Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Resolution _5020RESOLUTION NO. 5020 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, FINDING THAT THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS ARE NOT IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 260 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 O 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 and found that the final development plans were not in substantial conformance with the preliminary PD- 260; and WHEREAS, on December 6, 2004, Fairfield Resorts filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision; and WHEREAS, on March 16, 2005, the City Council heard the appeal and found that the revised final development plans needed to be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to the Council considering an appeal; and WHEREAS, on May 11, 2005, the Planning Commission held a public meeting to review the revised final development plans for the project; 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. Pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the preparation of a Subsequent Negative Declaration, Addendum Negative Declaration, or further documentation is not necessary because the changed circumstances of the project will not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. These changes could not result in any new environmental impacts beyond those already assessed in the adopted mitigated negative declaration. Section 2: The Planning Commission finds that the revised architecture, landscaping, and walls, the final development plans will not be compatible with and will not integrate well into the surrounding community. The final plans have been altered from its preliminary plans such that the treatment of the massing is inappropriate. 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 final development plans are not in substantial conformance with the Preliminary Planned Development District (PD-260). The final plans have several deficiencies that have resulted in a project that does not match the overall quality of the preliminary PD. A comparison table (Exhibit A) between the two projects shows that the revised project is deficient in providing amenities, balcony space, building articulation, building footprint, 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. 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 overall experience for visitors to the project because of the elimination of the inside -outside relationship that was an integral part of the preliminary plans. 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 final plans show exposed walkways that are a weaker connection between buildings and are not consistent with the preliminary plans and description as given in the scope of development in the DDA. 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 approval that were placed on the amendment to preliminary PD-260. The Planning Commission and City Council, at the 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 prevalent in the preliminary plans and helped to soften the height and mass of the buildings have been eliminated from the final plans 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 final plans. The balconies on the preliminary plans had a depth ranging from 6-8 feet with curved railings that projected out from the face of the balcony. In the final plans, 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 preliminary plans have been limited to only the 5t' floor of the entry wing and either the 2" or 3`d floor for the villas in the final plans. With respect to parking, although the ratio of parking provided exceeds the preliminary plans, the ratio of surface to underground parking is a significant departure from the preliminary plans. The preliminary plans had 304 underground spaces and 240 surface spaces. The final plans have 112 underground spaces and 412 surface spaces. The 72% increase in surface parking coupled with the 63% decrease in underground parking has resulted in a less attractive site plan where the entire perimeter of the site is lined with a double row of parking spaces. 0 These reductions in 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 in substantial conformance with preliminary PD-260. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby finds that the final development plans are not in substantial conformance with preliminary planned development district 260 for Case 5.0830 - PD-260. ADOPTED this 11t' day of May, 2005. AYES: 4 NOES: 1 ABSENT: 1 ABSTAIN: 1 ATTEST: 5 'L-a Lt�tL� P ning Commission Ch irman CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA Planning Commission Secretary