HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/14/2001 - STAFF REPORTS (2) 02/14/2001 15:07 7604161B21 PALAPAS PAGE 02
t
3255 E PALM CANYON PALAPAS (760)416-1818
PALM SPRINGS,CA 92264 of A!'pb Cow FAX(760)416,1821
To;
City o£Pahm Springs planning Commission M Sp
Friend Development 104 unit apartnwAs at Araby and Palm Canyon Drive FEB 14 W
February 14,2001
Dear Planning Commission,
We are writing this letter in reference to the Friend Development's 104 not apartment complex
and it's on going;revisions on the project.and appeal pending before the commission.
It has come to our attention that Friend Development has revised their proposed plan to include
parking along the south side of the 30 foot easement that is provided as access to the Palapas
property. Their plan is to allow for parallel parking for the apartment's guests,as well as Palapas
guests,when needed along the easement. Overall a very good idea which helps body properties.
The problem that would arise from this proposal is that the natmal exit that the apartment guests
would take would be to make their tam-around through the Palapas property,which is a private
property. We have substantial security concerns about the apartment's guests driving through our
property to exit the ease me t,particularly at night when we are closes. We are already
vulnerable to vandalism being an outdoor complex,additional unwarranted access by patrons not
associated with Falapas is an invitation for inappropriate use of our property.
We have had a discussion with Friend Development regarding this potential problem and have
agreed that Friend Development,along with Palapas,would address this situation if it is deemed
necessary,and share in the cost of an iron gate sorr ewbere at or around our property lime that can
be opened and closed at Palapas discretion,when we are closed to the public. TWs will secure our
property from use by neighbors,and their unauthorized vehicle traffic, loitering,dog walking,etc.
This or a similar remedy may be necessary to protect Palapas from 150 additional neighbors
accessing our property,should it be warranted,we ask for the cities support on this issue.
I have submitted this letter as a matter of record while the commission is reviewing all of the
information on the project. Any questions may be directed to Cynthia or Donovan Taylor at
Pala as 760 416-1 S 19. Thtnk you for your consideration.
Cynthta and Donavan Taylor
Palapas of Araby Cove
f-i I
/ i
02/14/2001 15:07 7604161821 PALAPAS PAGE 03
Case 5.0843- CUP Staff Report
December 13, 2000
Page 4 of 7
Fire Marshal prior to issuance of building permits.
The applicant submitted a traffic study for the project, and the City Engineer has reviewed it and
determined that the project will not create significant impacts to the existing levels of service,
SunLine Transit Agency has also reviewed the plans and recommended that a bus bay turn-out
be located on the southeast comer of East Palm Canyon and Araby Drive, Staff has included
conditions of approval requiring said bus bay turn-out as well as a bus shelter which is
architecturally integrated with the project.
The Commission inquired about the possibility of adding a left-turn arrow on the signal at the
Intersection of East Palm Canyon Drive and Araby. The signal at this Intersection will be looked
at as part of CVAG's Valley-wide interconnection study in early 2001,
The General Plan shows a half-street right of--way width on East Palm Canyon Drive of 101 feet
(total of 202 feet). The Intent of the General Plan Is to allow for a frontage road. The proposed site
plan Includes a 30-foot frontage over an easement. Thus, the proposal meets the intent of the
General Plan. A five-foot sidewalk and bikeway easement will also be accommodated. The
existing special conditions, size of the site, topography and irregular shape render difficulties in
constructing full street improvements at the street grade. Therefore, the proposed resolution of
approval indudes a finding that the appropriate street standard on East Palm Canyon Drive at this
location is a 101-foot ultimate half-street right-of-way pursuant to the General Plan right-of-way.
This finding is made because existing development patterns make acquisition of lands to comply
with existing street standards In feasible. Section 7.1.5 of the General Plan allows cross-section
standards to be modified by the Planning Commission to take Into consideration the need for
special right-of-way widths where property cannot be feasibly acquired or the nature of the terrain
through which the street passes to prevent scarring of the landscape.
