The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRes 2014-52 Appeal - CUP 12-385 - Five Star Fitness GymRECEIVED cIPALM DESERT. OFFICE 2014 MAY 20 AM 10: 22 4 z -im mx_ > z coO `d32Jd NOWWOC OVERALL SITE & PARKING PLAN P1H 10 11 24 22 22 21 20 19 18 17 18 10 .xuat Ca91. ta 8 I99Poi FIVE STAR FITNESS 44651 VILLAGE COURT, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA s.i - = e@ e P. - E • PATEL ARCHITECTURE • Green Alcnilec tore and Inlelicr Design Narendra Patel A.I.A. Architect • www.polelorchltecture.com II 1�n 1119 'nese 00cumenrs ore ;Maly al Paid A,cniieclure ao orend to be re0loauceo. Mmpeclacoplee.Mnou1 of 40en0r0aael A3A. ArcMec'5N10 !A% 760 423 0310 a 5 5 � . 1�:.�-�11s02:11p GuyDreierDesigns 760-341-9157 p.1 � g�y c�rei�r des��s � November 1, 2413 To wham it mtxy concern, I am the owner of Guy Dreier Designs and an o{'fice condominivm owner in the property dt 44651 �liage Court, Palrt� Desert. 1 understond that Dr. Suresh Shah is applying to the City For a Conditionaf Use Permit to opercte Q high-end gym and spa in the building. I have nQ objecfion to the co�cept of o gym at the propert}�, as long as t6e parking fo� our clients a�d the other businesses in fihe building is not adversely affEcted. Additionctlly�, it is my understanding �hat Dr. Shah intends to compensate me and the ather owners in the buitding For the commoniy owned areas (ie: hallways, bathraoms, autdoor areos, etc) that he intends to convert to his awn use for the spa in praportian with aur ownership interests at fair market value. W"'rth these considerations, I arn not opposed fo the projecfi. Very trvly yours, ■.•�w Guy Drei r , m r' � '�=� � n'� 2n rn7�3 � =r-f'�'s N ��''j�3 0 m�f�'t � �x-- = x'cn� -i �'O S ��+ � �c� rn i To: The City of Palm Desert Planning Commission: I I, Guv Dreier& Elizabeth A. Dreier owners of units No.135 of at 4�651 Viliage Court, Palm Desert have reviewed and approved the proposed Conditional Use Permit No. application to the City of Palm Desert to develop a 22,616 sq. ft. fitness club in the building.( exhibit A)with the following special conditions included as requirements in the City approvai: 1. Hours of operation of the facility shali be 5 a.m. to 10 p.m. Sale of beer and wine ' shall be limited to 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. 2. The remaining east hailway from the south entrance foyer to the rear shall be i maintained. 3. The remaining east bathrooms shail be key restricted for non-fitness office space �' users only. . 4. in addition to the front foyer entrance, the plan shall include a double glass door commercial storefrant entrance from the north patio. 5. The existing 11 handicapped parking spaces shall be reduced to the 6 required by city ordinance with 3 located near the north entrance. Four spaces adjacent to the south side of the building shall be designated for 1 hour parking only. 6. Completion of the interior shall be consistent in with the attached video tour produced by Patel Architecture. �, 'Thc �i�n�� a�4- -N�t- ,�n+r�s C,v� �ha�� b�.�� (�� X�k— , � wa11�r� ek�.r�ar Ca�� a�, p�,,o 61n ow�- �n. �e.. a.�a.c.Y..t.cQ ,�r�v��io��- .1� o�'��c�,c.. ux��tS G u y D r e i e r 3 3 � I 3�a . W G 5 h c�.,l, '�1�nt D a�e ''''�a�^},�,�. ,�1.c„ �n.�k r r�f a 4- � ��'WC A.e'.� GAt1�'�� "� �''1 C.��-.�..... ? l 1 � 1� D�/r � ��.,,�. -�. �`J t�l��• Elizabe A. Dreier �_..w, , Date ,, __ , , �,�� a.� r'�--„� � _._. - _ .. T . . � �llonitoring of the Village Court Parking Area Date S! I� ' �'`t' l,'.��Q1'Yl Total Spaces Cars Park in Spaces FRONT 58 (11 are Handicap) '��' _ SIDE 50 � BACK 63 1'3 � Totals: 171 �$ �� Kevin S tz, City of Palm esert isa ebb, Shah M ement ,� n � �� K _ � f" Monitoring of the Village Court Parking Area N �� , r� �'"`:c Date � � � "f" j � � ��'��P1'Yl = �Dir*t � N n� Total Spaces Cars Park in Spaces t,�1 v�n �D rn FRONT 58(11 are Handicap) ,(� SIDE 50 � BACK 63 �3 Totals: 171 ��„�% Kevin Sw tz,City of Palm Desert Lisa Webb,Shah Mana ment . ♦ , Monitoring of the Village Court Parking Area Date � � � �� I i15�.� =r- Total Spaces Cars Park in Spaces FRONT 58(11 are Handicap) � SIDE 50 � BACK 63 1 � Totals: 171 �� i�� Kevin Sw rtz,City of Palm Desert bb,Shah Man ment Monitoring of the Village Court Parking Area Date � ;D �1 � Total Spaces Cars Park in Spaces FRONT 58(11 are Handicap) � SIDE SO � � BACK 63 '� Totals: 171 �� 1 �(/ Kevin Swa , City of Palm Desert Lis ebb,Shah Manage ent A � � Monitoring of the Village Court Parkin�Area Date �J � < <.P ` �`I' � 'l��J (,1,YY1 Total Spaces Cars Park in Spaces FRONT 58(11 are Handicap) � SIDE 50 ('� Y BACK 63 � ' Totals: 171 � ,(� . Kevin Swartz,City of Palm Desert Lis bb, Shah Mana ment Monitoring of the Village Court Parking Area Date �J I ��O I I� 3�'��f'`rl Total Spaces Cars Park in Spaces FRONT 58(11 are Handicap) � SIDE 50 � BACK 63 j � Totals: 171 � Kevin Swar City of Palm Desert ebb,Shah Manage ent � . � Monitoring of the Viliage Court Parking Area Date � j l I � � �� '� Total Spaces Cars Park in Spaces FRONT 58(11 are Handicap) � SIDE 50 � �� BACK 63 Z Z Totals: 171 6'b—v-- Kevin Swa ,City of Palm Desert Li e b, Shah Manageme Monitoring of the Village Court Parking Area Date � I ' � Total Spaces Cars Park in Spaces FRONT 58(11 are Handicap) � SIDE 50 � BACK 63 �,3 Tota Is: 171 - _:,-- G�'�G� Kevin Swartz, City of Palm Desert ��--�� Lisa Webb,Sha Management Monitoring of the Village Court Parking Area Date �� I � `t' 9� r,� Q�j'� Total Spaces Cars Park in Spaces FRONT 58(11 are Handicap) �I!'/ SIDE 50 � BACK 63 Z� Totals: 171 . Kevin Swartz, City of Palm Desert a ebb, Shah Manage ent Monitoring of the Village Court Parking Area Date ��Q�! '� ! "�� m -* P � Total Spaces Cars Park in Spaces FRONT 58(11 are Handicap) �� SIDE 50 � BACK 63 p�3 _ � � Totals: 171 � /�-��/ Kevin Swar , City of Palm Desert � ebb,Shah Managem nt � . ; Monitoring of the Village Court Parking Area Date �IZ � I I �' � '�5 Q.YrI Total Spaces Cars Park in Spaces FRONT 58(11 are Handicap) � SIDE 50 (x 7� BACK 63 Totals: 171 Kevin Sw z,City of Palm Desert . / ebb,Shah an gement Monitoring of the Village Court Parking Area Date �?i'��l.� z'��n� " 1 Total Spaces Cars Park in Spaces FRONT 58(11 are Handicap) /� SIDE 50 1 BACK 63 g Totals: 171 Kevin Swartz,City of Paim Desert Lisa Webb,Sha Management Re: Five Star Gym&Fitness Club at 4465i Village Ct. Dear Members of City Council, I am a new owner at Village Court Professional Plaza and I am putting a financial planning business in my i285 square foot space,right behind Austin Art Gallery on East side of the building.I have also option to buy an additiona12,365 square feet which is the last available space in the building. I am in full support of Five Star Fitness&Wellness Club and it will be one of the biggest advantages to exercise and stay healthy for me,my husband and my employees.When Dr.Shah told us of the fitness club,me and my husband were really excited to have the health club in the same building which was a big factor in purchasing the condominiums and move our business from West part of Palm Desert to Village Court. As my father and mother are very sick and in their 9o's,I am very sorry to inform you that I will not be able to attend the meeting of City Council on Thursday,May 22nd at City Hall.I don't see any problem with the parking or noise as in most of the gyms you can't even hear any music,when you are just outside the door.We have i73 parking for the building and I see no problems even if the club has ioo to i2o cars at any given time.This gym is going to bring a lot of rich,health conscious people and they sure will increase exposure of village court plaza and will bring several new clients to me. If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact me. . I hope City Council members approve this project so con5truction can finish before the new season. Sincerely, Marsha Lee Owner,Marsha Lee&Co. City of pelm pesert MAY 2 2 2014 communtty D�e� c.,a •�► �rZ,� .�' uu..�. = G p F*x; � W uya¢:' .es �� vp N .��C�= � �-Q �r M p. � U � • • tlf tlx= -cot- 1 e ' , • '1 • `. • • • • - • .• • . • • a 11 • , I p • • )• 431 W OW A *6 r u 0,4 thot tat , r • r • • rr n $ I 111 • 1 10.4 I:1 Li WWUU I:114 NJ' rr 1 1.4 I 11111 II II • • • at. • • I • • • eirt S.4,w• • • - *a* IFINNIMPIN • 41 SCHEMATIC DESIGN FIVE • STAR FITNESS FLOOR PLAN 44651 VILLAGE COURT, PALM DESERT, CA PATEL ARCHITECTURE Archtteoure k Interior Des.l.pri tut t•attlirttilectirt ccrt 116 5331 fr1 e promti 17,-tvirctrt noi t 1074.0): thr r$4 axed sitv tit 'Mtn cowl :I Vrat 41) AA Agillect I; CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) TO OPERATE A FITNESS AND GYM FACILITY WITHIN AN EXISTING OFFICE PROFESSIONAL BUILDING LOCATED AT 44-651 VILLAGE COURT SUBMITTED BY: Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner APPLICANT: Five Star Fitness and Gym, LLC Shah Family Trust 73-585 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 201 Palm Desert, CA 92260 CASE NO.: CUP 12-385 DATE: May 22, 2014 CONTENTS: 1. Draft Resolution 2. Legal Notice 3. Planning Commission Minutes dated February 19, 2013 4. Planning Commission Minutes dated March 19, 2013 5. Planning Commission Minutes dated April 16, 2013 6. Planning Commission Minutes dated October 15, 2013 7. Planning Commission Minutes dated November 5, 2013 8. Applicant's appeal letter dated December 16, 2013 9. Letters in Opposition and in Favor of the Applicant's Request 10. Plans and Photo Exhibits Recommendation Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 2014-52 , upholding the Planning Commission action denying Conditional Use Permit 12-385 for a 22,617 square-foot fitness and gym facility within an existing 42,208 square- foot office building. Planninq Commission Action The request to operate a fitness and gym facility within an existing office professional building was before the Planning Commission at six different meetings. On February 19, 2013, staff originally brought a resolution of denial to the Planning Commission since the Resolution No. 2014-52 Staff Report Case No. Appeal CUP 12-385, Fitness and Gym Facility Page 2 of 13 May 22, 2014 proposed fitness and gym facility is not a permitted or conditional use in the Office Professional zone. Staff also had concerns with: the proposed fitness and gym facility sharing a building with other office use tenants; the proposed hours of operation of 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; being adjacent to a residential neighborhood; and insufficient number of parking stalls. At the public hearing, the Planning Commission granted a continuance to the March 19, 2013 meeting, allowing the applicant time to respond to staffs concerns. At the March 19, 2013 meeting, the project was continued to April 16, 2013, then to October 15, 2013. During these continuances, the applicant met with staff several times and ultimately provided new information in October. The applicant decided to reduce the hours of operation, modify the class schedule, eliminate music, and put a limit on total membership. At the November 5, 2013 Planning Commission meeting, staff recommended approval based on: • Reduced hours of operation from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on the weekdays and from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on the weekends. • Modifying the schedule for classes with loud music (spin, zumba, yoga, etc.). • No more than 3,000 total gym members. • Elimination of the bar serving alcohol. • Membership dues of $129.00 a month. After staff's presentation, the applicant's presentation, and public testimony in favor and opposition, the Planning Commission discussed the project. The Commissioners had concerns with land use compatibility, parking, and sharing common space with existing businesses. The Commission stated that the hours of operation would create a negative impact during the adjacent businesses' hours of operation from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The type of business conducted is similar to a commercial gym, and is a high-intensity use, which is disruptive to surrounding professional offices. The Planning Commission also determined that the proposed fitness and gym would create additional traffic along Village Court and parking shortages for the adjacent businesses. The Commission continued the CUP directing staff to prepare a resolution for denial on a 3-2 vote with Commissioners Campbell and Dash voting NO. At the December 3, 2013 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission approved Resolution No. 2597 denying CUP 12-385 on a 4-1 vote with Commissioner Campbell voting NO. Executive Summary Approval of staff's recommendation would uphold the Planning Commission action on December 3, 2013, denying the Conditional Use Permit to allow a 22,617 square-foot fitness and gym facility within an existing 42,208 square-foot office professional building. The Planning Commission determined that the proposed use is not in accordance with the objectives of the zoning ordinance and purpose of the Office Professional zone. The Commission also stated that the proposed gym is not compatible with the adjacent G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\CUP's\CUP 12385 Five Star Fitness Gym\CC appeal of denial 5-22-14.doc Staff Report Case No. Appeal CUP 12-385, Fitness and Gym Facility Page 3 of 13 May 22, 2014 businesses and residential developments. On December 16, 2013, the applicant filed an appeal to the City Council of the Planning Commission's action for denial. It should be noted that, in this instance, staff's recommendation has changed between the December 3, 2013 Planning Commission meeting and the current appeal in front of the City Council. This change in recommendation is based upon testimony in opposition given at the November 5, 2013 Planning Commission meeting, as described later in this staff report. Backqround A. Property Description: The 3.2 acre site is located at the northwest end of Village Court approximately 1,400 feet north of Highway 111. On December 6, 2005, the Planning Commission approved PP/CUP 05-23 to allow the construction of a single-story 42,208 square- foot office building including up to 9,044 square feet of inedical use. The building varies in height from 14 to 21 feet. The project was required to provide 109 parking spaces for general office use and 55 parking spaces for medical use, totaling 164 parking spaces. The former applicant provided 173 on-site parking spaces. On March 6, 2007, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Parcel Map 35333 to subdivide the 3.2 acre lot into one parcel for condominium purposes. The tentative parcel map gave the original owner the ability to create airspace condominiums. The owner breakdown is as follows: • Shah Family Trust— 26,840 square feet • Financial Group — 1,236 square feet • Dentist— 2,817 square feet • Architect— 1,969 square feet • Office/Online Art sales — 6,200 square feet • Common Area — 3,146 square feet On November 29, 2012, the applicant (Shah Trust) applied for CUP 12-385 to operate a 22,617 square-foot fitness and gym facility within an existing 42,208 square-foot office building. When reviewing the application, staff had concerns with land use compatibility, the hours of operation, parking, and fitness classes with music that could cause noise disturbance to the existing office tenants and adjacent residential neighborhood. On February 19, 2013, staff brought a resolution of denial to the Planning Commission. At the public hearing, the Planning Commission granted a continuance to the March 19, 2013 meeting allowing the applicant to respond to staff s concerns. The project was then continued several more times on March 19, 2013, April 16, 2013, and October 15, 2013. G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\CUP's1CUP 12385 Five Star Fitness Gym\CC appeal of denial 5-22-14.doc Staff Report Case No. Appeal CUP 12-385, Fitness and Gym Facility Page 4 of 13 May 22, 2014 During these continuances, the applicant met with staff several times. On October 8, 2013, the applicant modified the proposed use to the following. 