Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995/09/18 - MINUTES 1 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS Planning Commission Regular Study Session Minutes Wednesday, September 18, 1996 2:00 to 5:00 p.m., Large Conference Room City Hall, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Drive PRESENT: Marantz, Fontana, Mills (Chr), Foster, Duffy, Jurasky, Raya ABSENT: None STAFF: Evans, Edgmon, Patenaude, Sonenberg Wolfe Report of Posting of Agenda: Agenda available for public access at the City Hall exterior bulletin board (west side of Council Chamber) and the Department of Planning & Building counter by 5:00 P.M., Friday, September 13, 1996. AGENDA 1. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None. 2. DISCUSSION - Discussion of request to consider change of land use along Sunrise Way between Desert Park Avenue and Via Escuela, currently designated L-4 (Low-Density Residential) by the General Plan and zoned R-1-C (Single Family Residential) Principal Planner Patenaude: Request concerns 6 lots along the east side of Sunrise Way, across the street from the portion of the Lucky's center that is under construction; property owners Bob and Jane Alcumbrac and Linda DiFrancesco have requested a change of General Plan and zone designation to commercial or higher density residential due to this new construction. M/M Alcumbrac and Ms.DiFrancesco spoke in favor of re-zoning, citing excessive traffic, signals, graffiti, proximity of 24-hour businesses (Chief Auto Parts, 7-11 and Lucky's) and other commercial uses creating conditions which are undesirable for single family residential use. Ms.DiFrancesco suggested that the 4 property owners enter into an agreement that the parcels would be sold as 1 parcel, rather than individually. 2 Discussion followed regarding surrounding areas and the possibility of a change to the "P" zone, among other alternatives (higher density residential, commercial), as this area has similar characteristics to the Vista Chino frontage between Sunrise and Farrell that was recently re-zoned to "P". Fontana asked if non-conforming use had been explained to property owners and suggested they talk to staff regarding the impact of re-zoning. The application process has been reviewed with Alcumbrac, applicant. Director Evans stated that a Change of Zone application would have to be filed by one or more property owners and a General Plan Amendment would be done at the same time; typically, with this type of application, once we get a Change of Zone application, we bring it to the PC at a public hearing with a recommendation for denial (because it is inconsistent with the General Plan), and the PC tells us they would like us to amend the General Plan; with this discussion we might try to avoid that hearing; downside is that PC hasn't had property owners' input before requesting staff to look at General Plan; will review and give an update. 3. DISCUSSION - Discussion of request to locate senior housing on property owned by the COMMUNITY CHURCH OF PALM SPRINGS, 284 So. Cahuilla Road. Director stated that this is a very preliminary proposal for land use discussion purposes; there will be an overall master plan for the entire property (including a senior housing project with congregate care) that meets the church's criteria for investment; described layout as presented, zoning is appropriate (an apartment building could be constructed by right of zone, and a senior housing project would require a Conditional Use Permit) asked PC to look at mixed use component; staff recommends that project should meet residential design standards with parking management program. Steve Wilson spoke on behalf of the Church, stating the Church has been active in Palm Springs and the Coachella Valley for 80 years and has recently affiliated with the Christian Missionary Alliance, which is a 100-year old very successful missionary organization with a $30,000,000 annual budget, and operates, builds and owns retirement facilities throughout the USA and Canada; Church has met with the district supervisor for this division and they have expressed interest in it; would be early California mission style, a first class facility with a better quality of care with a commercial kitchen, assisted care living; proposing capacity of 40; has talked to many of the neighbors, who appear to be very receptive to the proposed expansion. 3 Wendell Veith, architect (and member of the Church since 1942) spoke in support of the project, stating that this senior retirement center is intended to be an extension of the ministry of the Church for senior citizens; design concept includes sliding doors and patio areas outside ground floor units; upper units would have balconies; feels that look is compatible with the area; proposing 16, 1-bedroom units and 24 studio units; heavy landscaping proposed. Director stated that direction is needed from the PC regarding basic concept only, as staff needs to talk w/the applicant regarding property development standards, design, scale, blending with the neighborhood and meeting the codes; per applicant, they put together an exhibit of basic facility they would need, which he doesn't think is the community standard that would be acceptable on this location because of the neighborhood and the fact that very high quality residential care facilities have been done in the City; with this design, the maximum occupancy load is 56; parking requirement - approx. 20; encouraging a campus design w/extensive landscaping - should look like it fits the neighborhood and that it is one project with a lot of overlap; by designing project correctly some of the neighborhood concerns can be helped. Discussion included surrounding property uses, community reaction to the proposed usage; neighborhood compatibility, open space requirements, additional traffic generated, traffic flow on-site; and the need to plan for a full facility with designated area for outdoor activity. There appeared to be consensus that the PC liked the basic concept and that the foregoing issues need to be addressed. 