3. On-site Parking:
Zoning Code Section 93.06.00, Off-street parking, requires a total of 170 parking spaces for the
project, based upon the unit count and number of bedrooms per unit specified under this
application. Section 93.06.00 does not require that parking spaces for apartment units be covered.
The proposed site plan indicates a total of 154 parking spaces, 104 of which will be covered by
carports. The total number of parking spaces to be provided is 10% less than the code requires;
however,Section 94.06.01(A)(6)authorizes the Planning Commission or the Director of Planning
and Building to grant a reduction in the number of required parking spaces by not more than 10%.
As such, the applicant requests approval of an Administrative Minor Modification. The applicant
asserts that the size of the units and the rental rates for luxury apartments will not attract large
families, thus the parking need will be reduced. The applicant's proposal to cover 104 of the
spaces with carports adds a nice amenity for the residents,and will provide more shading than the
50%code requirement for parking lot shade trees. Additionally,,the revised site plan indicates 40
parking spaces on the south Bide of the access road for the projects.overflow parking. Staff is
"supportl9e of the requested Administrative Minor Moditication.
02/14/2001 15:07 7604161221 PALAPAS PAGE 04
411
leo
�IIpM1 WMIN�M ,.,,.
YM IM'Y.xWq JITIIhY�WWGIIMIMIMS'IOA'SOI
1 � 1
I '
Its 1 � ► ii' [ i�4 ;9ii 1 / %li ���,:
I l
1 i
i
t=2 n �.
c�
w ;
A � �
FEB 14 2,uju CAR C c o0
SELLER, EALY, HEMPHILL & BLASDEL, LL -
AREGISTEREDGMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP /
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PAUL I.SELZER 777 E. TAHQUTIZ CANYON WAY,SUITE 328
W. CURT EALY PALM SPRINGS,CALIFORNIA 92262
EMILYPERRI HEMPHILL TELEPHONE(760)320-5977
DIANE C.BLASDEL FACSIMILE(760)3204507
e-mail.EPHEMPHILL@aol.cam
February 14, 2001 a
Mayor& City
CouncilCity of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262
RE: Friend Development Palm Springs, LLC
Case No. 5.0843
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
This office represents Friend Development Palm Springs, LLC,the applicant on the above
referenced project. The Council,at its meeting on February 14,2001,will be faced with the choice
of either upholding the Planning Commission's unanimous approval of my client's project (the
"Project") or overturning the Planning Commission by upholding an appeal filed by two local
residents. As the Council considers this decision,we believe it important that certain issues raised
during the public hearings on this matter be clarified.
During the last Council meeting on this matter,it was suggested that the applicant meet with
the neighbors objecting to the Project in an effort to resolve the remaining disputes. The Council
should be aware that the applicant has had several meetings with the neighbors. The first of these
meetings occurred on November 18,2000 when the applicant met with a group of homeowners from
Park South. At that time,the homeowners presented the applicant with a petition which states:
"We, members of the Park South homeowners association(in attendance), agree to
support Villa Del Sol apartment complex. This support is contingent upon the
developers agreement to the attached list of changes."
This petition was signed by 26 Park South homeowners. The attached list of changes set out
10 items including providing an electronic control gate for Park South,providing every homeowner
in Park South with two remote control devices for that gate,landscaping and lighting improvements
along the private street serving Park South, new gates for certain traits in Park South and a new
monument sign for Park South. One of the conditions even required that the applicant give a portion
of its land to one of the Park South homeowners whose outdoor patio encroached on the applicant's
land. These conditions do not address impacts that the Project may have. Rather,they are unrelated
improvements for Park South,and as such,would likely constitute impermissible conditions because
the law which requires that conditions placed on projects have an essential nexus to project impacts
EPHIPRIGND/LTR TO PALM SPRINGS:2/14/01
SELZER, EALY, HEMPHILL & BLASDEL, LLP
February 14, 2001
Page 2
and be reasonably proportional to those impacts. Despite the unusual nature of these conditions,the
applicant agreed to incorporate them into the Project, and as a result, City Staff included those
conditions within the Project's conditions of approval. Having agreed to the demanded conditions
and thereby obtained to apparent support of the Park South homeowners as set for in their petition,
the applicant continued its Project development efforts, at considerable expense both with respect
to time and money. Having now completed those efforts, two of those same homeowners whose
demands were all met now seek to kill the Project. Such behavior is disingenuous at best and places
in serious question the possible productivity of further discussion with the Park South homeowners.