1. The applicant reduced the hours of operation from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on the weekdays and from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on the weekends. By closing the fitness and gym facility at 9:00 p.m. during the weekdays staff believed that would alleviate any evening disturbance to the residential neighborhood. In regards to the 6:00 a.m. opening time, staff placed a condition on the project that if staff receives three complaints within one year, the Director of Community Development may revise the hours of operation from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. 2. The applicant modified the schedule of classes with loud music (spin, zumba, yoga, etc.). Morning classes from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. and evening classes would be from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Staff believed that the proposed class schedule would not adversely impact the existing business owners since the classes occur during non-business hours. The applicant also agreed to sound proof any interior walls if noise becomes an issue for the existing businesses. Staff placed a condition of approval that no classes with music or amplified sound will be permitted between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. 3. The applicant agreed to no more than 3,000 total gym members. 4. The applicant no longer proposed a bar serving alcohol, only a juice bar. 5. The applicant proposed membership dues of $129.00 a month. Similar gyms in size and total membership charge $29.00 a month. Staff believed this would allow the fitness and gym facility to recruit a more affluent, more stable client base, and not be overpopulated. Generally, staff believes a large gym or large fitness studio is not compatible with nearby residential homes and existing office uses. Larger fitness and gym facilities are better suited for a commercial area. However, staff became convinced that the proposed fitness and gym facility as proposed and conditioned would be a low- intensity use and could be compatible with the existing businesses and surrounding residents. The hours of operation were reduced, along with classes that include music that would typically cause a disturbance to the existing office uses and residences in the area. However, after testimony given by the neighboring businesses at the November 5, 2013, public hearing, staff has reversed its previous recommendation. Based on the testimony offered in front of the Planning Commission, staff believes that the surrounding businesses, which bought offices in an office professional building, would be detrimentally impacted by the change in use of the majority of the building G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\CUP's\CUP 12-385 Five Star Fitness Gym\CC appeal of denial 5-22-14.doc Staff Report Case No. Appeal CUP 12-385, Fitness and Gym Facility Page5of13 May 22, 2014 as a fitness and gym facility. Regardless of how exclusive the fitness and gym facility is, it does not provide an appropriate environment for a professional office. At the November 5, 2013 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission believed that the proposed fitness and gym facility would create a public nuisance in terms of noise, parking shortages, added traffic, and would create an adverse impact to the existing professional businesses by having their respective clientele share common space with gym users in their workout clothing, which diminishes the professional atmosphere. The Commission ultimately continued the CUP directing staff to prepare a resolution for denial. At the December 3, 2013 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission approved Resolution No. 2597 denying CUP 12-385. On December 16, 2013, the applicant filed an appeal to the City Council of the Planning Commissions' action for denial. B. General Plan Designation and Zoning: General Plan Land Use Designation: Office Professional (C-OP) Zoning Designation: Office Professional (O.P.) C. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use: North: Planned Residential (P.R. 5) / Hidden Palms South: Planned Residential (P.R. 5) / Embassy Suites East: Office Professional (City of Indian Wells) West: Planned Residential (P.R. 5) / Hidden Palms Proiect Description The fitness and gym facility would occupy 27 existing airspace condominiums totaling 22,617 square feet within the existing 42,208 square-foot office building. The applicant is proposing a five star elite gym with no more than 3,000 members. The interior design is a contemporary design by Narendra Patel. The elite club would have membership dues of $129.00 a month. The facility consists of a multipurpose room for classes such as yoga, spin, and zumba, aerobic equipment, a weight training area, men's and women's locker rooms, saunas and steam rooms, massage therapy rooms, a childcare room, an internet cafe, and a juice bar. The fitness and gym facility would be open seven days a week from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekends. The fitness and gym facility would have 10 staff/trainers working at one time. G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\CUP's\CUP 12385 Five Star Fitness Gym\CC appeal of denial 5-22-14.doc Staff Report Case No. Appeal CUP 12-385, Fitness and Gym Facility Page 6 of 13 May 22, 2014 The 42,208 square-foot office professional building currently has five owners. The breakdown is as follows: • Proposed fitness and gym facility— 22,617 square feet • Financial group — 1,236 square feet • Dentist— 2,817 square feet • Architect— 1,969 square feet • Common Area — 3,146 square feet • Office/Online art sales — 6,200 square feet • Future tenant office space —4,220 square feet Analysis Each zoning designation has permitted uses and conditional uses. Conditional uses are listed in each zone because they are typically considered by the Planning Commission to assure there is adequate parking and land use compatibility with surrounding properties. In this case, the proposed fitness and gym facility is not a permitted or conditional use in the Office Professional Zone. Section 25.16.030 Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements of the Palm Desert Municipal Code (P.D.M.C) allow general offices, medical offices, and laboratories (medical and dental). Section 25.16.040 Specific Use Standards E. Commercial (ancillary) states that ancillary commercial uses oriented to providing services to the office uses shall not exceed 25 percent of gross leasable floor area of the office complex. The 22,617 square-foot fitness and gym facility would occupy 53 percent of the 42,208 square- foot office building. Although the proposed use is not permitted within the Office Professional zone, staff accepted and processed the application since the Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 25.72 Decisions by Planning Commission Section 25.72.050 Conditional Use Permit, states "....the Commission, upon its own initiative or upon request, shall determine whether a use not specifically listed as a permitted or conditional use in any district shall be deemed a permitted use or a conditional use in any one or more districts.... Conditional Use Permits „ allow the Planning Commission to approve uses that could be located properly with respect to the objectives of the zoning regulations and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties and businesses. A. Parking: With the applicant's request to convert 22,617 square feet of office use into a fitness and gym facility, the off-street parking standards for health studios and spas require one space per 200 square feet of gross floor area, totaling 113 parking spaces. G:\PlanninglKevin Swartz\Word\CUP's\CUP 12385 Five Star Fitness Gym\CC appeal of denial 5-22-14.doc Staff Report Case No. Appeal CUP 12-385, Fitness and Gym Facility Page 7 of 13 May 22, 2014 Below is the parking breakdown for the entire 42,208 square-foot building. • Applicant's proposed fitness & gym — 22,617 square feet 1 space per 200 square feet totals 113 parking spaces • Financial group — 1,236 square feet 1 space per 250 square feet totals 5 parking spaces • Dentist— 2,817 square feet 1 space per 166 square feet totals 17 parking spaces • Architect— 1,969 square feet 1 space per 250 square feet totals 8 parking spaces • Office/Online art sales — 6,200 square feet 1 space per 250 square feet totals 25 parking spaces • Future office tenant space —4,220 square feet 1 space per 250 square feet totals 17 parking spaces • Common Area — 3,146 square feet Requires no parking spaces The site currently maintains 173 parking spaces. By converting 22,617 square feet of office use into a fitness and gym facility, and factoring in the other businesses, the site would require 185 total parking spaces. This would create a parking shortage of 12 parking spaces. At the November 5, 2013 Planning Commission meeting, staff determined that parking would not be a concern. Staff stated that fitness and gym facilities have different peak hours than office type uses. Typically fitness and gym facilities are busy around lunch time hours from 11:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. and evening hours after 5:00 p.m. Staff compared the proposed fitness and gym facility with World Gym located at the time on Town Center Way and Gold's Gym located on Country Club and Washington. Both gym's are similar in square-footage, membership size, and share parking with existing businesses. Staff conducted parking counts at both gym locations during the weekdays from Thursday October 17 2013, through Thursday October 24, 2013, between the hours of 11:30 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. G:\PlanninglKevin Swartz\Word\CUP's\CUP 12-385 Five Star Fitness Gym\CC appeal of denial 5-22-14.doc Staff Report Case No. Appeal CUP 12-385, Fitness and Gym Facility Page 8 of 13 May 22, 2014 Amount of Gym Square- Membership Used footage Size Parking S aces World Gym Approximately 3,500 75 18,000 Gold's Gym Approximately 4,000 90 28,000 Proposed Gym 22,617 3,000 N/A Based on the lunch time parking study at the two gym locations, it was concluded that an average of 83 parking spaces were occupied. Staff also conducted two parking studies at the proposed site between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday during the current tenant's business hours. The first parking study occurred from Monday, January 28, 2013, to Friday, February 1, 2013. Date Time Occupied Vacant S aces S aces Mon. Jan 28 8:00 AM 37 136 Mon. Jan 28 4:00 PM 35 138 Tues. Jan 29 1:00 PM 30 143 Tues. Jan 29 5:00 PM 26 147 Wed. Jan 30 10:00 AM 40 133 Wed. Jan 30 4:30 PM 35 138 Thurs. Jan 31 8:15 AM 38 135 Thurs. Jan 31 1:15 PM 40 133 Fri. Feb 1 10:00 AM 37 136 Fri. Feb 1 3:00 PM 32 141 Average 35 138 Available Spaces The parking study indicated that an average of 35 parking spaces were occupied during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. G:\Planning\Kevin SwaRz\Word\CUP's\CUP 12-385 Five Star Fitness Gym\CC appeal of denial 5-22-14.doc Staff Report Case No. Appeal CUP 12-385, Fitness and Gym Facility Page 9 of 13 May 22, 2014 The second parking study occurred from Monday, October 21, 2013 to Friday, October 25, 2013. Date Time Occupied Vacant S aces S aces Mon. Oct. 21 8:30 AM 21 152 Mon. Oct. 21 3:00 PM 27 146 Tues. Oct. 22 11:00 AM 28 145 Tues. Oct. 22 5:00 PM 15 158 Wed. Oct. 23 10:30 AM 32 141 Wed. Oct. 23 2:30 PM 25 148 Thurs. Oct 24 8:15 AM 22 151 Thurs. Oct. 24 1:30 PM 32 141 Fri. Oct. 25 9:00 AM 28 145 Fri. Oct. 25 2:30 PM 26 147 Average 26 147 Available Spaces The parking study indicated that an average of 26 parking spaces were occupied during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The two parking studies concluded that an average of 31 parking spaces were occupied. The existing four tenants require 55 parking spaces, which the parking studies concluded are available. The future tenant requires 17 parking spaces. The existing and future tenants require a total of 72 parking spaces. The parking study for World Gym and Gold's Gym concluded that an average of 83 parking spaces are utilized during the busy lunch time hours between 11:30 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. Staff believes that the proposed fitness & gym facility would utilize the same amount (83 parking spaces) during the day based on similar square-footage and memberships. Staff added the 72 parking spaces required for the existing and future tenants with the 83 parking spaces required for the proposed fitness and gym facility, and concluded that 155 parking spaces would be occupied during the morning and afternoon hours, with an excess of 18 parking spaces. The evening hours from 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. and the weekend hours would not be an issue, since the existing businesses are closed. During the November 5, 2013 meeting, the Commission had concerns that if the gym were to create a parking problem, there is not an area or a parking management plan to provide for overflow parking. The Commission also stated that during the lunch time hours parking would be an issue for the other businesses since that is when they are busiest. The Commission ultimately determined that the gym will G:\Planning\Kevin SwartzlWord\CUP's\CUP 12-385 Five Star Fitness Gym\CC appeal of denial 5-22-14.doc Staff Report Case No. Appeal CUP 12-385, Fitness and Gym Facility Page 10 of 13 May 22, 2014 create a parking problem, which was one of the reasons that the Planning Commission denied the CUP. B. Land Use Compatibility: The proposed project is located within an existing 42,208 square-foot office professional/medical building. The subject site is designated C-OP (Office Professional) on the City General Plan land use map, and O.P. (Office Professional) on the Zoning land use map. The site is also located on Village Court which is approximately 1,400 feet in length from Highway 111. A large portion of Village Court is designated office professional in both the City's General Plan and Zoning land use maps. Every building along Village Court except for Ruth's Chris Steakhouse maintains an office type use (financial, professional office, and medical), which is in keeping with the City's General Plan and zoning classifications. Surrounding land uses include office, hotel, and single-family to the north and west. The Planning Commission determined that the proposed fitness and gym is not well suited for the existing building and the location. The existing 42,208 square-foot building shares common area with the proposed fitness and gym. The fitness and gym would have classes with music, which would cause disturbance to the existing office use tenants. The three other owners within the building have expressed concerns and have submitted letters in opposition. The proposed hours of operation will also cause added noise to the adjacent residential neighborhood, with closing of car doors, music, and evening and early morning traffic. The Planning Commission stated that they understand that the owner is trying to occupy space within a vacant building, which is laudable. However, a fitness and gym facility is not a use that supports the existing office uses and the surrounding area. The Commission stated that other gyms are located within the office professional zone, but are one-on-one personal training facilities. This type of fitness and gym facility of the size proposed here (22,617 square feet) is better suited for a commercial zoned area. C. Findings for Denial: 1. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accordance with the objectives of the zoning ordinance and the purpose of the district in which it is located. The proposed location of the project is located in an O.P., Office Professional zone. The purpose the Office Professional zone is to classify and set standards for offices, administrative or professional uses which are of relatively low intensity and which are compatible with adjacent residential zoning and development therein. G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\CUP's\CUP 12385 Five Star Fitness Gym\CC appeal of denial 5-22-14.doc Staff Report Case No. Appeal CUP 12-385, Fitness and Gym Facility Page 11 of 13 May 22, 2014 The Office Professional zone allows general offices, medical offices, and laboratories (medical and dental) under permitted uses. The use of a fitness and gym does not fall into those categories. The Office Professional zone also allows as a Conditional Use Permit professional schools, business schools, art galleries, art studios, financial institutions, churches, residential dwelling above the first floor, and ancillary commercial uses as long as they do not exceed 25 percent of the office complex. The use of a fitness and gym facility does not fall under any of these uses. A fitness and gym facility could be considered an ancillary use to the offices, but the proposed fitness and gym would occupy 53 percent of the office building. The Planning Commission determined that other fitness and gym facilities similar in size are located within the commercial zones within the City. The proposed fitness and gym is not in accordance with the objectives of the zoning ordinance and purpose of the Office Professional zone. 2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it will be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed project as a conditional use is not consistent with the intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance as described above. The project will physically divide an established office professional neighborhood. Based on consideration of the whole, the proposed project does conflict with Chapter 25.25 Office Professional Zone within the Palm Desert Municipal Code in regards to land use. The site has been previously designed to meet setbacks, lot coverage, building height, land use, and parking requirements for office type uses. The Planning Commission determined the proposed fitness and gym facility would create a public nuisance in terms of noise and parking shortages, which would be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, welfare, and materially injurious to properties in the vicinity as described in more detail in the staff report. The testimony of the neighboring businesses, whose owners have made significant investments by purchasing space in an office building, establishes that approval of the conditional use would be materially injurious to their businesses and the improvements they have made. G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\CUP's\CUP 12385 Five Star Fitness Gym\CC appeal of denial 5-22-14.doc Staff Report Case No. Appeal CUP 12-385, Fitness and Gym Facility Page 12 of 13 May 22, 2014 3. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance, except for approved variances or adjustments. The use of a fitness and gym facility is not consistent with the intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance as described in the staff report. The nature of the proposed use is not compatible with surrounding land uses, and does not support the existing office professional businesses. There are no variances or adjustments requested that could make this use compatible with the Zoning Ordinance. 4. That the proposed conditional use complies with the goals, objectives and policies of the City's General Plan. The General Plan land use designation for the site is "Office Professional (C- OP)." One of the primary objectives stated in the Land Use Element of the General Plan is assigned to lands that provide comparative advantages for office development, with use characteristics that enhance compatibility with residential and other sensitive land uses. Mixed Use development with hotels and motels, professional offices and residential may also be permitted through approval of an integrated master plan. The Office Professional designation sets standards for businesses, offices, administrative or professional land uses, which are of low intensity, and are compatible with adjacent residential developments. The proposed fitness and gym facility would not be an appropriate integration of neighborhood, since it is located within an office professional zone, which has all office businesses and one restaurant in the surrounding area. Furthermore, the Planning Commission determined that the proposed use being adjacent to a residential neighborhood would create added noise, with car alarms, closing of car doors, music, traffic, and people's voices during hours that would be otherwise quiet in a residential neighborhood. Goal 2 of the Commercial Land Use Goals and Policies states "a pattern of commercial land uses conveniently and appropriately distributed throughout the City, meeting the community's needs while minimizing the disruption to or incompatibilities with otherland uses." As a part of Village Court having an Office Professional designation, the proposed use would not compliment the other office professional businesses and the vicinity, as evidenced by the testimony of the neighboring business owners. G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\CUP's\CUP 12385 Five Star Fitness Gym\CC appeal of denial 5-22-14.doc Staff Report Case No. Appeal CUP 12-385, Fitness and Gym Facility Page 13 of 13 May 22, 2014 This project does not maintain a land use that is consistent with the goals, policies, and programs of the General P/an. The project is not consistent with the General Plan in respect to the proposed business and with the uses in the vicinity. Environmental Review According to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff must determine whether a proposed activity is a project subject to CEQA. If the project is subject to CEQA, staff must conduct a preliminary assessment of the project to determine whether the project is exempt from CEQA review. If a project is not exempt, further environmental review is necessary. Further review from a non-exempt project would result in a Negative Declaration, a Mitigated Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Generally, an EIR must be prepared if a project may have a significant impact on the environment. In this case, staff is recommending that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission decision of denial, and that this is not considered a project of CEQA and no further review is necessary. Submitted By: CITY COUNCIL�TION �L,' APPROVED " " DENiED Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner �D OTHER MEET G DATE �'� ' ' � AYES• .�� C Department Hea : NOES: ABSENT: . �� ABSTAIN: Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Deve D BY: ig►na on File with City erk's O�ce * By Minute Motion, refer the case back to the A Val: Planning Commission for review and report back to City Council. 4-0 n M. Wohlmuth, City Manager G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\CUP's\CUP 12-385 Five Slar Fitness Gym\CC appeal of denial 5-22-14.doc REG�i�ED��J� CITAL�t��+E,�..-� C �'. �� CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNI/� � � APPLICATION TO APPEAL�� DEC �6 P� �' 4� � DECISION OF THE '`��'�� '"��Sc-�fC�7� (Name of Determining Body) Case No. ��u-� l 2-" �� Date of Decision: � Z -��-�� Name of Appellant t" �V ES��- �7��`v��(Phone ��""��7�U Address�'�`�� n j,c��P—i fJC� I..�R. , � 2-02. City, State, Zip��-�"t � ��{2 T �f� ��'2-�-'C7 E-mail -�'-.��M�'�FC-��' -�I�-� ,ca.-�y1(�; Cr'�i3� � , ��- Description of � A lication or Matter Considered: ��-1� `� � �� V�� " �� "t � c�u-t t,u�� . �x �� 1 �� U��=-��c� ��-�-��i c�nNt-� �,t� �i J-�F�� Reason for Appeal (attach additional sheets if necessary): �'�� —�-r:� (.� �. � (Signature o p FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY pp �- a0/3 ____ Fee Received: �07��0 • �G Date A eal Filed: /ca� - � Treasurer's Receipt No. Jr�3 �� Received by: �p,l:�. �-- 1rYlep�cOGYG( Date of Consideration by City Council or City Official: Action Taken: Date: Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk caPY 70 �r�r � : � H:1WPdata\WPDOCS\FORMS\appl to appeal jun 2011.wpd Rev 6/t6l11 Qa�E 1��- 1rt-��C� I� The Five Star Gym and Fitness Center will only help the adjacent businesses by bringing more exposure by the upscale clientele that will be using the gym. It will not have an effect on a parking shortage to adjacent business. There is more than ample parking for the entire complex. Austin Projects just purchased 6,200 square feet of condominium space in which he only employs three employees, leaving an additional 25 spaces for parking. There will be approximately 250 — 300 members per day utilizing the gym services which average out to 23 members per hour in a 13 hour day. Not all members attend at one time. The gym would not diminish the professional atmosphere of the building as this is a very high end fitness club, $129.00 per month dues, not your average club with $19.00 per month dues such as (World, Golds, 24 Hr Fitness, etc.). Five Star Fitness clientele will consist of very successful Doctors, Lawyers, Business Owners, etc. which will benefit the adjacent businesses by utilizing their services as well. The gym would be compatible with the surrounding land uses. Directly to the South, Embassy Suites has their tennis facility which butts directly up to our parking facility by the front entrance of our building. Their guests are constantly enjoying the beautiful outdoor weather playing tennis throughout the entire day. To the West of the building is a vacant lot, East is the end of a culd-a-sac road. I feel this is the perfect location for an upscale fitness center. Being that the gym is only open until 9:00 pm and the clientele it caters to, there will not be music, car alarms, voices, etc. disrupting the neighborhood to the North. The entrance to the fitness center is on the South side of the building, the other condominium owners close their businesses by 5:00 pm. The members coming after 5:00 pm will park on the South side of the building in which the neighbors to the North will not hear any noise. If the remaining 31 condominiums on the West side are sold off as individual suites, there would be approximately 2-3 employees per unit which would occupy 93 parking spaces all day not to mention their clientele that would be coming and going as opposed to the 23 per hour utilized by the fitness center. I ask the City Council to reconsider the denial from the Planning Commission on December 3, 2013. I feel the fitness center would bring very upscale clientele to the area which will be a benefit of all surrounding businesses as they will get new business from this exposure. Thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, ��-.___�`-�=-��'�� Suresh C Shah � � �o D O m= � �m � o n � n x� � b F' � C a � � tN � ~ �, '� c�i v a O n�N"� ro c�� x "sa � �� m � a�� m ti � Z m a� rt � my z $� c H � K F . � � H JS � 0 0 � N 0 � �' t� �° O � �� + � �r �� , m� �� . � ,L� r^ oQ r v, p 1 w �� d � � _ � s r� m c v �, � N mi � D 1 � � O � i x. Z i � � � E � � � � � � oo � �n � � � Secur�ity Features Inciutt�-,� � � pQqaits on 6ac.w.�,� I 1 THE PRINTING PLACE (760)773-4701 r Z � _ C p � �p' Q' n N '* � � � � n �� C O � .. m m � p � � � v (� O � � W ��J � �� O 0 T r�- C . � � � 0 � r m .. p � � W r � �n m D � O � � � � Z � � � � � � °° C � � � , � � m m � c^o, �ui � . �° M� r� V O � � � � V � rt y � o � ?� � � m c�n � n m •---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- -------- ro cr R1 � o � � — � o w � n � n � � �� N o�� W � rn m��,�.° ",'i, � m � � r,r... m N � �� n "E�'�",,, m Y "' � m v� �1 � f� nT. 7� �`..'. Z -n tA D "�a.w Z 0 � � r�s� n � p m � o � m m � D c � D � C� W � m -.� O � Z t � p � � o � g ��" C � � or J�rx� y C � v � (T1 ¢.,�.-�, m � ,��m�• 0 �l � O� 6' �s��'� r m • GJ o � � r~v o fp Chl m ` W � � U�i O� � N F�A�'`{�� t� RESOLUTION NO. 2014-52 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 12-385 FOR A 22,617 SQUARE-FOOT FITNESS AND GYM FACILITY WITHIN AN EXISTING 42,208 SQUARE-FOOT OFFICE PROFESSIONAL BUILDING. CASE NO: CUP 12-385 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 22nd day of May 2014, hold a duly noticed public hearing, to consider the request by Shah Family Trust of the above noted; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 5ih day of November 2013, hold a duly noticed public hearing, which was continued from February 19, 2013, March 19, 2013, April 16, 2013, and October 15, 2013, and denied the request by Shah Family Trust of the above noted; and WHEREAS, according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City must determine whether a proposed activity is a project subject to CEQA. If the project is subject to CEQA, staff must conduct a preliminary assessment of the project to determine whether the project is exempt from CEQA review. If a project is not exempt, further environmental review is necessary. Further review from a non-exempt project would result in a Negative Declaration, a Mitigated Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Generally, an EIR must be prepared if a project may have a significant impact on the environment. The said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act," Resolution No. 2013-16, in the Director of Community Development has determined that in this case, staff is recommending that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission decision of denial, and that this is not considered a project of CEQA and no further review is necessary; 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 deny the said request: Findings for Denial: 1. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accordance with the objectives of the zoning ordinance and the purpose of the district in which it is located. The proposed location of the project is located in an O.P., Office Professional zone. The purpose the Office Professional zone is to classify and set standards for offices, administrative or professional uses which are of relatively low intensity and which are compatible with adjacent residential zoning and development therein. