to be near EI Paseo and have other people share in the shopping and the convenience. She was all in favor of this hotei and the zone change. They would see more and more of those smailer homes there or even motels there that are in time going to be replaced, but if not by little hotels like this, then other larger develapments. She was in favor of the change of zone and the hotel. She thought it was a fabulous project. Commissioner Tanner acknowledged that it was a beautiful project, there was no question about that, but he shared the concem with one of the speakers that this opened the door for future establishments with a greater impact then 30 feet or 35 feet to those that are maybe on an equal level from 21 � ' � �� � : _.► ► ► � ,� �� � � '.i ■ 11 : a pad standpoint. There was going to be disruption of the beauty of the Coachella Valley, but that he thought was going to be mitigated by the pad feve{. He was concemed about doing the overiay zone and doing the entire rezoning to establish that as a precedent for areas further down and away from this particular spot. Again, he thought this was a potentiatly beautifui boutique hotel, something that Ei Paseo and Paim Desert needs. but it would open that door. That was his concem. Commissioner Tschopp said there were two issues here. One was the concept of the EI Paseo Resort Overiay Zone that wouid put small boutique, upscale hotels in the vicinity of Et Paseo. He was generaily in favor of that because he believed the more people they could have living next to a very nice commencial center like they have on EI Paseo� the more shopping they would do and the better off it is for everyone in the city. He was a little disappointed that they didn't study the issue a litde bit further and incorporate maybe members of the r�siden�al community around there that would also be impacted by the changes of the zoning. He would like to see it studied a I'ittie bit more. also given Commissioner Tanner's comments that if they grant exceptions here, what is going to happen down the road and how much will that density become as it spreads down toward El Paseo. So overall he was in favor of the concept� but thought they needed to study it a little bit more. On the proposed devetopment� Commissioner Tschopp thought it was absolutety beautifui and was a great upscale concept. He wasn't concemecf so much about the traffic and crime really wasn't an issue because he thought our Police Department would address it The height wasn't really a problern for him because the building behind it to the south is two-stories and wouldn't be any taller than it except for some architectural elements. So he didn't have a problem with the height. The only issue he had was the density. They have an 18-unit maximum. Five years ago they actually approved a two-story 12 unit place and it was not built. He didn't believe there was very much, if any, opposifion to that going in. So to him it had to be an issue of density and how it effects this projed and future projects down the road. So at this time he would like to see the area studied a IittJe bit more and this project studied a little bit more as to how it fits into the whole general scheme. 22 � _. ; �.. MINUTES PALM DE�EeT PLeNNiNG COMMISSfON � :.: ■ � � � Commissioner Finerty said she aiways has concem about height and she aiso had concem about losing Patm Desert as we know it. She was also worried that Palm Desert was going to tum into Orange County and one of the reasons she left Orange County was because of how fast it was growing. She believed that Palm Desert was growing way too fast now and she wanted to see it siow down and would like to see them take a breath. While this was a lovely project, she thought it belonged in a different part of the city. It didn't betong in one of our neighborhoods. The reason she was opposed to it in the neighborhood was because of the density and because of the height It was just not the place for it. For that reason she was opposed. Chairperson Lopez looked at it the same way that Commissioner Tschopp was looking at it. There are two distinct items here, although staff opted to put them together. The first was the EI Paseo Resort Overlay Zone. He thought the concept was one that merited an awful lot of review. Personaliy he didn't know if it made much sense to have an overlay zone. He has spent 25-26 years here in the community. From San Pablo west there is a large residenfial area that was fairiy nice. It's the area that goes east of San Luis Rey and Larkspur where there are vacaM lots and abandoned buildings. To him as a resident it was a terrible eyesore and one that has a tremendous amount of potentiai.. Unfortunately, no one has opted to do this in that area, at least not from the standpoint of building homes and developing residenfial areas there on that particuiar stretch. They had one come before them before and unfortunateiy it never got off the ground. He drove around there several times during the course of the weekend and said you just shake your head and ask why isn't this taking off? He thought they needed to take a look at the EI Paseo Overlay Zone and take some more time to review it. He thought the concept was a very good concept IYs been said before that EI Paseo is considered the Rodeo Drive of the desert. He has been in the resort business for a long time and EI Paseo is one of the major selting factors when seliing this desfination. There are great restaurants and great shops and they can feel proud when driving down that road, any time of the year. For 4th of July when all the flags are out, at Christmas with alt the lights and it is an absolutely gorgeous place. As much as he would like to make sure all of those shops are very very busy and stay busy a1i year round, and the restaurants stay busy on a year round basis, thaYs really a task that our leadership and the community had to take to consider how to create more demand in this area during off season. During prime season a person can wait a littie while to get into restaurants. 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNINt; C:t1MM� N � _.:_._ ��: On weekends the wait is a long time. But he thought the concept of the overlay zone was a very good concept that needed more time for review. Specific areas, one being where this particular project is tocated. is one they needed to look at a little bit Ionger and take a good viev�r of to welcome a project such as this. Chairperson Lopez said the second item was the project before them tonight He thought it was something that was really needed in that area and hoped that a project like this would heip just to bring in additional projects of a similar quality. From a standpoint that this would be a boutique hotel probably demanding relatively good sized rates, but obviously people would have access to Ei Paseo within walking distance to those areas. He was concemed about the density and he was particularly concemed about the height Although there were architectural elements� he thought the developer and architect could come up with some ideas that would help to atleviate some of the concems in the community regarding the height. He hoped they would work together on it. At this point in time, he was not particularly in favor of the application before them this evening, although he was not in opposition to the voncept. He thought they needed to review this a little bit more and perhaps have a study group or at least have the oommunity involved in it. They did a lot of work with the Generat Plan and this was maybe a little different and smalter concept in scope, but he thought it required more study. He was in oppositbn to the project this evening. Commissioner Finerty didn't know if the right thing was to continue this and ask the applicant�and architect if they were interested in scaling back the project and reducing the density, the height, obtaining neighbofiood input. or to ask staff to prepare a resolution of deniai. She asked if they could go a little out of order and ask the applicant if this was something they would like to look at. Mr. DeLeeuw said there were certain things regarding the density. Once again, this was proposed as a 12-unit condominium project with strictly a condiqonal use permit allowing it to be operated conditionally according to the terms staff would put out as a 36-unit hotel project. He said they could build the 12 units right now, no prob{em. They were providing 41 parking places for the 12 units now. The conditional use permit probabiy wouidn't require that, it would only require 29 or 30 if it was strictly condominiums. 