Despite this fact, the applicant has had several subsequent meetings with the
appellants in an effort to resolve their concerns. When those homeowners indicated that they were
concerned about the approved minor modification which would allow a slight adjustment in
setbacks, the applicant agreed to eliminate that minor modification and conform to the set backs
required in the zoning ordinance. When the homeowners expressed concerns about parking, the
applicant demonstrated how the Project meets, and in fact exceeds the parking requirements of the
zoning ordinance. Despite these further compromises by the applicant, the appellants continue to
oppose the Project. It appears that the only possible resolution that would satisfy the appellants is
to reduce Project density. In light of the conditions imposed on the Project, including those
conditions imposed at the demand of the Park South homeowners, any reduction in density will
compromise the economic viability of the Project.
The Project, as proposed to the Council, conforms to all of the requirements of the
City's zoning ordinance. Despite this fact,the appellants now demand a reduction in density. They
base their argument on the fact that their own development is single story and has a lower density
than the proposed Project. It is important to note that the subject property and all surrounding
properly, including Park South, are zoned R-3. It is inconceivable that a project which wholly
complies with the R-3 zone and is totally surrounded by the R-3 zone can be found to be
incompatible with surrounding property. The fact that the developer of Park South choose to
develop that project at a given density does not change the allowable density contained within the
City's zoning ordinances or the City's General Plan. To suggest that this is an appropriate basis
upon which to deny this Project is to disregard the zoning and planning process and to place
development standards in the hands of the first developer in the area. This is an abdication of the
City's legal responsibility to provide for orderly development through the zoning and general
planning process.
Another issue which has been raised in the course of the appeal before the Council
is that of traffic. The appellants claim that the Project will create unacceptable traffic impacts. In
considering this matter, the Council must recognize the fact that applicant has conducted and
submitted to the City, a full traffic study on the Project in order to evaluate any potential traffic
impacts. That study shows that the Project will not have significant traffic impacts. The appellants
EPII/FRIEND/LTR TO PALM SPRINGS2/14/01
SELZER, EALY, BEMPHILL & BLASDEL, LLP
February 14, 2001
Page 3
by contrast, offer not a scintilla of evidence to support their claims of unacceptable traffic impacts.
The Cormcil's responsibility under the law is to make its decisions based upon substantial evidence
in the record, not based upon unsubstantiated opinions. Any decision by the Council to reject the
Project due to traffic impacts cannot be supported without a full review of the traffic study
submitted. That review will show that there are no anticipated significant traffic impacts from the
Project. If the Council nonetheless elects to reject the Project due to traffic impacts,such a rejection
would be contrary to the substantial evidence before the Council and would constitute action which
is arbitrary, capricious and therefore invalid.
At the last Council meeting where this Project was considered,one of the Park South
homeowners objected to the Project claiming that this apartment project was not needed and that
there were many other locations for such a project. Both of these statements are incorrect, as
evidenced by the City's own planning documents.
The Housing Element of the City's General Plan states 1994 Housing Needs as being
a total of 1,628 additional units needed for very low, low and moderate income households. This
figure is based on data from the Southern California Association of Governments("SCAG"),as the
Housing Element, by law, must address the City's share of regional housing need. The Housing
Element also states that this estimate was found to be low based on more detailed local analysis
conducted by CVAG. When the City was last faced with an apartment proposal, it commissioned
a study to update the figures on regional housing needs. That study,completed on October 29, 1999
shows the regional housing need for Palm Springs as being 1,609 units(410 very low,278 low, 310
moderate and 611 high income) for the years 2001-2005. That same study conducted a survey of
available rental units and found a vacancy rate of only 2.4%. The authors of the study indicate that
a rental vacancy rate of less than 5%indicates a tight housing market. Given that the City's vacancy
rate was less than half of that 5%level,the only conclusion that can be drawn is that there remains
a significant unmet need for rental housing in the City. Clearly, therefore, the statement that this
Project is not needed is simply wrong.
