HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Resolution _5016- Case 5.0830- PD 260RESOLUTION NO. 5016
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM
SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, DENYING CASE NO 5.0830 - PD-260,
AN APPLICATION BY FAIRFIELD RESORTS, INC. FOR FINAL
DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THE STAR CANYON RESORT
LOCATED AT 961 SOUTH PALM CANYON DRIVE, ZONES W-
C-1 AND W-R-3, SECTIONS 22 AND 23.
WHEREAS, on April 26, 2000, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City
Council approve Case No 5.0830-PD-260 for a Planned Development District (PD-260) and
Tentative Tract Map (TTM 29691); and
WHEREAS, on May 17, 2000, the City Council voted to approve Case No 5.0830-PD-260 for a
Planned Development District (PD-260) and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 29691); and
WHEREAS, on April 24, 2002, a public meeting on the request for a time extension from May
17, 2002 to May 17, 2003 for PD-260 and TTM 29691 was held by the Planning Commission in
accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, on April 24, 2002, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval to the
City Council of the one year time extension subject to the original conditions of approval; and
WHEREAS, on April 24, 2002, the City Council voted to approve a one year time extension from
May 17, 2002 to May 17, 2003 subject to the original conditions of approval; and
WHEREAS, on July 10, 2002 a public hearing on the amendment to Case No. 5.0830-PD-260
and TTM 29691, to change the land use from hotel and timeshare to all timeshare with 198
hotel rooms becoming 79 time share units and other miscellaneous amendments including the
elimination of the ballroom and large kitchen, relocation of the recreation facilities, meeting
rooms and spa to former ballroom location, the addition of nine timeshare units in the former
spa location, and the conversion of 198 hotel rooms into 70 timeshare units for property located
at South Palm Canyon Drive between Sunny Dunes Road to the north, Mesquite Avenue to the
south, Random Road to the east, and South Belardo Road to the west, W-C-1 and W-R-3
Zones, Sections 22 and 23, was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with
applicable law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence
presented in connection with the project including, but not limited to, the staff report and all
written and oral testimony presented and, on July 10, 2002, voted to recommend that the City
Council approve said amendment; and
WHEREAS, on July 17, 2002, a public hearing on the amendment to Case No. 5.0830-PD-260
and TTM 29691, to change the land use from hotel and timeshare to all timeshare with 198
hotel rooms becoming 79 time share units and other miscellaneous amendments including the
elimination of the ballroom and large kitchen, relocation of the recreation facilities, meeting
rooms and spa to former ballroom location, the addition of nine timeshare units in the former
spa location, and the conversion of 198 hotel rooms into 70 timeshare units for property located
at South Palm Canyon Drive between Sunny Dunes Road to the north, Mesquite Avenue to the
south, Random Road to the east, and South Belardo Road to the west, W-C-1 and W-R-3
Zones, Sections 22 and 23, was held by the City Council in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in
connection with the project including, but not limited to, the staff report and all written and oral
testimony presented and, on July 17, 2002, voted to approve said amendment; and
WHEREAS, on November 6, 2002, the Community Redevelopment Agency and City Council
approved an amendment to the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) between the
Agency and SCHLPS, LLC to reflect changes in the project and several of the deal points; and
WHEREAS, on January 21, 2004, the City Council voted to approve a Development Agreement
for the Star Canyon Resort; and
WHEREAS, on June 23, 2004, the Planning Commission voted to approve the site plan for the
Star Canyon Resort; and
WHEREAS, on September 8, 2004, the Planning Commission voted to continue action on the
final development plans and requested that the applicant address concerns regarding the
project; and
WHEREAS, on September 22, 2004, the Planning Commission voted to continue action on the
final development plans per the applicant's request; and
WHEREAS, on October 13, 2004, the Planning Commission voted to continue action on the
final development plans in order for the applicant to provide more information and for staff to
prepare a comparison of the approved and revised timeshare project; and
WHEREAS, on November 10, 2004, the Planning Commission voted to continue action on the
final development plans in order for staff to work with the applicant to finalize the comparison
table; and
WHEREAS, on November 24, 2004, the Planning Commission held a public meeting to review
the final development plans; and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact was previously approved
by City Council on May 17, 2000, in conjunction with the approval of the Star Canyon Resort;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has carefully reviewed and considered all of the
evidence presented in connection with the meeting on the project, including but not limited to
the staff reports, all written and oral testimony submitted by the applicant, and all written and
oral testimony presented.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Pursuant to CEQA, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact
was previously adopted by City Council on May 17, 2000, in conjunction with the
approval of the Star Canyon Resort.