24 „ � : :.►► ► •„tii • l �_.; ■ �� W ith all due respect, Commissioner Finerty said she wasn't asking Mr. DeLeeuw to promote his project again, she was asking if he was willing to talk with the neighbors and willing to go back to the drawing board and look at scaling this back and reducing the height. Whether they wanted to say it was 12 units, it had the potenbal for 36. so i�s semantics and was stilt going to bring in the increased density. She asked if he was willing or not to work with them because that would determine the way the Planning Commission decided to vote. Mr. DeLeeuw thought they have worked well with staff and were happy to work again with staff. There had been a lot of compromises already regarding height and everything. Some of the height factors were as a result of neighbofiood input There was neighborhood input at every level. This was the first time it had been before the Planning Commission, but it has been in the paper and in public. hearings before as recently as a month and a hatf ago. Yes, they were willing to work with somebody. They didn't want to have the project tumed down by Planning Commission for something they didn't do. A!ot of the stuff they were proposing he thought had been done already because there has been a lot of work on this project and a lot of work done with the overlay zone. Commissioner Finerty noted that at the beginning Commissioner Tschopp asked if there had been any meetings with the neighborhood and she believed Mr. Bagato said that other than the lega! noticing, there had not been. (Mr. Bagato concurred.) So there really hadn't been any input from the neighborhood. GeneraNy developers wil{ go and have meetings and explain their project whi{e working with staff. This isn't generaiiy the first opportunity when trying to get a project approved that is out of the ordinary for a residential neighbofiood. This isn't the first opportunity they �should be meeting with the homeowners and the neighbors. She noted that there was great concern here from a lot of the neighbors because it was going to change the character of their neighbofiood. Therefore, since they were there first, they needed to be incorporated into some of the initial co�versations so that hopeiully an agreement coufd be reached. But at this point with the density and the height, she believed three Commissioners were ready to give it the hands down unfess there was some compromise. She understood that he has already worked with staff and that he has already made compromises, but what she was saying to him is that this will require further work and further compromise. 25 i MtNUTES PALM DESERT PLAN111N�; f:OM,�MISSInN �.; , ��: Mr. Deleeuw thought a compromise was possibie. Mr. Drell said that what the appiicant was trying to say is that he would like a continuance to see this studied more. Commissioner Tanner asked if there should be a point of orcler to reopen the public hearing. Mr. Drell said yes. Chairpetson Lopez said that this was a question to the applicant. �� Commissioner Finerty moved to con�nue this matter for six weeks to give the applicant time to relook at the projed, meet with the neighborhood and to see how he and his architect might go about reducing the density and the height so that a project like this could fit better into the neighbofiood. Chairperson Lopez seoonded the motion. He asked for further discussion. Commissioner Tanner requested darification. They were talking about the overlay zone and to actuatiy have a new zone. He asked if they were talking about this right here today, because if that was the case he was not in favor. Mr. Drell said they were talking about two things. In order to build projects like this� they have to change the standards in the R-3 zone. They could change the standards wholesale in the R-3 zone which woutd then apply in every zone in the city. Or through this overlay they could apply these standards very selectivvely and in only one location within the R-3 zone. So they were saying that these height standards would not apply in every R-3 zone in the city� onty within. this confined area c{ose to EI Paseo. Mr. Drell exp{ained that staff had a difemma� as explained by Mr. Bagato� in that in all our other planned zones there is an exceptions provision that says if they have a unique project that they really like that has some differences with standards, they can approve them on a case by case basis. That was still an option with this application. Instead of having this overlay zone, they oould put that little exceptions section into the R-3 zone. He also said they weren't really creating a new zone in that respect. They were applying some different standards very selectively in a particuiar area to an existing zone. He said it would apply to the area ident�ed on the overlay zone map. He indicated there were finro types of applica�ons. They could separate them if they wanted, but staff thought it woufd be good to talk about them together because they could see the standards and see the project that would be � 2s � -- MiNUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSIf1N :.: ■ � � : developed according to those standards. But in theory and in practice they were separate. One is an application by the City to create a special set of standards in proximity of EI Paseo for hotels and then to look at a specific project that needs those standards for the Commission to approve i� If they felt uncomfortab4e about designating this whole area or part of the area, they coufd either make the area smaller if they feit it reatly only made sense east of San Pabto, not west. Or if they'd rather, they couid selectively put in an exceptions section within the R-3 zone for hotels. Commissioner Tanner said that would help with their discussions during the next six weeks. He asked if these altematives would be made available to them. Mr. Drell said that was the other suggestion. To study it, hs thought they needed more specific direction and if they wanted to create a{ittle subcommittee to work with staff to talk about these issues. Unfortunately, on stage isn't aiways the best place to delve into afl these things. Again, they have residents here and anyone here who wanted to participate, he suggested that they submit their name and phone number to staff. He said that with homeowner's associatwns it was a lot easier to contact people. Here they were talking about whole disparate areas and thaYs what they have public hearings for. They notify everyone and they are having the input here. But now if there are those in the audience who want to participate and talk about this in a more intimate setting with some members of commission and staff, anyone interested could submit their name and staff would set up meetings. Commissioner Finerfiy asked when they did the Freeway Overtay Zone if it went to the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee (ZORC) and if that committee was still around. Mr. Drell said it was not around. Commissioner Finerty asked about creating something like that because this is something unusual and she knew that if they changed it in this area, there was no question that it would move up and down east and west EI Paseo. This was opening the door. There was no question. Her thought was they needed to really think this through about what direction they want it to go, how high they warrt it to go, what the density would be and the full impa�t. She didn't know if it would be advantageous to look at this as a project by project basis. Then they woufd have a hote{ here, a boutique there, and residential, and it woufd be mumbo jumbo. They needed to have some well thought out plan for EI Paseo to stay oompetittive with The River and with lndian Wells, rather than to just piecemeal i� That was how she saw the direction they were heading 27 i � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNINC rti Cr- '�i�: , ��: right now. Piecemeal. And they needed to have a more weil thought out ptanning process. Mr. Dretl didn't think it was piecemeal. He said they were comprehensively designa�ng an area and setting the standards. He thought they were doing the exact opposite. He said one could argue about the appropriateness of the whole policy and if they want