4. PRE-APPLICATION - Application by PACIFIC MONARCH RESORTS, INC. for a timeshare project on the northeast corner of South Palm Canyon Drive and Mesquite Road (across the street from Mac Magruder Chevrolet), C-1 zone, Section 23. Commissioners Mills abstained (architect for project); Commissioner Marantz abstained (property ownership in the area); and Commissioner Foster presided. Director stated that this is a very large new proposal; (applicant completely remodeled and manages the property on South Palm Canyon Dr. at Murray Canyon - it is staffs understanding that this project has been so successful that they need 12 acres of new construction for anticipated growth); current zoning allows for hotel development (does not permit residential); need PC input on timeshare resort, defining whether it is more residential or hotel in character with density factor question; City has looked at this property many times since it was a commercial shopping center until early 1980's; consists of 11+/- acres around a very small parcel just south of Tahquitz Creek; applicant has the majority of the property in escrow, but has not acquired the smaller piece, which has always 4 been harder to incorporate; past City approvals include a commercial shopping center and 32 large resort hotels; and requested that PC focus on issues of land use and density. Planner (Balderas) stated that the property entails 11.71 ac; hotel density would allow a maximum of 510 units and multi-residential density would allow maximum of 255 units; this proposal for time share units is for 360 units, with 2,3 and 5 story design; parking requirements: hotel use - 283 (not including conf. rooms, dining rooms, etc.) multi-residential use - 619; parking provided per proposal is 471 (surface and underground); bldg. coverage is 35% - which is within code; described site plan, indicating building heights, access, density and circulation. Chris Mills, architect for the project, further explained proposed plan with the highrise concept and relationship to surrounding properties; designed to have minimum impact on surrounding area, created a buffer from the neighborhood; no restaurant - just snack bar at the pool; units will have individual kitchens; plan uses the topography of the site with its 12' diagonal fall to advantage with the multi-story buildings; and feels it would have a positive impact on neighborhood. Kevin Eslinger, project representative, described their timeshare concept, fee simple ownership and point system and responded to questions regarding use; will begin neighborhood meetings after today's meeting; due to product cost, needs to get highest density possible; their South Palm Canyon project has been very successful, having 90-95% occupancy in the summertime with no seasonal variance. Director stated that the applicant's main concern at this point is density, land use determination, and overall direction of the concept; from prior applications and hearings, is sure that the Church and hotels will object to the 5-story buildings; will need to do some cross-sections, survey work and site-line studies, and meet w/home and hotel owners to show actual impact; address concerns of neighborhood, including access, traffic, headlights (architect has already addressed many of these better than in previous projects); per income projections, C-1 zone land use would provide highest revenue, a hotel with Transient Occupancy Tax sales and property tax would be second, with a timeshare unit there will be some sales tax over the life of the project and some property tax, but no TOT tax except when a room is rented to someone outside their fee interest (losing some of the revenue that would be generated from other types of land use); this will open the door for allowing other timeshares to go into our hotel zones; most current timeshares have been conversions - one new timeshare complex that is more resort in nature has been approved, Palm Springs Classic, which includes a large hotel structure and a series of timeshare development 5 sites; would be a boost for the area, primarily with the secondary off-site sales; allowable height for C-1 zone is 30', R-3 (hotel) is 30'; prior high rise structures have been approved by the City on subject site under PDD in excess of 50' . Responses to Commissioners questions are included in above information. Eslinger stated they are having difficulty arriving at a fair market price for the remaining .5 acre parcel; do not want to pursue the eminent domain process; and may choose to exclude this parcel. Director stated that virtually the same situation existed with previous projects, and the Council was apprised that they may need to assist in acquisition; City's position previously was that they didn't want a "spite" parcel left at that bridge; City wants to make sure that area is part of this project, and not leave a .5 acre parcel that will be a problem for access later; will get Redevelopment Agency involved. Eslinger stated that due to the necessary of starting construction, his company is willing to take some risks if they can have some reasonable assurance from this Commission. Chairman Foster summarized Commissioner's comments, stating that it appeared the Commission was in support of the proposal. Director stated that this is an informal presentation and always cautions applicants about proceeding prematurely until the Planning Commission sees the public hearing response; suggested that applicant contact the Mayor's office regarding scheduling a presentation for a City Council study session. 