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-52 The Office Professional zone allows general offices, medical offices, and laboratories (medical and dental) under permitted uses. The use of a fitness and gym does not fall into those categories. The Office Professional zone also allows as a Conditional Use Permit professional schools, business schools, art galleries, art studios, financial institutions, churches, residential dwelling above the first floor, and ancillary commercial uses as long as they do not exceed 25 percent of the office complex. The use of a fitness and gym facility does not fall under any of these uses. A fitness and gym facility could be considered an ancillary use to the offices, but the proposed fitness and gym would occupy 53 percent of the office building. The Planning Commission determined that other fitness and gym facilities similar in size are located within the commercial zones within the City. The proposed fitness and gym is not in accordance with the objectives of the zoning ordinance and purpose of the Office Professional zone. 2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it will be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed project as a conditional use is not consistent with the intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance as described above. The project will physically divide an established office professional neighborhood. Based on consideration of the whole, the proposed project does conflict with Chapter 25.25 Office Professional Zone within the Palm Desert Municipal Code in regards to land use. The site has been previously designed to meet setbacks, lot coverage, building height, land use, and parking requirements for office type uses. The Planning Commission determined the proposed fitness and gym facility would create a public nuisance in terms of noise and parking shortages, which would be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, welfare, and materially injurious to properties in the vicinity as described in more detail in the staff report. The testimony of the neighboring businesses, whose owners have made significant investments by purchasing space in an office building, establishes that approval of the conditional use would be materially injurious to their businesses and the improvements they have made. 3. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance, except for approved variances or adjustments. The use of a fitness and gym facility is not consistent with the intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance as described in the staff report. The nature of the proposed use is not compatible with surrounding land uses, and does not G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\CUP's\CUP 12-385 Five Star Fitness Gym\Final CC Res Denial Shah Gym.doc 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2014-52 support the existing office professional businesses. There are no variances or adjustments requested that could make this use compatible with the Zoning Ordinance. 4. That the proposed conditional use complies with the goals, objectives and policies of the City's General Plan. The General Plan land use designation for the site is "Office Professional (C- OP)." One of the primary objectives stated in the Land Use Element of the General Plan is assigned to lands that provide comparative advantages for office development, with use characteristics that enhance compatibility with residential and other sensitive land uses. Mixed Use development with hotels and motels, professional offices and residential may also be permitted through approval of an integrated master plan. The Office Professional designation sets standards for businesses, offices, administrative or professional land uses, which are of low intensity, and are compatible with adjacent residential developments. The proposed fitness and gym facility would not be an appropriate integration of neighborhood, since it is located within an office professional zone, which has all office businesses and one restaurant in the surrounding area. Furthermore, the Planning Commission determined that the proposed use being adjacent to a residential neighborhood would create added noise, with car alarms, closing of car doors, music, traffic, and people's voices during hours that would be otherwise quiet in a residential neighborhood. Goal 2 of the Commercial Land Use Goals and Policies states "a pattern of commercial land uses conveniently and appropriately distributed throughout the City, meeting the community's needs while minimizing the disruption to or incompatibilities with other land uses." As a part of Village Court having an Office Professional designation, the proposed use would not compliment the other office professional businesses and the vicinity, as evidenced by the testimony of the neighboring business owners. This project does not maintain a land use that is consistent with the goals, policies, and programs of the General Plan. The project is not consistent with the General Plan in respect to the proposed business and with the uses in the vicinity. 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 denial by the City Council in this case. 2. That the City Council does hereby deny CUP 12-385. G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\CUP's\CUP 12-385 Five Star Fitness Gym\Final CC Res Denial Shah Gym.doc 3 RESOLUTION NO. 2014-52 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, at its regular meeting held on the 22"d day of Mav 2014, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: VAN G. TANNER, MAYOR ATTEST: RACHELLE KLASSEN, CITY CLERK CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\CUP's\CUP 12385 Five Star Filness Gym\Final CC Res Denial Shah Gym.doc 4 CITY � � � �r � � � � � � � T � � 73-5�0 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 'rE�:760 346-06�� Fnx:76o 34i—�oq8 i nfo@pal m-deserc.org CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) TO OPERATE A FITNESS 8� GYM FACILITY WITHIN AN EXISTING OFFICE PROFESSIONAL BUILDING LOCATED AT 44-651 VILLAGE COURT. �` . ; � � � _ .�, 'q � � � �;.. , ; _ . , , _ . � � i '� i . ., _, • .w .,� . � ..�, `'�"�!��. i� ; � . � ,a � � . �. ; . '�'� ' �` �t � " k- i ,,,�:, ..._ � , :. � N I �3 I y� i : I �-,�. _....... ,. ,;. . �.I. � . 1:3R23 � Recommendation: Staff is recommending that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission action denying Conditional Use Permit 12-385. Public Hearing: The public hearing will before the City Council on May 22, 2014, at 4:00 p.m. Comment Period: Based on the time limits defined by CEQA, your response should be sent at the earliest possible date. The public comment period on this project is from May 9, 2014 to May 22, 2014. Public Review: All related documents are available for public review daily at City Hall. Please submit written comments to the Planning Department. If any group challenges the action in court, issues raised may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence at, or prior to the City Council hearing. All comments and any questions should be directed to: Kevin Swartz,Assistant Planner � City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 (760)346-0611 kswartz@cityofpalmdesert.org Publish: Desert Sun RACHELLE KLASSEN, City Clerk May 9,2014 Palm Desert City Council MINUTES � � � PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2013 Code to allow LED parking lot light fixtures in place of high pressure sodium light fixtures at Country Club Marketplace. V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Planning Commission meeting of January 15, 2013. Rec: By Minute Motion, approve as presented. B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a two-year extension for the entitlements of Carlos Ortega Villas. Case No. GPA/CZ/�P 11-200 & TPM 36363 (City of Palm Desert). Rec: By Minute Motion, approve the extension (until March 22, 2015), Case No. GPA/CZ/PP 11-200 & TPM 36363. Commissioner Stendell ABSTAINED from the vote on Consent Calendar Item A. Upon a motion by Campbell, second by Dash, and 4-0 vote of the Planning Commission, the remainder of the Consent Calendar was approved as presented with Commissioner Limont ABSENT. VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS �" A. REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a fitness & gym facility within an existing office professional building located at 44-651 Village Court. Case No. CUP 12-385 (Five Star Fitness & Gym, LLC, 73-585 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 201, Palm Desert, Applicant). Commissioner Stendell recused himself from participating due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, reported that staff recommended denying Conditional Use Permit 12-385 based on non-compliance with Chapter 25.25 Office Professional zone. He stated staff's concerns are land use compatibility, parking, and the fact that property owners within the building and adjacent business owners are in opposition of the proposed gym and fitness facility. 2 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission�2013\Minutes�2-19�13 min.docx MINUTES �� `� PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2013 Mr. Swartz informed the Planning Commission that staff received a letter from the applicant requesting a continuance to the March 19, 2013, meeting. He stated that staff recommended continuing this item to allow the applicant to respond to the issues raised in the staff report. He noted that it is a Public Hearing, and he planned to continue with his presentation in case someone from the public wants to give public testimony. Mr. Swartz stated he was aware of two individuals who want to address the Planning Commission; however, they agreed to continue the item to March 19. He asked the Planning Commission if they preferred the staff report tonight or at the meeting of March 19. Ms. Aylaian suggested that Chair DeLuna query the audience to find out if anyone was interested in hearing the presentation tonight, and giving their comments in case they are not able to attend the next meeting. Chair DeLuna asked the audience if anyone wanted to speak tonight on Item A. There was no response from the audience. Commissioner Campbell moved, by Minute Motion, to continue Item A (Case No. CUP 12-385) to the March 19, 2013, Planning Commission meeting, and that staff can present their report at that time. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Dash and carried by a 3-0 vote with Limont and Stendell ABSENT. B. REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a new wireless telecommunications facility disguised as finro faux boulders for AT&T Mobility located within the Stone Eagle Development. Case No. CUP 12-266 (AT&T Mobility, 12900 Park Plaza Drive, Cerritos, Applicant). Mr. Swartz reported that the subject property site is located within Stone Eagle Development near the 9th hole of the golf course. He reminded the Planning Commission that they denied a Conditional Use Permit for the installation and operation of a 9'5" faux boulder located on the ridgeline. The applicant's new proposal is for two faux boulders with one boulder 5'6" tall and another 3'6" tal1: ;�;s�� Mr. Swartz displayed photos of the proposed locations for the boulders. He stated that the faux boulders would not be visible from any public street or public view, and that Stone Eagle homeowners' association has approved the location and design. He also noted that the faux boulders would match the desert landscaping and would not impact the natural hillside appearance. Staff recommended approval, and Mr. Swartz stated the applicant was present to answer questions from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Dash inquired about the letter that was given to the Planning Commissioners prior to the meeting. Mr. Swartz responded that he did not get a chance to read the letter; however, the letter is in opposition of the project. 3 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission�2013\Minutes�2•19-13 min.docx MINUTES � � �� PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 2013 V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Planning Commission meeting of February 19, 2013. Rec: By Minute Motion, approve as presented. Upon a motion by Dash, second by Campbell, and 4-0 vote of the Planning Commission, the Consent Calendar was approved as amended with Commissioner Limont ABSENT. VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER � None VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a fitness & gym facility within an existing office professional building located at �„�. 44-651 Village Court. Case No. CUP 12-385 (Five Star Fitness & Gym, LLC, 73-585 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 201, Palm Desert, CA, Applicant). Commissioner Stendell recused himself from participating due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, reported that on March 6, staff met with the applicant regarding concerns outlined in the staff report. He said the applicant requested additional time, and staff recommended continuing the public hearing to April 16. Chair DeLuna asked if the applicant would be ready by April 16. Mr. Swartz replied yes. Commissioner Dash moved, by Minute Motion, to continue Item A (Case No. CUP 12-385) to the April 16, 2013, Planning Commission meeting. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Campbell and carried by a 3-0 vote with Limont and Stendell ABSENT. B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a new Verizon 68-foot wireless telecommunications mono-palm and new equipment shelter located at Temple Sinai at 73-251 Hovley Lane West. Case No. CUP 12-231 (Verizon Wireless, 15505 Sand Canyon Avenue, Bldg. D104, Irvine, CA, Applicant). 2 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission�2013\Minutes\3-19-13 min.doca MINUTES (� (� PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 2013 Chair DeLuna asked if it would be brought to the Planning Commission. Ms. Aylaian responded that it �would go through the Planning Commission if the City Council decides that they would like to submit an application to LAFCO for annexation. She said that any areas being considered would come to the Planning Commission for pre-annexation zoning. V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Planning Commission meeting of March 19, 2013. Rec: By Minute Motion, approve as presented. B. MINUTES of the Planning Commission meeting of April 2, 2013. Rec: By Minute Motion, approve as presented. Commissioner Greenwood ABSTAINED from the vote on Consent Calendar Item A. Upon a motion by Dash, second by Stendell, and 5-0 vote of the Planning Commission, the remainder of the Consent Calendar was approved as presented. VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None VIII. NEW BUSINESS A. RATIFY the appointment of liaison for Art in Public Places. Commissioner Campbell moved, by Minute Motion, to ratify the appointment of Commissioner Stendell to the Art in Public Places Commission. Motion was seconded by Dash and carried by a 5-0 vote. IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS r�' A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to operate a fitness & gym facility within an existing office professional building located at 44-651 Village Court. Case No. CUP 12-385 (Five Star Fitness & Gym, LLC, 73-585 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 201, Palm Desert, CA 92260, Applicant). Ms. Aylaian interjected and asked Commissioner Stendell if he would like to recuse himself from participating due to a potential conflict of interest. 