to actually attract hotels or not, tf the condusion is they don't want to attract hotels� then surely they wouidn't want to do this. That was the goal. But it was to do it comprehensivety with wfiat staff thought was the minimum standards that would be required to attrad the money. As they knew, hotels were a very difficult business proposition any where. They just had to talk to the City's Redevelopment Agency. Commissioner Fnerty clarified her point by saying that this is for the overtay on proper�es on the north side of Shadow Mountain and Tumbleweed Lane between Ocotillo� Larrea and Portola. They have one area. But what about east and west of this? Mr. Drell replied that the main retail secction of EI Paseo was pretty much defined by Portola to Highway 74. That's why staff felt that was the appropriate area to promote it. But she was right. There might come a time in the future when the retail portion of EI Paseo would wrap ali the way back to Highway 111. He said we are atways reexamining our policies� adjusting as they see projects occurring, correcting mistakes when they are made. What they do is try to create the environment for the private market to do what we want it to do. As he has observed over the last 25 years, our standards have not been especially effec�ve in these areas ff they want to attract hotels. In fact, west of San Pablo they haven't attracted anything. So the first question is if they want to attract hoteis. The second question is what it would take to do that. Comrnissioner Tschopp thought those questions should have been answered before coming before the Planning Commission. Staff prior to coming to them should have had those answers and enlisted the residents and the busir�ess people of the area before this general plan amendment overlay for a very extensive area was even looked at. He thaught the big concem tonight was what the overai{ impad on the area would be if this was approved. They were uncertain about that� so they were asking staff for more study with the people involved and to come back. The second issue was that he thought there was a really nice project here. They didn't know how it frt into the general plan amendment submitted to them tonight. This plan runs from Portola all the way to Ocotillo. That was a 28 (.- �„ � : ;.. . . • �; � � � ,f. :; . ��: big area they were requesting for boufique hotels that could have extensive amounts of density, height variations and so forth. What he was saying is they need to study this to make sure this is what they want and then go forward. Mr. Drell asked what specific issues he wanted studied. Cornmissioner Tschopp thought he heard them tonight in this meeting. Mr. Drell asked about density. Is it good or bad? The density is the density. He wasn't sure how they study it. Commissioner Tschopp asked if this was built out, how the density would effect the entire area and the living conditions of the people there. Commissioner Finerty noted that when the general plan was updated, they spent months trying to look at all the impacts for changing the general plan and changes of zones and everything that was contained within the general plan. This was something they got all in one fell swoop tonight trying to move forvvarci a�d she thought they needed to slow down. Chairperson Lopez agreed that they did a lot of work on the general plan and this was something that merited additional review from the standpoint of the residents. He re�terated that he supported the ooncept, but he thought it needed some additional thought as to exact locations of the zone area, and good or bad� this project was attached to this par�cular application and they both had to be judged as one at this particular point in time. Chairperson Lopez noted that there was a motion on the floor for continuance and a secortd and asked if there were additional comments or discussion. He calied for the vote. Mofion carried 5-0. Chairperson Lopez indicated that it was c�ontinued foc six weeks (to April 18, 2006} and reiterated to the residents that the appiicant for the hotel project was present and the other applicant was the City of Palm Desert and they couid direct their questions and wish for involvement to them. Mr. Drell asked if any of the Planning Commissioners wanted to participate with staff in the discussions. They could have up to two. Chairperson Lopez stated that the public hearing would remain ooen for the continuance. Commiss�oner Tanner said he would like to participate. Commissioner Finerty also volunteered. 29 �. . MINUTES • PALM DESE�R_T PLANNING COMMISSIf?N -- � �. �:.:. . � � : Mr. Juan Cailos Ochoa came forward and stated that as the architect, they are accustomed to finely tuned projects� so he weicomed the opportunity to do as much as they could to hopefully arrive at a point where everyone was happy. There was always room for improvement with every project. Chairperson Lopez thanked him and thanked everyone for attending. Mr. DeLeeuw said he wanted to clarify one item. He didn't answer the question they asked previously about whether or not they met with people in the community. For their project they met with ali the residents directly around them. At least two of them appeared here; one in favor and one against their project. But they did not go out to anyone outside the zone because as indicated, there were two appiicants here. Him for one simple project and the City of Palm Desert for the other. He thought they did their homework and met with people in the area, but didn't feel it was their job to go out to everyone e{se in the whole area for the rest of i� IX. MiSCELLANEOUS Chairperson Lopez noted there were no Misceilaneous items, but pointed out in the previous meeting minutes there was reference to the communication with the City of Rancho Mirage about the Lowe's project. He thought Commissioner Finerty asked that they perhaps get some feedback from Mr. Drell regarding any discussions regarding that issue. Mr. Drell said that as explained at the hearing, R had to do with why landscaping hadn't gone in on the residentiai side. They were being delayed by the undergrounding of the {ines which had a guideline going over to their side that had to be undergrounded. That was now undergrounded. So right now there was no obstacie to Mr. Solomon to install his landscaping. His understanding was that Lowe's was in discussions with the developer to donate some trees to enhance that landscaping. A resident stili appealed that decision� so it would be going to Council. He thought that answered the question. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner Campbell indicated the meeting would be next Wednesday. 30 � ! AII Suites Hotel � (311) Average Vehicie Trip Ends vs: Occupied Rooms On a: Weekday Number of Studies: 3 Average Number of Occupied Rooms: 167 Directional Distribution: 50�10 entering, 50% exiting Trip Generation per Occupied Room Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Devia�on 6.24 5.61 - 6.85 2.55 Data Piot and Equation i,soo , w 'C H' � � � � > Q II F- Cautlon - llse Carofu/ty - Small Samp/e Slzis �200_.......----,-��---� ....: ..........:..........:...........:.�--.....- ---•--- ; : � : X : . ; 1,100.........••••. -•-•----• , ••-.-•-•- ,•••••-•-• . ••-..,-.. ..-•-•-.. ._.....X•- �� - •-....-•-•, •-•••-••• . •••..... -�'•-••-•••• . ......... . .......•- ,-._...._._ ; ,.: . . . . 900 ' • .........: ...�.'�.-• • -•-...... ; _....... : ......_...: ...•---.. :..--•-.... X : : ; : , 800 � � • i • { • i � i • i ' 130 140 150 160 170 18U 190 X= Number of Occupied Rooms x nc�w� nna Pam. ------ nvera9. R.n Fitted Curve Equatlon: Not given R2 = '»" ��� Tdp Generafion, 7th Edition 571 Ins�tute ot Transportation Engineers 0 \ � r , � ► N � � �� � � � n N � � � ' � � d, � , _ � • O Ot t�j� � � O '� w O � A ? � M rs� L.�r�.ts � � + •�,P^z t1 �� O � .. A J � � ' + o �' N �'� � $ S o, �, �� � n ��� �� �+ � � `� � � �' � � a ^. N �o , � � � o ' "' - , w .� > � � � � �, 3 � N � � � .o o ..i 3i ✓ ../ S O N��pW W ��NC� � jNN o � (}� �O O p �1 o ' .�.�i � �• ..� �... ..' � `; ' � _ ,"�.,. �' � .�� `_ . ;,� �? � "�p y `'�" F, �`��� � # r )�,� ! �� '; `�' �:�s :�F� � � � - ' v � �, � ��� �, �: ' y �"'J%}� �;,:� }�� ' �_: � , ��� -:�;=, .�.s��- .,;,:�� � '� J y�' � :f � �- � � -�:,�' ,� �;� �� :�; � '.=`�'�'�� � 4�+j �� �zf �?`�� : -- ��-� .:��. � �, "� �- ' ;, �;:. .�v:;.. ��i,.l'� •�:.... : �::?' :�;�L* .ryx�•�'�...: 4 �� � .,. ,t� � }� - ;� �� �,�� , y � .