The City's Housing Element states the"The overall goal guiding the City's housing
policies and programs is to ensure that all residents of the City have decent, safe, sanitary and
affordable housing regardless of income." This goal is clearly in response to the requirements of
state law which require that the City appropriately zone sufficient land to provide for development
of housing affordable to all residents regardless of income. [Government Code 65580.] The City's
Housing Element further states that one of the major obstacles to development of affordable housing
in Palm Springs is the "lack of vacant land suitably zoned and general plan designated for multi-
family housing." [Housing Element page I-84.] Given this fact, the statement that there are many
other locations in the City for this Project not only ignores my client's rights as the owner of this
land, it is shown to be absolutely untrue by the City's own admission.
EPH/FRIEND/LTR TO PALM SPRINGS:2/14/01
SELZER, EALY, HEMPHILL & BLASDEL, LLP
February 14, 2001
Page 4
In order to satisfy the City's stated goal to insure all residents decent housing despite
differences in income, the City must make a commitment to provide housing in all cost ranges.
Multi family housing is a critical component to assuring that decent housing is affordable to
households ofvery low,low and moderate incomes. By discriminating against multi family housing,
the City not only violates its own stated objectives in General Plan, it violates state law which
forbids discrimination against housing intended for occupancy by individuals of low or moderate
income. The City's use of the Resort Overlay in this case is a clear effort to discourage multi family
housing in one of the admittedly few areas suitably zoned and General Plan designated for this type
of use. By discouraging multi family housing in an environment where suitable property is already
in short supply, the City is discriminating against multi family housing which, by definition,
discriminates against housing intended for low and moderate income residents. This is a blatant
violation of State law.
In resolving this issue,the Council must decide whether its development decisions
will be decided in conformity with the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinances and with State
law, or, whether those development decisions will be determined on an impromptu basis by the
loudest objectors in the room. While such a decision is, obviously, difficult from a political
perspective,nonetheless,from a legal perspective,the City's choice is clear. A decision to overturn
the Planning Commission's unanimous approval in this case violates state law, is in conflict with
the City's own General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, and is arbitrary and capricious in violation of
the rights of the applicant. We believe that the applicant has shown good faith in making
compromises to satisfy the neighbors,and,in light of that fact and the Council's legal responsibility
for providing housing to all residents without regard to income, we urge the Council uphold the
Planning Commission's approval of the Project.
Sincerely,
Emily Perr Hemphill J
Selzer EE Hemphill & Blasdel, LLP
cc: Randy Friend
Wyn Holmes
EPII/FRIEND/LTR TO PALM SPRINGS2114/01
,//a Ib ,
70 e at v[�ioU[ 6� � �,e � ��rrYI� S �i COvv►Se {
Wke " --rrr�vve�f/ �n `Q2,1 � rirvj � S ivy 19 q , Ihp �ere w3 /s
I Zf-�t-}(C I� h � % pl Loud aI S/ uni--i-see)a o J'f�l I t l 7V�e
r12X O V) e- 01-'- / /(l Luau 1 ki o 2 a vid
14y /// ccJ S a t(l Z:, f-1-o w V, f-a H e
f, Iae(Ct, p ) SVK ri .5e was a t delI C'C� v1Vl
&mil etAc � � ley (I(I `,h-eacrbl
Sc, O-L- , To I-� �� dr c iVe licl( VIoL e �t co lLln /may
E fff C° r e to c4 i d nol ji o F L o �� 111 �1-caw( 'Ra m o K TAB
a cl i CfJ� � a V1 e I � y� � w a b� Cec) to 6a to ee
vek ke Rcl. 7-Aet-e -ru %-e- there wa-5 mo
veer eAicm Z w -�Ll A �-a Ly av�j gy/(l , -T do-ki
t-ec t-e- I Iei-ti a- slcP i�vk fa-- At �y -�� eV1 - -c ��
b tit t o I d}/. ///.-t-�ti e-r-�-c z�_�s -vi o i-e� I -P ee c( -
<4 i w[e i _i ti_Vi -C)
ems' /�LoAzly,.