2 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission�2013\Minutes\4-1E13 min.docx MINUTES � p r � - PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 2013 Commissioner Stendell replied that he would recuse himself if there is discussion on the issue. Mr. Swartz informed the Planning Commission that the applicant notified staff that he would like to request a continuance for a period of six months (October 15, 2013). He explained the continuance would allow the Public Hearing to stay open until the applicant decides whether he wishes to move forward or withdraw _ ,. the; application. If the applicant wishes to proceed in six months, staff would notify all parties that were in opposition of the gym. He offered to answer any questions. Chair DeLuna asked if staff is recommending the continuance. Mr. Swartz replied yes. Commissioner Dash moved, by Minute Motion, to continue for a six-month period to October 15, 2013, the discussion to operate a 22,617-square-foot fitness & gym within an existing 42,208-square-foot office professional building. Motion was seconded by Campbell and carried by a 4-0-1 vote with Stendell ABSTAINING. B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a Precise Plan to approve an existing � pad elevation that was increased by four feet in height at 112 Tekis Place, within the Mountains at Bighorn. Case No. PP 13-61 (Kristi Hanson Architects, 72-185 Painters Path, Suite A, Palm Desert, CA 92260, Applicant). Mr. Swartz reported that the subject property is located within the Mountains at Bighorn on the west side of Highway 74. In 1990, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract Map 26068 consisting of 35 single-family lots. In 1991, the Department of Public Works approved a rough grading plan for Tentative Tract Map 26068, which approved the pad elevation for Lot 22 at 1050 feet. On October 20, 1997, the Planning Commission approved Parcel Map Waiver 97-26, which showed the pad elevation for the lot at 1052 feet. He also reported that the applicant recently surveyed the site, and discovered that the current pad elevation ranges between 1053 and 1056.5 feet. He stated that sometime between 1997 and 2002 the pad was illegally graded, which resulted in the increased height. He noted that the Planning Commission must approve the revised pad elevations if they vary more than six inches from the approved elevations. Mr. Swartz stated that the principal concern with increasing the pad elevations is the line of sight for the adjacent properties. He presente�i photos to illustrate the preliminary design of the 8,907-square-foot home';'the- � adjacent properties, and the line of sight study. Staff believes the future home would not adversely impact the views of the adjacent properties. He said the increased pad elevation by one to four feet in height does not change the size or shape of the parcel. Mr. Swartz stated staff recommends approving Precise Plan 13-61. He offered to answer any questions. 3 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission�2013\Minutes\4-7613 min.docx MINUTES � .� �� PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 15, 2013 VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Planning Commission meeting of October 1, 2013. Rec: By Minute Motion, approve as presented. B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a two-year extension for Phase III of Precise Plan 03-19 located at 39-840 Portola Avenue. Case No. PP 03-19 (TDA Investment Group, 2025 Pioneer Court, San Mateo, California 94403) Rec: By Minute Motion, approve the extension (until January 3, 2016), Case No. PP 03-19. C. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a two-year extension for a Precise Plan and Conditional Use Permit for a hotel site located at 74-144 Gerald Ford Drive. Case No. PP 06-18 / CUP 06-15 (May Garden & Associates/John Wang, 21250 Yorba Linda Boulevard, Suite G-338, Yorba Linda, California 92887) Rec: By Minute Motion, approve the extension (until October 18, 2015), Case No. PP 06-18 / CUP 06-15. Upon a motion by Commissioner Campbell, second by Chair DeLuna, and a 4-0- 1 vote of the Planning Commission, the Consent Calendar was approved as presented with Commissioner Greenwood ABSTAINING. VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a ,r,;,� fitness & gym facility within an existing office professional building located at 44-651 Village Court. Case No. CUP 12-385 (Five Star Fitness & Gym, LLC, 73-585 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 201, Palm Desert, CA 92260, Applicant). Mr. Bagato reported that the applicant has, redesigned the project. Staff is requesting to continue this item to the November 5 meeting to allow time for staff to review the project. Commissioner Greenwood moved, by Minute Motion, to continue Case No. CUP 12-385 to November 5, 2013, to allow staff additional time to address the applicant's modifications. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Stendell and carried by a 5-0 vote. 3 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission�2013\MinutesN0-15-13 min.docx • � � � � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMER 5, 2013 V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Planning Commission meeting of October 15, 2013. Rec: By Minute Motion, approve as presented. B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of lot line adjustments for Whole Foods and Nordstrom Rack buildings (APNs 640-330-001, 640-330-012, & 640-340- 002). Case No. PMW 13-301 (Harsch Investment Realty, LLC, 1121 SW Salmon Street, Suite 500, Portland, OR 97205, Applicant) Rec: By Minute Motion, approve lot line adjustments, Case No. PMW 13-301. C. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a lot line adjustment at 1018 Cahuilla Hills, Bighorn Development (APNs 652-320-006 & 652-130-039). Case No. PMW 13-324 (Bighorn Golf Club, Inc., 255 Palowett Drive, CA 92260, Applicant) Rec: By Minute Motion, approve a lot line adjustment, Case No. PMW 13- 324. Upon a motion by Commissioner Campbell, second by Commissioner Stendell, and a 5-0 vote of the Planning Commission, the Consent Calendar was approved as presented. VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a ,�i�r fitness & gym facility within an existing office professional building located at 44-651 Village Court. Case No. CUP 12-385 (Five Star Fitness & Gym, LLC, 73-585 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 201, Palm Desert, CA 92260, Applicant). Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, reported that the site is located at the northwest end of Village Court, and is zoned Office Professional. He said that to the north, south, and west is Planned Residential, and to the east is Office Professional. On December 6, 2005, the Planning Commission approved PP/CUP 05-23 to allow the construction of a single-story office building. He said that the project provided 173 on-site parking spaces. He stated that the applicant is proposing a five star elite gym with no more than 3,000 members, and membership dues of $129.00 a month. The facility consists of a multipurpose 2 G:1Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission�2013\MinutesN 1-5-13 min.docx (� ( � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMER 5, 2013 room for exercise classes, an aerobic equipment room, a weight training area, men's and women's locker rooms, sauna and steam rooms, massage therapy rooms, a childcare room, an internet cafe, and a juice bar. Mr. Swartz said that the facility would be open seven days a week from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on the weekdays, and from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on the weekends. The facility would have 10 staff and trainers working at one time. He noted that the office building currently has five owners. He said that the total amount of parking needed based . _ on the existing, future, and proposed fitness facility is 193 parking spaces, and � the s'ite maintains 173 parking spaces. Mr. Swartz noted that typically gym facilities are busiest from 11:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., and provided the results of the parking study that staff conducted. He stated that when the applicant originally submitted the application, staff had concerns with noise and the proposed hours of operation, which would cause disturbance to existing tenants and neighboring business owners. In the modified proposal, the applicant has reduced the hours of operation, modified the schedule for classes with loud music, no more than 3,000 memberships, and is no longer proposing a bar serving alcohol. Mr. Swartz stated that the applicant is also proposing dues of $129.00 a month to recruit a more upscale client base. He said that staff believes that the facility as proposed and conditioned would be a low intensity use and compatible with the existing businesses and surrounding residents. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2597, approving Conditional Use Permit 12- 385. He offered to answer any questions, and noted that there are two letters that were provided after the agenda was distributed. Commissioner Roger Dash mentioned that one of the tenants requested designated parking spaces, and asked if there is going to be designated parking. Mr. Swartz responded that the owners could designate parking spaces within the property owners' association (POA). Commissioner Dash asked if the designation of parking spaces would be the responsibility of the owners or the POA. Mr. Swartz replied that is correct, and noted that the whole project has shared parking. Commission Ken Stendell asked if businesses have designated parking spac��;��► what type of enforcement would be in place. Ms. Aylaian responded that by State law, a private property owner who has their own parking lot is permitted to properly sign their lot citing the municipal code and State law, giving them the authority to tow unauthorized vehicles. The City does not enforce parking restrictions on private property so it would be up to the POA to designate what stalls are for which users, and it would be up to the POA to enforce the parking. 3 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission�2013\Minutes\t 1•5•13 min.docx . � � �� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMER 5, 2013 Commissioner John Greenwood referred to Condition of Approval No. 16. He asked what options are available if parking is insufficient in the future. Is there a management plan? Mr. Swartz responded that the applicant would have to present a proposal. He mentioned that one option for the applicant is to get reciprocal parking easements or agreements with the other business owners, or work something out with the hotel if they have extra parking. Commissioner Greenwood clarified that staff feels there are options available, if there is a parking issue. Mr. Swartz replied that he cannot reply yes since he has not seen a proposal. Commissioner Stendell referred to Condition of Approval No. 11. He asked if there could be amplified sound between 5:00 p.m. and closing. Mr. Swartz said that classes such as spin and Zumba could be held after 5:00 p.m. after the other businesses are closed. Commissioner Stendell commented that Condition No. 11 only takes the other tenants in the building into consideration. He asked about amplified noise for the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Swartz responded that the gym closes at 9:00 p.m., which should not impact the residential area. He also noted Condition of Approval No. 10. If staff believes the noise is disturbing, excessive or offensive, the applicant must sound proof the interior walls. Commissioner Campbell asked if parking on the back north side could be restricted, if noise becomes a problem for the neighbors. Mr. Swartz replied that a condition could be added; however, he is not sure how it could be regulated. He mentioned that one option is coning it off, which they could look into in the future. Chair DeLuna inquired if there is a way to measure the amount of sound that comes outside of the building. Mr. Swartz responded that the Code Department has sound level meters. Ms. Aylaian added that there are sound level meters that are operated by Code Compliance officials in the event there is a complaint. If there is sound that is disturbing to a person of normal sensitivity, then that constitutes a violation of the sound ordinance and the City could enforce it as a code compliance measure. Commissioner Greenwood clarified that no noise mitigation will be done to the building until three complaints are received within a year. 4 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission�2013\Minutes\11-5-13 min.docx � � � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMER 5, 2013 Mr. Swartz replied that is correct. Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing open and asked for any public testimony IN FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MR. SURESH SHAH, 40-530 Morning Star Road, Rancho Mirage, California 92270, stated that 'Five Star Fitness & Gym is an upscale fitness club that is needed in the Coachella Valley, and will cater .to serious health conscious people. He said that the reason membership is highly �priced is because of the expensive and very exclusive Italian equipment, and all cardio equipment will have a television. Mr. Shah stated that he wants to make the fitness and gym a place where women could go to the spa, weight loss center, and exercise. He said that he is hiring three to four trainers, with great credentials. He stated that he currently owns approximately 30,000 square feet of the building, he's using approximately 22,500 for the fitness and gym, and he would like to use the rest of the space for a weight loss center and hair and nail salon. Mr. Shah said there is enough parking, and there is a shared parking agreement. Last, he noted that if you go to World Gym, you are unable to hear noise outside the door. Vice Chair Dash inquired about how many people would be using the gym per day. MR. SHAH replied that 250 to 300 members per day coming in at different times of the day. He mentioned that the hours between 1:00 to 4:00 p.m. would be busy since the stock market closes at 1:00 p.m. Commissioner Greenwood asked Mr. Shah if he has reciprocal parking agreements currently in place. MR. SHAH replied that there are reciprocal easements recorded for all four owners. He stated parking and noise will not be a problem. Commissioner Greenwood asked if the parking numbers that were presented by staff were accurate for the applicant, or is there more parking that was not presented. MR. SHAH responded that there is enough parking. He mentioned that the dentist is busy in the morning, after that time, there are not many cars. Commissioner Greenwood stated that based on the parking calculations, they are deficient 20 spaces. Mr. Swartz stated that is correct. Commissioner Greenwood stated to Mr. Shah that the project is deficient 20 parking spaces, and there is not a reciprocal parking agreement in place for additional parking. 5 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission�2013\Minutes\11•5•13 min.docx . � � � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSIOIV _ NOVEMER 5, 2013 MR. SHAH stated that is right. He said that he already has 20 spaces because he sold 6,200 square feet to an art gallery. The art gallery is asking for three to four spaces reserved for them in the front. Chair DeLuna asked Mr. Shah what the monthly dues will be. MR. SHAH responded that the dues will be $129 per month. . •` '.Q M�i,� BOB LIENHARD, 34-659 Via Josefina, Rancho Mirage, California 92270, stated that he has been a desert resident for 18 to 20 years. He said that he has belonged to four gyms: World Gym, Gold's Gym, OG Fitness, and 24-hour Fitness. He thinks that this is an opportunity to break out the standard low price leader strategy in the fitness centers. Five Star Fitness will draw an upscale clientele, and it is a place that he would look forward to having a membership. He added that he could not remember hearing sound from the cardio areas in the weight room area. He thinks that the concern with noise could be easily mitigated. He stated that this project would be an asset for the community. MR. NARENDRA PATEL, 71-711 San Jacinto Drive, Rancho Mirage, California 92270, stated that he is the architect for this project. He is looking forward to this facility. It will have very many exclusive features, and would be a great asset for the city. MS. EILEEN DRYDEN, 31-435 Via Las Palmas, 1000 Palms, California 92276, stated that she owns property in Palm Desert. She said that this gym would be a great asset to the community. She mentioned that Mr. Shah has built another gym that is very high class located inside a mall in Yucca Valley. She said you cannot hear loud music coming from the cardio classes when standing within the gym so noise will not be a factor. The gym will be very high end, and she looks forward to using the saunas and the spa. Ms. Dryden stated she is in favor of the gym. MR. KEN SORENSON, 43-680 Corte Del Oro, La Quinta, California 92253, stated that he supports the gym in Palm Desert. He said that he has tried all the gyms, and that Mr. Shah's gym is going to stand apart from the rest due to clientele that it would bring in and it is centrally located. He mentioned that he has been to many gyms, and he never had a problem with noise. MR. TED EICHELBERGER, 73-733 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 205, Palm Desert, California 92260, stated that he is a general contractor that helped Mr. Shah build the gym in Yucca Valley. He stated that sound was mitigated at the gym in Yucca Valley, and that it would carry over to the gym in Palm Desert. He also mentioned that Mr. Patel is a one of the best architects in the city as far as he is concerned. He has never designed anything that you would not be proud of to look at, and it will be a very nice project. DR. JEFF SCHANTZ, 44-651 Village Court Drive, Suite 150, Palm Desert, California 92260, stated that he is the first owner in the building, which was 6 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission�2013\MinutesU 1-5-13 min.docx �.� �� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSIOIV NOVEMER 5, 2013 zoned Office Professional when he purchased it. He stated that his dental would be located next to the gym, and is concerned of what would happen to the value of his practice and to the real estate. He said if the Planning Commission decides to approve this project, he also has a concern with the loss of common area that they are part owners of. He asked that there be provisions for the use of the remaining bathroom to be used by the tenants that are not owners of the gym. MR. TOM KLEIN, 44-651 Village Court, Palm Desert, California 92260, stated that he is the President for Advanced Retirement Strategies, and he owns two � condo suites in the building. He said that when he purchased the office suites in 2011; they were sold as Office Professional/Medical/Dental. He commented that his office is located inside the lobby off from the main lobby to the left. If he had any indication that a gym was going in this professional office building, he would have never bought the condos. He noted that the design calls for the lobby to be the entrance for the gym so all the folks that are going�to the gym are going to go into the front lobby. He is concerned that people in gym clothes will be hovering all over the lobby in front of his offices. He stated that he does not feel that the office building is appropriate for a gym. He also stated that the design has the childcare facility next to his offices, and the internet cafe is next to his conference room. He expressed that in his business privacy and confidentiality is important to him, and that is a concern of his. DR. MORGAN MORANDA, 44-179 Constitution Drive, Indio, California 92201, stated that he his partners with Dr. Schantz, and an owner of one of the large suites. He said that they would not have purchased a suite if they knew a gym would be in the same building. He mentioned that they have met with Mr. Shah several times and that the gym is very well designed, but it is not the right place for it. Dr. Moranda stated that they have met with Mr. Shah regarding changes that they could make; however, the diagram that is being shown does not show what the building looks like now. He said there is common space and a bathroom being taken away, which was discussed with the possibility of compensation, but that has never been written down on paper. His other concerns are parking and traffic. He commented that a parking study was done, but was it done during peak season or during the summer? Dr. Morgan also commented that Mr. Shah was going to make changes to the club entrance so that they have their own separate entrance, which he does not see on the diagram. He voiced that if the project is approved, he hopes that their concerns are addressed. MR. SHAH addressed the Planning Commission that his architect is available to show a slide show of the interior design of the gym. He stated that he is taking some of the common space on his side because no one else is in the area except for two small suites owned by Mr. Klein. He said that he is compensating all three owners that have paid for the common area. Chair DeLuna asked Mr. Shah if he decided to compensate the owners unilaterally or involve the owners in that decision. 7 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission�2013\Minutes\11-5-13 min.docx � MINUTES � � (� . PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMER 5, 2013 MR. SHAH replied that the owners approached him about compensation if he is going to be taking over the common area. He explained that he had his architect calculate the square feet to give them money back. Chair DeLuna said that she does not think the Planning Commission needs to see a slide show of the interior design. Ms. Aylaian added that a_slide show of the interior is not typically something that the�Pfanning Commissi�i��would look at. If the Commission would like to entertain ' a presentation, they could do so. Vice Chair Dash inquired if the City would be involved in the compensation for the loss of the common area. Ms. Aylaian replied no. She said that she has heard several items by the applicant that seemed to be representations made to surrounding business owners, and items that were not picked up in the staff report. Some of the items were double wall construction with sound insulation in between, that the entrance would be moved to the west side, and that there would be compensation for the common areas. She stated that if the Planning Commission believed they were appropriate adjustments for putting this use in an office professional building, it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to add these conditions. With no further testimony offered, Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Stendell commented that after hearing the other property owners, he feels for them. He expressed his concerns with the entrance to the gym, and the interior courtyard. Are there going to be lounge chairs? How is it going to be used? He is concerned that the courtyard will be a gathering place for club members. Commissioner Greenwood voiced that he is concerned with traffic and parking. He said that he would like to see more evidence supporting the parking study. He also said that he would like to see more testimony from World Gym or Gold's Gym based on a similar member base. How many members do they have per day? He said he would like to know what options are available if parking becomes an issue in the future. Commissioner Campbell mentioned that she drove by offices around 9:15 a.m., and there were hardly any cars in the parking lot. She mentioned that she has been going to her doctor there for many years, and she has never experienced a traffic problem. However, she would like to see a separate entrance for the gym, and have sound barriers added to the Conditions of Approval. She commented that she feels it would be an asset to the community. For a membership of $129 a month, she does not see 3,000 members going all at once. Vice Chair Dash commented that the major concerns are noise and parking. He said now there's also concern with the location of the main entrance of the gym. 8 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission�2013\Minutes\11•5-13 min.docx � �� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMER 5, 2013 He feels that all items have been addressed with the Conditions of Approval, and some measures can be taken to enforce those provisions. Commissioner Stendell inquired if the Planning Commission is being asked to approve the project as it is currently designed. Chair DeLuna replied yes. � = Chair DeLuna communicated that the City carefully assigns land uses compatible with overall zoning. She stated that the applicant is asking for a special use not permitted by the current zone. In addition, the applicant has a history of code compliance issues that have cost the City money and staff time. Chair DeLuna asked Ms. Aylaian if a building owned by the applicant had a tenant involved in criminal activity. Ms. Aylaian replied that she believes that is correct. Chair DeLuna asked if the applicant has had code compliance issues pertaining to signage, and painting of a commercial building. Ms. Aylaian responded that there have been code violations unrelated to this case. Chair DeLuna expressed that the applicant is asking for special treatment at this time; it is not unreasonable to ask for conditions to assure future compliance with City standards and requirements. The applicant plans to have 3,000 members in his gym. However, out of an abundance of caution for fire safety and adjacent residential neighborhoods, conditioning the membership to no more than 1,500 to 2,000 is a more reasonable expectation. She said that the applicant has stated that members will pay $129 per month to discourage the type of loitering that sometimes occurs outside of gyms and in parking lots. She also said that memberships are submitted to the City on an annual or semi-annual basis. She asked if that was correct. Ms. Aylaian responded that one of the Conditions of Approval required that the membership lists be submitted twice a year. Chair DeLuna stated that she would like to add a condition to show the amount of membership paid by the different members so that the City could assure that the applicant is requesting a high-class clientele. She voiced that the other owners purchased property in the building with the understanding that it would be in an Office Professional zone. She stated that this type of gym would be welcomed in the City; however, she feels that it is not the right location for a gym. Chair DeLuna requested a resolution of denial. 9 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission�2013\Minutes\t t-5-13 min.docx . • �-� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNlNG COMMISSION NOVEMER 5, 2013 Commissioner Stendell moved, by Minute Motion, that staff prepare a resolution for denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 12-385. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Greenwood and carried by a 3-2 vote with Vice Chair Dash and Commissioner Campbell voting NO. Ms. Aylaian stated that staff will have to prepare the resolution of denial, and will return to the Planning Commission on November 19, 2013. She noted that there will not be a public hearing since the public hearing has_been closedi . . . IX. MISCELLANEOUS None X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES None B. PARKS & RECREATION Commissioner Dash gave an update on the University Park dog park parking issue. The Parks & Recreation Commission recommended expanding the dog park at Freedom Park, which will go to the City Council for approval. Chair DeLuna asked if it is a land use issue that the Planning Commission will need to review or will it go directly to the City Council. Ms. Aylaian responded that it would not go to the Planning Commission. The expansion only involves rearranging square footage in an existing approved park. XI. COMMENTS Commissioner Stendell commented that the Planning Commission denied the fitness and gym facility. He inquired if Mr. Shah would be able to return with an alternate application addressing the concerns that were expressed this evening. Ms. Aylaian responded that the applicant would not be able to submit the same or substantially similar application for one year. 10 G:\Planninq\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission�2013\Minutes\11-5-13 min.docx ; r� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2013 Commissioner Campbell moved, by Minute Motion, to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 2614. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Greenwood and carried by a 5-0 vote. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a � fitness & gym facility within an existing office professional building Iocated at -- �r.� 44-651 Village Court. Case No. CUP 12-385 (Five Star Fitness & Gym, LLC, 73-585 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 201, Palm Desert, CA 92260, Applicant). Mr. Swartz reported that the request was heard at the November 5, 2013, Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission directed staff to bring back a resolution of denial. He offered to answer any questions. Commissioner Stendell asked if the Planning Commission could continue this item, or is it an up or down vote for approval of denial. Ms. Aylaian responded that it depends on the motion. She said that the Planning Commission could move to approve or not to approve the resolution, or move to continue and direct City staff to further investigate the matter. Ms. Tremblay added that an action must be taken on the resolution. She recommended that the Planning Commission move to adopt the resolution or not adopt the resolution. If the vote is to not adopt the resolution which recommends denial, then there would be another motion to reset Case No. CUP 12-385 for a Public Hearing, and direct staff to re-notice the Public Hearing. Commissioner Stendell commented that if the Planning Commission votes to approve the resolution then what are the applicant's options. Ms. Tremblay responded that the applicant can choose to appeal to the City Council or seek other options and return with a different location. Chair DeLuna moved to approve a resolution of denial for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a fitness and gym within an existing office professional building located at 44-651 Village Court. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Greenwood and carried by a 4-1 vote with Commissioner Campbell voting NO. Commissioner Stendell asked if the Planning Commission is opening the door for the applicant to resubmit this item. Ms. Aylaian responded that the applicant cannot resubmit the same project or substantially the same project for a period of one year. If there were to be significant changes or if it is proposed in a different location, he is able to submit it without waiting one year. Or, the applicant could wait a year and try the same project in the same location again. She stated that the applicant can appeal the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council, whose decision will be final. 