Planning Commission continues Idyllwild item: Is it added motel units or apartments?

Wednesday, Feb. 2, the Riverside County Planning Commission unanimously decided to continue the proposal to expand the former Tahquitz Inn, currently the Pine Woods Resort.

The commissioners were confused whether the proposal, which owner Shane Stewart submitted, was intended to expand the existing motel usage or to create more long-term rentals in Idyllwild.

The confusion was evident from the beginning of this item’s time before the commission. “This is a conditional use permit proposed by Shane Stewart to expand an existing apartment or motel complex in Idyllwild,” said Commission Chair David Leonard, who represents the 2nd Supervisorial District.

After Project Planner Brett Dawson described the proposal and made the staff recommendations, Commissioner Guillermo “Bill” Sanchez (4th District) asked for clarification of the proposal’s purpose. “The application and staff report say it’s a motel, but some letters and correspondence seem to indicate it’s long-term rentals?” Sanchez inquired.

“It’s a proposal for a motel,” Dawson replied.

Other features of the design plan — such as the urban look of the buildings, the height of the building backing to Oakwood and adequate open space — also raised questions during the commission’s hearing.

Commissioner Gary Thornhill (3rd District) expressed the strongest reservations about the plan. At different times, he said, “It doesn’t look right for Idyllwild.” And “Nothing in site plan that is aesthetically pleasing.”

Nevertheless, he also made it clear that Stewart has the right to propose some development of the two parcels. “[They] are entitled to have units on the property. [The Planning Commission] doesn’t control the water use issues, we don’t get into those. They are controlled by the district. We already have a letter that they’re going to get served.”

Following Dawson’s presentation of the proposal to the commission, questions were asked of Stewart, and next public speakers were offered time to address the commission.

David Hunt, former Idyllwild Water District (IWD) director, argued that the added units, whether rental or motel, would ultimately endanger the district’s water and sewer infrastructure. He recommended that any decision be postponed until IWD constructs a new sewage treatment plant.

However, he confirmed that IWD issued the “will-serve” letter years ago, but he described it as a “backroom” deal.

Sharon Baker was the speaker who initially raised the question of whether the project was apartments or a motel, and short-term rentals. She also briefly discussed the petition with nearly 500 signatures opposing the project. This had been in the commission’s package.

One of the first questions Leonard asked Stewart was, “Why so many people were motivated to oppose the project?”

In response, Stewart said the petition makers were seen holding banners describing the proposal as a 140-unit condominium, six stories tall with a roof-top pool. “A lot of erroneous information was presented,” Stewart said.

Leonard also asked Stewart if he would be willing to limit the proposed building along Oakwood to one story rather than two stories. Stewart replied, “I’m amenable to that.”

Several issues caused Thornhill to state that he was “struggling” with the proposal as submitted. He questioned the number of units; whether their look, which he described as too institutional, was too urban; and the availability of some space for visitors or residents to congregate outside.

It appeared the plan would be approved after commissioners Bruce Shaffer and Sanchez seemed to indicate their concerns were minor and could be addressed between planning staff and Stewart.

But ultimately, the question of whether more motel units or whether more apartments were being approved was the stumbling block.

Twice planning staff affirmed that the proposal was for motel or short-term rentals. Stewart also confirmed that he concurred with that direction because the staff said that’s how it would be approved.

But Leonard noted, “It’s a delicate balance between this facility being a destination motel versus an apartment complex.”

He referred to letters from local businesses — Ferro and the Idyllwild Brewpub. According to Leonard, their authors wrote, “… servers need additional housing and inexpensive housing for seasonal workers.”

Stewart then confirmed that the original plan was for longer-term rentals, which explains why the floor plans indicate space for washers, dryers and stoves.

Since the public notice for hearing said it was motel units, Hildebrand then explained that if it were changed to apartments, the proposed action would need to be reviewed and re-noticed. He added that state building and fire codes were very similar for motel units and apartments, but county codes for parking and amenities were different.

Staff also raised the question of whether current zoning restrictions were adequate for apartments. If not, a General Plan amendment might be necessary for approval.

When asked if another 30 days was sufficient for more staff review and consultation with Stewart, Hildebrande replied that was not sufficient time, especially for a full re-notice.

Thornhill moved to continue the question off the commission’s calendar and Leonard made the second. The motion was approved 5-0.

So later this year, a proposal for the two lots will return to the Planning Commission.