Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout21372 - RESOLUTIONS - 7/20/2005 RESOLUTION NO. 21372 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION THAT THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS ARE NOT IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 260.(THE STAR CANYON RESORT LOCATED AT 961 SOUTH PALM CANYON DRIVE, ZONES W-C-1 AND W-R-3, SECTIONS 22 AND 23.) The Council of the City of Palm Springs finds: A. 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). B. 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) consisting of a 198 room hotel, 176 timeshare units, and related amenities. C. In conjunction with the approval of the Case No 5.0830-PD-260 (PD-260), the City Council approved a preliminary development plan (the "2000 Plan"). D. 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. E. 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. F. 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. G. On July 10, 2002, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on an amendment to Case No. 5.0830-PD-260 and TTM 29691, to change the land use from hotel and timeshare project to an all timeshare project consisting of 255 total timeshare units, the elimination of all hotel units, the elimination of the previously approved ballroom and large kitchen, relocation of the recreation facilities, meeting rooms, and spa to the former ballroom location. The applicant did not submit and the Planning Commission did not review or take any action on any modification or amendment of the exterior plans, drawings, elevations, or materials of the approved 2000 Plan, or the general parking configuration and exterior amenities and landscaping, nor did the applicant submit and the Resolution No. 21372 Page 2 Planning Commission did not review or approve a new preliminary development ' plan for the project. The Planning voted to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed amendment. H. On July 17, 2002, the City Council conducted 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 project to an all timeshare project consisting of 255 total timeshare units, the elimination of all hotel units, the elimination of the previously approved ballroom and large kitchen, relocation of the recreation facilities, meeting rooms, and spa to former ballroom location. The applicant did not submit and the City Council did not review or take any action on any modification or amendment of the exterior plans, drawings, elevations, or materials of the approved 2000 Plan, or the general parking configuration and exterior amenities and landscaping, nor did the applicant submit and the City Council did not review or approve a new preliminary development plan for the project. The City Council voted to approve the proposed amendment. I. 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 to the extent such changes were approved by the City Council on July 17, 2002 as well as certain deal points. The exterior plans, drawings, elevations, and materials of the approved 2000 Plan, as well as the general parking configuration and exterior amenities and landscaping, previously incorporated as a part of the DDA as the approved project, were not amended or modified. J. On January 21, 2004, the City Council voted to approve a Development Agreement for the Star Canyon Resort. K. On June 23, 2004, the Planning Commission voted to approve an amendment for the project, consisting of the deletion of the out-parcel restaurant and the secondary driveway. The area previously occupied by the restaurant and the secondary driveway was replaced with surface parking and landscaping. The application did not include any changes, modifications, or amendments to the exterior plans, drawings, elevations, and materials of the approved 2000 Plan, or, except as provided as a part of the replacement of the restaurant and secondary driveway, the general parking configuration and exterior amenities and landscaping. The Planning Commission's approval of the deletion of the restaurant and secondary driveway and the inclusion of additional surface parking at the former restaurant and driveway locations were not submitted to the Council for review. L. Subsequent to the June 23, 2004 approval, the applicant submitted a , "final" development plan to the City for review and approval. Pursuant to the City's Zoning Ordinance Section 94.03.00 E-4, the "final development plan shall be substantially in conformance with the approved preliminary plan. Should the Resolution No. 21372 Page 3 final plan propose modifications which are not in substantial conformance with the approved preliminary plan, such Plan shall be processed as a new application." The final development plan as submitted by the applicant showed for the first time changes to the exterior plans, drawings, elevations, and materials for the approved 2000 Plan, and changes to the general parking configuration and exterior amenities and landscaping for the project. On September 8, 2004, the Planning Commission voted to continue the review and consideration of the final development plan and requested the applicant address concerns regarding the project. M. On September 22, 2004, the Planning Commission voted to continue action on the final development plan per the applicant's request. On October 13, 2004, the Planning Commission voted to continue action on the final development plan in order for the applicant to provide more information and for staff to prepare a comparison of the approved preliminary plan (the 2000 Plan) with the revised final development plan. 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. 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. N. On December 6, 2004, the applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision and between November 24, 2004 and March 16, 2005, the applicant changed, modified, revised, and further refined the final development plan. O. On March 16, 2005, the City Council heard the appeal and found that the revised final development plan had been substantially revised after the Planning Commission hearing on November 24, 2004 and the date of the Council hearing on the appeal. The Council declined to take action on the matter due to such changes, and directed that the final development plan be remanded to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. P. On May 11, 2005, the Planning Commission held a public meeting and found that the final development plans were not in substantial conformance with the 2000 Plan. The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting, the staff report, and the Planning Commission's action and recommendation are part of the Staff Report, dated July 13, 2005 and submitted to the Council (Staff Report"). The Staff Report shall be deemed a part of this Resolution. Q. On May 25, 2005, the applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision. Fairfield's appeal is also a part of the Staff Report. The Staff Report also contains a detailed comparison of the differences between the approved preliminary development plan and the proposed final development plan. Resolution No. 21372 Page 4 R. On July 13, 2005, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the ' applicant's appeal of the Planning Commission's decision that the final development plan was not in substantial conformance with the preliminary plans. S. 