��' W �� � � � � � � � � � ,� ^ " � r � G - � Z -; �� � � c ' �i 3 � Q N O : � N � N � � � ■ A� �� � � � � Z + � �- 9 � _ �. � , � � �o _,.,�, � N � N 3 70 �- � � � ' (- � �+ k'• ` �` � � � � o Z � � C9 � � O � � a' c � � ' � N A� O N � N = n � � �� F' � � Low-Rise Apartment (221) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Occupied Dwelling Units On a: Weekday Number of Studies: 22 Avg. Num. of Occupied Dweliing Units: 264 Directionaf Distribution: 50°lo entering, 50% exiting �neration per Occupied DweNing Unit �. Ave�age Rate Range of Rates 6.59 5.10 - 924 � " Plot and Equation �;' - �•� ; Standard Deviation 2.84 �" ' , : : : : : : : : : ; . , . . . , , . . . ' . . . . , . . . , .' . '� 8��_ ........ ..... . .••-- • -••-• . ••-.. , ..-• • •-•••. ••-•• . •--•- -'�•-••-. •--•.. • : : : : : : : ; ,� ; . : : : : ; ; : ;� : .x , 5,000-•--••- : •••-- ; •-•-- ; -•••• ; -•••- : ••-• ;-••••• ; • • : •-•• ; -••-- , ._.... � � : : : I : : .' ' : : � ; : ; .`; . .. ;. .•• � -• • � -----•�-----..;--•--�-••- -- � q,ppp- ---...'.......'......•;•• -- -. -• -, - : : ; : � � : : : : ' : ; : ; � . . . . ;,� . , , . . � 3.000- -•-••-•• ..... : ......: .•••. :x .�: , ..__.;..._.. ; ......:.••••- ; -••-..:...... E . Q : : : :' �x : ; : : : ; � . . . , . . . . = II : : : X,'�, . : : : : : : A- F . . . , . . . . . , 2�_. ....... ..... .X... .'�'..-- , -••-- . •--. , ..... , --••- . -.... , ..--- . -..... ' X .x >4C : ; : ; : ; � : X x, ; : : : : : ; = 1000_...... � .... ,x ..... . ..... . .•-._ , .... , .._.. , •••-• . ••-•- . -•... �...... F :� : : : : ' : : : : - X, . . . . . . . . , 0 • � � i � I � I � I ' I ' i ' I ' I ' I � 0 100 200 300 400 500 B00 700 B00 900 1000 1100 X= Number of Oocupied Dwelling Units X Actwl Data PoiMs Fftted Curve Fltted Cunre Equatbn: T= 5.12(l� + 387.53 ------ AverageRats R2 = 0.93 0 Trip Generation, 7th Edition 335 Institute of Transportation Engineers ( � Residential Condominium/Townhouse {230} Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dweliing Units On a: Weekday - Number of Studies: 54 ;.' Avg. Number of Dwelling Units: 183 �. Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Generation per Dwelling Unit �' �• Average Rate Range of Rates �.; _ "� , 5.86 1.83 - 11.79 � Plot and Equation i � , � ,,�� � `. � � � ;. � � > Q II F- � a,000 , . . . . . , . . : : : : : : ; : ; : : ',- �,�-. --.- ; -•- ; -�- ; -• .. : .... : .... : .... : .... : .... : .... : .... : .. ;��.._. 8,� _. . . . _ . ' . . . . . ' . _ " . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . " ' . . _ . . . _ . . . . . . _ _ . . . _ . . . . . . . . li. . _ . . _ _ . . _ . . . . 5�-•--•• . -•••,••••-,••-••.•••'•• ; -••• ; ••-- • •-••-•'-• ''�� •--• ,-• . ._. : -.._ ; : : : : x: : . : : ; � : ; : : ; : : : � : : : x 4�_..... I ... : ... : .... : •--- ; ---- ; -• ; -•-- •• ; --.. ' .... : --•--; �-•- 3�_.._........-,•--••,•--••,--x -��,... .--••,---• -,-•---.;_...-.-••••,..._.,.--•- . : , . x � . , , , . . , . 2000__.--• � •--•� ..X.: ; .X.. ; .._. � .... ; --•� ; _ •- : •-•- : •--• :--•• • --•- . x X ���' ; ' X : . ' : : : : x >C "x X: . . . . . . . 1000_.....X., . •.. .... . .... . .... . .... . .... . .... .... ' _... . ... . .... � ��x ' ��` x o � � • 0 �oo r_ x A�c�ai oae aancs , � � � � • � � � � � • � 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 X= Number of Dwelling Units Fitted cwve Fitted Curve Equattos�: Ln(� = 0.85 Ln(X) + 2.55 h!p Generation, 7th Edition 367 Standard Deviation 3.09 � � � � � � � � . 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 - - - - - - Averape Rate R2 = 0.83 � Institute of Transportation Engineers �- s}aays � � � o �� o � r � � }aayS 0 o►�u�n�rvoa � •� Ay Z � � r � � � m m 0 N b m � > 0 0 f � g � � � � N O € � g 0 : �, 0 rn � b � �i i l� i �\ �'�•. •�. _._,_,.. c�wn aa�s aaa�wno�aa) (xx) Lwn a�as a�sod oNils� '� xx NOI1Y�Ol�l3/Wf1S3NOZQ33dS � NJIS dOlS flNLLSIX3 T Nl U33M319W(11 Ol1S OOOAAN02lI 9qOl/q7 �vn 0�'J w�nso YeOL-tfS (OoD �-J .r winw u�9►E (G� �+��Nl �Ia Nfb�lNflOW MOO�dHS �, �' �'; � ,,,,,o„� �r w� •w�aO°� v�Oo�i�c �s ��l a� �� ,� _ � ,� .inanu�da�o s� ar�end 3�C] W8d 10 � � :J1e �� 900Z �NW �1MG�OruB �3'�3�'7" Zli']'t���� R�?� J �J d '3NV1 033M3'18Mf11 Ol �L A�MFI�IH IY02l.1 (X59) 033dS IY�LLl2l� 3�"R13AY 3H1 NO 035Y8 SI I1MIIl 033dS 030N3MIN0�32{ 3H1 b/N s�usw�.�vavH� xv�ua0 �n�r�Wo� 03M011`d �NI�2f'dd 133a1S—NO / 21311f19 / 82if1� SN01110N0� 21301f10HS M/21 ,09 t/ NIH11M .lbMad02! ,0� 1N3w93s NJI53a AVMavoa S301S H108 NldM301S ON ��vat rmais3o3a d/N swouiallo� ��oad d/N NOuvn3t�a3dns 3n08d 33S �oatHo� Nou�3sa�Ni �����/��`���������/ // NOU�,�,3SM31NI I JlilO1SIH NO S�IllO� 3lIW 8Z'0 � � . . �� �3ws3s 1332l1S 2i01�3110� NOLLV'JL�ISSVI� AVMOVOM `djN 3wmon �vai �itio a�va3nv ��8� bi—SZf �z8� �i—SZ 8S/8N—(3�Vd NI Y) 3J'Vd Hdl+l Ol i 6Z�8�0� BS/8N-433dS 3JYl13AY ��/S� es/eN—(x �ase) a�s iv�wa� 0£ llNlfl m3dS 9NLLS{X3 � 0� �r�n a�ds ma�wwo�3a E ��f1J �S ! �� � � dO1S AVM-llV ONLLSIX3 � IVNt)�S �3Y!!L ONLLSIX3 $O V3!lVAOf11S � :PtwOa� i "� ;� 1 ; 1T � � � �� -�, � S � � � � ��� ��� � � -, � � � � !� M � �� � � �p � � O , � � � � � � � � � � � �, � � �� o�!^ � � D � � v � �z � � � � C � Z � c -j � �a� Z � v T � � '� � �, �.. u c� � T �� �� O � � - ' y�o - O = - m � � c � �' � s o s � � � �� � � C � � � 9 � N � m � �j � � � � � i � 6 > � � � 8 s � .� � � � �� O F � � � _ � � N � � f" � � � � � � o �Z � � � � % � � � j m � .. � o �� tn Z Z � � k � C v 8 � � ; � � � � _. � � Z � � � � � � � „ c � " � G � � i � o � � � � � � m � � ; o � z 4J � � U7 8 �� � ��� m � \ -\ m � � C � m � � \. � O � \ m C D 8 m � � � � cODn � p r O W � ` � � \ r � o-DC o rN*i � m o c�0 Z fT1 � n yc D� 2� D D W�� � D N N t\..+ 0 0 � m m z m� m� i'' � N � � a o \ r� nWi -i �� cn � � °�° � o � " � � \ � ` o � \ � r \ � S�Tt ��, � O \ ` C \ m \ \ a 0 � � fy z s c7D � /�� N �• \ � �► -w W � r N � _ � 0 i:\P�ATA\tOt04289\GAOU�IRANSPM�OLV\SPEEO ZONE\SM�100W MOUNTAIN ORIVE-3.OWG JDORA00 3/16/O6 11:50 om � � p F O O� � � � � 0 N� � O Gi) � 3 � � p m $ � � Z � � � � � � � � SEE 3HEET 2 _ _ _ I .— _ � -�.. � �� e � SEE SHEET 4 ;� - � ^'� _. i '.,:\ .,. CT "� � � �� � � $ � � � � ��� m �1 � � f � � � � M �I �����p � � O f � � � � � � � ;� f�'. � � � 4� � v�I^ � � D m �v N Q � � � � �j o � a � � � o D D Z � � � � m � � � p = m �y C O � O p � �i � � A m ; O � O 3 � � y � � � � � � � O c� � � � �'' m N � � m � ; � S � � � N N � o ;���€_���_�������� � ����� �.���� z���� s�N; �_- ����� c � �o� � > v A A � � � � m � � � � z '� � � � � a � � � � z � � � � m C � ' � ` �\ � � O � A C-{ D� � � "+ V � � p D \. n I o r � � rn � a D� m `' \-Q m � w � n N m `� w co � Z VI � D\\ D \�� D N N N Q O �1 � D�= 7 C D D O � O� O o �� Z W m\\ m� N++ ; � D � � \_ r�„ t0 � � r-. ; � � \ v TJ (n O � Q � � � � � . D �-„�. r \ � O ` -� o � � � � � � \ O S � � m � a C fn � Z • S � ■ � � p ,� fp C ■ � r .�i� fi z � N Q H: \PDATA\t0104289\CADO\TRANSPM/�Ol.V�5PEE0 ZONE\SHAO�'B MOUNTAIN ORIVE-4 DWG JOORA00 J/16/06 11:51 am vx � T �� � �mQ I5�j 2 m Oy� C m� � o � 3� � � � p � � � � ❑ �� `� � � t Q � � � �� � � � SEESHEET3 il l � I �— I� �S 1 _— I — � � ` J I ^ 0 ,- . r,-, ' � . Investrnent Property Advisors RfiAL FSTATE VALUATION AND ADViSORY SERVICFS March 20, 2006 Mr. Philip Drell Director of Community Development City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 Re: Proposed El Paseo Overlay Zone Dear Mr. Drell, 1�� 1. wr� atok�t RECEIV�D �-..`-.,7 21 20� ;4�iMU�ITY DEVELOP:lEX1 DEPARTI�EVT CITY OF PALhf DESEAT I represent Mr. Steve Topol, the owner of the property located at 45300 Portola Avenue, Palm Desert, CA. This properly is currently leased to the United States Postal Service. After discussing the implications of the proposed El Paseo Overlay Zone with my client, I would like to express our interest in approving not only the proposed Overlay Zone, but in extending the zone to include R-3 zoned parcels located to the east of Portola Avenue along the south side of Larrea Street. We feel that the establishment of the Overlay Zone would be a meaningful ste�p in helping to preserve El Paseo's place as the pre-eminent shoppittg destination in the Coachella Valley. Clearly, the addition of "boutique" hotels will enhance the district's appeal and further its reputation as a peclestrian-friendly environment. We urge the Community Development staff and the members of the Planning Comrnission to approve the El Paseo Overlay Zone and to include within its boundaries all of those R-3 zoned parcels that are situated along the south side of Larrea Street. Please feel free to contact my office witb any questions or comments. Thank you, G' � Jeffrey J. Wysard {" (�-`� 7?