HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-06-21 STAFF REPORTS 1D Jun 20 06 01:18p Neil Arenberg 9494990978 p•1
y
WESSMAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 2006J!1('e 2 Ail T' da.IJ
300 South Palm Canyon Drive
Palm Springs,CA 92262
(760)325-3050 C 1 T
' . C L L h
(760)325-5848 Fax
June 20.2006
Dew Neil:
Ibis letter is written to confirm our telephone conversation earlier today during which we
discussed the possibility of the Del Taco drive-thru and its potential effects an your property.
It is my understanding that you are in agreement as to concept with the Mutual
Reciprocal Agreement that has been sent to you,and that you expect to sign it in the future once we have
refined some minor points. It is my furtherunderstanding that you do not expect the proposed Del Taco
drive-thnr as currently planned to impede on your use of your property or on your business.
If this clearly outlines our discussion and you are in agreement with this letter,please
sign as indicated below and fax it to me at 760.325-5848. With,your permission,I will be passing copies
of this letter out to the Councilpersons at tomorrow's meeting.
Again,thank you for your help in this matter.
Sincerely,
Martha Higgins
V.P./Property Manager
Read and Agreed:
Neil Anonberg June 20,2006
r �
WESSMAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
300 South Palm Canyon Drive
Palm Springs, CA 92262
(760) 325-3050
(760) 325-5848 Fax
June 20, 2006
Dear Neil:
This letter is written to confirm our telephone conversation earlier today
during which we discussed the possibility of the Del Taco drive-thru and its potential
effects on your property.
It is my understanding that you are in agreement as to concept with the
Mutual Reciprocal Agreement that has been sent to you, and that you expect to sign it in
the future once we have refined some minor points. It is my further understanding that
you do not expect the proposed Del Taco drive-thru as currently planned to impede on
your use of your property or on your business.
If this clearly outlines our discussion and you are in agreement with this
letter,please sign as indicated below and fax it to me at 760-325-5848. With your
permission, I will be passing copies of this letter out to the Councilpersons at tomorrow's
meeting.
Again, thank you for your help in this matter.
Sincerely,
Martha Higgins
V.P./Property Manager
Read and Agreed:
Neil Anenberg June 20, 2006
WAY -ram
g
MI
1
5 1 �i' � Exh7tNG 1
F ' �FStMIR44Y I I wT I I
rl s'-- u l E%ISI!!K GAMING- of t l/L- TOTh(1r W VY a
mw bF e5 SPMfS
T--
.107 ' ! it
I
---------------------
I
tcTfvo I
L1ut
.MO CI R�Iw. �II.�( r■�'�w �Ywsu+u �e.Nw w�MN OFGKI1YMIir W111'lNQ11 tia nlQflj
TAHQUrM SQUARE
December 13,2005
4.
TO: Palau Springs Mayor and City Council
FROM: Frank Tysen and Th�6rase Hayes
20;6 WiU 2 r 11 2- 33'
J '"i: Ui :
R1E: An important correction and several clarifications regarding the Wesslttailiraquest to
approve a new time frame for his proposed 4 story project on the southwest counter of Tahquitz
and Cahuilla located in the Historic Tennis Club neighborhood.
-- INCORRECT DESERT SUIT STATEMENT
First of all,we wish to correct a statement made in a Desert Sun article of December 9,
2005 which reports on the council decision regarding Mr. Wessman's extension request The
statement reads as follows:
"Tysen approved the agreement with Wessman in 2004 because
residents of the nearby historic Tennis Club Neighborhood did not object
to having a four story building close the their hornes."
The reporter might have taken his cue from a statement that Counzilperson Mike McCullough
made from the podium,being under the impression that the neighborhood had participated in the
process. We must make it emphatically clear that not one single member ofthe neighborhood
had anything to do with the original agreement that was negotiated by Mr. Wessman,the
R.edevelopmey,nt Agency,and Frank Tysen and Tberese Hayes acting of behalf of Casa Cody.
The.Agreement, a creative suggestion by Councilperson McCullough,basically allowed
Nir.Wessaiarr to transfer some of the zoning density of the Winter house to his adjoining
property where he plains his hotel. However,it did not guarantee him in any way that file
proposed project would be approved during the normal entitlement process involving
Architertura➢Review,Planning and the Council sitting as a Council not as a Redevelopmeat
Agency.