�e Z.oh ( K o'i he V [Ilze I�e ��ol pr��eeE �iLe W a
P FoI�� LEI y c{e e r wl I {1 e c� '� t h�� (tee w� e o I- m 0 C��t e� e-i-,
r[M kes/ i -�r� u vcwofv-Yz� 1n.�/e s_ yeS:Le1- ye-2L'--s /ack
D-� r�/f�riC 1f AL ,� q I:r Yo �GS zevtctr �k4 v �tl eetS
I1,et v-s- hv�-cl1or-�iP1 ¢- E04d-y -Ek-A wi � I () vL lMU ('B ��VeS
IV1L,o t�e 20-eZ� LhaPI WQe e7ek1 fd �ei-e�te .
1)evelopef-s AA-ve P/Uojerecl -K, evt� rri ►-� c�ese > t� z� re�
fof oo f M�h y ye�f ar, Zomeuj�eI-e tkv- [ IHv- sh0v e
On ��UL /7£�' o � relee�ed a��7� l� fs G�� d tie �.c�c.ra� e �'od�
jv-si -Lk A , in (-e� -di h4 t1 Q Vi l (2-, DQ I Sc, I Cuwt plea 3-5,
p [-z,K 7FvF- tl zrl5Av, 4ecgv Ceyh .— cJe i%<iKk you I.
&v<cf PUOSL A- her Now oe f-pf ece &rlee,- ties cfe4' i
2235 Rim Road
Palm Springs , CA 92264
February 7, 2001
Palm Springs City Council
Re: Villa Del Sol Apartments , development plan
The purpose of this letter is to than], Council Members
Mr. Jones , Ms . Hodges and Ms . Reller-Spur.gin for their support
in opposing the original development plar for the subject apart-
ment buildings .
As I understand the situation, the Developer intends to
present a revised plan this evening without reducing the number
of units and with further reduction of "green" spaces in the
complex.
The high density, large increase in traffic, reduction of
open area, anticipated noise level increase and the turn-over
associated with small apartments of this type will change the
character of our neighborhood. We will find the charm of living
in the Araby area to be diminished and property values, thereby,
reduced.
Again, it is requested that the City Council reject the new
plan and any future plan until the density is significantly re-
duced.
In a much needed overall plan for tl,e development of Palm
Springs , it is hoped that zonining restrictions will preclude
high density developments in our serene residential communities .
Sincerely,
Q
David S . Levine
a/6i—bill' tl dL
!Z`'t i ✓
e. i
LIcPROOF OF PUBLICATIONTins is space tar Countyclerx s r tr„g stamp
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5.C.C.P)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Riverside
No 6931
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Conditional Use Permit
No. 5.0843
Friend Development Palm Springs, LLC
Southeast corner East Patin Canyon
Drive and Araby Drive
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of of Palm Springs California, will hold a pubbc
hearing at its mooting of January 17, 2001. The
the County aforesaid;I am over the age of eighteen pubho hearing will take place on or about'7,00
pm, or as roon thereafter as possible, and writ
years,and not a party to or interested in the be hold at the Council Chamber of the Cityy Coun-
cil of the City of Palm Springs,3200 E --ahquitz
above-entitled matter.I am the principal clerk of a Canyon way, Palm Springs, California 92262.