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. T. The City Council 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 Report, all other staff reports, all written and oral testimony submitted by the applicant, and all written and oral testimony presented at the hearing. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS RESOLVES 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. The Mitigated Negative Declaration approved by the City Council on May 17, 2000 is therefore the controlling environmental document for the review and consideration of the current application for final development plan review. SECTION 2. The City Council finds that the revised architecture as shown on the final development plan and depicted on the exterior plans, drawings, and elevations submitted to this Council, is not in conformance with the 2000 Plan (the preliminary development plan). In making this finding, the Council determines the final development plan, including substitution of material proposed for the project, the significant reduction in glazing and balconies, the increase in surface parking and reduction in subsurface parking (except to the extent such was accomplished to accommodate the elimination of the restaurant and secondary driveway), and the reduction of recreation facilities and other amenities, has resulted in a significant diminishment in the overall quality and appearance of the project as originally envisioned and approved as the 2000 Plan. , The final development plan has been altered from the 2000 Plan such that the treatment of the massing is inappropriate. The re-design of the buildings have Resolution No. 21372 Page 5 resulted in fewer articulations and a substantial reduction in glazing. The net effect has been to emphasize the mass of the buildings which is incompatible with the surrounding areas. The final plans have several deficiencies that have resulted in a project that does not match the overall quality or appearance of the 2000 Plan. A comparison table and set of graphic depictions included as a part of the Staff Report demonstrably itemizes the differences between the final development plan submitted by the applicant and the 2000 Plan which is the preliminary development plan approved by the City Council. The Council determines that the final development plan is deficient, in comparison to the 2000 Plan, in providing amenities, balcony space, building articulation, building footprint, trellises, ratio of underground to surface parking, strong building connections, and comparable window size. The building articulations that were prevalent in the 2000 Plan helped to soften the height and mass of the buildings. These articulations 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 prelimina7 plans have been limited to only the 5th floor of the entry wing and either the 2" or 3rd 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 plan. The preliminary plan had 304 underground spaces and 240 surface spaces. The final plan has 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. 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 2000 Plan. 1 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 Resolution No. 21372 Page 6 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 reality of the approved 2000 Plan and the conditions of approval that were placed on the amendment to preliminary PD-260. The 2000 Plan included 176 timeshare units that had exterior appearances substantially similar to the hotel units. The Council specifically determines that the change of the hotel units to timeshare units should not and need not have resulted in change of the exterior appearance of the project from the exteriors originally approved for the timeshare units in the 2000 Plan. At the time Planning Commission and City Council were asked to accept the change from a hotel/timeshare project to an all timeshare project, the applicant assured the Planning Commission and City Council that the change to the all timeshare project would not reduce the overall quality of the project and that the architecture would not suffer. As itemized above, the final development plan shows that the overall quality and appearance of the architecture has suffered in the form and presentation of the current submission. SECTION 3. The significant deviations in quality and appearance, coupled with the 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 2000 Plan as approved by the City Council. Therefore, the City Council concurs with and upholds the Planning Commission determination that the final development plan as submitted by the applicant is not in substantial conformance with the 2000 Plan, the approved preliminary plan. Consistent with the requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance as referenced above, the Council further determines that the applicant should submit the final development plan as presented to the City Council and as the applicant may further modify or amend, should be presented to staff and processed as a new application for a preliminary development plan and that a final development plan may be processed concurrently with the application for a new preliminary development plan. In the alternative, the Council notes that the applicant may also submit to staff and the Planning Commission a final development plan that is in conformance with the 2000 Plan and which does not contain the deviations, changes, and modifications itemized in this Resolution. ADOPTED THIS 20th day of July, 2005. David H. Ready, City er Resolution No. 21372 Page 7 ATTEST: / a es Thompson, City Clerk U CERTIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS ) I, JAMES THOMPSON, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, hereby certify that Resolution No. 21372 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 July 20, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Members Foat, McCulloch, Mills, Pougnet, and Mayor Oden NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None mes Thompson, City Clerk City of Palm Springs, California