ENTITLEMENT NOT GUARANTEED TO DEVELOPER
'We obviously could not commit the neighborhood and under no circumstances would we
even have been a willing patty to this Owner Participation .Agreement if it had not contained the
following clause:
"NOTWITHSTANDING THE GENERALITY OF THE FOREGOING,
IT IS EXPRESSLY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE PROJECT WILL
REQUIRE LAND-USE APPROVAL BY THE CTI'Y AND NOTHING
HEREIN,INCLUDING'I'HE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT IN
EXHIBIT B AND THE APPROVAL OF THE AGREEMENT BY THE
AGENCY,SHALL LIMIT THE DISCRETION OF THE CITTY BY ITS
PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE,
CONDITIONALLV APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE 7['IIE PROJECT."
This elwase is not only in bold print but was clearly stated both at the beginning of he
Agreement apd at the end so as not to leave any doubt whatsoever. We certainly want to be sure
that none of the city agencies which are to participate in this process can, in any way, be subject
to intimidation by the developer and be made to feel that they have no choice in the matter,
SONW CLA,RMCATION OF HYBRID ROLE OF COUNCIL
We can understand how the whole process is rather confusing to the reporter as it is to us
and others. It stems from the hybrid.nature of the City Council wearing different hats
sometimes as Redevelopment Agency members and other times as Council members. As
Redevelopment members they are more apt to be sympathetic to growth and development. As
Council members they have to take into consideration environmental issues and other
community-values such as historic preservation, maintaining the integrity of neighborhoods and
preventing their destabilization, adherence to zoning codes and height limits and so on. Just
because a parcel is allowed a certain density does not meats that a developer is able to use all of it
since zoning considerations may limit it.
We also must point out that even if the City had bought the property and sold it to Mr.
Wessman,be would have been in a very similar situation since the property came with an
encumbrance that the Winter House had to be preserved. Thus the Winter property was
essentially imbuildable. The major difference that the Agreement made for Mr. Wessman is that
he;did not have to pay for the Winter House property and got the opportunity to use the Winter
house zoning density for free so to speak. Yet it will only work for him if he can fit his project
in with environmental, community and neighborhood values which are to be determined during
the entitlement process.
We are also concerned about his tactic of mentioning how much imoney lie has spent so
far on architectural fees which, of course, is the risk any developer takes. We would suggest that
it be made perfectly clear to him again that,regardless of what he chooses to spend,the city
cannot guarantee him in any way that his project may not be modified, altered substantially, or
even turned down altogether,just like any other project by any other developer.
NO PARTICIPATION OF CASA C;ODY IN NEW AGREEMENT
Finally for the record we must state that though Frank Tysen and Therese Hayes,
representing Casa Cody,were involved in the original Owner's Participation Agreement
executed by the city and Mr.Wessman on June 2, 2004,we did not have any part in the
renegotiations between the Redevelopment Agency and Nh'. Wessman regarding various
changes, specifically an entire new time schedule. Not only were we not consulted, but the city
even failed to notify us that it was on the agenda on November 17, 2005, An eleventh hour
telephone call by a concerned citizen alerted us and, being out of town, we asked for the item to
be;postponed to December 7 which request the council granted us.
However still no attempt was trade after November 17,2005 to involve us in the new
agreement. ''We were only told what it was going to be. Tlie new agreement has changed the
scope of the development including providing an extension beyond what was permitted by the
original agreement. Our original agreement is no longer in effect and we withdraw our consent.
Therefore we feel free to participate without restriction in the oncoming entitlement process.
Re wessum extension appuratiat cgrrccdon"d c7ari£icah n 12-13-4l5 2
OF pALMsa
� Rey
c
U H
k
c
t flaEAlEv nn k
cq<lFORN%P CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 21, 2006
SUBJECT: APPEAL BY WESSMAN DEVELOPMENT OF A PLANNING
COMMISSION RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TIME EXTENSION LOCATED AT 102
NORTH SUNRISE WAY, ZONE P, SECTION 13.
CASE: 5.0988 — CUP/6.478 -VAR, APPEAL
FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager
BY: Director of Planning Services
SUMMARY
Staff is requesting that the Council adopt a resolution upholding the Planning
Commission resolution denying Cases No. 5.0998 — CUP and 6.478 — VAR to allow a
one-year time extension to a drive-thru facility located at the Tahquitz Square Shopping
Center at 102 North Sunrise Way.