The purpose of the hearing is to consider an so-
printer of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING peal to the Planning Commission's decision to
COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation, approve a Conditional use Permit ap ica[ion by
Friend Development Palm Springs, LLlQ for a 104-
printed and published in the city of Palm Springs, unit apartment project on a vacant 4.97 net acre
parcel at the southeast corner of East Palm Can-
County of Riverside,and which newspaper has been you Drive and Araby Drive, R-3 Zone, Section 25.
The proposed unit sizes range from one to two
adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the bedrooms, with the one-bedroom units consisting
of approximately 735 square feet and the two-
Superior Court of the County of Riverside,State of bedroom units consisting of 975 square feet The
California under the date of March 24 1988.Case project is proposed to consist of 40 one-bedroom
units and 56 two-bedroom units The 104 units
Number 191236;that the notice,of which the will be contained in eight, two-story buildings,
with each bwldmq ranging from six to eight units
annexed is a printed copy(set in type not smaller In conjunehon with thephcatlon,the application
contemplates a Minor edification for a I0% re-
than non pariel,has been published in each regular auction In parking requirements, a 20i reduction
in rear yard setback and a 20% reduction from
and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any special setbacks along East Palm Canyon Drive.
supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit:
January 5th
J
-
f
S
All in the year 2001 �- c
I certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct. - �,
8tlr rr -;.-1— r� hl
<�,<�, :u �...,
Dated at Palm Springs,California this-------------day
January This action is categorically exempt from the prove-
Of___ ________________—______,2001 sions of the California Environmental Quality Act
IC EQA) per Section 15332 (In-Fill Development
Projects)
If any individual or arena challenges the action in
court, issues raised may be limited to only those
'V�^'_-_--------____—___—__�__— issues raised at the public hearm described in
_________________
this notice it in written earrespon once at or pn-
Signature or to the any colt be hawing.
An opportunity will be given at said hearing for all
int[rig this
c persons be di heard.Questions reg -
ing this case may be directed to ud Chi 60)
De-
partment of Planning and 6wlding, (7G0)
323-8245.
PATRICIA A. SLANDERS
CITY CLERK
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
RESOLUTION NO. 19992
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS,CALIFORNIA,
DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF CASE NO.5.0843,AN APPLICATION BY
FRIEND DEVELOPMENT PALM SPRINGS LLC FOR A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMITAND ARCH ITECTU RAL APPROVAL FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A
104-UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT ON A VACANT 4.97 NET ACRE
PARCEL LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF EAST PALM
CANYON DRIVE AND ARABY DRIVE, R-3 ZONE, SECTION 25.
WHEREAS, Friend Development Palm Springs LLC(the"Applicant")has filed an application
with the City pursuant to Sections 94.25.00 and 94,04.00 of the Zoning Ordinance for the
development of a two-story, 104-unit apartment project on a 4.97 net acre parcel located at
the southeast corner of East Palm Canyon Drive and Araby Drive, R-3 Zone, Section 25;
and
WHEREAS, a notice of a public hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm
Springs to consider Applicant's application for Case No. 5.0843 was given in accordance
with applicable law; and
WHEREAS,on November 22,2000 and continued to December 13,2000, a public hearing
on the application for Case No.5.0843 was held bythe Planning Commission in accordance
with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of its public hearing on December 13, 2000, the Planning
Commission recommended approval of the project 5-0(2 absent),subject to the conditions
contained in Resolution No. 4725; and
WHEREAS, an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Case No.5.0843 was filed
in a timely mannerwith the City Clerk's office by Scott Kennedyon behalf of Joe V. Kennedy
and Arnold Becker(the "Appellant"); and
WHEREAS, a notice of a public hearing of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs to
consider the appeal to the Planning Commission's approval of Case No.5.0843 was given
in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, on January 17, 2001, a public hearing on the appeal to the decision of the
Planning Commission's approval of Case No. 5.0843 was held by the City Council in
accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS,atthe conclusion of its public hearing on January 17,2001,the City Council of
the City of Palm Springs directed staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial for consideration
of the City Council at their meeting of February 7, 2001; and
WHEREAS, on February 7, 2001, the City Council continued this matter to its meeting of
February 14, 2001; and
WHEREAS, on February 14, 2001, the Resolution of Denial was considered by the City
Council in accordance with applicable law; and
Case 5.0843 - Resolution 19992
February 14, 2001
Page 2 of 5
WHEREAS,on February 14,2001,the City Council considered revised plans submitted by
the applicant to address the concerns raised at the public hearing on January 17, 2001;
WHEREAS,the proposed Conditional Use Permit(Case No.5.0843)is categorically exempt
from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)pursuantto Section
15332 (In-fill Development Projects); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has previously reviewed and considered all of the
evidence presented in connection with the hearing on the project and the City Council has
carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the
hearing on the project, including but not limited to the staff report and all written and oral
testimony presented, and the revised site plan and building elevation for Building 2.
THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Pursuant to CEQA, the City Council finds as follows:
This Conditional Use Permit is categorically exempt from environmental assessment
pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)in that
Section 15332 states that in-fill development projects are exempt from CEQA.
Section 2: Pursuant to Section 92.25.00, 94.02.00 AND 94.04.00 of the Zoning
Ordinance, the City Council finds that:
a. The use applied for at the location set forth in the application is properly one for
which a Conditional Use Permit is authorized by the City's Zoning Ordinance.
Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance,multi-family dwellings are permitted in the Resort
Overlay Zone only by Conditional Use Permit, such permit subject to Planning
Commission findings thatthe proposed use is compatible with its surroundings and
thatthe site in question is not appropriate for other uses allowed by right within the
underlying zone. The purpose of the Resort.Overlay Zone is to ensure adequate
opportunities for tourism. The subject propertyis irregularin shape and is not likely
to be developed as a hotel or other similar use in the future.
b. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan.
The subject property is designated as H-43/21 (High Density Residential) on the
City's General Plan Land Use Map and R-3 (Multiple-family Residential and Hotel
Zone) pursuant to the Zoning Map. The objective of the H-43/21 General Plan
Designation(providing forthe development of a threshold of 15 and a maximum of
21 dwelling units per acre) is to allow for multi-family apartments and similar
permanent housing. The proposed development of 104 apartment units on a 4.97
net acre site(20.92 units per acre)fits within the range of uses allowed within the
High Density Residential General Plan category.
c. The use applied for is necessary or desirable for the development of the
community, is in harmonywith the various elements or objectives of the General Plan, and
is not detrimental to existing uses or to future uses specifically permitted in the zone in
which the proposed use is to be located.
Case 5.0843 - Resolution 19992
February 14, 2001
Page 3 of 5
The proposed development of 104 apartment units is in harmony with the various
elements and objectives of the City of Palm Springs General Plan and is not
detrimental to existing uses specifically permitted in thezone inwhich the proposed
use is to be located.
d. The site forthe intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said
use,including yards,setbacks,walls orfences, landscaping and otherfeatures required in
order to adjust said use to those existing or permitted future uses of land in the
neighborhood.
Pursuantto the revised site plan submitted to the City Council on February 14,2001,
the project's rear yard setbacks are accordance with Section 92.04.03 of the Zoning
Ordinance, negating the need for an Administrative Minor Modification for a 20%
reduction in rear yard setbacks.
Pursuant to the revised site plan submitted to the City Council on February 14,2001,
the project meets the parking standards in accordancewith Section 93.06.00,thus
negating the need foran Administrative Minor Modification fora 10%reduction in the
num ber of required parking spaces,in that the 40 parking spaces provided along the
south side of the private access road are located within the applicant's private
property, and are,therefore, included in the total number of parking spaces forthe
proposed project.
With the incorporation of Administrative Minor Modifications for a reduced setback
(from 125 feet to 110 feet)from East Palm Canyon Drive,the site for the proposed
104-unit apartment project,on a 4.97 net acre parcel located at the southeast corner
of East Palm Canyon Drive and Araby Drive, is adequate in shape and size to
accommodate said use,including yards,setbacks,walls orfences,landscaping and
other features required in order to adjust said use to those existing or permitted
future uses of the land in the neighborhood.
e. The site for the proposed use related to streets and highways is properly
designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated by the
proposed use.