-SEi.b Cuuncry C,'lub Drivc, Suitc 132, Yalm Desert, C:ilit'omia (760) 772-7�QQ fax: 1760) ?72-7h77 c-mail: jxysard@msn.com Mar 22 2006 1:02PM J�'" �"`I COEUR 9( f'1 8670 p,2 , , RECEIVED MAR 2 2 2006 R�chard G. Benter, ��� COMMUNITY DEVEiAP�dBN?DEPA1iTMBI'R 8��, �.e $���e ��� CITY OF PAL.1i DESEB'f 5100 Cam,pua Dr�ve, 3uttt 204, ]Nrewport B�ach, C.�9 9�660 Z1sl: (949ja61-1440 Fax.• (949j,a6I-8670 li�ob�t�: j7I4J747'-2000 L�rrtaci �•rb�nter�bentert�'e. con�t Lic. #�4S93Z7 March 22, 2Q06 Tony Bagato Assistant Planner City of Palm Desert SENT VIA FAX Dear Mr. Bagato, I ana a homeovmer in the Vista Paseo community in Palm Desert. My maia residence and business is located in Newprnt Beach but I spend every weekend and most holidays at my Palm Desert home. I use this home to entertain clieYrts and friends on a regular basis. They enjoy tbe elose prvxunity to the main shopping area of El Paseo. The only negative to this situation is that thcre are no high-end hotels in the immediate area for my guests and they end up having ta stay in Indian Wells. On busy weekends this ends up being very inconvenient It would be ideal if a lugh-erui hotel is built in the immediate area. My gussts would definitely spen�d more time in the El Paseo shopping district if they didn't have to drive back and forth from a hot,el in Indian V�ells. I would like to encourage and would completely agi�ee with any plans to build a new hotel of dua caliber in the Palm Desert area. I trust you will take thie into consideration with your fut�ue plans for the area. Sincere � ' �, .� Richard G. BenteF" Mar. 21 06 02:17p MIKE(M�R 760-3y���32 p.l . �. � MR. TONY BAGATO CiTY OF PAi.M nFSFRT 3-21-2006 This letter is in regaz�d to the proposed hotel on Lan�ea srt. As an owner of an adjacent business-Palm Desert Mobil this proposal is very good idea for all businesses on El Paseo It will for sure increase the traffic on Lark spur which needs it badly and in Lerm that it self will increase the shoppers to the whole area .We all know that El Pasa needs more visitors 8c shoppecs for businesses to suivive in the lang summer months. Beirig in the same spot for 18 years I for sure like to see a project l�ce this completed .Good luck with your decision and hope it will be for the benefit of all the businesses in the area ,after all this is commercial zone area is not ? Sincerely r %''�. ,-%�1�,�! • � o...� Mowf 73-611 Nw�►111 Palm D�Nr� CA t2Z60 (760� 34d-4�22 1 76A 770 0673 RUTHERFORD RE/�L E� . � Ruthcrford Rcal Estatc, Inc. i' 15.03.57 03 27 2006 1/1 RECEIVED Mr. Tony Bagato Assistant Planner City of Palm Desert Fax number: 341-7098 Dear Mr. Bagato, MaR 2 8 20� COMML'NITY DEVELOP:�fEYT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PAL;N DESERT I have attended the last 2 meetings that were held regarding the proposed El Paseo Hotel and V'illas and the proposed hotel overlay for the subject area. I think it's too bad that both of these issues are on the same agenda. I support both proposais but specially the Hotel. I live at 74-224 Chicory Street and my office is at 74-040 El Paseo. I have lived within walking distance of El Paseo for 17 years. I have watched many retail stores and resl�auran#s fail over the years. El Paseo is no# paved with gold. The Iocal business operators struggle because of the seasonal nature of the foot traffc and. custamers that shop El Paseo. My friends owned aad operated My Mother's Garden for IO years. They did a great business during the peak 5 manths but for the rest of the year they couldn't make ends meet They finally gave up and walked away. Another good &iend owned Napa's Tapas. He d.id very well but the summers put him out of the business and he had to sell. My point is the pmposed El Paseo Hotel will provide high-end customers for El Paseo year round. This is especiaUy important for the East en+d of EI Paseo because that area is cut off from the generat foot tra�ic alang the street by the 3 bank buildings. I listened to complaints at the meefiings from a lady whose view will be at%cted by the hotel. It would be affected by any building that was constzucted there. She should l�ve takea that into consideration before she purchased her unit Also T heard complaints regarding car traffic aiong Shadow Mountai�. The proposed hotel would add no additional car traffic because any patrons would a�cess the premises from the North. Greg Gill -.. - �� Page 1 o ( �. . Bagato, Tony From: Ron & Bev Buries [uncndunc@socal.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 1o:Q4 AM To: Bagato, Tony Cc: Susan Myrland Subject: Neighborhood Input Committee March 23, 2006 Tony Bagato, Palm Desert Planning Commission 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260. Dear Tony, This letter is to follow-up concerns expressed to the Planning Commission (3-7-06) in our earlier letter. Due to rned.ical issues we are unable to attend tonight's meeting of the Neighborhood Input Committee regarding the Larrea and El Paseo Rezoning projects, but we do wish that our thoughts on these issues be addressed again and entered into the record for the meeting tonight. We are in strong opposition to the "Larrea"praject, not for the development itself, but for the exceptions being proposed to current zoning to accommodate the development and the initial (appazent) attempt to push it through without public notification/comment. The property, as it stands now, looks shabby and does detract from the neighborhood, so the concept of improvement great, but the exceptions are NOT. Our primary concerns with the current proposals are: • Noise- Rooftop pools and the noise that they will generate will create a noise nightmaze. We continue to fight the noise problems generated by Augusta Restaurant (which sits almost 75 yards due North of this project) and their outside music on the weekend. The P.D. Code Enforcement Dept. and the City Manager have done an abysmal job in altering that situation; so why should we think that they could d� a better job controlling the noise generated by rooftop pool parties (on a daily/nightly basis.) Build, but put the pooUspa area within the development buildings. The buildings will act as sound buffers to attenuate noise and keep it from disturbing residential neighbors uphill. • Increased density of property- The proposed increase in the number of keys/units in the existing code concerns us. We grant that the increase generated by o� this one development will not significantly impact the neighborhood traffic; but once the door is opened, the almighty dollar will win out and more and more properiy owners will increase potential usage to a maximum level. This will create a traffic nightmare on Larrea, on 5hadow Mountain and San Luis Rey, and will add to the already dreadful Waslungton School "bypass &eeway" of Shadow Lake Dr. and Mountain View Av. We don't want to see lights, stop signs and speed bumps to tame tra�c, but rather, a good sense approach to planning anc controlled development to mediate the situation. Page 2 of 2 In addition, the issue of an Elementary School (Washington Charter} soon to house 700 + students sitting in such close proximity to an area expanding the number of transient guests increases the 3/23/2006 ' ,, . ,_. r-- Page 2 0 • � ( potential for dangers �� p_ ang children who may walk in the arca: � • Height of Structures- The height of buildings has always been a big issue in Palm Desert. In our first development experience with P.D. (20 years ago) single story development was the on� option available to a builder. After living with that limitation for two decades we recognize the wisdom of our city founders. Pa Desert is blessed with awesome views, why spoil that? When two-story units started to alter our skyli in the business areas, we started losing our uniqueness. Palm Desert is a special place and we need preserve that. I think that the primary question here is, how many of us (or you) would want (t equivalent o fl a three-story (36'6") building in our backyard or next door? We all live on a down-h slope and that inherently creates even greater height variation from one property to the next. We need have a"community think" mindset here to protect all. El Paseo is unique and will remain that way whether there are 18 keys or 