RECOMMENDATION:
ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. , "A RESOLUTION OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS,
CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF CASE NO. 5.0988 — CUP
AND 6.486-VAR A ONE-YEAR TIME EXTENSION TO
ALLOW A DRIVE-THRU FACILITY LOCATED AT 102
NORTH SUNRISE WAY, ZONE P, SECTION 13."
BACKGROUND:
The: project site is the former restaurant building at the Tahquitz Square Shopping
Center at the corner of East Tahquitz Canyon Way and North Sunrise Way. The
applicant applied for a time-extension for a Conditional Use Permit and Variance that
had been approved in 2004 to allow the construction of a drive-thru for the restaurant.
Item No. 1 . D .
City Council Staff Report June 21 2006
5.0988—CUP/6.478—VAR,Appeal Page 2 of 4
The CUP was issued to allow the drive-thru lane, and the Variance reduced the stacking
requirement for vehicles waiting in the drive-thru line from the seven to six spaces.
Table 1: The surrounding Land Uses are tabled below:
General Plan Zone Land Use
North P (NCC) C-1-AA Mobil
South P (NCC) PD - 76 Jensen's
East P (NCC) PD-59 Tahquitz Square
Retail
West RC (NCC) RA (Catalyst) Tahquitz Plaza
Center (currently
vacant)
PRIOR ACTIONS:
On April 12, 2006, the Planning Commission denied the applicants request for a one-
year time extension. The Commission made the following findings in resolving to deny
the variance:
1. That additional information after the original approval of Case Nos.
5.0988 — CUP and 6.478 — VAR indicate that the approved site plan does
not represent a viable proposal and the drive-thru cannot be constructed
as approved.
2. That the applicant has not demonstrated good cause that an extension of
time will result in the ability to develop the site.
3. Experience with other drive-thru facilities established since the Conditional
Use Permit and Variance were approved has indicated that the proposed
stacking is insufficient for adequately serving the site's circulation needs.
DISCUSSION:
The City Council is authorized to hear appeals of Planning Commission decisions by
Chapter 2.05 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code. According to subsection
2.0E5.050(b), the appeal is required to be noticed in accordance with the requirements of
the initial application. The applicant has applied for a time extension which does not
require a public hearing to go before the Planning Commission .
As discussed in the Planning Commission staff report, there are four required findings
that must be satisfied in order to grant a variance:
1) Because of the special circumstances applicable to the subject property,
including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application
a-�(�D12
City Council Staff Report June 21 2006
5.0988—CUP/6.478—VAR,Appeal Page 3 of 4
of the Zoning Code would deprive subject property of privileges enjoyed by other
properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification.
2) Any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the
adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in
which subject property is situated.
3) The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the pubic health,
safety, convenience, or welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the
same vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated.
4) The granting of such variance will not adversely affect the general plan of the
City.
The applicant has appealed the Planning Commission's decision in a letter (attached)
citing the importance of the drive-thru in attracting a major tenant for the site. Del Taco
has submitted entitlement applications to the Planning Department to customize the site
to their particular needs but that process is on hold pending the review of the time
extension.
The appeal letter does not address two of the Planning Commission's stated concerns:
1. That the existing entitlement is not a viable proposal on the site. The applicant
has not resolved that fact that the Conditional Use Permit proposes part of its
vehicle stacking space on adjacent property that is not owned by the applicant
and,
2. It is not clear that reducing the required stacking for a drive-thru from seven
spaces to six on the site would allow the center to operate efficiently and
effectively.
There has been no demonstration that the project site can accommodate the proposed
drive-thru and it is not clear that granting an additional year to the entitlement would
address the Planning Commission's concerns. Staff is recommending that a new
Conditional Use Permit be required for a drive-thru at the site to address specific site
concerns and develop a more functional site design.
CONCLUSION:
The applicant has provided reasons for the delay in finding a tenant for the site,
however, staff believes that the specific findings that are the basis of the Planning .
Commission denial have not been addressed. On the basis of the Planning Commission .
findings, staff is recommending that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's
resolution and deny the appeal.
City Council Staff Report June 21 2006
5.0988—CUP/6.478—VAR,Appeal Page 4 of 4
FISCAL IMPACT: IFinance Director Review:
No fiscal impact.