Section 2: The Planning Commission finds that the revised architecture, landscaping, and
walls, the project will not be compatible with and will not integrate well into the
surrounding community.
The project has been altered from its original approval such that the treatment of
the massing is inappropriate and the materials proposed are not of a quality that
would integrate the project into the surrounding community. The pad elevations
have been altered in the southern portion of the site such that the height of the
buildings would increase the overall height of the building beyond the approved
height.
The re -design of the buildings have resulted in fewer articulations and a
substantial reduction in glazing. The effect has been to emphasize the mass of
the buildings leading to incompatibility with the surrounding environment.
Section 3: The proposed project is not in substantial conformance with the Preliminary
Planned Development District (PD-260). The project has several deficiencies
that have resulted in a project that does not match the overall quality of the
approved PD. A comparison table between the two projects shows that the
revised project is deficient in providing amenities, balcony space, building
articulation, building footprint, exterior materials, trellises, ratio of underground to
surface parking, strong building connections, and comparable window size.
The spa and recreation space has been reduced by more than 50%, and
courtyard amenities such as pool size and number of jacuzzis have been
reduced. The lobby size has also been reduced and outdoor patio areas that
previously were an extension of the lobby area have been eliminated from the
plan or enclosed. This reduction in amenities devalues the lobby experience for
visitors to the project because of the elimination of the inside -outside relationship
that was an integral part of the approved project.
With respect to building size and locations, all the buildings have been separated
thereby eliminating the large stone towers that were included in the approved
project. The stone clad towers were used to hide the staircases and building
connections such that there was a continuous architectural theme to the exterior
of the project. The proposed project has exposed walkways that are a weaker
connection between buildings and are not consistent with the description as
given in the scope of development in the DDA.
With respect to exterior materials, the substitution of natural stone with cultured
stone has resulted in a proposed project that does not match the quality of the
approved project in look and feel. The inherent articulations that depth that come
with natural stone will be lost with the application of cultured stone, which is
flatter.
With respect to the architecture of the building, the applicant's contention that the
timeshare project drives a different design is contrary to the conditions of the
approval that were placed on the amendment of PD-260. The Planning
Commission and City Council, at that time, were assured that the change to the
timeshare use from a hotel/timeshare use would not reduce the overall quality of
the project and that the architecture would not suffer. However, the proposed
project shows that the architecture has suffered as a result of the timeshare
modules. The building articulations that were so prevalent in the approved
project and helped to soften the height and mass of the buildings have been
eliminated from the proposed project and replaced with flat walls with only 1-3
foot articulations.
In addition, the balcony detailing and trellises that also helped soften the mass of
the building in the approved project have either been deleted or substantially
reduced in the proposed project. The balconies on the approved project had a
depth ranging from 6-8 feet with curved railings that projected out from the face
of the balcony. In the proposed project, the curved railings have been replaced
with flat railings and the balcony depth has been reduced to 3-6 feet. The
trellises that were included on every unit in the approved �roject have been
limited to only the 5th floor of the entry wing and either the 2" or P floor for the
villas in the proposed project.
With respect to parking, although the ratio of parking provided exceeds the
approved project, the ratio of surface to underground parking is a significant
departure from the approved project. The approved project had 304 underground
spaces and 240 surface spaces. The proposed project has 87 underground
spaces and 444 surface spaces. The 85% increase in surface parking coupled
with the 71 % decrease in underground parking has resulted in a less attractive
site plan where the entire perimeter of the site is lined with at least a double row
of parking spaces.
These reductions of amenities, detailing, building footprint, and simplification of
architecture detract from the overall quality of the project and are inconsistent
and not in substantial conformance with the site plan provided by the applicant in
the current DDA and Development Agreement. Therefore, the Planning
Commission cannot make the finding that the final development plans are
consistent with the approved PD-260. 0
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the Planning
Commission hereby denies the final development plans for Case Number 5.0830 - PD-260.
ADOPTED this 22nd day of December, 2004.
AYES: 5
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: 1
ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
PI ing Co missi Chairman