Planning commission reviews 104-unit pre-application for Racquet Club site; neighbors raise historic-preservation and setback concerns

The Palm Springs Planning Commission on Oct. 14 held a study session on a pre-application by GHA Investments, LLC and Far West Industries for a 104-unit residential planned development district (PDD) proposed for an 8.23-acre site at the southwest corner of North Indian Canyon Drive and East Racquet Club Road.

The proposal, called by the applicant The Village at Racquet Club, would include 31 detached single-family homes, 53 townhomes (in duplexes and triplexes) and a 20-unit apartment building designated as affordable housing. The project as presented would yield an overall density of about 12.6 units per acre, with single-family lots of about 2,850 square feet, the applicant said.

The session was a scoping and information-only meeting; no decisions were made. The pre-application process gives commissioners and staff the chance to identify issues the developer should address in a formal PDD application.

Why it matters: Commissioners and residents pressed the applicant on the trade-offs the PDD would require: substantial deviations from underlying R-2 and R-1A development standards (including lot sizes, setbacks, building separation and open-space requirements) in exchange for public benefits such as affordable housing. Staff and commissioners emphasized that public benefits must be substantial when the city grants those deviations.

Key points and debate

Catherine Myler, owner of the Grace Miller House (a 1937 Richard Neutra–designed property listed as a Class 1 historic site and on the National Register), told the commission the project "will drastically and negatively impact this important historic resource" and asked the commission to consider larger setbacks and height limits on the eastern portion of the development.

Edward Robertson, principal planner, and Christopher Hedwin, city planning director, described the project as a pre-application and flagged the main code conflicts that will necessitate a PDD: the city’s general plan designates the site Medium Density Residential (MDR), and the site is zoned R-2 (which, when single-family is proposed, uses R-1A development standards). Their presentation noted multiple deviations the applicant has proposed, including a proposed 20-foot front setback along Racquet Club Drive where the code calls for 30 feet, building separation of 10 feet where 15 is required, lot widths and depths below the base code, and an open-space provision of about 34% compared with a 50% code requirement.

Robertson told commissioners there is "a disconnect between our general plan and our zoning code" that often makes it necessary to use planned development districts to reach the densities the general plan expects.

Applicant presentation and responses

Mario Gonzalez, representing GHA Investments and Far West, described the project as "a mix of housing options in 1 village setting" and said the team proposes a single central recreation area, rear-yard pools for many single-family lots, and a 20-unit affordable building with its own parking and open space. He asked the commission to be flexible on development standards to allow the density the partners proposed.

On the proposed entry gates, Gonzalez said, "Buyers want safety, security, and privacy. Gates help provide this and gates maintain property values." Commissioners repeatedly questioned the need for gates; staff and the general plan, they noted, discourage using gates primarily to address public-safety or homelessness concerns.

Affordable housing and timing

Commissioners pressed for specifics about the affordable units. Staff said the applicant had not settled on income bands and that federal (HUD) and state (HCD) definitions affect financing options. Robertson explained approximate income categories used in programing: very low (below ~30% AMI), low (about 30–80% AMI) and moderate (about 80–115% AMI), and said different bands affect which state credits and incentives might be available. Commissioner Murphy asked whether the city could require phasing that ties issuance of single-family building permits to completion or permitting of the affordable building; city staff and the city attorney (Tari) said such phasing conditions can be imposed in a PDD in some cases and that they had seen similar conditions used previously.

Design, landscaping, access and safety

Commissioners recommended additional landscape buffering, more shade trees along the single-family frontage, clearer graphics showing the Racket/Racquet Club frontage and site wall, and exploring Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) measures as alternatives to gating. Concerns were raised about 5-foot drive aprons in front of townhome garage doors and about the small scale of the 20-unit apartment building relative to typical affordable projects; staff said applicants commonly need to demonstrate financial feasibility and that many details often change during formal application and entitlement.

What commissioners asked the applicant to provide next

Commissioners and staff asked the applicant to: - Provide clearer, enlarged graphic sections showing the Racquet Club (Racket Club) streetscape, the wall/landscape treatment and the proposed private gates. - Provide more detail on the affordability strategy (income bands and how the 20 apartments would be financed), and consider working with an affordable-housing developer or specialist. - Explore phasing or permit conditions tying the affordable building to other project phases (staff and the city attorney said such conditions are possible). - Revisit unit counts/layouts and landscaping to create more breathing room and additional street trees; several commissioners suggested dropping a few units to allow additional landscaping. - Consider CPTED principles and alternatives to full gates to improve security while keeping public access and neighborhood integration.

Discussion vs decision

This was a study-session pre-application: commissioners provided comments and guidance but did not act on the application. No formal approvals or denials were taken.

Next steps

Staff told the commission the formal PDD application and materials should respond to the requests above. The applicant said it will continue design and feasibility work and meet with staff on financing options for the affordable component.

Ending note

Commissioners emphasized that the public benefits — particularly any affordable-housing commitments — will need to be clear and enforceable if the city is to grant the number of development concessions proposed.