Cgtig' wi'g, AICP ' 4Ai
as wits
Direr 6f Planning roices �nt City a ager
a
David H. Ready, City afi Or
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Appeal Letter
3. Draft Resolution
4. Planning Commission Resolution
5. Planning Commission Staff Report
N
a Department of Planning Services W+E
r; Vicinity Map VS
0
0
z
rn
d
m
o
z w
EL ORO VVY
ANDRE
O �
w U' ❑
(n _Z
O p
O ~
� z
� w
ETAHQUITZ CANYON WY
Legend ENAS qp
500 Feet
Site ARENAS RD
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
DESCRIPTION:
CASE NO: 5.0988 — CUP/6.478 -
VAR APPLICATION FOR A TIME EXTENSION AT 102 N.
SUNRISE WAY, ZONE/GENERAL PLAN C-1-AA/P, SECTION
APPLICANT: Wessman 13, APN 502-065-018
Development.
Wessman Plaza
I' I E Ir" Temecula West
U,i Sf'',j� ,,'•c
Palm Springs E)IEVLt_C F'P.rJ f�.l [ CC�'�ivl�'!�.€�9Y The Center
Promenade Plaza Mercado �' �,E-M,f'ti 7�j {�l r 9 Q') Canyon Plaza
Canyon Plaza Norlh and South I , Business Pak
Shopping Genlers i laza'del Sol _
;t;, Tahquitz Niesa Villas
Date Palm Square RLIbIdOID( Plaza
Indio Plaza
Plaza las Flores Haloiwa.Joe's Tahquitz Square
Rancho San Pablo Plaza at S"unme 6aristo Plaza
April 25, 2006
City of Palm Springs
Attention: James Thompson, City Clerk
PO Box 2743
Palm Springs, CA 92263
Re: CUP 45.0988
Dear Mr. Thompson:
Please consider this as our appeal of the Planning Commission's April 12I`
decision denying our request to for an extension of the above referenced Conditional Use Permit
to allow the use of'a drive-through facility at the property known as "Tahquitz Square', formerly
the Carl's Jr. Restaurant on the northeast corner of Tahquitz and Sunrise Way.
As stated in our earlier request,we have been diligently working to attract a
major, and appropriate, tenant to occupy the vacated space. Naturally, that process usually
proves to be a rather lengthy one. The Conditional Use Permit was pivotal in attracting a high-
caliber tenant. Now that Del Taco is on board and working on putting a restaurant in that space,
they are in the second stage of the Major Site Plan Review and Variance with the City,but are
still securing approvals. Del Taco's,approvals are contingent on this CUP. Further, and
obviously, construction cannot be completed by the expiration date. As such, we would like to
request an additional 12-month extension for the Conditional Use Permit approved May 12,
2004.
It is my understanding that a notification process is not required, therefore, may
we ask to be placed on the earliest possible agenda. We have enclosed the additional fees
requ'.ffed in the amount of$469. Please contact our office with any questions or concerns.
S� r� i4G
Martha Higgins
Vice President/Property Manager
+n
300 S :'ELM CANYON DRIVE PAI_UI SPRINGS, CA 92262 PI-ICgIVE (760) 325-3050 FAX (760) 325-5�1��J�"
Wessman Plaza Temecula West
Palm Springs V L ���fviF 9 C;ufv9V %fJ`:' The Center
Promenade 10
Plaza Mercado ��) �`i « i' ���`1 ` "`0 Canyon Plaza
Canyon Plaza North and Soulh .,,� _ Business Park
Shopping Cenlers _ Plaza del Sol + 1 Ft`. d i, :r
=IT ; C!.Ef,! Tahquitz Mesa Villas
Date Palrn Square RLINCIouH Plaza Indio Plaza
Plaza las Flores Haleilma Jyge's Tahquitz Square
Rancho San Pablo Plaza at Smuise Barislo Plaza
April 25, 2006 _
City of Palm Springs
Attention: James Thompson, City Clerk
PO Box 2743
Palm Springs, CA 92263
Re: Variance#6.478
Dear Mr. Thompson:
Please consider this as our appeal of the Planning Commission's April 121h
decision denying our request for an extension of the above referenced Variance which allowed a
variance of the required drive-through stacking at the property known as"Tahquitz Square',
formerly the Carl's Jr. Restaurant on the northeast corner of Tahquitz and Sunrise Way.
As stated in our earlier request,we have been diligently working to secure a
major, and appropriate,tenant to occupy the vacated space. Naturally,that process usually
proves to be a rather lengthy one. The Variance,in conjunction with the Conditional Use Permit,
was pivotal in attracting a high-caliber tenant. Now that Del Taco is on board and working on
putting a restaurant in that space,they are in the second stage of the Major Site Plan Review and
Variance with the City,but are still securing approvals. Del Taco's approvals are contingent on
this Variance. Further, and, obviously, construction cannot be completed by the expiration date.