5. DISCUSSION - Discussion and request to consider the deletion of Camino Real between East Palm Canyon Drive and Sonora Road from the General Plan. Planner Patenaude presented the map of the area; stated that the City has had numerous requests to consider projects at the old Biltmore property; a major issue has always been that the General Plan shows an extension of Camino Real through the property, which effectively dissects the property. 1993 General Plan recommended that this be kept on as a collector street, with the portion south of East Palm Canyon as a secondary thoroughfare; intent was to have a north/south thoroughfare between South Palm Canyon and Sunrise Way (with breaks of this property and Tahquitz Creek channel). James Schlecht, who has clients interested in this property, has requested that we look at it again. 6 Director stated that in the past 1-1/2 years two interested groups have looked at the property, but interest ceased when this issue became known to them; from traffic engineering standpoint there is no effective way to make the streets work with a traffic signal - area would need to be lined up to work; need to look at circulation needs for future use. Jim Schlecht, attorney, representing L & S Investment Co., which is the Levin family that has had this property for many years; stated that the issue of the street always becomes a problem when working with prospective buyers; feels that the street (if it remains on the plan) is for the benefit of the City, and not his client's property. After lengthy discussion, the Planning Commission was supportive of deleting the portion of Camino Real located north of East Palm Canyon Drive, which would be a positive response to the problem the Biltmore Hotel has experienced with prospective buyers. Unless a General Plan Amendment (GPA) is formally submitted, Planning staff will schedule this request with the next series of GPA's initiated by the City; if the developers wants to expedite it, they can file a General Plan Amendment fee, at which point staff would be obligated to process it quickly. 6. DISCUSSION - Planning Commission review and discussion of City Council Goals and Priorities. No update. 7. DISCUSSION - Planning Commission review and discussion of the "Recapture our Neighborhood Program" and 5-year plans regarding annexation; building/planning process, zoning; Palm Springs Mall - Desert Fashion Plaza and property development standards; and Department Annual Work Program. Director stated that regarding Bellamonte annexation, staff is still having difficulty getting their representative to sit down with the City Manager and himself. Director stated that regarding code enforcement, staff is working with the City Attorney to look at the program, with the primary focus being on dangerous, dilapidated buildings and protocol for code enforcement; developing an update for City Council; have had good success recently. 8. DISCUSSION - Planning Commission review and discussion of the City Design Review process. 7 Director stated that Design Review could be brought back at a later meeting and reported on the following points which were addressed during the joint meeting: 1) Delegating authority - Design Review consensus was that they like the current process where a good a good application can be approved by staff, which may be done more in the future; 2) utilizing a Consent Agenda in lieu of changing the codes which would allow Design Review to become the decision making body, i.e., formal agendas, minutes, etc; 3) would be very difficult to establish guidelines and criteria; 4) agreed to meet on a pre-application basis with applicants to discuss design character of the community - which is done now on a regular basis with positive results; 5) liked the idea of a Planning Commission observer attending; 6) liked the advisory role to staff, as it creates an informal meeting that moves along quickly...applicants attend when necessary; 7) agreed with Commission on quality and completeness of submittals - pre- applications and preliminary plans are acceptable if they are presented as such; 8) considering going to 1st and 3rd Mondays to allow time for completion before publication of Commission agenda - would build in lead time between the meetings; 9) will report back on scheduling; 10) felt that receiving copies of plans in advance was too cumbersome; 11) format works better in a conference setting than in Council Chambers; 12) liked consensus rather than voting; 13) wants refreshments; 14) Director is reviewing everything before it is scheduled; 15) cut-off date for submittals is now Wednesdays instead of Fridays (urgent situation could still be Fridays); 8 16) will appoint a member to monitor the flow of the discussion and ask for a consensus at the appropriate time. 9. ADDED STARTERS. (If there are added starters, action to determine eligibility for consideration.) None. 10. COMMISSION/STAFF REPORTS/REQUESTS Commissioner Marantz commended Community Preservation Officers on elimination of a lot of bad signs. Commission concerns included Ocotillo parking lot lighting, which is not what was approved, and status of the Comfort Inn. Commissioner Raya commented on comparison of the lighting at Lucky's and Albertson's; he prepared a draft of a lighting ordinance which would make the approval process of lighting easier. Director expressed appreciation, stating that Commissioner Raya's expertise is very valuable, and a new lighting ordinance will be discussed at a future study session. Chairman Mills stated that he would like for staff to attend the Desert Round Table on September 25th, at which time there would be a presentation regarding the median islands. and also commended Ray Balderas on the staff report he prepared for the Council regarding the Vons sign appeal. Director gave an overview of tonight's Council agenda ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:00 Douglas R. Evans Director of Planning & Building