Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout24753RESOLUTION NO. 24753 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A VARIANCE APPLICATION, CASE 6.656 VAR, FOR REDUCING STREET SETBACKS ALONG BELARDO ROAD AND BARISTO ROAD FOR A PROPOSED HOTEL PROJECT PROPOSED AT 222 SOUTH CAHUILLA ROAD. THE CITY COUNCIL FINDS AND DETERMINES AS FOLLOWS: A. New Church II, LLC ("Applicant") filed a Variance Application, Case 6.656 VAR, pursuant to Section 94.06.00 of Palm Springs Zoning Code (PSZC) to reduce building setbacks along Belardo Road from 20-feet to 11-feet and Baristo Road from 25-feet to 11-feet for a hotel project located on a 3.65-acre site located at 222 South Cahuilla Road, Zone R-3 (the "Project"). B. The Applicant submitted related applications, including a Major Architectural application (Case 3.0678 MAJ) pursuant to Section 94.04.00 of the Palm Springs Zoning Code (PSZC) to alter Class 1 properties and demolish and re -construct hotel buildings for a hotel operation on 3.65-acres at 222 South Cahuilla Road; a General Plan Amendment application (Case 5.1345 GPA) pursuant to California Government Code Sections 65350-65362 to modify the Circulation Element, Figure 4-1, of the 2007 General Plan adopted by Resolution No. 22077, to reclassify Arenas from a Secondary Thoroughfare to a Collector for the segment extending from the Belardo Road to Tahquitz Drive; and a Conditional Use Permit application (Case 5.1345 CUP) pursuant to Section 94.02.00 of the Zoning Code to operate the restaurant and spa as a part of the hotel at 222 South Cahuilla Road (collectively, the "Project"). C. On February 18, 2020, the Project was reviewed by the Architectural Advisory Committee, which voted to recommend conditional approval. D. On March 3, 2020, the Project was reviewed by the Historic Site Preservation Board, which voted to issue a certificate of approval to modify both Class 1 historic sites (HSPB 23 and HSPB 72), subject to conditions. E. A notice of a public hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs, California to consider the above -mentioned applications was given in accordance with applicable law, and on March 11, 2020, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the Project; carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the hearing, including but not limited to the staff report, and all written and oral testimony presented; and voted 5 to 0 to continue the Project to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission on March 25, 2020. F. On March 25, 2020, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the Resolution No. 24753 Page 2 Project; 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, supplemental materials provided by the Applicant and all written and oral testimony presented, and voted 5 to 0 to (1) recommend approval of the General Plan Amendment to the City Council and (2) deny the all other applications related to the Project, including the subject Variance application. G. A Councilmember timely initiated a review of the March 25, 2020 Planning Commission decision in accordance with Section 2.06.030 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code (PSMC). H. A notice of a public hearing of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, to consider the above -mentioned applications was given in accordance with applicable law for the regular meeting of April 23, 2020. At said meeting, the City Council continued the Project to a date certain of May 7, 2020. I. On May 7, 2020, the City Council conducted a public hearing in accordance with applicable law and 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. J. The City Council evaluated specific findings relative to the Variance Application, pursuant to the criteria listed in PSZC Section 94.06.00, and determined the following based on specific evidence as described after each finding: 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Code would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. The subject property contains Class 1 historic structures, which are being preserved in their current locations. The structures include eight freestanding bungalow buildings, a church building and a historic arch structure. Because these are historic and require preservation in their existing locations, these structures limit the placement of new structures and necessitate a reduction of setbacks to minimize impacts to the historic buildings and structures, and the historicity of the site. 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 the subject property is situated. The requested variance will reduce street setbacks from 25-feet to 11-feet along Baristo Road and 20-feet to 11-feet along Belardo Road for a property that is zoned R-3 (Multi -family Residential and Hotel Zone). The property is constrained with Resolution No. 24753 Page 3 special circumstances related to the permanent location of historic buildings and structures, including eight freestanding bungalow buildings, a church building and a historic arch. The number and size of these buildings and structures necessitate a partial setback reduction for portions of the property. The setback reduction from 20-feet to 11-feet along Belardo Road constitutes a 45% reduction and occurs for a portion of the frontage. The setback reduction from 25-feet to 11-feet along Baristo Road constitutes a 56% reduction and occurs only in the courtyard of the historic bungalows. The request will be about half of the standard, but not involve drastic setback reductions or complete setback elimination (i.e. zero setbacks). Additionally, other properties in the vicinity include similar setbacks, such as 330 West Arenas Road which has a 10-foot street setback. Therefore, the proposed reductions will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone of the subject property. 3. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience or welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the same vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated. The proposed structures are scaled at one and two -stories in size, and located on private property. The buildings would be built in compliance with current building code standards. Therefore, the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience or welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the same vicinity. 4. The granting of such variance will not adversely affect the general plan of the city. The reduced setbacks will allow siting of structures for the operation of a hotel. The General Plan would not be adversely affected by the reduced setback. Section 94.06.00 of the PSZC requires that all four of the findings above be met in order to grant the variance. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS RESOLVES: SECTION 1. That the findings and determinations reflected above are true and correct, and are incorporated by this reference herein as the cause and foundation for the action taken by and through this Resolution. SECTION 2. The Project is a "project" pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is exempt from further environmental review. In making this determination, the City finds that: 1) The proposed hotel project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as the proposal meets criteria under CEQA Guideline Sections 15331 (Historic Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation) and 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction) and 15332 (Infill Development) as follows: Resolution No. 24753 Page 4 a. The project qualifies for exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15331, Historic Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation, insofar as the bungalows, stone arch and community church located on the property have been determined to be Class 1 resources of local significance. The rehabilitation and restoration of these structures will repair, stabilize, rehabilitate, conserve and reconstruct the bungalows, stone arch and church building on site, in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, as follows: i) The property will be partially used as it was historically and be given a new use that maximizes the retention of distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. The project involves the reuse of the bungalows as hotel units and adaptive reuse of the church as hotel operations, restaurant and spa uses. ii) The historic character of the bungalows will be retained and preserved. In this case, the eight single -story, rectangularly distributed bungalows surrounding a central pool and courtyard will be preserved. The community church will retain its historic footprint and preserve open space areas that previously existed on this portion of the project site. iii) The property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use, because the rehabilitation will be undertaken with similar and complementary materials that are consistent with the original materials and character of the historic properties. iv) Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. The bungalows will retain hand troweled stucco, roof tile and awnings that characterize the craftsmanship of the bungalows. The historic stone arch will remain in its current location. The church will retain its historical character, including bell -tower and steeple, orientation to Baristo and Cahuilla Roads, same roof forms/slopes with replaced materials, existing concrete masonry walls, pointed arch door and window openings, wood doors, steel sash windows and French doors, Gothic Revival elements (buttresses and decorative stonework) and courtyard facing west. v) Deteriorated features of the structures will be repaired or replaced. Where replaced, the materials, finishes and construction techniques will preserve the character of the features. vi) New additions, including the buildings located to the north and pool cabana within the courtyard, will not destroy or damage the bungalows, stone arch or church structures. The placement of the new construction will not affect the spatial relationship of the bungalows, and the architectural style, material and relationship of the new construction will be compatible with the bungalows, stone arch and community church. vii) The new construction on the site will occur in such a manner that if they were to be removed, the essential elements of the bungalows — their distribution around a central pool and courtyard — will not be impacted. Similarly, the essential elements of the church site with open air courtyard and orientation towards the streets will not be impacted. b. The hotel project qualifies for exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15302, Resolution No. 24753 Page 5 Replacement or Reconstruction, as the newly constructed hotel buildings replace commercial structures that previously existed on the site. The new construction on the site represents the replacement of units previously occurring on the property, but destroyed by fire. Because these units occurred in the past, their reconstruction will not result in any changes in traffic, noise, air quality emissions or other impacts, since the number of units and intensity of use will be similar to that previously occurring. c. The hotel project qualifies for exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, Infill Development, insofar as the project meets the following criteria: i) The project is generally consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies, including: • Land Use Element — Policy LU 1.5: Allow for flexible development standards provided that the potential benefits and merit of projects can be balanced with potential impacts. • Land Use Element — Policy LU7.6: Retain small hotel uses as a part of the unique character of Palm Springs. • Land Use Element — Policy LU10.6: Strengthen the unique sense of place currently present in Downtown by preserving and incorporating cultural and historic uses. • Community Design Element — Policy CD27.1: Design new structures in architectural styles that reflect the City's diversity and creativity yet are compatible in scale and character with the City's existing buildings and natural surroundings. • Community Design Element — Policy CD28:1: Support the preservation of historically, architecturally, or archaeologically significant structures and sites as prescribed by the Historic Preservation Ordinance. • Community Design Element — Policy CD28.6: Require that new construction in designated architectural/historical/cultural districts complement the existing historic structures and open space characteristics such that the new construction does not imitate or copy the style of the historic structures. • Community Design Element — Policy CD28.7: Encourage developers of sites containing a significant architectural, historical or cultural structure to adaptively reuse and expand it, in lieu of demolition and replacement, where financially feasible. The project is consistent with the "R-Y zoning designation and regulations as outlined in the staff report. ii) The development occurs within the city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. iii) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. iv) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. v) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Resolution No. 24753 Page 6 SECTION 3. Pursuant to 94.06.00 of the PSZC, the City Council is required to make four findings in support of a Variance. Based on the evidence if Recital G above, all four mandatory findings can be justified. SECTION 4. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council approves the Variance application, Case 6.656 VAR. ADOPTED THIS 7TH DAY OF MAY, 2020. r David H. Ready City Manager ATTEST: Khthony J. ejia, City Clerk Resolution No. 24753 Page 7 CERTIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS) I, ANTHONY J. MEJIA, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, hereby certify that Resolution No. 24753 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 May 7, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Garner, Middleton, Woods, Mayor Pro Tern Holstege, and Mayor Kors NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Palm Springs, California, this 20 day of , ?0Z�. hony J. City Clerk