As such,we would like to request an additional 12 month extension for the Variance approved
May 12, 2004.
It is my understanding that a notification process is not required,therefore,may
we ask to be placed on the earliest possible agenda. We have enclosed the additional fees
required in the amount of$469. Please contact our office with any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Martha Higgin
Vice President/Property Manager
300 8 PALM CANYON DRIVE PALM SPRINGS, GA S2262 t ;PHONE (760) 325-3050 FA)( (760) 325-5844����
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE
PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF CASE
NOS. 5.0988 — CUP AND 6.486-VAR A ONE-YEAR
TIME EXTENSION TO ALLOW A DRIVE-THRU
FACILITY LOCATED AT 102 NORTH SUNRISE
WAY, ZONE P, SECTION 13."
WHEREAS, on March 2, 2006 the Wessman Development Company filed a
request for a one-year extension to a Conditional Use Permit (5.0988) and
Variance (6.478) which had authorized the establishment of a drive-thru lane with
six vehicle spaces for an existing restaurant at 102 North Sunrise Way; and
WHEREAS, on April 12, 2006, the Planning Commission heard the extension
request and after considering a staff report and public testimony presented at the
meeting, adopted a resolution denying the request; and
'WHEREAS, Wessman Development ("applicant"), pursuant to Chapter 2.05 of
the Palm Springs Municipal Code, on April 25, 2006 appealed the Planning
Commission decision to deny the extension request; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 2.05 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code, the
City Council is authorized to hear appeals of Planning Commission actions; and
WHEREAS, on June 21, 2006, the City Council conducted a public meeting, at
which meeting the Council carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence
presented in connection with the application and appeal, including but not limited
to the staff report and all written and oral comments presented at the meeting.
THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Pursuant to the requirements of Sections 94.02.00(1) and
94.06.00(E) of the Palm Springs Zoning Code, the City Council
finds:
1. That additional information after the original approval of Case
Nos. 5.0988 — CUP and 6.478 — VAR indicate that the
approved site plan does not represent a viable proposal, and
the drive-thru lane would be located on adjacent property not
under the control of the applicant.
2. That the applicant has not demonstrated good cause that an,
extension of time will result in the ability to develop the site.
3. Experience with other drive-thru facilities established since the
Conditional Use Permit and Variance were approved has
Resolution No.
Page 2
indicated that the proposed stacking is insufficient for
adequately serving the site's circulation needs.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council upholds the Planning Commission Resolution
denying Case Nos. 5.0988-CUP and 6.478-VAR.
ADOPTED THIS day of 2006.
David H. Ready, City Manager
Resolution No.
Page 3
ATTEST:
James Thompson, City Clerk
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS )
I, JAMES THOMPSON, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, hereby certify that
Resolution No. is a full, true and correct copy, and was duly adopted at a
regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs on
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
James Thompson, City Clerk
City of Palm Springs, California
RESOLUTION NO. 5077
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA FOR DENIAL
OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 5.0988 AND
VARIANCE NO. 6.478 LOCATED AT 102 NORTH
SUNRISE WAY, ZONE C-1-AA, SECTION 13.
WHEREAS, Wessman Development (Applicant") has filed an application with the City
pursuant to Sections 94.02.00(F) and 94.02.00(E)(1)(a) of the Zoning Ordinance for a
one-year time extension to Conditional Use Permit 5.0988 and Variance 6.478 to allow
a drive-thru at 102 North Sunrise Way, Zone C-1-AA, Section 13; and ,
WHEREAS, on April 12, 2006, a public meeting on the application for was held by the
Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project is considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), and has been determined to be
Categorically Exempt as a Class III exemption (Projects which are disapproved)
pursuant to Section 15270 of the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission 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.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1_ Pursuant to the requirements of Section 94.02.00(F) and
94.02.00(E)(1)(a), the Planning Commission finds:
1. That additional information after the original approval of Case Nos.
5.0988 — CUP and 6.478 — VAR indicate that the approved site plan
does not represent a viable proposal and the drive-thru cannot be
constructed as approved.
2. That the applicant has not demonstrated good cause that an extension
of time will result in the ability to develop the site.
3. Experience with other drive-thru facilities established since the
Conditional Use Permit and Variance were approved has indicated
that the proposed stacking is insufficient for adequately serving the
site's circulation needs.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the Planning
Commission hereby denies the time extension for Case No. 5.0988 — CUP and 6.478 -
VAR.