8 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning CommissioM2013\Minutes\t2•3-13 min.docx The Five Star Gym and Fitness Center will only help the adjacent businesses by bringing more exposure by the upscale clientele that will be using the gym. It will not have an effect on a parking shortage to adjacent business. There is more than ample parking for the entire complex. Austin Projects just purchased 6,200 square feet of condominium space in which he only employs three employees, leaving an additionat 25 spaces for parking. There will be approximately 250 —300 members per day utitizing the gym services which average out to 23 members per hour in a 13 hour day. Not all members attend at one time. The gym would not diminish the professional atmosphere of the building as this is a very high end fitness club, $129.00 per month dues, not your average club with $19.00 per month dues such as (World, Golds, 24 Hr Fitness, etc.). Five Star Fitness clientele will consist of very successful Doctors, Lawyers, Business Owners, etc. which will benefit the adjacent businesses by utilizing their services as well. The gym would be compatible with the surrounding land uses. Directly to the South, Embassy Suites has their tennis facility which butts directly up to our parking facility by the front entrance of our building. Their guests are constantly enjoying the beautiful outdoor weather playing tennis throughout the entire day. To the West of the building is a vacant lot, East is the end of a culd-a-sac road. I feel this is the perfect location for an upscale fitness center. Being that the gym is only open until 9:00 pm and the clientele it caters to, there will not be music, car alarms, voices, etc. disrupting the neighborhood to the North. The entrance to the fitness center is on the South side of the building, the other condominium owners close their businesses by 5:00 pm. The members coming after 5:00 pm will park on the South side of the building in which the neighbors to the North will not hear any noise. If the remaining 31 condominiums on the West side are sold off as individual suites, there would be approximately 2-3 employees per unit which would occupy 93 parking spaces all day not to mention their clientele that would be coming and going as opposed to the 23 per hour utilized by the fitness center. I ask the City Council to reconsider the denial from the Planning Commission on December 3, 2013. I feel the fitness center would bring very upscale clientele to the area which will be a benefit of all surrounding businesses as they will get new business from this exposure. Thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, __ . _ ��,�lC� �. ---_.... Suresh C Shah Swartz, Kevin From: Eileen Dryden [shahmanagement4C�aol.com) Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 11:07 AM To: Swartz, Kevin Subject: Postpone Jan 23, 2014 CUP appeal Kevin, Per our conversation this morning, please postpone the Jan 23, 2014 CUP appeai which Planning Commission denied in their November meeting. Suresh Shah has requested it be postponed for a few months due to a family situation. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your time and understanding. Eileen Dryden Chief Operating Officer Shah Management � 73-585 Fred Waring Dr., Suite 202 Palm Desert, CA 92260 760-346-4780 office 760-340-4650 fax 760-574-4449 cell 1 Oct 21 2013 z: 53PM HP � �ERJET FAX � � page 1 SC/N�ntz1�1 Dp SfeM.DENTCSC� n�,�V yf Jr[OraTtl�d L.Morgan Moraada artfio �oAoic Carr '[ ments! Corpvra� la■ D.D.S.,M.DENT,SC. � F F I C E S ■ PALM DESERT October 21, ZO13 44-651 ViMape Cour1 Drive Sui�150 City of Palrn Desert ��m oes�t,CA 92260 73-510 Fred Waring Dr. PHONE 780•588-5987 Palrn Desert, CA. 92260 Fax reo•ns-�aze Fax: 760-776-6417 � Attn: Kevin Swartz ■ PALM SPRINGS 2225 Tahqufh Canyon Way MX. SW�1"�2; Palm Sprinps,CA 92262 PHQNE 78Q•323-2B98 We have been informed that Mr. Shah has re-applied for a Conditional Use Permit for a fitness center at 44-651 Village Court, Palm Desert and that he has made F��80•327-5247 several changes to his original request. ■ YUCCA VALIEY 57045 Yucq Trall We are still concerned ahout the parking issue. If the City considers approving this praject,we suggest that the City should do i#s own anaJysis of this ar]cin s�+�20, p g problem. Yucca Velley,CA g2284 Our position remains unchanged from last February. This building and area are PHONE 760•385-7612 zoned fvr professional and or offce/medical use. A fitness center is not corapatible FAX760��ss-a,z� with the original intent arid zoning of the City for this building and azea. wWWaage�,o��e9.�om Aga.in, our intent in locating here was to be in a professionai building. Had there � f � B e A s been a AMERICAN gym or fitness center planned or already located in the building,we would not Assx�nati oF have purchased our parcels here. o�n+ona�r��,s Should you have any questions please feel free to contact us at the Palrn Desert o�ce nurnber to the right. Sincerely, � ��N�'t�;H��4�y��t fF �`- ��`i��a r��"'��I��y��p�F��t�� i��yj�r�'�� ,�i�r��l}��c��'t�,,��. , � .... rt"�4� ��'H�`r��4'��,�%a+'s��t��j�� lrNtY^rW�''R'�. r-I�� i1�� Ni�ry�tri iIC �..�.,� �.4� ,��+ �t�#r� �( k4�� 14,� ¢ii� ,�j� ,��' ='u;,�.;� L � wa�, � ��I`;��nTs��f%��wry�fk��{��M '��""��!tjKt��h►�c.., effreyR. SCil� �r *,��r 9(:Ih� �N��l��+°��F �u.� ��1�'ai�d��l Iih i "!� N'u �t •Ll.� iv1�.7 ry5��';1;�� ' 11�1.''�p hi� �l1M�� '��'. �F��, �F!{n4�� '�tr� y,V� wi� kr. �47�.YClC''�'r�Ih� r �u,�� Kti ,�,F,;., � ;Bty � �� i Schanda LLC p��t ��,�,:.�,� �._, " �� ;.fa`n�'u�� ,,, ',r � �� y yi�+�tdi HitY�'S"��y : ��i � �� a'';F t r 4 �1' '`,, ' a��1 f� ��4f�yal��ji i��m�a�! �yr'�� :��'y'„y� �`�:. 1��,�y�t ��y �}�', �r'� . JRS;li ,�,,� y�r; 1F��g� � a"�r'i �' �rr;.�,�a d �3 y 1. ,^� !� y "''� u, M " � ,;,,' 44< y * � i�T � �,, � ti�� f � �VI i �� .�� {��•� � ��r1 ..� �� .;;��#G�y� ��r ��. ��4. � � ��j' ,��,,�r,��. ,iy� .�i1`µ 1I�}I i+r'.:� V't� �..�} yy� "°. �� '�n t r� °��,+ I� F��yiw�,� "Y e�f:kill�t�� I��:.+,� '„.;��W5�.9,.. aM J:F . IP��i�'E fi.R.� `:r1�~�eXMt�. r \ � -�r� �:;li�} ,��,��' aM��y�, 'k I: �i�.�,+' � +"4"'�rf��i�,, . �'�'.fl��+`� �!k'' y�n•"��l.'_"'�"YA+i�41��V�w f?�'�'! .Itu�lf��y�f s t�J�... � ° ti � � (^� p.2 � � . , .�C�lQ1i�.Z Jefirey R Schau�tt ��CV/Li7f�LQ G.0,9„ALDB/E SC. �� ! e C�r� �•�4�O19tA MOf8t1d8 �»t� C�rt�iasl�■ O.D.8..1A.�IIT,SC. STRICTLY CQNFID�N'�'I�,FpR U9E OF THE C1T'y(?F pAt,M DESERT � F F � c F s PtAN1ViNG CON.4�SSIQN EMp�.�OYB�E.9 AND CI'�'Y COUNCIL ■ p�t+�o�Rr N�MBERS +aiei vM�e corn o�+�e s�u.�o L�$sl Notice c�se ATO. CUP 12-3 85 r�„�,,,,rt�� TuesdaY,Fcb • "{01E 7°0"'°'`"" ruary l9,24I3 at 6:OOpm ��•,� Th�s letter serve,as notioe to tha Ptannin�Cammi.�.sion r.ad City Cou�eil of two ■ P�u�sPaincs c,an�cen:s regaerdia�this proposod pc+oject, �nc�+a cu�o�war 1. PARKING �m��aa casrt�t The amount ofparki,n8 ml�d to su r�onEreo-gasaea� a to 85 PPa�a�tnass cCnie�with claseaa v f �„�,��.� P people at a tintc in addicioes io iha uiage of dre curte�businassw in the bnildi�t6 muY eatceed tha arailab k P�r 1 a a�a a s i t e. I w rn�t d as i c t l t e ■ YIJCG WLLEY Planning Cnmmisaion to evaluabe the perking.�s of the propoaed P�.1��and its impa�t ort tha otLer basinessa ia the boildirtg aad the s�+e wa�.�.a adjacern btuldings ro�t�e�te, s��a�, • 'New YhII��y GA 94ZN 2. CURRE�iT USAC3E: �ai+E�.sa�.�e�a Wlun wa purchased onr apacs+ia th�bvilding�woe asattmsd it would �*x�•�•��r� reaiain o�colPeof'ea�onsl oi nudicaVdental. We would not have w.�...s�ao...� ptuchas4d s�ace init3atty ifth�ere was a fftness cxntar f4 the buildin�. WC k E M �! � s �nderstand the poc�r co�iaJ market for theae typea of businesses cumqtly. Is tltis the best ux af the spao�given tbe Ioeattion ac�d needs of p o�"�a the city? �� tfully urs �[ •S '' . ey R.Sct�rltz,D ,,Mg L . � �" ;,,,��.' "` - ' �� •+�. � � • � �: ` �`� .e�+a��C'titq��`e�`i��' �r�' K '�a�els'4~� -� '�� .�i•"` .��,�, '' x``�¢• 4`ft�y�llx C� �;�' ��:�K r . � r a�Qd .,,,��,�.�sy `f.,,�-'�6��.. ..j,��.°��::.�!'��;•- •�_ xd� 13Ca33Fl1 dH Idd�g%T T E TOZ ET q�� Z a�ed }{d� 13C213Ski1 dH Wd6b �Z E i OZ E i qa� �� ('� p.1 . � `'�� deiiroyt R.3chantr �D17l71�Q o.aa,�.�nt aa Q t t_�a/��t�C C r r L Morqart Monnd� ll ��• C�rr�r�tJor O.Q�..AI�DfNrSQ 0 F t 1 C E 5 Fab�y l3,Z�13 � _ • Aunn oesERr Shah Meuiagema�t N�es�v�,c.,�o-►. 73585 Fred q! �"�''� Palat �8 Dr. Suit,e 2U2 rrm��x�o Dbser� CA.92260 �:�ae•sws�► Dr.S�ah; �x�e•rre.�stb Tl�is tetip-ia wtict�b ayma�arizp ovv�urs��,�;a,�� • puti+SPwnicS cmtter prnposal f�r alar�e PoitidQ of tlae ��m:da toyour t3mas� ��„�anyw+Mrr Deaert C�l. P�1:yau own at 44�iS) Y�Ist�e Caurt,Palm � ams�r�cn�� The lssuae addre�sed in prior diaeusti�ons w6ieh hava been miti ted R1011E 160•ua.�� bi'Yau include: Fax aw•u�-s� 'TEie or�gi�al interior design whic6 involved i�tldt�part of ao��no�uca for Prtness ■ center we Campensatio,n eo the mir�ority ownoes for thair pomans of tha oemrnon nxc�vnc� a�xa wss di+wssed a!t6a 1?119V12 awnee�rnoeti�, un�sr,eeal+ar Tfie addhion ofe doubk-door cemRnorciai sto�ho�t e�trance aa tbe nerth pacio side �� Souod proc�in6 caoca�ns StCtltlty G�lmei88 FO[the p1�OQe2!)r TocawN�p�aI19�2B1 F.aat side batbroo,a�oo be ksyed for�ae of�on-fhnesi c�nt�c oeeupaats and clients. n+are��o.sss.mz i�at haqway fromo the south entr�ncs fayer to the rear shali be maiata�ned. iac rao•xsrts� 'I�o lwiadicapped P�B b�s Bave been changed to�2law mate uiu+esarved �.�.�r�a..m., sp�s os tfte�ouffi sida, Nonrs of op�rati,00 f�t the apa to be 3am•10pm. Bee�r and wine wil]be wfd oaly n a �o F e a Lro�a Spt�-Bpth. ,�� aS71lCMip{p Howevai,we stilt hive conce�ns invotvin o"'10'0""'� ar�not deai�e�d for tbis gp�k��buildiug and iac.ns�sed orat�ic ia an t�a�e�befocs appr��°` We have asked 16e C'ity to ovalua�te the psrking and Siaetre�y, �., ffi^eyR Schaat�,D , � � "� ,e_ :� 1 •�►�, � �� B.,MS L.M 'D.D.S,M� ! �� *� � uet ., �' •n,, �`'. � . ti,�� -, .�;�t '�1''!ti f � ` �'��,� *��:� ; ,�� .,� �, w��t�� •'� ��. � .. bn,�.�i.'4j�� '•_F�"'I� �:7%,�'�:?V"'��t!y�+rr+! .. Y •��• '�:�� Z a�od ,<'' ��• • � Sf1�� 13C�3SJi� dH Nd6E� I T EZOZ EI q�� g a�ed }{d� 13C213Sd1 dH Wd6� �Z E T OZ E I qa� I .�Y� �~ , A{, STRICTLY CONFTT7EN'TAIL FOR THE USE OF THE CITY OF�'ALM DESERT PLANNIN(}CO1v�MTSSION EMPLOYEES AND CITY COUNCI�.11�.EMBE�tS ONT.`Y' Legal Notice case NO. CUP 12-385 Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 6:00 PM ' This letter serves as our expressed coneern in opposing the suggested CUP l?-385 for the property located at�4-651 'V'illage Court, Palm Desert, CA 92260. " �elow are "highlighted"concems to be considered in declining the CUF. 1. Current usage: The 1pcation in question has 6een histarically and remains presently zoned for professional and or o�f'ice/medical use. We�rould r�ot have selected ar purchased our properiy had the proposed�ym been presented,bw�t or operational prior to our purchase. Approval from the City for the CUP for the gyrnnasium would be considered"unck�aracteristic"for this azea. . 2. Traffic: The prvperty is located at the end.of a very long cul-de-sac. The small sCreet (Village�ourt) Y�as one entrance and one exit for vehicie traffic. �'illage�ourt is not equipped far eonstant or concentrated traffic. 'rhere is a�our way stop sign located at Village Cowrt and'Village CEnter Drive. The backup congeation at the four-way stop would severel� ir�pact current businesses,elientele,em�ployees of surrotanding businesses and the traffic flow ir�the entine region. There is no other outlet for�affic flow. 3. Far�xng, The amount of park�ng dedicated�or tho design or cuz�rern usage of the building is afprofessional use. 'the amount of parking�'or a gy7m would be inadequate. This vuould cause�reat hardship for t�e existing businesses in the area. While the vehiCles per square footage are sufficient for the buiIding as currently��oned,peak gym ctass tim�will cause severe iznpact on pazking dvring norma!business hours. �V'e do not have the personnel ta devote to parking patrol. 'VVe�o not want to obtain or enforce additional signage to designate proper parking during these peak times. a. Ho�ars of operation and operation: The building and area were designed ar�td zoned for professional usage. While a vacant building does support some conside�atio�n £'or �andalism,theft or increased liability for tk�e owners and surirpuriding businesses, T believe this is not a good fit for th�s neighborhaod. �Iarring said that, T 6elieve the hours o�operation, the noise af vehicles,cxowd control nc�ise(slarnming car doors before and after normal business hours)will affect the housing developments behind and adjacent ta the property. Gym clientele and the se�cving of alcoholic beverages in this neighborhood will present itself with an entir�ly nevcr host of'liabilities to all owners,adjacent honneowners and busi�esses in the azea DL7Y's,(�oung and old��Edestrians,parking, noise levels and the traffic�atterns(circling the building,traffic backup of the entira street) are of greater concern thart a current vacant building. Yn eoneiusion: The economy will return. professional use for medical and o�of�ce space will retum. �`he intended use o�this neighborhood in the city of Palmt Desert shpuld not be short sighted in granting this CUP �'or all eternity. This is N4T a good plan cozasiderin�everyt�ing outlined abov�. E0/I0 3Jdd �t�I�NdNI� 3NI3��i Z8L69bE99L 9b:ZZ EZOZ/ZL/Z0 � n � � 02/15/2013 FRI 15: 05 FAX 760 346 9997 Albert Management Inc. IdJ001/001 COLCINY CC1VE AT INDIAN WELtS HOMEQW'�1ERS ASSC)CIATIC?1V CJO Atbert Manage2nent I��e. P.U.8ox 12920,Palnt Uesert,CA 92255 7G0.346.9�OQ-Photl� i 6(1.�G.9�7-Fax E-meiI:wend,C�v `altx>rtm t.r.��m atYrora�at�rt�rt t�,corn Website.: �ytiucti..cp[nn r.oti��si►�fa.c:nm TcddolE�rte�s I�.�riyKouis�ik jillTriikn Rirk Walther Hannie NEeI Presiden# Vice-Presid.ent Treasuri,r Secretary Uirer,tur _. February I 3,2013 4ity of Palm n�;s�:rt Plaaming Cammi�sion ?3-510 Fred Waring Ur. Palm Desert,C'A 9Z2GU-2578 Deac C��mrnissit�ners: Ttie Cc,lony Cor•4 �-iameuwxiais Ass�ciatic�n wishes ta encaue•a�e yc�u to deny #:he C�UP 1�-385 pendin� before ynu. "17�e building in qu�.�tion is currentty •r_onrd f;ar professionallniedicat uses anci was de�iqned accardingly. '1"v pei•mit a char��!c in use to a t�crealiot�a) fitness/gym fnciCity ��ii1 havc an xdverse impaet on neighbor•ing businusscs and residences. Ther� wi!! be� si�a�ific�nt incrQuse to trAffic and t�oise. 7'he number ot'vehicl�:s aCceasin� the �xrperty fram `°illage Center Urive wilt have an adversc impaci nn resideY�tb of Calony CUve tu the quict enjor�ment of their reaid�r�Na.1 neighboc•hoad. in c�nsideratiaz� af kh� a<Ijucvnt businc�sses e�id residents, 1 urge y�u t� D�NY. Ci.IP 12-3R5 as Ueing i��cnnsistent and incompatil�te witl�existin�uses in tlae.iynmediate z�djAcer�t area. Sir�ccr�.ly, � � .�-�:� ��..��'°�..�"� �� .�� .t-� -��.��.:�=��r� �`'�'',��.��f�.�,� � � �. � . Ted Ittertens,President Cotor�y Cove Homeowners' Association City of Palm Desert Communiry DevelopmeM FEB 15 2013 COMPENSATION CONSULTANTS, INC. PENSION CONSULTANTS AND ACTUARIES Patm Desert Community Development December 26, 2013 �EC 3 0 2�1;� Mr. Kevin Swartz Assistant Planner City Of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA. 92260-2578 RE: Denial of CUP #12-385 for Five Star Gvm and Fitness Facilit r� Dear Mr. Swartz: I am the property owner of Suite 200, located at 44-700 Village Court, Palm Desert, CA. 92260. Our building is a couple doors south of the proposed Gym and Fitness facility. We purchased this property on this street because of the zoning and the use of Office Pro�essional/Medical/Dental businesses. We do not approve the granting of a CUP for a use that does not match its surroundings or intended zoning. This facility would be better suited in a strip mall or other comme.rcial facility that can accomidate its traffic and parking requirements. The daily traffic will be greatly increased down the dead end street. The neighborhood traffic and egress of this area was not designed for this type of use, as evident by the street width and lack of adequate parking for the proposed of use of the property. This will most certainly bring harm to the values of the surrounding properties, if this area is r�ot kept as Office Professional/Medical/Dental. The project sounds great and I am sure the Dr. Shah will do a fine job, but it just does not belong in this neighborhood. I hope that the City Council will uphold the Planning Commissions Denial of the issuance of the CUP #12-385 for all of the above reasons and as they noted in their Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from November 5, 2013. Please call me with any questions and I look forward to your prompt attention to this matter. Siricerely yours, _ . . � : . � . . . . . . A . .� .. . - � .. .� . �� . . .. � . .. ..