36 keys in this project. The old adage "less more" really is the issue here. We are exclusive because we are unique. That will not be improved on by putting mo� and bigger housing complexes (hotels or condos) along the proposed El Paseo rezone area; in fact, it will make us les: exclusive. The proposed exceptions and zoning change will just make Shadow Mountain/El Paseo into another "hote row" or sorts. In summary, develop, but do it with conscience. Put vourself as the nei�hbor. Think of the effect this would have o you personally and then e�cpand that effect to the community as a whole. Do the current proposals benefit the community, as a whole? No, they do not! Apparently, there has been argument that "Shadow Lake and Joshua Tree (reference to those of us on the committee who live away from the immediately affected area) wouldn't be affected b} a 2-story building", that is correct, we will not personally have the view from our home distorted, but we walk and drive on the city streets and we currently are very personally affected by the noise emanating from the immediate are; in question (Augusta). For those reasons we personally fight what it will do to "our community" not just us. Sincerely, Ron and Beverly Buries 45-831 Mountain View Av. Palm Desert, CA 92260 1-760-346-0472 3/23/2006 � M{NUTES PALIII) DE�ERT PL,AN�I,NC COIV,IMISSION . ..., . , .. II�IARCJ�1„7;� 20�(�,fi Commissioner Tschopp stated that he stiil believed the best use of this property was commercial. Given that, the project implemented the residential goals identified in the General Plan and moved this forward. He thought the proposed project would be a logical transition and was in favor. Chairperson Lopez also thought it was a great project. He said it was a very attractive project that would add to the stability at that comer in the future. He thought it was outstanding. Before going forward, he wanted to make sure the record showed they have incorporated the revisions to the resolutions as noted in the Public Works Condition Nos. 20, 26 and 27, and Community Development Condition Nos. 11 and 12. Mr. Drell asked if they wanted to discuss or mention at all the remaining issue of the construction access on Via Scena. The letter from the Association basically took issue with it. He asked if they wanted to talk about it any further. Commissioner Finerty asked for confrmation that it was a public sireet. Mr. Dreli concurred. Chairperson Lopez said it is signalized and that there was a recommendation to the resolutions and conditions of approvaf that the street will be repaired prior to completion of the project. Mr. Drell concurred. It was noted that there was a motion and second for approval incorporating the conditions of approval as amended and Chairperson Lopez called for the vote. Action It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner CampbeU, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2380, approving Case Nos. PP 05-28 and TT 33120, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. a�..�. D. Case Nos. GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05 and PP/CUP 05-20, EUGENE BREZNOCK AND CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicants Request for approval of a general plan amendment adding Policy 10 and Program 10.A to the Residential Goals, Policies 0 / � ( MINUTES PAL,M,DESE�tT,P.LA�I.N�.{VG COIII�II�AISSIt��,1 ._ _„_ . .., ..... ... . .. .. _,MAR,S%�i, 7�2R(l,fi, and Programs section of the General Plan; a zoning ordinance amendment adding Section 25.112 establishing development standards for an EI Paseo Overlay Zone; a change of zone to add the EI Paseo Ove�lay Zone to R-3 and Planned Residential to certain properties; and a precise plan/conditional use permit to aliow the construction of a new 12-unit, 36 keys, hotei condominium project located at 73-811 Larrea Street. Mr. Bagato reviewed the staff report, explaining the proposals. He said they were looking at both simultaneousfy to determine if this is the policy that the City is looking to go in the future and if the proposed project met the goals and policies. He informed the Commission that the proposed Ef Paseo Overtay Zone and project were both presented to the EI Paseo Merchant lmprovement District and a letter from them was received in support. He noted that staff received letters from neighbors and some of the concerns were addressed in the staff report. Concems included commercial traffic and speeding on Shadow Mountain. He talked with Public Works Department staff and they agreed that commercial traffic has probably increased with deliveries to The Gardens and the delivery routes coming from other locations off of Portola. One suggestion by a neighbor was to post a"No Thru Commercial Traffic" sign; however, according to Mark Greenwood, federal and state law prohibit cities from stopping delivery vehicles from using the most direct route. He said it would basicafly be unenforceable because they would have to take truck drivers to court and prove that this isn't the best and most direct route. It also wouldn't stop trucks from making necessary deliveries on Larrea and Shadow Mountain themselves. There were some offices located on Larrea and Prickly Pear and those trucks couldn't be stopped. Mr. Bagato said the other option was closing the streets in that area. However, that wasn't a good idea because Shadow Mountain is a collector street, not a local street, a�d there is more traffic on a collector street. It also provided access to EI Paseo for the residents. That wasn't supported by the Public Works Department. He stated that the speeding issue has been addressed and the Police Department has been informed. He said there should be increased enforcement throughout the neighbo�hood; they were notified on February 24. Another neighbor concern had to do with sidewalks within walking distance to EI Paseo. Mr. Bagato said that was also something the City wanted to 0 ;,. C(� MINUTES PAt.M. DESER,T PLANNING COMM,ISSJON..,., ,. .,, „ .. .,.._,.. ,.,.. _ ,. , , . .,_ . ... M,��H.,7��?���, promote. One of the policies in the general pfan amendment stated that the City shall design a uniform, continuous sidewalk plan if this general plan amendment is approved. The City could adopt a strategic sidewalk plan into a capital improvement plan. For the proposed project there would be a continuous sidewalk to Ef Paseo and a new sidewalk would be constructed with the project. Mr. Bagato said another issue had to do with roof decks and he indicated that parapets addressed those privacy concems. He said that after writing the staff report 16 letters in opposition were received citing concems with traffic, height, and density. He said there was also a letter in favor in addition to the one received from the EI Paseo Merchants. In conclusion, staff looked at the need to provide a stronger economic market for EI Paseo to compete with other commercial centers in the valley and the new design centers implemented woufd hopefully promote high end boutique hotels. The hotel overlay zone would provide the standards for hotel development and encourage redevelopment around EI Paseo. He felt the proposed project met those goals and objectives. He recommended approval of the EI Paseo Ove�iay Zone and the proposed project. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Tschopp indicated that Mr. Bagato spoke to the EI Paseo Merchants Association and received a unanimous vote of approval. He asked if staff he{d any studies with residents in the area regarding the ove�lay or this project in particular. Mr. Bagato said no, just the fegal noticing for this meeting. Chairperson Lopez Qpg��, the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. WILLIAM DeLEEUW, President of Villa Property Developers, the applicant in this matter, came forward. He said the architect was also present to answer questions about the project architecture. Mr. DeLeeuw afso said he would be happy to address anything that staff hadn't covered with the economics of the project or the plans for the project. He thought the staff report addressed many of the issues, was very complete, and they worked with staff over the best part of the last year to get the project where it is today. It wasn't the first rendering or first shot at it. He said they worked very closefy with staff to address many of the issues of the neighbo�s in the area. � MINUTES �'ALM DFSER.T PL.ANN�NC C(?,MM{�SIC�,N ..., ., _.. . ,....._ ,,,., _ . . .. , MAR�H..7�� 20(�6 He thought something that was very important and the reason for the overlay zone and what this hearing was really about, because this project could be built without the overlay zone, it just wouldn't be as good a project. The project, fike staff indicated, was approved once before at 12 units. This was basically a 12-unit condominium project that could be built under the existing zoning. The height and everything else could be buift. It wouldn't be as good as the one proposed and he thought the overfay zone addressed some major issues in the area. Anybody in the area, and he read the letters from peopfe in the area, he thought their issues and concerns were very valid, but they didn't reafly effect this project. If they walk up and down the street at Larrea, what they woufd see is an abandoned building, one warehouse, and a bunch of vacant fots. No development whatsoever in the area in the last 15 years. Why? Because it was not economically feasible under existing zoning and existing regulations. How long would that be? He didn't know. He didn't know what the neighbors really wanted to happen. They talked about the status quo and how great it is, but he thought they haven't looked down that street. They also talked about the disco at Augusta and that was valid, but he didn't think that affected this project or the overlay zone. If anything, the overlay zone would help with that. With the traffic, he didn't see anything in this project that really effected the traffic. He thought the biggest fear in the fetters he read was change. This wasn't a ma}or change and was a change he thought was needed for the Palm Desert area. Mr. DeLeeuw said there is a threat to the economic viability of the area by other cities. He said Indian Wells was trying to attract projects fike this to their city and trying to get the merchants on EI Paseo to move down to Indian Wells. Two major developments were for fease right now. They haven't broken ground yet, but they've contacted most of the upscale merchants. The merchants wanf to stay in Palm Desert and he thought the City wanted to keep them. The overlay zone wou{d bring people in. Hotels increase the tax base for the City and secondly it hopefuNy brought affluent people into the area to spend money and not drive to restaurants in other outfaying areas. They will eat at restaurants and shop right in the EI Paseo 11 MINUTES PALM„D�SERT P,L.��NNING C(�I�llMISS{O,N � .N��4�rH 7,, 200f� area. in addition, he said the hotels would generate significant transient occupancy tax for the city. So the City would win in a lot of ways. He also thought the neighbors in the area, if they thought about their concerns, other than the fact that it would change some things, it really was the best thing for the area. It is economic development and it gets vibrancy into an area that is dormant. Mr. DeLeeuw said right now there are homeless people living there. The subject property has had about five notices over the last five years for vagrants inhabiting the property. There was a motel that would be demolished for this pcoject. He said he would like the architect to address some of the architectural features regarding the height, but basicafly didn't consider the hearing so much about this project as it was about the overlay zone and about the economic viability of what would happen to the EI Paseo area. He thanked them and said he was present to answer any questions from the Commission or the opposition. There were no Commission questions. MR. JUAN CARLOS OCHOA, 73-626 Highway 111 in Palm Desert, stated that he was the project architect and would be happy to answer any questions. There were no questions for the architect. Chairperson Lopez said he would ask for testimony in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the matters before the Commission. Starting with testimony in favor and referring to the Request to Speak cards submitted, he invited Mr. Fletcher to address the Commission. MR. DAVID FLETCHER, 73-Q61 EI Paseo, Suite 200, in Palm Desert, came forward. He stated that he manages a number of buildings on EI Paseo, seven different properties. He has been managing the buildings since 1987. He stated that he was present for finro reasons. First, to comment on the project itself. He thought it was a great project architecturally arKi on its own. He was p�esent more to speak on the overtay zone and impart on them his feeling that this overlay zone is very important to the ongoing success of EI Paseo. They are getting more and more competition in the valley for their retail stores and the more customers 12 �� (� MINUTES LAI�, DFSERT,Q�.,A�1N�NG�CC�IAMISSInN.. .,,.,.. _..,,,,_,_. . . ,. ., ._. .. ,_ .., .MA�RCF� 7,_200R PA, . _ they can bring to EI Paseo that are close by, the better it would be for those stores and their economic viabifity. One of the things they see with their stores is the challenge to bring people from the hotels the City has put in place. They are great hotels, but they are a distance from EI Paseo and it is a challenge to get people into their cars when they are on vacation and get them to EI Paseo. He noted the difference in current foot traffic on EI Paseo versus downtown Palm Springs or Union Square. A couple of years ago he was in San Francisco and was standing at Union Square and wondered where all the people were coming from in the middle of the day. Didn't they have to go to work? He fooked around and realized that economic base was surrounded by a million hotels 20-30 stories tall. They were missing that from EI Paseo. And he wasn't suggesting they have 20-story tall buildings in the middle of Palm Desert, but thought if they could put in some upscale boutiques near EI Paseo that would be a big benefit to the street. He thanked them. Referring to the next card, Chairperson Lopez invited Ms. Messenger to come forward. He said the card didn't indicate whether the testimony would be in favor or opposition. MS. FAITH MESSGENGER, 73-860 Shadow Mountain in Palm Desert, said she is a resident of Palm Desert living on Shadow Mountain. She was present to voice her approval of the proposed project on Larrea and the proposed general plan amendment that would add the EI Paseo Resort Overlay Zone. She informed the Commission that she has lived and worked in the valley for well over 25 years. She has been witness to the growth of Palm Desert and the building of the original Hahn shopping center, which is now Westfield. When that project was first proposed to the City of Palm Springs and that City declined Mr. Hahn's invitation to bring value to the city by constructing a regional shopping mall with an ice skating rink that would attract revenue and growth. The City of Palm Springs had no future vision and was soon to discover what a dramatic impact that would have on their business. Mr. Hahn went to the City of Palm Desert and buift his Town Center. From that point on the city of Palm Springs has never recovered from the loss to business to Palm Desert. 13 r" C MiNUTES PALM DE,�ERT PL,AN�IING COIII�MISSit�N,. ., __.,,, ...,_ ,,... , ,.,,,, . ... _ ,..,lwAf�Cl� 7, 2t10,fi . . , . , .. , Within a short time after the development and success of the Town Center, Ef Paseo was developed. In its original conception it was designed to appeal to more luxurious shoppers that would enjoy the intimacy of a smafi street setting to walk and enjoy outside window shopping and buying. Ms. Messenger said the proposed EI Paseo Resort Overlay Zone would enable the City of Palm Desert to enhance the speciaf and unique quaiities of EI Paseo by allowing upgrading of existing zoning. The proposed boutique hotel with its quality design would speak to visitors who wish a higher standard of accommodations that are within walking distance to all of our shopping. This would translate to more dollars spent here in Palm Desert. Ms. Messenger thought it was important today to keep pace with Indian Wells and their proposed development. They needed to hold onto and capture ravenue for our businesses here and this overlay zone was the first step. They have a unique opportunity to enable someone with a vision who is willing to take the risk with the City to provide a new direction. She thanked them. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. There was no response. Referring to the Request to Speak Cards expressing opposition, he invited Ms. Cynihia Bliss to come forward. MS. CYNTHIA BLISS, 73-780 Shadow Lake Drive, came forward. She stated that she opposed the zoning change. She moved here about five years ago and chose Palm Desert because it is quiet, she can see the beautiful starry nights, and the traffic. Those were the reasons she moved there. Now she sees the change of zoning and she was worried about her property value, the increased traffic afready on her street with people driving through to go through to Portola, and she was concemed about that. She was also concerned about the increase in noise, increase in crime, and the loss of her view. She said she has a view going out, which would be toward the hotel, of the mountains. She grew up in Corona many years ago and watched the changes there. She watcheci what they did to that city. When she returns there, there is nothing !eft of whai she grew up with. She was concerned because this is her home, her only home, and she was concemed 14 l MfNUTES PAL M�FSE�RT ,PL,ANNI�VC CC�MAjIIS�lni� ,_ .. „. MA�tCI� 7 2AOf� ._. , � a �� .� o., � , .. ., . . ..,,..,. ... ._. .. ,.. ...,, ....._ ..,,, . , � .e,. ..� ,...�,. � about the value. She hoped the Commission would consider her comments. She was against changing the zone. MR. GEORGE JOHNSON, 73-775 Shadow Lake Drive, addressed the Commission. He said he lived two or three blocks just above the area. He met with Mr. Bagato, who showed him the plans for the new building. He said he had no problem with any new projects going in. He understood that money was usually what happened and that was why a lot of those piaces in that type of area can't be developed the way developers want to do them. There were parameters that City Council and alf the members have put up, for instance the variance they are asking for is to go higher. He was doing something for himself, but also was speaking for people who might not want to go out or voice their opinion until it's too late. If they don't get out and voice their opinion or concems, things won't happen. With this, he had no problems with any of the things going on architecturally, it was a good looking design. The problem he had is when they are going above a 24-foot levei already, they are adding a 5'8" wall onto a sun deck or what was going to be the jacu�i area for people to go up and onto. They would love to have great people who would not come in, have a few drinks, get loud and obnoxious and then they would have to call the police and the rest of the people who woufd have to get involved. It was hard enough for them to take care of the disco or whatever it was that plays music down further. He currently lives three and a half to four blocks from that area and it carries through there like iYs at the next door neighbor's house. He called the police several different times and they say they wil4 go and take care of it. So that is a problem he has with the noise level that will be impacting the neighborhood. Mr. Johnson said the next thing that was going to happen, in the pofice report that they reported back to Commission, they were concemed about a crime rate that was maybe going to start to happen because of the parking structure undemeath the building. And that would take more lighting that woufd go into adjacent houses and single apartment buildings. He didn't know if they got to see any of the pictures, but a neighbor took a picture out toward the mountains. Not only would that picture be erased, they wouldn't be able to see the mountains any more because of the structure going up. His neighbor 15 � ( % MINUTES PA�S;� DE,S�R�' P��A�;1�!1�.NG C.S��MiSSInN , ._ ., ,.. ..._ ,...... . . . . ... . . . .. „ MARCH 7 �, 200R would also have lighting impeding into her place and he thought Paim Desert had a low light situation and that's why there weren't a bunch of street lights all over the place. Other than that, the noise was a concem. He was al) for the architecture and related stuff. He would love to see the city get better and better and love to see the whole community and EI Paseo get better. He thought it was doing a great job already with the renovations the City has commissioned so the face prints of all the older buildings got redone. Everything was looking really good, so he had no problem with the actual development of the area. Mr. Johnson did have a problem with the height and the privacy issue because he thought people were usually above 5'8" with the exception of some women and being able to look over into a woman's unit, maybe when she was changing and forgot to close her drapes, and that would be pretty devastating to a person. So those were the issues he had. MS. NANCY LEPPERT, 73-860 Shadow Mountain Drive, addressed the Commission. She said her property is on the south and east corner of where this project is going. So she had concems, mostly having to do with height, naise and lighting. She wasn't against having a project go through, the height was her basic problem. And the other thing that Mr. Johnson mentioned regarding the police report and the anticipated vandafism in the garage area and having additional lighting and that sort of thing. That was going to be right in her back yard. !n addition to that, her view would be changed as well because she can look out her living room and see San Jacinto. It's a nice view. The project was pretty with nice colors, but it wou{d block her view and that was something she was very concerned with. She embraced the change that was anticipated with this project and throughout the whole Ef Paseo and hotel district and what's going on. She thought it was a very good idea, but didn't like the height, the noise or the light. Even though there wasn't a lot of single residential homes right in that Shadow Mountain area, there were numerous families that live there. She thanked them. 16 �. ( MINUTES PAL,,M DESERT PLA��NINC ,,C, OMMISSiON . . _ „ ,,. , ,...,. , . . ,. ., .. .,.. ., .., MARCH,.7 , 2t�t�6 MS. SUSAN MYRLAND, 73-860 Shadow Mountain Drive, Unit 6, addressed the Commission. She said that was the same one-story co-op as Nancy and Faith. She walked around Larrea and around the neighborhood and was very familiar with it. The first thing she wanted to do was commend Mr. Bagato because she has been working with him since she heard about this project in December and even though he knows she is against it, he has never failed to be responsive, professional and friendly. She thanked him for that. She stated that she was most definitely against this project, as was her husband and severat of their neighbors. What drew them to this part of the valley is that it is an ideal mixed use neighborhood. They can walk to EI Paseo, they can shop, have dinner and yes, contrary to conventional wisdom, residents spend money on EI Paseo. She has dropped her fair share of cash in those stores and restaurants. It wasn't just tourists. Yet they can still hear the birds and see the stars at night. it is a very unique, special place. They can still feef safe walking around the neighbofiood. She hadn't seen any homefess in two years. Ms. Myrland said the hotel kept growing and growing. It started out at 24 feet and then it became 28 and 31 and now it is 33 with the towers and another three feet with the increased grade, so they are looking at 36. Having that in her backyard would just destroy that. Right now like Nancy she has a fovely view of the mountains and instead she would be looking at a five foot eight inch stucco wall. The wall was not the solution. The developer didn't want it, they don't want it, the customers weren't going to like it. The high end customer wasn't going to want to have their pool surrounded by a wall. The worst thing was it wasn't going to solve the problem because noise travels up that hillside. She didn't even realize until she started talking to her neighbors how much of an issue the noise from Augusta and the night clubs are along there. That noise funnels right up the hillside and they would be able to hear it very clearly. So the solution wasn't to keep going higher. The solution was to stay within the existing zoning which was developed for a reason. A{I she could say is don't kill the goose that has been turning out the golden eggs by squishing in an overly dense project into an area where it doesn't belong. What makes this area attractive to visitors and to residents is it isn't like anywhere else. Indian Wells can build 17