Planning Commission Resolution April 12, 2006
Case 5.0988—CUP/6.478-VAR Page 2 of 2
ADOPTED this 12th day of April, 2006.
AYES: 6 / Shoenberger/Cohen/Hutcheson/Roath/Hochanadel/Marantz
NOES:
ABSENT: 1 / Ringlein
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
nn' g om ' si n Secretary
OF, 4ALM S
U w
k
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
1�L fF 04N
Date: April 12, 2006
Case No.: 5.0988— CUP/6.478 -VAR
Type: Conditional Use Permit/Variance
Location: 102 North Sunrise Way
APN: 502-065-018
Applicant: Wessman Development
General Plan: P (Professional)
Zone: C-1-AA (Large-scale Retail Commercial)
From: Craig A. Ewing, AICP, Director of Planning Services
Project Planner: Michael Blumson, Ass¢stant Planner
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant has requested a time extension of Case 5.0988 — CUP and 6.478 —VAR
to allow a continuation of an existing drive-thru entitlement at 102 North Sunrise Way in
the Tahquitz Square Shopping Center.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission deny Case 5.0988 — CUP and 6.478 — VAR and not
extend the Conditional Use Permit or Variance.
BACKGROUND:
The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and variance were originally approved on May 12,
2004 to allow the installation of a drive-thru facility at an existing Carl's Jr. restaurant
site with a reduced drive-thru stacking requirement from seven cars to six..
Planning Commission Staff Report April 12,2006
Case 5.0988—CUP/6.478-VAR Page 2 of 3
The applicant has been securing a tenant for the site and has established a lease
agreement with Del Taco to complete the site modifications and begin the use of the
drive-thru. Del Taco is in the process of securing the necessary entitlements for their
site and has determined that a time-extension is needed for the Conditional Use Permit
and variance.
During investigation of the time-extensions, staff has discovered that a portion of the
proposed drive-thru facility encroaches past the property line into the adjacent gas
station. The applicant has supplied a number of lease agreements addressing site
circulation conditions; however, staff does not believe that they address the specific
Encroachment.
The entitlement as it stands exceeds the boundaries of the property and staff believes
that its validity may reasonably be questioned in light of this condition.
Table 1: The surrounding Land Uses are tabled below:
General Plan Zone Land Use
North P NCC C-1-AA Mobil
South P NCC PD - 76 Jensen's
East P (NCC) PD-59 Tahquitz Square
Retail
West RC (NCC) RA (Catalyst) Tahquitz Plaza
Center (currently
vacant
ANALYSIS:
According to Section 94.02.00(F) of the Palm Springs Zoning Code, Conditional Use
Permits and variances are valid for two years and may be extended by the Planning
Commission upon demonstration of good cause.
The applicants have applied for the extension in order to keep the current entitlement
active while their tenants apply for additional approvals for a new building on the site.
The applicants have indicated that the new tenants have only recently begun the
process and they have not had the time to design the site according to their needs; the
time extension is necessary to accomplish these changes.
Notwithstanding these circumstances, staff is concerned that the current entitlements
are not contained solely within the subject parcel but extend onto the adjacent gas
station property. Staff does not believe that it represents an appropriate entitlement and
the site plan should be re-worked to contain the drive-thru's circulation entirely on-site.
Planning Commission Staff Report April 12,2006
Case 5.0988—CUP/6.478-VAR Page 3 of 3
More specifically, the property line runs through the proposed trash enclosure on the
north-east corner of the parcel and also cuts through half of the last drive thru stacking
space. With that stacking space not on the property, staff cannot count it as meeting
the requirements of the existing Conditional Use Permit and variance.
The CUP and variance do not meet the parking requirements of the Zoning Code
because off-site parking is proposed. While it is possible that a drive-thru could work on
the site, staff believes that a proper review of the re-worked drive-thru lane should occur
through a new Conditional Use Permit and not through the extension of a flawed
approval.
CONCLUSION:
Lacking a site plan that demonstrates a functioning drive-thru circulation, staff is
recommending denial of Case 5.0988 — CUP and 6.478 -VAR.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the project is
Statutorily Exempt per Section 15270 (Projects which are disapproved).
Michael Blumson
Assistant Planner
pir of jg, �
ervices
Attachments:
1. Draft resolution
2. 500' Radius Map
3. Letters of Request
4. Site Plan