The proposed development of 104 apartment units is bordered on three sides by
roadways,one of which is a private street,one of which is a collector street,and one
of which is a 30-foot wide access road alongside a major thoroughfare. A bus bay
turn-out and bus shelter will be required along the East Palm Canyon Drive frontage
in accordance with the design criteria of SunLine Transit Agency. The payment of
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fund(TUMF)fees will be required upon issuance
of building permits. With all of the above items incorporated into the recommended
Conditions of Approval for the project(Exhibit A),the vehicular circulation system will
not be negatively impacted by trips generated from this project.
Case 5.0843 - Resolution 19992
February 14, 2001
Page 4 of 5
f. In accordance with Policy 7.1.5 of the General Plan, the appropriate street
standard on East Palm Canyon Drive atthis location is a 101-foot ultimate half-street right-
of-way.
This finding is made because existing development patterns make acquisition of
lands to comply with existing street standards infeasible and unnecessary. Policy
7.1.5 of the General Plan states that cross-section standards may be modified by
the Planning Commission to take into consideration the need forspecial right-of-way
widths where property cannot be feasibly acquired or the nature of the terrain
through which the street passes to prevent scarring of the landscape. The General
Plan shows a half-street right-of-way width on East Palm Canyon Drive of 101 feet
(total of202feet). The intent of the General Plan is to allow for a frontage road. The
proposed site plan includes a 30-foot frontage over an easement. Thus, the
proposal meets the intent of the General Plan. A five-foot sidewalk and bikeway
easementwill also be accommodated. The existing special conditions, size of the
site, topography and irregular shape render difficulties in constructing full street
improvements at the street grade.
g. The design or improvements of the proposed 104-unit apartment project are
consistent with the General Plan.
The subject site is zoned R-3 (Multiple-family Residential and Hotel Zone) and
designated H-43121 (High Density Residential)pursuantto the City's General Plan
Land Use Map. The project will be compatible with the General Plan and existing
land uses to the south, north(across East Palm Canyon Drive)and east, as well as
future uses of vacant land to the west (across Araby Drive), which could be
developed with a variety of high density residential uses pursuant to the City's
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Furthermore,the project has been designed
to be sensitive to and not conflict with the existing commercial use to the east and
existing multiple family residences directly to the south of the site by incorporating
elements such as, but not limited to,a combination of heavy landscaping and block
walls along shared property lines.
h. The site is physically suitable for the type of development contemplated by the
proposed 104-unit apartment project.
The project has been redesigned to complywith all performance and development
standards of the R-3 Zone of the Zoning Ordinance, with the exception of the
Administrative Minor Modification for a reduced setback(from 125 feet to 110 feet)
from East Palm Canyon Drive. The site is relatively flat with native vegetation
scattered across the property and no overhead utilities, and will be accessed via
Araby Drive. Thus, the project should be compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood.
i. The conditions to be imposed and shown on the approved site plan are deemed
necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare, including any minor
modifications of the zone's property development standards.
All proposed conditions of approval are necessaryto ensure publichealth and safety,
including, but not limited to, the requirements For public street improvements,
landscape and wall treatments along the project perimeter.
Case 5.0843 - Resolution 19992
February 14, 2001
Page 5 of 5
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based upon the foregoing, the City Council
hereby denies the appeal and upholds the Planning Commission's approval of Case No.
5.0843, subject to the revised plans considered by the City Council on February 14, 2001
and those conditions setforth in ExhibitAon file in the Department of Planning and Building,
which are to be satisfied prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy unless otherwise
specified.
ADOPTED this 141-b day of February 2001.
AYES: Members Hodges, Jones, Oden, Reller-Spurgin and Mayor Kleindieust
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
City Clerk {�� City Manager
REVIEWED AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: /�-,�E