--1. . . . . Dennis Pindiak 44-700 Village Court, Suite 200, Palm Desert, California 92260 (760) 340-4485 • (877) 340-4485 • F� (760) 340-4786 December 24, 2013 Mr. Kevin Swartz Assistant Planner City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 RE: Appeal filed by Mr. Shah: CUP 12-385 for Public Hearing with City Council, January 23, 2014 at 4:00 PM 44-651 Village Court and Five Star Fitness & Gym Dear Mr. Swartz: Below are our statements for the City Council of Palm Desert to consider in support of the Planning Commission's denial of the Conditional Use Permit 12-385. Land Usa�e: • The land usage for a gym facility is not appropriate for the surrounding area. • The land or building is currently zoned for Professional-Office-Medical use. • Other businesses in the area uphold the current land usage. • The building is located at the very end of a Cul de sac surrounded by residential neighborhoods of Palm Desert and Indian Wells. The quality of life for those residential people and businesses in the area will be impacted from loud noise, parking lot inadequacies and traffic congestion. To change the land usage for a gym facility would disrupt and change the integrity of surrounding businesses and the adjacent residential neighborhoods forever. • We would not have purchased nor made a substantial personal financial investment in the property had we felt or been advised we had any exposure to a potential gym facility. Our business model will suffer greatly based on the professional environment our business requires to attract and maintain client relationships. • Mr. Shah's plan is for our business to share the main lobby area with the main entrance of the gym facility. Our office only has one public entrance. We are concerned over the increase of noise level, increase in foot traffic, unprofessional workout/gym attire and loud conversation in the lobby. This activity will be directly outside our one and only entrance to our office. We feel_this will be disruptive to our professional and working atmosphere. The noise from loud music and the vibrations from the bass from music when classes are in session will be disruptive to us and our clientele. We feel our clients will feel intimidated using the same entrance as that to a gym. � The gym facility design includes a "Child Daycare Center" adjacent to our office. Mr. Shah's plan is to have an internet cafe directly on the other side of our conference room. Confidentially, quiet and a professional environment is paramount to the success of our business. Our business will be greatly impacted. • Mr. Shah owns approximately 30,000 square feet. Per his submitted plan he wants to utilize approximately 22,500 square feet for the gym facility (this is noted in the Planning Commission minutes, dated November 5, 2013). In addition, sometime in the future, he would like to use the "remainder of his space" for a weight loss center and hair/nail salon. I have been advised, these additional businesses will also require the City of Palm Desert to authorize a conditional use permit, based on their own merits. These additional businesses and land use are not included in CUP 12-385 request. Again, these other businesses are not zoned or appropriate for the land use in the neighborhood. While we are truly a minority owner in the�square footage, our business demands a professional environment. Condensed Traffic and Traffic Flow in and out of the cul de sac: • The building is situated at the tail end of a long narrow, non-divided, cul de sac. There is no parking permitted on either side of Village Court. The area is surrounded by residential neighborhoods: (Indian Wells Villas, Hidden Palms and Colony Cove) and professional businesses within the business park. • Vehicles have access by only two sources (Village Court and Village Center). Traffic flow is fed into these two sources from Hwy 111. • There is one intersection in the area which is controlled by a four way stop sign. The influx of(approximately 3,000) cars or potential members of the gym, would make traffic back up. Even if this figure was in half, it would have an impact. This would cause fnistration and hardship to other businesses, employees, clients and surrounding residential neighborhoods to gain access to their places of business, appointments and homes. • The parking lot is at the end of a cul de sac. People in mass quantities will be circling the building attempting to locate empty parking spaces. The congestion within the neighborhood and the cul de sac during peak class time will be paramount. A bottleneck of traffic will be the net result. Parking• • According to Commissioner Greenwood, as per the minutes of November 5, 2013 Public Hearing: "The planned fitness and gym facility is already deficient 20 parking spaces. • There is no reciprocal parking agreement in place for additional parking." • This does not account for the additional parking needed (if and when) the hair/nail salon and the weight loss center OR the usage for the additional or outstanding unused square footage of 7,500 is sold or built out. • This will have a direct impact on our building but the adjacent businesses in the location of the cul de sac. • The monitoring of parking, complaints and violations thereof will diminish our potential for our customers and their satisfaction in doing business with us and the other owners in the building. In conclusion, we have no malice towards Mr. Shah, the gym facility, weigh loss center or nail/hair salon. In fact, we personally use all of these services in our personal lives. Our objection in supporting the denial of the CUP is with the land use, parking, traffic congestion, noise/vibration, loitering of patrons in an area that is currently zoned for "Office Professional" use. There are additional concerns surrounding the property that were noted in the November 5, 2013 minutes from the Planning Commissioner. Please review if additional input is deemed necessary to uphold the denial of CUP 12-385. Sincerely, Cindy Kleine ��, 1�-1�v e��l City of palm Desert Communiry Development AUST_IN ART � - • NOV 04 2013 To u�hom it May �oneern, � My name is David Austin, and I am the principle of Austin Art C�rojeets, a private fine art advisory and artist's ageney. Our offiees are loeated in the office condominium building at 44-65f Uillage �ourt. l am u�riting this letter in referenee to the proposed gym and spa loeated in the same offiee condominium complex. I do not object to this use for the building, as long as the parking for my elients and other tenants in the building is not affeeted. The city parking study lists that there u�ould ordinarily be tu�enty five spaees allocated for Austin Art projeets 6,200 square feet. Though I am not giving up rights to the other spaces, ( u�ould like to state that I u�ould (ike the six parking spaces direetly in front of my spaee to be dedieated to Austin Art �rojeets. Sineerely, navid Austin Austin Art projects RiNc. 760.895.8658 rvaE. info@austinartprojects.com aosr. PO Box 1916 Palm Desert CA 92261 � • � i � � ^� � �ive �t�r �'itness, �..I��. 73585 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 202 Palm D�sert, CA 92260 March 4, 2013 City of Palm Desert Planning Commission 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 To Whom it May Concern: As Employees, Owners and Tenants of businesses of Village Court, we are in support of the newly proposed fitness club located at 44651 Village Court in Palm Desert. � e� r � .� Name Signature � Business / I ,--- C�v>1�l �V.kM�rn�)n../J �� o�/;� . Name ��%f�Signatur�-� J Business I - �'��+�M- � � � 3 Name Signature Business �1�� l Name Signa ure Business � - � � �l c�� Name Signature siness _, ame ign�ture Business � /Y`�1 s ame Signature �i siness '� ' � � Continued As Employees, Owners and Tenants of businesses of Village Court, we are in support of the newly proposed fitness club located at 44651 Village Court in Palm Desert. �' _� /i � � �, � ( / �� . �q (/ , :. A �L/.� � �i jC,� .:Yl�! � �/�� ''/'l��/�il.. !�/'Z.� �'...ly,:... 1 ��L!i,'(�-J Name Si a e Business ��vl�n�l ��°t2i�;S '� �_S�,Gi �-�•t t.�-� Name Signature Business l Name Signa�u Business � ' Name Signature B iness r � � �-�---- G..��1 �. � �l�l� -�✓� Name Signature Business � �� Name Signature �3usiness � , , -F-'�l�� `-3i,`��;l�� Name Signat Business �� -t�J � __ Name Signature Business , � Naine Si at re Business Name Signature Business . , �� v� ��ar Fit��s, �.,�.�. 73585 Fred Waring Driv�, Suit� 202 P�lm I��sert, CA. 92260 March 4, 2013 City of Palm Desert Planning Commission 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 To Whom it May Concern: As Employees, Owners and Tenants of businesses of Village Court, we are in support of the newly proposed fitness club located at 44651 Village Court in Palm Desert. G� �' � Name Signature Business /�"-----"` �X�C�.e-17`�`v� �'r,��' �`C��'"F.�-E'..� Name Signat�re Business � � / � �G �� _�~/ Name ignature Business ` � � fl t' �l.i�9 n Name gnature Business �� , � � �'� /'�-c�� _� �C.5,�1,�,�,� ,� �;%-� 1>c"'s�=ti l� Name Signature Business / '�� ., �� -��-, �J�,l�\� I Name ature Business Name Signature Business .' ' �:� ��v� �tar �'�t�i��s, 1L��. 73585 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 202 Palm D�s�rt, C1� 92260 March 4, 2013 City of Palm Desert Planning Commission 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 To Whom it May Concern: A.s Employees, Owners and Tenants of businesses of Village Court, we are in support of the newly proposed fitness club located at 44651 Village Court in Palm Desert. /�/l/G'�l¢��- /"Y�` ��1��"�� /C �F .�SS��%/f�/�� Name ignature usiness --��C' ' `-� ' —� -�w'c, Nam Signature Business � .�y� ---� � ,----� -� .�- �- �. �',�._� �,---� . �-��- �-c�.��.,.�`..__,._`.�at�: �� Name Signature Business Name Signature Business Name Signature F3usiness Name Signature Business Name Signature Business . . �� '�v� S�t�r F�tn��ss, �,L�. 73585 Fred Wari�g Drive, Suit� 202 Palm Desert, CA 92260 March 4, 2013 City of Palm Desert Planning Commission 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 To Whom it May Concern: As Employees, Owners and Tenants of businesses of Village Court, we are in support of the newly proposed fitness club located at 4651 illage Court in Palm Desert. � �\\��a � . � Q ��C� Name ignature Business � m � � �� . Name Signature Business Name gnature Business ►�� -e� QD ' d �G(l � Name Signat Bu ines Name Signature }3usiness Name Signature Business Name Signature Business ., . �� <� �'ive �x�x �ixr��ss, �I��e 73585 Fred Waring Drive, �uite 202 Palm Desert, CA 92260 March 4, 2013 � � City of Palm Desert Planning Coinmission 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 To Whom it May Concern: As Employees, Owners and Tenants of businesses of Village Court, we are in support of the newly proposed fitness club located at 44651 Village Court in Pal esert. � (�-�-G�� r Name 5ignatur sines ' . ��r./ ��•�9 �s , � .�s Name Signature siness / �j� ,�/ . l ��'�L i�'/- //�� -/�i l O�v c�,�f E.s ame Si ature Business � _ _ � �j � •�l�! !✓' � '� .�✓�ida i�.2 7, �✓ / l f,.l�w i/�i' ,� n, c"' rJ iL✓ /��.�1'��U Name Signature Business `��rL�►-� �=�f z Q, ,�- c� �� Z �� ...� �.�o� Name Signature Business Name Signature Business Name Signature T3usiness s • � �� Continued As Employees, Owners and Tenants of businesses of Village Court, we are in support of the newly prbposed fitness club located a�t 446�Villa e Court in�alm Desert. , ; � i ,� ; I ; ' , r � 1 ��, / �\ � � � � � � � �, i ' � ` � ��,�. `� � � 1 �° � ' �� i , � t � �/ � � �_.' , ,; �' �, � �� rJ ; , �sC'� S Naine �:�, ign�re..,� ines� � �`� �,�%�:, y�,.,, ./� ! �� :�- . G, � � '`��i� lr i� y . . Name �� gnature Business ��j�� l � ,;i ,�G � � ^ ,.� � ; ' r;ir� � ��. �( ,}'T,� ��u( �l�� '(�:G�� \Name Signature Business r �, l�-� � �s . r� t `/=��G��.S �e Signature Business l �n�it,�`--'_. ti-- -�r� ZySC��'i:s N e Signature Business � ;r � , ,�-Z ' , �� . . , s ��- Name at�— Busines � �.t�1 �� `�� s ��r�� Name Signature Business , r� �-�..� ��'"�i�'��fr�.,�', ,�r-r.�;..t�E--�"�„� ��,r�1��5� Name Signature Business , �� ' ;�. � , b� i� ' � ,�� a�ne Signatt:ire Bu ess / j' ,/ , j; �, � , � � �� S Name ature Business • ' �� ,,,� �ive �tar �'itn+��s, L,�.�. 73585 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 202 Palm Desert, CA 92260 March 4, 2013 � City of Palm Desert Planning Commission 73-510 I'red Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 To Whom it May Concern: As Employees, Owners and Tenants of businesses of Village Court, we are in support of the newly proposed fitness club located at 44651 Village Court in Palm Desert. � -- ----- �._. ____. _. ._. �:��,,.___.-- -__ .,� �-� � G�.� � �. - � �; �,-��c�P r1- Name Signature Business j 'ZC��U � �'�.0 S - ti. I �. - f�-�; � �?n�- C�,i��'� Name Sig ature Business �+ ; ,. � e�n� i r � 1�r,� - ��h� ;_��h i k�,._ � �Name Signature Business , / I �,� �� (,l�r� S �'`e �► i� '� � -� ,i��—'ai� �C'�,-.�c� �' .) /�r n�1 �G''�l- Name Signature l3usiness �(SG�I I`�[(,u��,[„rZ S�l �c ,U:�� /1cb�ra� cl ICP�c.� �A Name �� Signature Rusiriess Name Signature Business Naine Signature Business 1 � r � �,,,� � � Five �t�r F�tne�s, �,LC. 73585 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 202 Palm Desert, CA 92260 March 4, 2013 � � City of Palm Desert Planning Commissiori 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 To Whom it May Concern: As Employees, Owners and Tenants of businesses of Village Court, we are in support of the newly proposed fitness club located at 44651 Village Court in Palm Desert. '� l �� - � � �� s � �- ��1-�'s �rc� t��r,� � r-S �. Name �S Business , � / � , � /�'1 �'�,11,; �/h�':�,.�'�d�,.a,/�c- ��2 Name i ature Business � ` ^ ' �� L � �� ''� ,� � �� '��- l ,�(�S� Na e Sigi�ature r Business (� � �� r� Na Sign Business , �I �/�� , �i` %" ,� �G � �'' l°\ � 1 � Name °' S�`�� -� � Business -.. ._ l . . � . � .r�/J �._ .. ' .,-'/' �...._..." / l� �' � � '';; 3 ��-,�r��•� i'�L �'-. --.,. ( .� '� � 4�', j �/" r\-' �-'_ ;��.. '� �' ,~ ! � .� �Iw� � � zr/ 1, /e �'�,i�.�� Name Signature � I3usiness , -, �, � c`__� �, I �� '� i � �,��K �.�.�� Name _. Signature Business To: The City of Palm Desert Pla►�ning Commission: I, Guy Dreier & Elizabeth A. Dreier owners of units No.135 of at 44651 Village Court, Palm Desert have reviewed and approved the proposed Conditional Use Permit No._____ application to the City of Palm Desert to develop a 22,616 sq. ft. fitness club in the building.( exhibit A) with the following s�ecial conditions included as requirements in the City approval: 1. Hours of operation of the facility shall be 5 a.m. to 10 p.m. Sale of beer �and wine shali be limited to 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. 2. The remaining east haliway from the south entrance foyer to the rear shall be maintained. 3. The remaining east bathrooms shall be I<ey restricted for non-fitness office space users only. . 4. in addition to the front foyer entrance, the plan shall include a double glass door commercial storefront entrance from the north patio. 5. The existing 11 handicapped parking spaces shali be reduced to the 6 required by city ordinance with 3 located near the north entrance. Four spaces adjacent to the south side of the building shall be designated `or 1 hour parking only. 5. Completion of the interior shali be consistent in with the attached video tour produced by Patel Architecture. 7, "Tl�e owner es-I- -N� �i nes� e �vb �ho�.�� w��c�.� �C 1�� '� �ryC,�yC- , ,p�, Wa�it� r�c�u'�c� Cour�a�'tQ � �� ga�k. ( 4�.o y�n o�J�n- �� acti.e., a.lka.r.u.-t.t�. kv�►io�� .�� p�'i�►�l.�. wh�tS� Guy Dreier 3 . 135 , l.J G Sha.l� '��nt �'� wla��a�ti �.c„ i�.�krt��f a � 3 -�t,,.c. n.ev co�r�c� �`� ^ '��1� � 13 DVt a. w��.��. -� �`� WGt.�`• Efizabe A. Dreier ,, _ ..._ Date - � __- . �I�I► � �.=: _ .